- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #41
Bump
-
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.
Fictional combat skill and VSB; Giving Skill a concrete form
- Thread starter First_Witch
- Start date
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #42
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #43
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #45
Bump
- 178,235
- 91,426
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #47
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #48
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #49
Bump
- 178,235
- 91,426
Our other combat skill thread has essentially concluded now:
What do we currently need to do here with the results of that thread kept in mind?
What do we currently need to do here with the results of that thread kept in mind?
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #51
Wether any other staff members disagrees with or wants to add something. DT was fine with the proposal contentwise and only had gripes with the presentation and structure of the blog. Changes to that were pushed back at the end, as it is pointless to waste time and energy polishing something up that could get categorically rejected. Which doesn't seem to be the current staff sentiment.
So really the current goal of this thread is "Is staff in agreement with the idea of a standard for skill and, if yes, my proposed standards?"
So really the current goal of this thread is "Is staff in agreement with the idea of a standard for skill and, if yes, my proposed standards?"
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #52
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #53
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #54
This is never getting concluded is it?
Bump
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #55
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #56
I will die of old age before this concludes.
Bump
Bump
- 178,235
- 91,426
@DontTalkDTOur other combat skill thread has essentially concluded now:
What do we currently need to do here with the results of that thread kept in mind?
- 11,896
- 14,608
Sorry, but in my opinion a page on skill that doesn't take into account the subject of supernatural powers is entirely inadequate for a wiki on which 90% of all characters wield these supernatural powers in battle. Skill considerations that cover a minority of combat situations just don't seem sufficient.
You mention how physical skill works same by biomechanics, but then mention Naruto, where every punch and kick involves chakra. It needs to be taken into account for a proper analysis.
Making an all encompassing skill guide doesn't work, so the goal should just be to give pointers to how to analyze things on a case-by-case basis.
For supernatural things, stuff like expertise, precision etc. are all still factors. There just are even much more possible factors. Which we can't all consider, which is why the page needs to be open-ended.
Expertise in placing your foot on the ground so that you don't slip. Expertise in not accidentally sneezing. Which discipline does center of mass management objectively fall into?
As silly as my examples may be, I'm fairly sure one can have endless debates about what constitutes skill and whether something cleanly falls into some of your disciplines or not.
From my decently long experience of writing rule pages for this wiki, I can tell you that it's generally best to not present a list as all-encompassing unless you can actually proof that it is. You don't gain anything by doing so.
See the bolded part. There is no reason to do any of that.
Some characters can just watch the way someone arranged flowers and via bullshit levels of intelligence deduce their personality of that and by that predict their actions without ever having seen their behavior or bodily status.
Or maybe they have read the opponent is a soldier trained by a certain person and, due to knowing the style of training they give, can predict the likely moves they use.
Sure, if we stretch this into the quantum mechanical definition of observing something, i.e. any way of gaining information on something is an act of observing it, then maybe this technically could qualify as an observation of behaviour. However, no regular reader is going to understand that passage in that manner.
Ultimately, if we need to stretch the meaning of the words this much for it to be technically correct, why use those words?
If what you want to say is that Analytic Prediction involves using information the character has as a basis to predict a future detail related to the battle, then saying it directly like that seems clearer.
You wrote
If something consists of something, then it's a necessary requirement of it.
And that enhanced senses are required for high end showing is your subjective opinion. It hinges on the debatable point of what a high end showing of instinctive reaction is.
For example, for me, instinctive reaction that lets you automatically execute exactly the right 50 moves in series as a response to an attack is more of a high-end showing than a basic reaction to something not visible to a regular human, as I would consider the latter rather a potency feat of the enhanced senses.
The other things I listed are gripes as well.
Pretending like our superhuman battles don't regularly violate physics and biology is just the thing where I say that if it stays that way I wouldn't use this blog as a basis for a skill page at all.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #59
Well, I have explained my position already, so let me propose something that may make us both happy.
As stated before, I do not believe a unified standard can be archived when taking supernatural means into account. I would like to clarify that I mean skill feats that would not have been possible for the character without his magic/power system in place. I.e, Information Analysis through a appraisal skill versus Information Analysis through ones senses and extensive martial arts knowledge. I would like to think that we both agree what is the more skilled feat, even if both archive similar things.
What I would propose to include chakra/mana/chi/od stuff is take a principle I would call "Means and Outcome". Basically, a skill feat can be broken down to "what it archived" and "how it was archived". For example; Analytical Prediction. If we assume really basic stuff, the "what" becomes, lets say 1 step ahead. And the "how" becomes lets say incredible eye sight. If we were to compare that to lets say, mana sight predicting your enemy based on how their mana flows, the "what" remains 1 step ahead, but the how changes to a supernatural ability. It would be unfair of me to dismiss this wholly as a skill feat, considering the prediction part is still a valid thing that happened. But it would not be unfair of me to consider the feat done through biomechanical ways to be more skillful.
