Establishing combat skill requirements

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here? If we decide against set fighting skill statistics, we need to update our official standards in that regard.

@DontTalkDT

It is very important that you and other staff members here help us to resolve this issue.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

No, because what you mentioned are objective linear stats. Someone with Building level AP is always stronger than someone with Wall level AP. There is a single objective measure of AP (energy) and that will clearly sort characters in categories where the higher category always has more of said objective measure (i.e. has more energy).
So you don't need to compare feats and statements to figure out whose attacks are stronger, because the person with the higher AP rating is guaranteed to win that competition regardless of which feats and statements got them there. (Hax not considered, as they are not really strength in common sense)
Same with speed. A supersonic character is never faster than a Hypersonic one.

The whole problem with splitting up the level as you suggested is the lack of a single objective measure of skill that separates characters as cleanly as energy does for AP. Skill is made up of a lot of capabilities which makes it impossible to say that someone that would have the higher rating would actually always come out on top in a skill comparison.
If you have a Superhuman Skill 1 rating and a superior Superhuman Skill 2 rating, you would need to define them such that the characters in the latter are always superior in skill to those in the former, because people will assume they are without comparing feats and statements. And I don't see that being possible at all. Hence it's better to have them in the same rating, because then people can't just say "mine has higher rating so mine are better" and actually have to look at details. It overall creates a much more healthy and accurate debate.


The issue isn't them arguing that their character wins against reason, skill is only a small part in that to begin with and, yeah, people will consider factors other than skill.
The problem is that people will argue that their character is better in specifically the skill department due to specifically the reason of having a higher rating written on the page instead of comparing the reasons for those ratings. As pointed out, some replies in this thread already demonstrated people's tendencies to wish to do exactly that and it's not something we should encourage.
Furthermore, with nebulous distinctions between two superhuman categories that don't properly consider all factors involved in skill, I think it will be far more than just a few exceptions once we get lots of ratings and lots of comparisons are made... well, assuming people would then consistently make the comparisons propely, which I doubt would be the case.

Well, assuming that option is what gets accepted, we could put a "Combat Skill" section on the Intelligence page that reads something like

For the announcement, I take it that is for after the decision is officially passed and the Intelligence page is edited? If so, maybe something like:

@DontTalkDT

It is very important that you and other staff members here help us to resolve this issue.

This is still unresolved so far:

Intelligence

Intelligence is a word that is incredibly difficult to define, as it has been used to refer to many things, such as one's ability to process information, or their capacity for logic, self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, and/or problem solving, or their knowledge and memory. In its fullest...

vsbattles.fandom.com

And just for the record as to where I stand on this:

Self-evident intelligence revisions thread

What about teaching animals a style tailored just for them? That also involves the animals level of intelligence, so, not as high as it seems.

vsbattles.com

Sorry, I'm reposting what I linked above with minor edits in this thread as well:
We should be taking any character's intelligence, regardless of how said intelligence is applied, and analysing it as a whole (so not just focusing on how it can be used for fighting, but essentially what they are capable of with their intelligence in general, since overall intelligence can determine what a character is likely to do and be capable of, and not likely to do or be capable of, within various contexts).
Indeed, most military special force and commando units are often required to be well-versed in both combat skill and intelligence in various academic fields, and perhaps as a correlation, there are quite a few examples of people who are notable for both general intelligence and combat skill, and instances where said general intelligence contributes to combat skill.

Please corroborate the following (the real life example sections/pages) with Wikipedia or other reputable valid and reliable/accurate and precise sources, and yes there will be quite a few familiar names:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RenaissanceMan/RealLife

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllTrades

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllStats

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/GeniusBruiser/RealLife

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/BadassBookworm/RealLife

I'd generally prefer to keep the default layout, but also make clear distinctions within the intelligence section for any profile as to the different areas they have different degrees of ability/skill in, again as we already do now but with a better structure (combat, creation and destruction, conversion, usage, etc, basically different aspects and fields of knowledge), again mostly cause of the usual overlap in general intelligence and combat skill.

I do acknowledge outliers exist, like the one you mentioned, Reaper, but I would still prefer the current layout with a bit of tweaking as stated prior to the quote so as to encompass all forms of intelligence and related abilities and skills that are notable for characters ^.

