Doom Discussion (Spoilers Ahead)

[Oliver_de_jesus]

Also Gauss Cannon could still be a RailGun like its canon version

 

[MicDaniel]

I highly doubt you'll find anything feat wise for the Mini Slayer that would put him on Par with the knight. Unless lore is directly based off of the source material.

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

I highly doubt you'll find anything feat wise for the Mini Slayer that would put him on Par with the knight. Unless lore is directly based off of the source material.

I mean he still has range weapons and we see him pierce through walls and make hole in vehicles just to go another level

Also i talking about base Knight, not second or Third key

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

A couple of feats and things for the Mini Slayer

His armor mostly increases damage and resistance

Mini slayer acid is poisonous and corrosive

Mini Slayer can pierce solid stone walls, metal containers and steel reinforced doors.

can damage/Burn/poison/freeze Lost Soul, which should be a soul

Pinky can make large pieces of stone fall from the sky, I still don't know if they are meteorite or not

The priest of hell can create a lot of ice spikes

Mini Slayer should have Damanku with the double shot and side shot mod.

MS(Mini Slayer) can become stronger and faster momentarily through rage after an execution

You can recover life by killing someone through Glory kills

Mini Samur Maykr mos can bless with protection against ranged attacks but lowers our defenses against close attack

Mini Guass Cannon is a Railgun

demonic chest is resistant to all types of demon and his UAC chest also if he uses a secondary weapon (Poison, fire, ice, etc)

MS has a grenade launcher, flamethrower, fireball launcher, plasma ball launcher (which disables tech and debuffs the enemy), acid shooter, and their weapons can have ice effects

The ice effect not only freezes but also applies slowness to your enemies.

Can make his main weapon and grenades bounce from one enemy to another

his missiles have Homing attack and can freeze

Classic armor gives you invulnerability for a few seconds when receiving critical damage

has a mastery set.

Can be amplified by rage whenever his health drops below 25% while in his Crimson armor

Preactor Armor has a chance to insta kill

His golden armor is magic balladed and gives him luck to recharge his secondary weapon when he kills on some occasions.

His Glory Kills can freeze or explode

I don't know if it can be used but in Gameplay you can dodge Revenat's attacks and other futuristic weapons much easier if he has the dodge ability

You can cause a stagger chance easily with his power set.

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

Does anyone know if Heretic and Hexen are canon or at least exist in the same multiverse as doom?

Heretic

Heretic, released on December 23, 1994, is a hit fantasy/action game by Raven Software, the result of their second team-up with id Software after Shadowcaster. Based on a modified Doom engine, Heretic pioneered an inventory system for real-time item use that has become commonplace in the FPS...

doomwiki.org

Hexen

Hexen: Beyond Heretic (or Hexen) is a first-person shooter and fantasy adventure computer game developed by Raven Software, published by id Software, and distributed by GT Interactive beginning on October 30, 1995. It is the indirect sequel to Heretic. The main goal of the game is the...

doomwiki.org

the doom wiki says they are related

DoomWiki.org

The Doom Wiki is an extensive community effort to document everything related to id Software's masterpiece games Doom and Doom II, Doom 64, other games based on the Doom engine, Doom 3, Doom (2016), Doom Eternal, and more. We have created 25,146 articles to date.

doomwiki.org

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

Some rare, Doom has 3 Board Games

Assault on Armaros Station

Assault on Armaros Station is a 5e-compatible role-playing campaign set within the backstory of Doom Eternal. It was created for the Critical Role Doom Eternal One-Shot, a live-streamed session performed by Critical Role that took place on Twitch on March 16, 2020, at 7:00 PM Pacific time.[1] It...

doomwiki.org

Doom: The Boardgame

Doom: The Boardgame is an adventure board game for two to four players set in the Doom universe. It was designed by Kevin Wilson and published by Fantasy Flight Games in 2004. It clearly resembles Doom 3 more than it does the classic series, and is also somewhat similar to the classic Space Hulk...

doomwiki.org

Doom: The Board Game

Doom: The Board Game (not to be confused with the 2004 release of the Doom 3-themed Doom: The Boardgame) is an officially licensed table-top board game released by Fantasy Flight Games on July 28, 2016,[1] adapting the themes and settings of Doom (2016). It is a game for two to five players (up...

doomwiki.org

 

[Rikimarox2]

Made a shitty meme for yall



Now imma disappear.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I rewrote DOOM's discussion rule to make it more comprehensive.