So I believe the standard of biomechanics could be used to judge feats outside of them, if we both agree to this approach. But while I can reconcile supernatural "hows", I hope we both agree that supernatural "whats" can not be considered skill right? Cutting space is not a skill feat, regardless of how it is archived.
Body control, I think balance and center of gravity are like the most common showcase of real life body control
And I will gladly have it if it means we both can close this thread satisfied with the outcome.
And I fully respect that. I still believe that covering as much ground as possible 1. Reduces loopholes and fringe cases that people might try and 2. Puts out the idea into the world in the first place. I do not consider myself infallible, I want people to chip at the standards until they come out better than before or worse and be discarded.
Because I was trying to precise with my words. But this might be admittedly me just being ESL. I trust your expertise on this.
Yeah, I was tripping over my words there. I think it boils down to where you draw the line of what is considered enhanced. I consider it enhanced when your eyesight is obviously above general human levels but also when your other senses are good enough to be useable in battle. I guess it would be better to can the enhanced.
I can see the argument in the first, but the later I disagree with the framing. In that very example, the potency of the enhanced senses directly aid with the principle of Instinctive Reaction; So long the feat can be characterised as a IR feat, the enhanced senses portion being more weighty to the body control portion does not invalid the overall showing of the IR feat. And categories are fluid in the first place, you can't view IR in a vacuum.
Because in the end, what is IR? The simplest answer would be to act subconsciously, to not have to think about the action in order to perform it. In real life, the most realistically possible showing would be muscle memory. In fiction, the most usual showing of IR is blocking attacks they have not registered consciously, thus escalating the scale of the feat is possible in such and such ways.
And feel free to continue doing so.
This just not how the principle should be applied though. This standard was established to skill scale character DESPITE their superhuman physicality, while having a objective measure in real life human capabilities.
To come back to your Naruto example, that is the perfect example of what I mean, Yeah, they spit fire and get stronger via chakra and jump like gravity doesnt apply to them but they still fight with their hands and legs, they still use knives and swords and they still die to lethal wounds, because their vital points are the same as humans. They still walk with their 2 feets planted onto the ground, they still have to breath and they still become blind when it gets pitch dark without their chakra eyes.
All those facts allow me to say that basic human anatomy still apply to said Naruto characters. This standard allows me to judge Naruto characters skill feat in the first place, they are not alien to me in function.
"The physics breaking cannot be a afterthough" is line I have definitly written in my blog. Naruto characters arent getting "Can fight and move at speeds that would normally ignite the cloths they are wearing without getting naked" as a skill feat, while a character getting to the same speeds with the narration going "Normally, moving at such speeds would burn your cloth away, but by expertly positioning his body he can minimize air resistance to such an level where this does not happen" is a skill feat. I hope I dont have to explain why. The breaking of those 2 shan't be a afterthough and if it happens, it should have an explanation that satisfy the need for those 2 as a requirment in the first place. Because Skill is a concept that was born under the limitations of both.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #60
Bump
- 178,235
- 91,426
It seems like @DontTalkDT has rejected this revision.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #62
We are still in discussions thoughIt seems like @DontTalkDT has rejected this revision.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #64
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #65
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #67
Again, in the middle of a discussion. Can you please grant me the same patience that you expect of the community when we have to deal with Staff members? And not try to shut this down based on the notion of light opposition? Like I have been really patient and understanding of the staff body here, seeing as I'm only bumping this thread once every week to send a polite reminder that this is still ongoing, as I understand that ANY sitewide changes is going to require immense amount of time.It doesn't seem like anything will happen here beyond DontTalk's evaluations above.
All I am asking is patience. I have been at this topic for years now, and I don't plan to let time be the reason for me stop. Thank you for your, hopefuly, understanding.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #68
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #69
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #70
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #71
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #72
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #73
Is it really just going to be DT or do other Staff member just not care.
- 10,598
- 4,197
Sadly it really is like that
- 13,404
- 14,186
To be real I just don't think that many people are interested in trying to objectify skill on the wiki. I wouldn't be either.
And your page is just... it feels very jarring compared to other pages on the wiki. It doesn't read like a standards page. It just reads like your own rant about how to quantify skill. Maybe you could use it for a YouTube video or something.
And your page is just... it feels very jarring compared to other pages on the wiki. It doesn't read like a standards page. It just reads like your own rant about how to quantify skill. Maybe you could use it for a YouTube video or something.
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #76
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #77
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #78
Bump
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #79
pmuB
- 9,634
- 10,345
- Thread starter
- #80
Bump
Similar threads
- Locked