So yeah I would like a strategy like that described in the second last sentence (with specification/categorisation/classification being done within any profile's Intelligence section):

^

Self-evident intelligence revisions thread

What about teaching animals a style tailored just for them? That also involves the animals level of intelligence, so, not as high as it seems.

vsbattles.com

My stance in the other thread (essentially the same as here) ^
And speaking of which

Self-evident intelligence revisions thread

What about teaching animals a style tailored just for them? That also involves the animals level of intelligence, so, not as high as it seems.

vsbattles.com

Said other thread also has not been fully resolved either.

Hopefully you all have time to settle both threads.

 

[Antvasima]

I have asked DontTalk to prioritise this thread.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I have asked DontTalk to prioritise this thread.

By the way Ant, since the main argument here is that combat skill is too subjective, wouldn't the intelligence page as it currently stands be in favor of having it's ratings nuked? It's focused on primarily science and engineering, literally hard requiring it for the higher tiers.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'd rather we not nuke the differences between the multiple intelligence ratings; such as the difference between Animalistic Vs High Animalistic, or differentiating Genius Vs Extraordinary Genius Vs Supergenius.

Also, technically. It is worth acknowledging that Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are three different things; combat intelligence has more to do with Wisdom and/or Charisma rather than intelligence. Though I do think there is some degree worth indexing.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I'd rather we not nuke the differences between the multiple intelligence ratings; such as the difference between Animalistic Vs High Animalistic, or differentiating Genius Vs Extraordinary Genius Vs Supergenius.

Also, technically. It is worth acknowledging that Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are three different things; combat intelligence has more to do with Wisdom and/or Charisma rather than intelligence. Though I do think there is some degree worth indexing.

The point was that, for the reasons that Skill is considered niche, so would the scientific and engineering intelligence so heavily prioritized in the current intelligence page. But to be fair, rewriting that entire thing isn't exactly the point of this thread.

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't really think we need to concern ourselves with the Intelligence ratings as a whole here

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT

It is very important that you and other staff members here help us to resolve this issue.

Well, my proposals are here (towards the end of the comment).
I believe we said that we just wanted to get more staff votes at this point, to see if the existing proposal is viable.

 

[Antvasima]

By the way Ant, since the main argument here is that combat skill is too subjective, wouldn't the intelligence page as it currently stands be in favor of having it's ratings nuked? It's focused on primarily science and engineering, literally hard requiring it for the higher tiers.

It is intended to be focused on reasoning feats in general, and it is possible to, for example, reach "Supergenius" without engineering feats.

I spent a lot of effort on those definitions and think that they work well, so I definitely do not think that they should be removed, but expanding on them a bit more beyond pure engineering is probably a good idea, if the suggestions are reasonable enough.

 

[Antvasima]

It is very important that you and other staff members here help us to resolve this issue.

Well, my proposals are here (towards the end of the comment).
I believe we said that we just wanted to get more staff votes at this point, to see if the existing proposal is viable.

DontTalk's quoted suggestion:

"Well, assuming that option is what gets accepted, we could put a "Combat Skill" section on the Intelligence page that reads something like

"Combat skill encompasses a range of factors that together describe how well a person can fight. This includes not only how effectively they use their abilities, but also whether they can apply them in ways that usually require special training or practice, as seen in martial arts. It covers aspects such as knowledge of fighting techniques, variety in combat styles, precision, experience, strategy, prediction, information processing, learning ability, and more.

These factors can also influence a character's general intelligence rating. For example, skills like strategy, rapid learning or the ability to predict an opponent's moves could contribute to a high intelligence rating. However, for many characters, it's useful to separate combat skill from general intelligence. This distinction is particularly important when a character is highly skilled in combat but lacks academic or intellectual prowess.

Unlike general intelligence, combat skill is not ranked on a scale with labels like "Genius" or "Supergenius." Due to the many factors involved, a simple rating system would fail to accurately capture a character's combat proficiency. For instance, it wouldn’t make sense to say someone who can learn any real-world martial art by watching it for a minute is necessarily superior to someone who has mastered a single martial art to a superhuman level. These are different types of skill that can’t be easily compared.

Using one-word ratings for combat skill could lead to misunderstandings, as a higher rating wouldn’t always mean that a character is objectively more skilled than someone with a lower rating. To avoid this confusion and better represent a character's abilities, we omit such ratings.