• Please refrain from trying to downgrade DOOM from Low 1-C via Davoth not being at full power. This has been discussed numerous times across a number of threads, and has been rejected by multiple sources.

This rule was added in https://vsbattles.com/threads/doom-discussion-rule-thread.140055/ at https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules?diff=7657729&oldid=7591051 and https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-discussion-rule-revision.149384/ at https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules?diff=7886954&oldid=7878654. It's fine to keep, but we should source it more adequately on the page so our reasoning is clearer.
@Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Crabwhale Should I apply the following rewrite?

*Do not attempt to downgrade [[Doomguy]] from scaling to [[Davoth]]'s [[vsforum:threads/149384|Low 1-C]] rating based on Davoth being weakened when they fought, as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks solid

 

[ShionAH]

Whats the opinions on 6 or 7D Doom

 

[Axxtentacle]

I rewrote DOOM's discussion rule to make it more comprehensive.

This rule was added in https://vsbattles.com/threads/doom-discussion-rule-thread.140055/ at https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules?diff=7657729&oldid=7591051 and https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-discussion-rule-revision.149384/ at https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules?diff=7886954&oldid=7878654. It's fine to keep, but we should source it more adequately on the page so our reasoning is clearer.
@Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Crabwhale Should I apply the following rewrite?

I feel like this isn't really clearer. It doesn't get across the message of "Davoth was not weakened during his fight, don't make threads about it" any more than the last rule did. The only part that's any clearer is the "multiple discussion threads have repeatedly rejected this argument".

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I feel like this isn't really clearer. It doesn't get across the message of "Davoth was not weakened during his fight, don't make threads about it" any more than the last rule did.

Then what's your advice for how I should write it?

 

[Axxtentacle]

Then what's your advice for how I should write it?

I would say keep this part:

"Please refrain from trying to downgrade DOOM from Low 1-C via Davoth not being at full power.", it emphasizes more on not downgrading DOOM as a whole and Davoth, wording it as don't downgrade Doomguy scaling to Davoth's rating because he wasn't weakened might give the wrong idea that we're only talking about downgrading Doomguy, and not the verse in general scaling off Davoth's stats.

"This has been discussed numerous times across a number of threads, and has been rejected by multiple sources."

The above can be replaced with:

"as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument."

Because I worded the second section of the rule I wrote poorly and can see it being confusing, "by multiple sources" isn't clear and could be misinterpreted.

So, this is what I think is best:

"Please refrain from trying to downgrade DOOM from Low 1-C via Davoth not being at full power, as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument."

You can adjust the links as you please. I just think it should be worded this way for clarity.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I would say keep this part:

"Please refrain from trying to downgrade DOOM from Low 1-C via Davoth not being at full power.", it emphasizes more on not downgrading DOOM as a whole and Davoth, wording it as don't downgrade Doomguy scaling to Davoth's rating because he wasn't weakened might give the wrong idea that we're only talking about downgrading Doomguy, and not the verse in general scaling off Davoth's stats.

"This has been discussed numerous times across a number of threads, and has been rejected by multiple sources."

The above can be replaced with:

"as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument."

Because I worded the second section of the rule I wrote poorly and can see it being confusing, "by multiple sources" isn't clear and could be misinterpreted.

So, this is what I think is best:

"Please refrain from trying to downgrade DOOM from Low 1-C via Davoth not being at full power, as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument."

You can adjust the links as you please. I just think it should be worded this way for clarity.

Then I'll just replace "Doomguy" with "characters" in the rewrite.

*Do not attempt to downgrade characters from scaling to [[Davoth]]'s [[vsforum:threads/149384|Low 1-C]] rating based on Davoth being weakened, as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument.

@Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Crabwhale Is this okay?

