Durability Negation CRT

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

Hello!

I think the current Durability Negation page is a little outdated and somewhat misleading, mainly because I think it doesn't distinguish between the methods of how characters could negate durability, but just broadly classifies all sorts of methods to damage targets through or despite durability under a nebulous umbrella of "Durability Negation". My sandbox aims to elaborate on it more and establish proper mechanisms for Durability Negation to be classified under.

Old Page: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Durability_Negation
My Sandbox/New Page: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:IbukiDoujisGiantTail/Durability_Negation_(SANDBOX)

The biggest change introduced here is adding Types to the Durability Negation, intending to make the ability more understandable for character discussions. As for what would change on character profiles if accepted, this would simply necessitate adding "Type 1 / Type 2 / Types 1 and 2" onto their pages alongside whatever description already existed for how they negate durability.

Thoughts?

Agree:
Disagree:

 

[Hecky2222]

Should be moved to staff thread

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

Should be moved to staff thread

How do I do that?

 

[Hecky2222]

How do I do that?

Some staff will move it to staff discussion anyway

 

[KingTempest]

Nah this looks incredible wtf

 

[Planck69]

This is significantly better than our current page. Also I think a note should be added about properly describing the mechanics of said durability negation whenever they're on a page.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

This is significantly better than our current page. Also I think a note should be added about properly describing the mechanics of said durability negation whenever they're on a page.

I think that's covered in the Notes section already but what would you suggest adding/rewording?

 

[KingTempest]

Personal gripe, or not really a gripe but more like... a switch

I think we should split dura neg regarding bypassing the body and affecting space

For example

• One Piece characters: Beyond Advanced Armament Haki users are capable of bypassing external defenses with their Haki to attack and explode opponents internally.
• Okuyasu Nijimura: With his stand The Hand, Okuyasu is capable of "scraping away space", erasing anything he touches with his stand's right hand.

One of them bypasses the body to explode the inside, but it travels through the body in a way that can be negated.
The other doesn't actually directly affect the body. It affects space, and because matter occupies space, it's not the same.

I think we should just note a difference in this. I don't know what yall think, maybe @Planck69 could give insight?

 

[Planck69]

I think that's covered in the Notes section already but what would you suggest adding/rewording?

"One should take care to explain the specific mechanics of how a character's Durability Negation works on their page, rather than simply apply the ability outright with no explanation."

Or something along those lines. Basically to stop characters from just having/resisting Durability Negation itself, which is about as meaningful as having "Resistance to Powers and Abilities".

Personal gripe, or not really a gripe but more like... a switch

I think we should split dura neg regarding bypassing the body and affecting space

For example

One of them bypasses the body to explode the inside, but it travels through the body in a way that can be negated.
The other doesn't actually directly affect the body. It affects space, and because matter occupies space, it's not the same.

I think we should just note a difference in this. I don't know what yall think, maybe @Planck69 could give insight?

I think the types are fine as they are, but we should just add a note that not all instances neatly fit into one or the other. Either that or a third type for "Other" abilities that don't neatly align along the categories.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

Personal gripe, or not really a gripe but more like... a switch

I think we should split dura neg regarding bypassing the body and affecting space

For example

One of them bypasses the body to explode the inside, but it travels through the body in a way that can be negated.
The other doesn't actually directly affect the body. It affects space, and because matter occupies space, it's not the same.

I think we should just note a difference in this. I don't know what yall think, maybe @Planck69 could give insight?

I think the types are fine as they are, but we should just add a note that not all instances neatly fit into one or the other. Either that or a third type for "Other" abilities that don't neatly align along the categories.

I think the current proposed method works because I wanted to establish the different between "Durability Negation that actually negates durability" and "Durability Negation that doesn't interact with durability" primarily.

I personally think it's fine mainly because I don't think the page is equating those types of abilities with the listed examples, and in the "This can be both types or depends" I put abilities which, well can be both types or depends. Maybe EE/Okuyasu specifically isn't the best example for Type 2 and I can move him elsewhere, but each type only really establishes "Does this ability actually interact with Durability?" with Type 1 being Yes and Type 2 being No.

With the One Piece example, it's true that Haki can be negated, but that doesn't mean the functionality of Haki in being able to bypass external defenses to damage opponents internally isn't what its doing. With Okuyasu, he's directly erasing space, which applies to anything his hand swipes. One is certainly far more powerful than the other, but both methods involve not actually interacting with durability.

If you feel like it could cause an issue later anyways, I could add for both types or in the notes that not all the methods are equally as effective

"One should take care to explain the specific mechanics of how a character's Durability Negation works on their page, rather than simply apply the ability outright with no explanation."

Or something along those lines. Basically to stop characters from just having/resisting Durability Negation itself, which is about as meaningful as having "Resistance to Powers and Abilities".

I did put in the notes section that these abilities don't automatically grant Durability Negation and have to showcase the ability to do so, but if you think the description is lacking as is then I can reword it.

 

[Planck69]

I think the current proposed method works because I wanted to establish the different between "Durability Negation that actually negates durability" and "Durability Negation that doesn't interact with durability" primarily.

I personally think it's fine mainly because I don't think the page is equating those types of abilities with the listed examples, and in the "This can be both types or depends" I put abilities which, well can be both types or depends. Maybe EE/Okuyasu specifically isn't the best example for Type 2 and I can move him elsewhere, but each type only really establishes "Does this ability actually interact with Durability?" with Type 1 being Yes and Type 2 being No.

With the One Piece example, it's true that Haki can be negated, but that doesn't mean the functionality of Haki in being able to bypass external defenses to damage opponents internally isn't what its doing. With Okuyasu, he's directly erasing space, which applies to anything his hand swipes. One is certainly far more powerful than the other, but both methods involve not actually interacting with durability.

Hm, good point then. It can stay as is.

I did put in the notes section that these abilities don't automatically grant Durability Negation and have to showcase the ability to do so, but if you think the description is lacking as is then I can reword it.

My note was more for showcases of Durability Negation with no explained mechanic at all, which is an ongoing issue. It can also just be added onto the Summary section as another paragraph as long as some point on the page specifies that one has to explain durability negation beyond "Durability Negation (can pierce anything)".

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

My note was more for showcases of Durability Negation with no explained mechanic at all, which is an ongoing issue. It can also just be added onto the Summary section as another paragraph as long as some point on the page specifies that one has to explain durability negation beyond "Durability Negation (can pierce anything)".

Alrighty, I added an extra bullet point in the Notes section for this if you want to take a look at it

 

[Planck69]

It works but I'd tweak it a bit, as it comes off as though the page is saying those instances aren't valid. There are cases in fiction where a knife indeed can just "pierce anything" in a manner that ignores material durability. The note is just so that they're expected to explain it the best they can so as to minimize NLF situations. So the sentence with "can pierce anything" can be removed. Just the first and last sentences are enough.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

It works but I'd tweak it a bit, as it comes off as though the page is saying those instances aren't valid. There are cases in fiction where a knife indeed can just "pierce anything" in a manner that ignores material durability. The note is just so that they're expected to explain it the best they can so as to minimize NLF situations. So the sentence with "can pierce anything" can be removed. Just the first and last sentences are enough.

done

Do you think the rest of the page works as is then?

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, it does.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist Your input here would be appreciated.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There seem to be quite a bit of Durability Negation threads open at once.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

bump