Instead, if a character profile includes a section on combat skill, it should only feature specific feats or statements that demonstrate their proficiency. This approach allows readers to directly compare characters based on their actual achievements, rather than relying on a potentially misleading rating system."

For the announcement, I take it that is for after the decision is officially passed and the Intelligence page is edited? If so, maybe something like:

"Following the recent discussion here, we've decided to no longer use ratings (like "Genius" or "Supergenius") to describe combat skill on character profiles. We have added a section laying out this decision to the Intelligence page.

The reasoning behind this is that combat skill involves a wide range of factors—technique, strategy, experience, adaptability, and more. A simple rating doesn’t do justice to these unique differences and can lead to confusion when comparing them.

Instead, we'll just list the feats and statements that would serve as the justification for ranking. We hope that it encourages readers to compare characters directly using these, rather than by relying on a much too simplified ranking.

As we move forward, if you come across any remaining combat skill ratings on character pages, we kindly ask that you remove them or report them in this thread so our staff can take care of it. Your help in this process is greatly appreciated!" "

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69

It is very important that we receive further evaluations here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still sort of prefer using Genius rating at least for more extreme levels of combat intelligence, though I can see how Extraordinary Genius or Supergenius could go overboard. And I do at least acknowledge DontTalkDT is bringing up solid points however.

 

[Vzearr]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk's quoted suggestion:

"Well, assuming that option is what gets accepted, we could put a "Combat Skill" section on the Intelligence page that reads something like

"Combat skill encompasses a range of factors that together describe how well a person can fight. This includes not only how effectively they use their abilities, but also whether they can apply them in ways that usually require special training or practice, as seen in martial arts. It covers aspects such as knowledge of fighting techniques, variety in combat styles, precision, experience, strategy, prediction, information processing, learning ability, and more.

These factors can also influence a character's general intelligence rating. For example, skills like strategy, rapid learning or the ability to predict an opponent's moves could contribute to a high intelligence rating. However, for many characters, it's useful to separate combat skill from general intelligence. This distinction is particularly important when a character is highly skilled in combat but lacks academic or intellectual prowess.

Unlike general intelligence, combat skill is not ranked on a scale with labels like "Genius" or "Supergenius." Due to the many factors involved, a simple rating system would fail to accurately capture a character's combat proficiency. For instance, it wouldn’t make sense to say someone who can learn any real-world martial art by watching it for a minute is necessarily superior to someone who has mastered a single martial art to a superhuman level. These are different types of skill that can’t be easily compared.

Using one-word ratings for combat skill could lead to misunderstandings, as a higher rating wouldn’t always mean that a character is objectively more skilled than someone with a lower rating. To avoid this confusion and better represent a character's abilities, we omit such ratings.

Instead, if a character profile includes a section on combat skill, it should only feature specific feats or statements that demonstrate their proficiency. This approach allows readers to directly compare characters based on their actual achievements, rather than relying on a potentially misleading rating system."

For the announcement, I take it that is for after the decision is officially passed and the Intelligence page is edited? If so, maybe something like:

"Following the recent discussion here, we've decided to no longer use ratings (like "Genius" or "Supergenius") to describe combat skill on character profiles. We have added a section laying out this decision to the Intelligence page.

The reasoning behind this is that combat skill involves a wide range of factors—technique, strategy, experience, adaptability, and more. A simple rating doesn’t do justice to these unique differences and can lead to confusion when comparing them.

Instead, we'll just list the feats and statements that would serve as the justification for ranking. We hope that it encourages readers to compare characters directly using these, rather than by relying on a much too simplified ranking.

As we move forward, if you come across any remaining combat skill ratings on character pages, we kindly ask that you remove them or report them in this thread so our staff can take care of it. Your help in this process is greatly appreciated!" "

It is very important that we receive further evaluations here.

@AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @GarrixianXD

We still need further help here.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Not going to lie, I've regarded combat ratings such as "Genius in-combat", "Extraordinary Genius combatant", etc. as something quite suspicious and shouldn't be listed, since the start. I never exactly see how something like that should be remotely treated similarly as being able to outperform supercomputers and create advanced futuristic technology. I actually thought about creating a staff thread to revise that issue once but seemingly forgot and I just recalled, though, DT addressed most of my concerns. I agree with his proposal.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

One of the main reasons I support Genius level combat has to do with some people really just being unrealistically skilled strategists in combat. Such as literally knowing exactly how their next 100+ moves are going to play out just from reading body language and breath patterns (Though precognition wouldn't count by that logic). Same with martial artists training themselves to cut through things on an atomic level via strikes having that good precision, albeit to a lesser extent (Though this also could just be limited matter manipulation).

