- 168,514
- 77,231
We are not going to remove the skill explanations from Intelligence sections. I just think that we should stick with our standard intelligence ratings for different types of areas of intelligence. 
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Establishing combat skill requirements
- Thread starter DaReaperMan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- intelligence
- 168,514
- 77,231
I do not think that we should overcomplicate this issue, but Genius combat skill should start close to the real world human maximum, Extraordinary Genius should start considerably beyond it, and Supergenius should mean literally infinite combat processing ability.
However, I definitely agree about that this should not be an excuse to not properly explain combat skill feats.
Okay. It seems like my idea was bad then. What solution/approach do you think that we should apply here? Some instructions in our Intelligence page to avoid setting definitive intelligence tiers to fighting skill seem appropriate at the very least.
I do not think that we have more than at most 100 combat intelligence ratings at the moment, so if we are going to disallow using them, we need to clearly define this before the problem in question turns worse.
But we do need to either not allow combat intelligence ratings, or set up some kind of, possibly vague, official guidelines for them. We cannot just allow our members to randomly set whatever ratings they want in this regard.
We do not have any guidelines for combat intelligence, and we have few edit-patrollers in our staff, who already have more than enough work as it is, especially if we do not know how to properly correct these ratings.
Well, we need some clear solution here, preferably one that fits with our current naming system. The section is called intelligence after all, not skill.
@DontTalkDT @Armorchompy @Mr. Bambu @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Lonkitt @Dalesean027We are not going to remove the skill explanations from Intelligence sections. I just think that we should stick with our standard intelligence ratings for different types of areas of intelligence.
What do you think that we should do here?
- 16,171
- 12,705
I just don't think giving intelligence (as in, gifted genius etc) ratings works for skill when the great majority of characters in combat-based fiction pull off superhuman feats. A lot of relatively mundane people (Like i dunno, John Wick) would be Extraordinary Genius and that feels weird
- 10,938
- 12,427
My preferred solution: Add someting like@DontTalkDT @Armorchompy @Mr. Bambu @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Lonkitt @Dalesean027
What do you think that we should do here?
to the page.
If that doesn't work, use the coarsest set of classifications possible. Using the regular set of ratings just doesn't work well for this, as skill is too hard to objectively compare. It will just end with bad comparisons where people argue the ratings take precedence over proper feat comparisions where it yields faulty results.
Instead, we could have something like:
That would at least be mostly unambiguous.
- 16,171
- 12,705
Yeah, that's basically what I suggested so I agree overall
- 9,891
- 12,905
Terms like "untrained" and "trained" aren't good examples. There's characters in fiction who canonically have never had a single combat lesson in their life, but are still combat prodigies that can easily wash people ranging from law enforcement to skill-beasts. I know what you're getting at, but those terms would literally just be confusing
- 10,938
- 12,427
The definitions make it clear.
But feel free to suggest other names. Like, we could also go with "Average, Fighter, Superhuman" or something.
- 9,891
- 12,905
Here's what I would suggest. I'm gonna make sort of "comparisons" to the general intelligence ratings highlighted in green excluding anything below the "Below Average" rating since those are fine. I'm gonna link character examples I'm familiar with in areas where it may help. I'm not saying these examples have to be on the pages obviously, but it might help explain what I'm thinking here
Poor (Completely unskilled individuals) [Below Average]
Average (Combat skill/strategy without any notability, but isn't necessarily lacking in skill altogether. Untrained individuals with no innate combat talents, for example)
Intermediate (Combat skill/strategy thats notably greater than the average person, but would not be considered impressive compared to more hardened fighters and may still be pressured by lesser skilled opponents in larger numbers. The real life equivalent would be lower level martial artists/weapons practitioners, for example) [Above Average]
(ex. Daniel LaRusso)
Expert (Combat skill/strategy that is considered highly proficient and/or masterful. The real life equivalent would be high level martial artists and soldiers, for example, albeit these would be baseline examples, as the ceiling for this level may be questionable in terms of real life performability the further into this rating a character is) [Gifted - At least Gifted]
(ex. John Wick, Scott Pilgrim [Film])
Superhuman (Combat geniuses with skill that is far more developed than any expert level combatants. At this point, characters can accomplish feats of skill that would without a doubt, be considered impossible by real life standards) [Genius]
(ex. Goku, OoT/MM Link, Taskmaster [Marvel vs. Capcom])
Extraordinary (Combat skill/strategy that manages to eclipse even those with superhuman levels of skill. This degree of proficiency cannot simply result from someone being significantly more skilled than combat geniuses. Characters at this skill level may understand combat as a concept to the highest degree, and [excluding cases where super-speed is solely enabling a character to perform something incredibly fast] may be able to process various pieces of information related to battle [such as fighting styles, techniques, and possible moves an opponent could make next] comparable or superior to that of a supercomputer, or take on opponents with capabilities relative to the aforementioned examples) [Extraordinary Genius and anything higher]
(ex. Emerl)
Imma be real. I'd be just fine seeing pages use the terms we already have so long as they specify the different intelligences of a character. But if I had to recommend something? It’d be this
Last edited:
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #169
I'd back Lonkitt's suggestion here, an animalistic character can just be debated like one, and if they can fight skilled people then that can be put into their section
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
I’d be fine with this, but I don’t believe the gap between Superhuman and Extraordinary is well-defined. I’ve historically been opposed to attempting to quantify how superhuman a superhuman feat is when the subject is as vague as this.
