I think we should loosen our crossover rules a little bit

[Oleggator]

i was wondering why these profiles didnt exist and then i found out about this rule a little while ago, yeah i dont understand why it exists, but i also dont understand the restrictions in this crt either, why is a story needed, i can kinda understand exclusively gameplay scaling being weird but why are some characters or games still not allowed because of no real story

I mean, examples which were used are games with plot (MvC and Blade Strangers), we technically have like, Smash Bros bcharacters who don't have much plot

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

I just don't see why they shouldn't be allowed, it seems only slightly less arbitrary as the original rule were removing

 

[The_Smashor]

I just don't see why they shouldn't be allowed, it seems only slightly less arbitrary as the regional rule were removing

Mostly because with gameplay alone there's not enough to go off of to establish solid scaling.

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

what about just using possibly/likely

 

[The_Smashor]

bump

 

[The_Smashor]

bump again

 

[Oleggator]

Bump

 

[KieranH10]

Why didn't anyone tell me about this!

I was gonna do this myself in the near future. But you got there before me.

I completely agree with the OP.

 

[Nierre]

yeah i agree 100%

 

[XitSign]

I generally agree, it's a rule I always thought was strangely strict. As long as the crossover has unique and substantial content, there's value in indexing it.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't have a problem with this revision, as long as we make note that the crossover characters have to be scaled from the feats within the crossover itself, not between different continuities.

Also, this should preferably be a staff forum thread.

 

[Armorchompy]

Mostly because with gameplay alone there's not enough to go off of to establish solid scaling.

Couldn't cases like this be scaled off gameplay feats, if possible? Something like everyone in Street Fighter being able to destroy cars in the bonus stages.

 

[The_Smashor]

Couldn't cases like this be scaled off gameplay feats, if possible? Something like everyone in Street Fighter being able to destroy cars in the bonus stages.

That could work, but the issue is that it could lead to a lot of same-y profiles.

I personally don't mind this, but some others don't like this concept.

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean, samey profiles aren't inherently something we do not allow, we've got verses like Touhou that have a lot of similar profiles (Not saying that's a bad thing) and that's not really an issue.

Plus, stats are only one part of a profile, P&A could still lead to scaling-less profiles being very worth making,

 

[Antvasima]

I moved this thread to our staff forum, since it is about a policy issue.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

OP's suggestions are fine in my view. If they aren't then we need tp clean up/delete another of the mentioned profiles he was talking about.

I mean, really, we have 44 Godzilla profiles. 9 Gokus. 21 Supermen. 8 Kirbies. 13 Sonics. 13 Mechagodzillas. 11 Sabers.

Afaik most of these examples do not work

• Goku is for different incarnations of the character with their own canon such
• Superman is all alternate versions of the character with their own feats or significant story differences
• Kirby I know uses multiple different canons for different profiles
• Sonic has the same thing
• Aren't all of the Sabre's canonically different people?
• Godzilla has multiple versions and all of them have unquie feats, story and scaling

The stuff about the slasher characters though are entirely legitimate.

 

[The_Smashor]

Aren't all of the Sabre's canonically different people?

I mean King Arthur.

And the point of the example is that more versions of characters would not kill us.

 

[Promestein]

It's completely different from different crossover standards. Different characters and forms of a character within one setting, like Saber, and substantially differing versions of characters, are very much different from virtually identical characters in one-off crossover plots with nothing special.

 

[Antvasima]

Promestein is correct.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The character must somehow be present in said story, and have feats/scaling outside of exclusively battling against other characters in gameplay (Typically this requires them fighting one of the original characters in the game,). This can include trailers if these trailers are somehow tied into the story.

I would demand more than mere presence, but actually noteworthy involvement. We don't need a version for a character that appeared for 5 seconds in a crossover where he briefly fought someone.

While not required, it's massively preferable if a character has something that separates them from their canon counterpart beyond stats. Typically, this is some kind of universal mechanic that anyone in the game has access to (Spirits in SSBU or the Infinity Stones in MvC:I as an example), though other more story-oriented examples exist. Of course, if the stat gap compared to their canon counterpart is wide enough, it could be worth making the profile anyways.

Should IMO be required. If your character is exactly the same except that it has some stat scaling slapped unto it, it is IMO not a notable non-canon version. At that point it's just stat hunting.

Characters cannot assumed to have the same stats or abilities as their canon counterparts unless events from their canon stories are directly mentioned by characters in-universe (Things like Smash Bros trophy descriptions cannot be used). Honestly this is mostly a case-by-case thing.

Yeah, personally, I was always of the opinion crossover versions should stand on their own, relying on what was shown/stated in the crossover (especially with how we often list abilities the authors probably forgot about characters having...)
Although, I was in the minority with that opinion in the past. At least the stat part is already in our rules, though.

 

[Armorchompy]

I would demand more than mere presence, but actually noteworthy involvement. We don't need a version for a character that appeared for 5 seconds in a crossover where he briefly fought someone.

I'm not 100% sure why story involvement is necessary to be relevant though- If a crossover character has enough noteworthy stuff through gameplay alone, and fulfills the other requirements, wouldn't they be fine?

 

[The_Smashor]

I'm not 100% sure why story involvement is necessary to be relevant though- If a crossover character has enough noteworthy stuff through gameplay alone, and fulfills the other requirements, wouldn't they be fine?

I guess, but more often than not story stuff is easier to scale.

Honestly these are less hard rules and more guidelines.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think the OP oversimplifies some things but generally speaking the concept is fine.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not 100% sure why story involvement is necessary to be relevant though- If a crossover character has enough noteworthy stuff through gameplay alone, and fulfills the other requirements, wouldn't they be fine?