 

[Arkenis]

Not going to lie, I've regarded combat ratings such as "Genius in-combat", "Extraordinary Genius combatant", etc. as something quite suspicious and shouldn't be listed, since the start. I never exactly see how something like that should be remotely treated similarly as being able to outperform supercomputers and create advanced futuristic technology. I actually thought about creating a staff thread to revise that issue once but seemingly forgot and I just recalled, though, DT addressed most of my concerns. I agree with his proposal.

It's very simple actually. In the real world we have people who are smart in combat, but academically are your typical hs graduate. So when we assess their intelligence in combat we separate it from their academic intelligence. It's done for any subject really, someone might be good at dealing with social problems but struggles academically, or someone's hand eye coordination sucks but they're really good at chess. And characters do outperform computers in fiction, though its sometimes done off precog and info analysis, I think being able to process the information of 100 or 10000 moves/steps/attacks ahead is something extraordinary and does require one's brain to be more advance than others.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The thing is, Genius intelligence sections tend to get very scientific. Dealing with social stuff falls in the area of science since you're knowledgeable and experienced in the area of psychology, and chess critically falls into the game of logical deduction. I suppose you are right about able to process up to multi-digits of moves and techniques, within seconds and all, though you did mention such feats can also be dismissed by hax abilities. DDM also brings up good points about strategy and all, with a good precision of skill to achieve such extraordinary feats to even break the laws of physics, hence cannot be done by the ordinary. I suppose Genius ratings for combat can work then. I'm not sure about Extraordinary Genius though.

 

[Qawsedf234]

It is very important that we receive further evaluations here.

Ultimately if I'm reading DT's comment right, then I do agree with them. Combat skill is less "founded" in something with a hard measurement. Its easy to roughly gauge where making sci-fi device at, but its notably harder where to determine how to quantify body reading or knowing a thousand different martial arts is.

So just listing their Combat skill with showings is better than like "Supergenius in Combat" with no further notes.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultimately if I'm reading DT's comment right, then I do agree with them. Combat skill is less "founded" in something with a hard measurement. Its easy to roughly gauge where making sci-fi device at, but its notably harder where to determine how to quantify body reading or knowing a thousand different martial arts is.

So just listing their Combat skill with showings is better than like "Supergenius in Combat" with no further notes.

Thank you for your evaluation. It seems to make sense to me.

 

[DaReaperMan]

DaReaperMan/Thrall

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is how I would have skill sections look from here-on-out, then. Obviously that profile is like 5% done and that list of skill stuff will get much longer, but that is my present idea.

You would also have to revamp the formatting for profiles like Son Goku for this however, so I'd recommend making an announcement thread on the matter.

And I should clarify: Do I think this decision is stupid? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first decision I've disagreed with and only grumbled out occaisonally in future, it's how the cookie crumbles, just apply tabbers and a border template to profiles discovered to have a skill section, it'd probably look something like this once you're done in source code:

<tabber>
|-|General=
'''Gifted''' (Slot in your intelligencewank here)
|-|Skill=
{{Border|Scroll=Yes|Visible=Yes|Content=
Slot in your skillwank here
}}
</tabber>

 

[ReaperAndBlues]

DaReaperMan/Thrall

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is how I would have skill sections look from here-on-out, then. Obviously that profile is like 5% done and that list of skill stuff will get much longer, but that is my present idea.

You would also have to revamp the formatting for profiles like Son Goku for this however, so I'd recommend making an announcement thread on the matter.

And I should clarify: Do I think this decision is stupid? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first decision I've disagreed with and only grumbled out occaisonally in future, it's how the cookie crumbles, just apply tabbers and a border template to profiles discovered to have a skill section, it'd probably look something like this once you're done in source code:

<tabber>
|-|General=
'''Gifted''' (Slot in your intelligencewank here)
|-|Skill=
{{Border|Scroll=Yes|Visible=Yes|Content=
Slot in your skillwank here
}}
</tabber>

Ok, but what about characters who already have the tabber format for intelligence and have multiple sections? Aizen, Kisuke, and Ichigo's pages have a fucktrillion tabbers, the page is already too complex and has all the skill feats in their own segments.