- 9,891
- 12,905
That’s a pretty valid criticism. How about this instead for Extraordinary?
Extraordinary (Combat skill/strategy that manages to eclipse even those with superhuman levels of skill. This degree of proficiency cannot simply result from someone being significantly more skilled than combat geniuses. Characters at this skill level may understand combat as a concept to the highest degree, and [excluding cases where super-speed is solely enabling a character to perform something incredibly fast] may be able to process various pieces of information related to battle [such as fighting styles, techniques, and possible moves an opponent could make next] comparable or superior to that of a supercomputer, or take on opponents with capabilities relative to the aforementioned examples) [Extraordinary Genius and anything higher]
(ex. Emerl)
- 3,905
- 2,316
Would characters with Extraordinary Genius Intelligence and good Combat Skills qualify for that tier?
- 9,891
- 12,905
That’s an incredibly vague question. Like I said, there are times where General Intelligence and Combat Intelligence have overlapping feats, but if someone with an insanely huge General Intelligence never applies it to their Combat Performance when it comes to those overlapping feats, the answer is no
For example, Doctor Doom (FOX) is undoubtedly an Extraordinary Genius and he's shown to be a decent fighter. However, all his general intelligence feats never have any influence on how good of a fighter is, which is very evident by his scientific feats and his fight scenes. Ergo, we would not consider him "Extraordinary" going by my skill rating names
- 17,591
- 27,548
This works well enough for me, worded nicely
- 9,891
- 12,905
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #176
Yeah there's kind of nothing more to say, I'm already using what little power i have as the OP of this thread to put my full weight behind Lonkitt's suggestion
Certainly a damn side better than my suggestion, that's for sure.
Certainly a damn side better than my suggestion, that's for sure.
- 2,269
- 2,103
Ignoring the other stuff, soldiers would be intermediate in terms of skill, not experts.
- 9,891
- 12,905
I’d have to disagree there. The type of fighters I described in Intermediate are meant to have portray those with more skill than your average person, but not a significant degree like highly experienced/proficient martial artists or soldiers. If you think Expert is too high, try to recall that several real world military factions train soldiers in combat styles that either encompass different elements of fighting styles, if not just those different fighting styles altogether, on top of weapons training, infiltration, etc. These are guys who are literally deployed for combat, they’re definitely more skilled than your standard practitioner
- 2,269
- 2,103
Soldiers aren't as skilled as they seem, their training lasts for a couple weeks to a few years, practitioners usually train for years on end.
- 9,891
- 12,905
I’m aware that not every soldier or military faction is going to be at the same level of skill, and yes, there are cases where maybe a casual practitioner puts in more time. But more times than not, you’re probably gonna favour a soldier’s skills because A) Their training is a lot more difficult B) Training sessions exist in multiple military factions (infantrymen for example are always training for direct combat) C) Soldiers tend to be deployed in actual combat scenarios, which builds experience and allows the skills to be put into full efficiency. A casual practitioner training more often doesn’t exactly equate to them being equal or greater fighters
My opinion won’t budge on this one
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #181
Practicioners also aren't trained to kill or maim with what they do, and Soldiers are Forged into muscle memory machines, and often are given training regularly when they aren't in an active war zone.