Depends on whether than gameplay is used for feats or not, I guess. If most of the feats come from gameplay, yes. If it's just scaling and using stuff they get from the canon counterpart or something, then no.

 

[Armorchompy]

Of course, if a character has no story presence then scaling to others via gameplay would typically not be feasible, but that's just a byproduct of other things, story relevance should not be needed on its own.

 

[ByAsura]

I think it's fine, we do have many cross-over profiles anyway, as long as we make interesting cross-over profiles instead of 'scales to x and/or x'.

Fighting game cross-over characters are a very good example of what (typically) constitute lame profiles. They're mostly just scaling and a few techniques.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Sort of neutral and and partly agree with the OP. And Prom and DT both make solid points, but my end thoughts are more or less the same as Bambu's regarding the "Over simplified thoughts but shows a good concept"

 

[Antvasima]

I also agree with Promestein and DontTalk, but as long as their concerns are taken into account, this seems fine to apply to me.

 

[SomebodyData]

I'm neutral though leaning a bit towards against since it does seem to open the gateways to a lot of more dubious profiles.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Could you give an example? My opinion can be swayed.

 

[Ailamiona]

Would this mean that stuff like Tails Gets Trolled would be allowed, or is that still considered fanfiction?

 

[The_Smashor]

Would this mean that stuff like Tails Gets Trolled would be allowed, or is that still considered fanfiction?

yes, the fanfiction would still be considered fanfiction

 

[SomebodyData]

Mr. Bambu

Well, a good example would be someone the OP even mentions: Sephiroth (Smash Bros). His only real moment is from a trailer (If we would even count that as Smash Bros canon) but by these standards, would still be allowed.

It also really doesn't help that crossovers are getting more popular, eventually producing a lot more profiles like Sephiroth.

We would also have looser standards for crossovers than alt./non-canon profiles; like Shin Budokai Janemba (Unless something's changed and I don't know about it) would be allowed by these rules if he was a crossover character, but not by canon standards.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The second bit is an interesting situation. Even making a specific rule to avoid that seems odd, since in the context of the crossover the character is little different than other characters in said crossover.

Alright. I'll retract my vote, I'm interested in seeing some discussion about these points.

 

[The_Smashor]

I mean, having a bunch more profiles wouldn't suck as long as they're well made.

It's not like there's a limited amount of profiles that can be made on the wiki.

 

[Armorchompy]

Mr. Bambu

Well, a good example would be someone the OP even mentions: Sephiroth (Smash Bros). His only real moment is from a trailer (If we would even count that as Smash Bros canon) but by these standards, would still be allowed.

So what? He still has a full moveset with its own P&A, it would not be a poor profile by any standards outside of the ones that include half the profiles in the site in this category.

 

[SomebodyData]

So what? He still has a full moveset with its own P&A, it would not be a poor profile by any standards outside of the ones that include half the profiles in the site in this category.

If we were judging by the alt/non-canon standards, he wouldn't be allowed.

I don't know if a DLC crossover character who doesn't even appear in the story would be better than half the profiles here. I mean, we've deleted canon profiles with more of a presence like W.D. Gaster just because of how little is actually known or shown.

Also, P&A? If he doesn't appear in the main story, I don't think he actually has anything beyond the gameplay moveset.

 

[Oleggator]

If we were judging by the alt/non-canon standards, he wouldn't be allowed.

I don't know if a DLC crossover character who doesn't even appear in the story would be better than half the profiles here. I mean, we've deleted canon profiles with more of a presence like W.D. Gaster just because of how little is actually known or shown.

Also, P&A? If he doesn't appear in the main story, I don't think he actually has anything beyond the gameplay moveset.

I mean, technically you can say same for Duck Hunt Dog, Captain Falcon and basically to every single character who have smash profiles with exception of original characters such as Master Hand.

 

[Armorchompy]

If we were judging by the alt/non-canon standards, he wouldn't be allowed.

Yes, the standards, aka what the thread seeks to change.

I don't know if a DLC crossover character who doesn't even appear in the story would be better than half the profiles here. I mean, we've deleted canon profiles with more of a presence like W.D. Gaster just because of how little is actually known or shown.

W.D. Gaster literally has zero presence in Undertale, he was deleted because we literally know nothing about him and the profile was based completely on speculation. Giving Sephiroth Energy Projection because he projects energy is not speculation, it's basic logic.

Also, P&A? If he doesn't appear in the main story, I don't think he actually has anything beyond the gameplay moveset.

SPC, Weapon Mastery, Pseudo-Flight, Energy Projection, Attack Reflection, Darkness Manipulation, Empowerment, Status Effect Inducement, probably a buncha more stuff, is that not enough?

 

[SomebodyData]

Yes, the standards, aka what the thread seeks to change.

Wrong standards. The thread is trying to change the crossover standards, not the alt./non-canon standards. I'm pointing out that the latter's standards would make these changes irrelevant.

W.D. Gaster literally has zero presence in Undertale, he was deleted because we literally know nothing about him and the profile was based completely on speculation. Giving Sephiroth Energy Projection because he projects energy is not speculation, it's basic logic.

Sephiroth literally has zero presence in Smash Bro's Story and while Gaster's profile was a lot of speculation, there were concrete elements in there like his NEP.

SPC, Weapon Mastery, Pseudo-Flight, Energy Projection, Attack Reflection, Darkness Manipulation, Empowerment, Status Effect Inducement, probably a buncha more stuff, is that not enough?

Of course not, it's not even a comparison; you've just described a castrated Sephiroth profile.