I was told normal people could comment on this thread, I hope they weren't wrong because I really don't wanna get in trouble over this.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Ok, but what about characters who already have the tabber format for intelligence and have multiple sections? Aizen, Kisuke, and Ichigo's pages have a fucktrillion tabbers, the page is already too complex and has all the skill feats in their own segments.

I was told normal people could comment on this thread, I hope they weren't wrong because I really don't wanna get in trouble over this.

Then just add the border code to them and nuke the '''Genius''' or '''Extraordinary Genius'''

 

[ReaperAndBlues]

Then just add the border code to them and nuke the '''Genius''' or '''Extraordinary Genius'''

The first two don't have distinctions on their combat intelligence ranking-wise, but Ichigo does. His also isn't just skill, but real time tactics and strategy. I still find it a bit much to nuke the ranking when it's not just skill, it's a combination of adaptation, analysis, creativity, and awareness. I think stuff like that should be left as is so long as it involves actual tactics, just have the skill section run separately, Ichigo's page in particular already includes swordsmanship (which is obviously his main skill) so I think it should remain and pages similar (like asta) shouldn't have too much change as well.

That's just my two cents

 

[DaReaperMan]

The first two don't have distinctions on their intelligence, but Ichigo does. His also isn't just skill, but real time tactics and strategy. I still find it a bit much to nuke the ranking when it's not just skill, it's a combination of adaptation, analysis, creativity, and awareness. I think stuff like that should be left as is so long as it involves actual tactics, just have the skill section run separately, Ichigo's page in particular already includes swordsmanship (which is obviously his main skill) so I think it should remain and pages similar (like asta) shouldn't have too much change as well.

That's just my two cents

Mate, I don't like it either and think it's stupid, as I detailed. But it's going to happen either way cause staff consensus is against me.

 

[ReaperAndBlues]

Mate, I don't like it either and think it's stupid, as I detailed. But it's going to happen either way cause staff consensus is against me.

Aw shit. Well, what can I do.

 

[Passersby]

i see now that this is finished but i already wrote this so whatever

Able to masters all kind of martial arts, fighting styles, weapons in the world,

idk if this is still ongoing or not, but why is this supposed to support someone being overwhelming in the skill segment when this more so has to do with their talent in each fighting style rather than their "skills", as an example usually gives characters attributes when it comes talent, one is talented with the sword, the other the bow the axe etc each to varying degrees, there is also the "jack of all trades" "talent" that allows someone to master all sorts of martial arts but in a lesser degree than the weapon specific talents, by the metric used here, the latter is more "skilled", you're really just describing a versatile character, like sure being able to "master" multiple martial arts is impressive but it doesn't speak to how well you can use them

you seem to be struggling here, i guess it's understandable giving the three topics here are a bit hard to distinguish since you're trying to quantify something that merges all of them, what you're trying to put a measurement on at least from what i can see is how good someone is at fighting, but you mistook that as "skill" and then oversimplified it into "talent" and simplified that even more thinking the more the merrier so someone who can master any kind of martial arts is more skilled (better at fighting) than someone who can only "master" one

if i may be presumptuous, i will try to at least break this down bit

Talent is an innate aptitude/ natural ability for a specific task, this is more ecxtreme in fiction but generally someone may be more naturally talented with a sword but struggle with other weapons ie swordmanship being his specilization as is often the case with characters excelling in a single weapon or art, skill, on the other hand, is the refinement of your ability, of your talent or aptitude through practice, effort, and experience.

in the metric of skill someone who is a "jack of all trades" could have a moderate mastery across many styles without achieving specialized excellence someone so overwhelmingly skilled in a single aspect would, he would be the most versatile ,but not necessarily the best , your definition undermines this idea, being adept in multiple martial arts and weapons is impressive but it doesn't inherently equate to dominance like the OP is trying to present It's one thing to know how to wield many weapons or use many techniques, and another to execute any of them at a level that surpasses specialists, even being more versatile is at question here giving the bs a lot of skilled specilized fighters in anime get to have, especially since mastery in a weapon at leasts translates somewhat to other fields

​

altho i guess combat intelligence is the most vital part of this, but alone it can't really do much as it needs to be paired with talent and inevitably skill since all it does is enhances a character's effectiveness, it doesn't really reflect how well they do with a weapon

so i guess a mix of "instant analysis of an opponent with instant mastery over techniques and making techniques on the fly to deal with situations" should be a requirement here...i think at least

 

[DaReaperMan]

.