- 9,891
- 12,905
Like obviously I’m aware that fiction might over exaggerate the capabilities of soldiers from time to time. But I dunno if I would say a guy hitting up the local karate class every week or so is on the same level as soldiers with real life accounts of nearly killing family members on instinct due to them bumping against them while they sleep (not joking, that’s an actual story)
- 2,269
- 2,103
More difficult training doesn’t mean they are more skilled. Point B also doesn’t mean they're more skilled, it simply means that all military factions will have undergone training. Point C also doesn’t indicate they're more skilled. It could mean they're more experienced, but, I would only agree if you are referring specifically to gun experience/skill.
Being trained to kill a man doesn’t mean you’re more skilled than a martial arts practitioner overall; it just means you have specific skills related to killing a man.
Last edited:
- 9,891
- 12,905
Yes, more training doesn’t always mean you’re more skilled. That’s the point I was making. However, you said soldiers only train for about three weeks while most practitioners train over the course of a year. I was simply bringing up how soldiers don’t train as little as you make them out to. Regarding Point B, it’s true that harder training doesn’t mean you’ll be more skilled. But at the same time, it’s generally more advanced and more difficult training compared to an average practitioner, which is in fact something that would make a soldier more impressive. For Point C, yeah, being in combat doesn’t necessarily mean you’re more trained. But that’s not the point. There are fictional characters for example who can outskill those with more training/experience. I generally think that soldiers applying their skills in real life battles is a greater showing of skill than a local man winning an amateur sparring match at the strip mall dojo
It is true that comparing two different specific skills is important to distinguish (ex. Someone may be a better swordsman, while another is a better marksman). But in this case…I dunno, it’s pretty cut and dry. Excluding master martial artists, who I listed in Expert, I think the comparison between most soldiers and most practitioners is very one-sided. This is literally “casual practitioner whose greatest showings of skill are winning a few sparring matches” vs “people trained in multiple fighting disciplines, including different martial arts, weapons training, etc. for the purpose of defending a country and killing enemies” is clear as day in terms of combat skill. Yeah, soldiers, who have more advanced training with the intention of killing others, is in fact more impressive than an amateur training at a dojo. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say soldiers (whether active or still retaining their combat skills outside of duty) are Expert level
- 9,891
- 12,905
Again, just wanna make it clear like I said my list above. High level martial artists and soldiers are considered Expert level. I’m not saying soldiers beat martial artists in most scenarios, stuff like that’s gonna be case by case. I’m only saying that soldiers are gonna have significantly more combat finesse overall compared to Intermediate level fighters, which in real life tend to be amateur practitioners
- 9,891
- 12,905
Real life martial arts masters and elite competitors would be good examples
- 10,938
- 12,427
Yeah, those just go back to my point that those levels are just too fuzzy to clearly sort into and would just be used to avoid direct feat comparison in a proper manner.
Where wolves rank by nature would be unclear for example, for the lower rankings.
And more generally, it's just almost entirely defined by relative concepts. To go in detail, let's go through everything starting with intermediate:
Alright, so that is basically my criteria for trained. That's fine. Anyone with combat skill is at least this.
That's just saying they can be not impressive compared to more impressive people. So this says nothing, as we have no objective criteria for the skill level of "hardened fighters".
That's suggesting that everyone above this ranking must be so skilled that anyone less skilled than them can be defeated in arbitrarily large numbers. That isn't correct for any ranking.
Closest nearly workable criteria would be "May still be threatened by 2 fighters of equal stats and abilities, but without notable skill" and even that is IMO a bad criteria since the ability to deal with multiple opponents is more pronounced in some areas of combat skill than others.
Not clear what the distinction between a low level and high level real life martial artist and soldiers is. In regard to the prior criteria I will say that I'm unsure if great real-life martial artists would unambiguously manage against two stat equal unskilled opponents. Having a better trained body is usually a big factor.
We also have things like strategy is part of combat skill, which these don't cover at all.
Subjective criteria. What's considered impressive is just relative to the person that does the considering.
That are objective borders, which is why the distinction between superhuman and not superhuman rating is possible.
That makes no sense. Fighters with this ranking are expert level combatants themselves.
Characters of these rating themselves have superhuman levels of skill. Or, if "Superhuman" as in the prior rating is meant: The prior rating has no objective upper limit, so being above it tells us nothing.
Ok, so this apparently tells us that the prior criteria is not sufficient. That's fine, but gives no clear definition where this starts.
What the highest degree is obviously varies between verses or even the characters which make the analysis that something is the highest level. So this isn't an objective criteria.