 

[Axxtentacle]

I just want the main point of the rule to be that Davoth should not be downgraded via him not being at full power. Saying "downgrade (X) from davoth's rating" isn't as clear as just saying not to downgrade Davoth with that argument. Scaling between characters wasn't in the discussion rule because it wasn't the point of the rule.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I just want the main point of the rule to be that Davoth should not be downgraded via him not being at full power. Saying "downgrade (X) from davoth's rating" isn't as clear as just saying not to downgrade Davoth with that argument. Scaling between characters wasn't in the discussion rule because it wasn't the point of the rule.

I would much prefer that we not mention the name of the franchise in the text of the rule, as it seems redundant.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I would much prefer that we not mention the name of the franchise in the text of the rule, as it seems redundant.

Then remove the name and just say don't downgrade Davoth via that argument. The mention of other characters isn't relevant to the rule.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Then remove the name and just say don't downgrade Davoth via that argument. The mention of other characters isn't relevant to the rule.

Fine. I have reworded the rule according to your suggestion.

*Do not attempt to downgrade [[Davoth]] from [[vsforum:threads/149384|Low 1-C]] based on him being weakened, as [[vsforum:threads/114450|multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Thank you. I don't want the rule I proposed to change from the original intention, or not be fully clear about the intention. I had to argue this point over quite a few threads with repeated arguments.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks fine.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Thank you. I don't want the rule I proposed to change from the original intention, or not be fully clear about the intention. I had to argue this point over quite a few threads with repeated arguments.

Actually, could you explain why the rule exists? As it stands, the current wording doesn't explain anything beyond "we rejected these arguments."

 

[Axxtentacle]

Actually, could you explain why the rule exists? As it stands, the current wording doesn't explain anything beyond "we rejected these arguments."

Because it had become an issue, I had to continuously explain the same points and arguments over and over and over. Over like 5 threads about the exact same topic in a short timespan, I mean.

Since discussion rules are to keep people from bringing up things that have already been extensively talked about before without bringing new evidence or arguments (nobody had), I proposed a discussion rule and it got approved.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Because it had become an issue, I had to continuously explain the same points and arguments over and over and over. Over like 5 threads about the exact same topic in a short timespan, I mean.

Since discussion rules are to keep people from bringing up things that have already been extensively talked about before without bringing new evidence or arguments (nobody had), I proposed a discussion rule and it got approved.

No, I mean I want you to explain why the "Davoth was weakened" arguments were rejected.

 

[Axxtentacle]

No, I mean I want you to explain why the "Davoth was weakened" arguments were rejected.

Ah. The main argument was that, in general, he didn't get his power back from getting his body.

This was countered by Davoth himself stating he would destroy what he created, being reality, and The Father saying he would regain his full faculties if he regained a physical form. Along with Samur Maykr gaining a power boost that allowed him to survive against the Doom Slayer after absorbing the Father's essence, which is where their power comes from. "Their" being used in reference to the Primevals.

If scans are needed, I can provide them. Just don't have em on hand atm.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Ah. The main argument was that, in general, he didn't get his power back from getting his body.

This was countered by Davoth himself stating he would destroy what he created, being reality, and The Father saying he would regain his full faculties if he regained a physical form. Along with Samur Maykr gaining a power boost that allowed him to survive against the Doom Slayer after absorbing the Father's essence, which is where their power comes from. "Their" being used in reference to the Primevals.

If scans are needed, I can provide them. Just don't have em on hand atm.

I don't need the scans. Would rewording the rule like this be acceptable? @Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Crabwhale

*Do not attempt to downgrade [[Davoth]] from [[vsforum:threads/149384|Low 1-C]] based on the argument that regaining his body didn't restore his power. [[vsforum:threads/114450|Multiple]] [[vsforum:threads/138532|discussion]] [[vsforum:threads/140045|threads]] have [[vsforum:threads/140055|repeatedly rejected]] this argument, as the evidence makes clear that it did; Davoth explicitly declared that he would destroy the reality he created, the Father stated he would regain his faculties alongside his body, and [[Samur Maykr]] received a buff that allowed him to survive against [[Doomguy]] from absorbing the Father's essence.

 

[Axxtentacle]

If you want to make it shorter, you can cut out the Samur Maykr bit since it's just supporting evidence.

I'm completely ok with the change though

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't need the scans. Would rewording the rule like this be acceptable? @Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Crabwhale

Looks good to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Looks good to me.

I have applied my changes.

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com