Why the **** did you respond to something that hasn't been the proposal for months lmfao

 

[Passersby]

Why the **** did you respond to something that hasn't been the proposal for months lmfao

i only saw your post, and it was recent

i've been duped

 

[DaReaperMan]

i only saw your post, and it was recent

i've been duped

Lonkitt's Suggestion on page 5 is currently what the goal is​

Some people make it hard to keep it professional sometimes but like... it's in bold. And is in heading 1.

 

[ReaperAndBlues]

I can agree with Lonkitt's take, but I think we're past that point

 

[Passersby]

Some people make it hard to keep it professional sometimes but like... it's in bold. And is in heading 1.

i did not read that, should have made it in red

anyways, my fault lol

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to handle this important thread while I am away on vacation, please?

 

[FinePoint]

I've noticed this is seven pages long.

Is the OP up to date, or should I be looking at something posted later?

 

[DaReaperMan]

I've noticed this is seven pages long.

Is the OP up to date, or should I be looking at something posted later?

Generally staff consensus with a few outliers is that Skill shouldn't be listed with an intelligence rating.

DaReaperMan/Thrall

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is how I would have skill sections look from here-on-out, then. Obviously that profile is like 5% done and that list of skill stuff will get much longer, but that is my present idea.

You would also have to revamp the formatting for profiles like Son Goku for this however, so I'd recommend making an announcement thread on the matter.

And I should clarify: Do I think this decision is stupid? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first decision I've disagreed with and only grumbled out occaisonally in future, it's how the cookie crumbles, just apply tabbers and a border template to profiles discovered to have a skill section, it'd probably look something like this once you're done in source code:

<tabber>
|-|General=
'''Gifted''' (Slot in your intelligencewank here)
|-|Skill=
{{Border|Scroll=Yes|Visible=Yes|Content=
Slot in your skillwank here
}}
</tabber>

So, this is my proposal for the profiles that have it.

I disagree with the assessment, but there's nothing to do but roll with the flow

 

[Arkenis]

So characters who are still genius or supergenius will still be labeled as such? Like a character who is very good at combat like Batman, will still be Genius but it isn't used to measure his combat skill?

 

[DaReaperMan]

So characters who are still genius or supergenius will still be labeled as such? Like a character who is very good at combat like Batman, will still be Genius but it isn't used to measure his combat skill?

Yes, if you lump in skill with the section I consider it disorganization, but if you want to it's just gonna happen.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay but wouldn't that logic also completely disregard regular intelligence as well?
You already need to compare feats when deciding who's smarter with normal intelligence so why would BIQ/combat skill be any different?

No, because regular intelligence at least has a concrete hierarchy of feats where using technology as an example, someone who can affect more with their inventions can be safely assumed to have greater prowess. As for the murkier stuff, Extraordinary Genius and Supergenius are extremely broad tiers precisely to account for inventions with wildly different purposes. There is no such hierarchy for skill. I'm admittedly on the fence about if EG and SG should even be separate ratings, but that's nowhere near enough to "completely disregard" regular intelligence.

As a side note, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop using these "gotcha" questions against highly well-reasoned and carefully crafted explanations for why it's a bad idea to have such specific skill ratings. It needlessly delays progress and doesn't bring any substance to the discussion.

 

[FinePoint]

So, this is my proposal for the profiles that have it.

I like the tabbers, they're nice.
The wiki as a whole has become a lot more readable since people started using them a lot.

I really couldn't care less whether or not we list a bolded one-word summary of skill, or even intelligence for that matter.
It's always been a highly subjective section needing a lot of explanation regardless.

I do think that splitting it into a general and skill section is a good idea if otherwise the section becomes long.
From a formatting perspective, I actually think you should be able to split it up as much as you want within reason, similar to the more complicated Powers and Abilities sections.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that @DaReaperMan 's example link above seems like a good format to apply for our character pages. Thank you for helping out.

@DontTalkDT @IdiosyncraticLawyer @FinePoint @Qawsedf234 @DarkDragonMedeus @Vzearr @Armorchompy

What do you think?

 

[Vzearr]

I think it looks good too.