That is cherry-picking one very specific skill area as the defining characteristic of high-level combat. As said in my first comment: "The criteria in the OP heavily favours variety in combat skill and learning, for example, but you can also be incredibly high via being super good in just one martial art. Whether the guy that can copy any real world martial art at a glance is better than a martial artist whose skill in one fighting style is so great that superhumanly skilled martial artists would consider it superhuman is hard to say."
Information processing in general, and martial arts copying specifically, can not be considered sole determinants of skill. Nor should defeating such opponents be considered as a necessary criteria to be considered possibly equal or superior to them.
Like, you're telling me the guy who instantly learned Judo from one throw is more skilled then the one that is able to block attacks 5 tiers above him via skill alone? Seems like a questionable decision.
TL;DR I still think there are exactly 3 clearly distinguishable levels:
- No skill feats of note
- Skill feats but nothing beyond real-life
- Skill beyond real life
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #189
DT, like 3 people including me use a skill section on their profiles, might as well just delete the intelligence page if you want to argue that people will list the word and no feats, because everyone has to use the intelligence page, while Skill is highly optional.
And hell, if the word is wrong, it can be argued and changed in the mystical second thread known as applying this crap! Why bother sitting there coughing up fake boogeymen when we have changed intelligence ratings with no CRT before, we literally have a thread dedicated to it!
And hell, if the word is wrong, it can be argued and changed in the mystical second thread known as applying this crap! Why bother sitting there coughing up fake boogeymen when we have changed intelligence ratings with no CRT before, we literally have a thread dedicated to it!
- 16,171
- 12,705
For the record I generally still think it's better to not have ratings at all
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
This is extremely unproductive. Looking down on an experienced staff member with such a low-effort rant is bad behavior.
- 31,633
- 34,652
Instead of saying "Skill", I prefer the term "Combat Intelligence", it's still a sub category of Intelligence and thus would use ratings from the page. But skill and "Combat intelligence" aren't really the same thing. Skill can just mean an ability or proficiency in general and doesn't always refer to mental capability. Even pure brute force could be classified as a skill even if it clearly isn't intelligence.
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,243
- 7,965
Okay I've gotten permission from two admins. Thanks both.
So I made a blog long time ago for EG specifically about combat intelligence. This thread kinda brings up stuff I also thought about. I don't have much of a thought on anything besides EG since EG's where combat intelligence kinda gets vague but I've made this blog to give a criteria and qualifiers for it.
vsbattles.fandom.com
So I made a blog long time ago for EG specifically about combat intelligence. This thread kinda brings up stuff I also thought about. I don't have much of a thought on anything besides EG since EG's where combat intelligence kinda gets vague but I've made this blog to give a criteria and qualifiers for it.
Combat Extraordinary Genius Blog
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 168,514
- 77,231
I think that this suggested solution above seems like the most straightforward and objective to apply.
- 168,514
- 77,231
@DontTalkDT
Given that so many of our pages already list combat intelligence ratings, if you would define them, and also name them according to our current titles for them, how would you do so?
Given that so many of our pages already list combat intelligence ratings, if you would define them, and also name them according to our current titles for them, how would you do so?
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #197
Coming back to this thread, I'll say I'm vehemently against just not listing anything but feats/statements, that's an idea that not only forces entire reformists of certain profiles that don't need it(Hi Super Son Goku) but also just makes no sense. Think about it, up until now, our current page has been fine for combat intelligence and skill,(practically two seperate things, cause one can be tactics and the otner is how well you fight) I only wanted to solidify things on the skill section of things, but this is a straight up step back lol
Like... 80% of all combat intelligence ratings are from either my profiles, or profiles I closely watched being made, so uh... Theres not that many. Enough to be notable, sure, but I haven't even made 100 profiles total
- 168,514
- 77,231
Okay, but we would need to somehow identify and modify all of them based on our agreements here.
- 43,104
- 37,244
- Thread starter
- #199
What is it you like to say? "Too much for too little"?Okay, but we would need to somehow identify and modify all of them based on our agreements here.
Putting it without being a sassy bastard, I don't even know all the profiles I've made/reworked, and I can't account for the rest of the stragglers that I had no hand in, the latter being the issue cause I can straight up get the former in like 20 minutes
- 168,514
- 77,231
Well, the problem is that, going by my very extensive experience, the existence of lots of other pages with combat intelligence ratings will automatically encourage our members to create more and more of them to an eventually unmanageable degree, so we either need to properly define the requirements for these statistics or remove at least most of them.
