In regards to defense stat ignoring game moves

[DontTalkDT]

I have seen in the recent time a few game character profiles that list moves as durability negating, because the in game description and function ignores the games durability stat or does damage independent of it, without knowing the mechanism behind it.

For example there was a recent thread, because Kellam's Luna was listed as durability negation and for Kangaskha Endeavor is listed as durability negation due to, from what I can see, its in game description and functionality of lowering the opponents HP to the ones of the users. (if there is a mechanism given for that just imagine a different example)

Here's the thing: I don't think such things should be considered durability negation for our purposes.

Why?

We recently had a thread about hax, where one point of debate was that durability negation only works up to the highest demonstrated durability level, because everything else is a NLF/Proof by example fallacy.

In that thread I defended the fact that it works against higher levels (if no resistances were shown yada yada yada).

The reason why it isn't a NLF is that for hax, like for example mind attacks or space cutting, we know the mechanism. We can then be sure that an attack with the known mechanism would still work against a higher level of durability than shown, because we know that the damage the mechanism does is independent of durability.


And in that reasoning you can see the problem I have with listing defense stat ignoring game moves as durability negation.

We don't know what mechanism they have (except they tell us, in that case there is no problem).

Since we don't know we can also not argue over the mechanism that it isn't a NLF to say that it works against higher levels than shown.

And exactly because we can't do that, this techniques would not necessarily fulfill the criteria of what is durability negation, which is "The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of its durability.".


It's essentially the same reason we wouldn't give someone that has a sword, that is reliably said to cut through everything, durability negation, unless we know how the sword is supposed to do that. (e.g. Angela's sword Tinkledeath isn't durability negating, even though it is said to cut through any not magically protected material)


So I think they should not be listed as durability negation. That doesn't mean those techniques should be taken as normal AP. In my opinion it should be listed as "[Highest Durability shown to be negated through the technique] with [Technique name]" in the AP section.


Opinions?

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

So to list an example. In Digimon, WarGreymon's Brave Tornado is mentioned to bypass the physical defense stat in game. In this case we would label it as ignores the durability of those on his level or something like that?

 

[Ciruno_Fortes_(COB)]

I always felt like game stats haxx like that have a high chance of always being overly increased to lead to that scenario. We never really know if it's concrete on what it does or such yeah. So yeah some abilities can be really NLF-like.

 

[Gemmysaur]

If anything, Endeavor is essentially copying the user's wounds to the opponent, so it is durability-negating. Also, in the case of Pokemon, it can be taken that the user can at least use said ability on another of equal power at the very least.

That said, I can't say much for other games so I'm gonna have to say, it's a case by case basis or something. Idk.

 

[Mania568]

dont some games that have that make it that the bigger boss battles have some kind of resistence to them? i would assume it would be against someone at the same tier of yours unless proven otherwise with said example, but that is probably on a small game scale and most games that do do that it works on all enemies?

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Much like OHKOs, this should just be common sense.

Cutting off the opponent's head off (Guillotine) isn't durability negating, but it can work on beings with similar Dura to yours. Meanwhile, Sheer Cold, being absolute zero, should be able to actually ignore dura.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im agreeing that, if anything, it should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Well for one I was gonna make a separate thread for both Pokemon and Digimon Defense stat ignoring moves. But this thread allows me to wait a bit.

 

[SchroKatze]

And True Damage? It just deals the same amount of damage in all cases, ignoring defenses AND durability.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

Stats and Skills are canon and this guy can see them canonically (and even in FE4, combat skills were canon techniques)

And all Moon skills (such as Luna and Eclipse) have durability negation in their descriptions

 

[Antvasima]

So, should we list this as a rule/suggestion, and if so, where, and what should it say?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Yeah I was about to bring up League's True Damage. It is specifically designed to ignore both the armor statistic and magic resistance of a target. I am not sure how this would not count as durability negation. If a target has 10 or 10,000 armor, the attack will always hit for the same damage, ignoring all the armor or magic resistance of the target regardless of how much or how little they have.

 

[Reppuzan]

There's also the entire playable MapleStory cast, who all have passive skills that ignore a percentage of the target's defenses.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If anything, Endeavor is essentially copying the user's wounds to the opponent, so it is durability-negating.

Not if it isn't said how it works. If its mechanism is like, for example, Antithesis it does negate durability.

But it's mechanism could, for example, also be a telekinetic attack that inflicts damage to the target until it is as badly hurt as the user. In that case the attack is outright just normal AP.


Without knowing what is the mechanism we can't just say it's something like the former.

Stats and Skills are canon and this guy can see them canonically (and even in FE4, combat skills were canon techniques)

And all Moon skills (such as Luna and Eclipse) have durability negation in their descriptions

Thing is, that wether or not they are canon isn't the point.

Even if a character in the game literally said "this sword strike ignores durability" it wouldn't get rid of the issue.

As said it is basically the same as an description being "this sword can cut through anything". That wouldn't be taken as durability negation either, but only be taken seriously within the realms of the verse. That is unless you know how it works. If you know it is space cutting saying it negates durability is no problem.

Saying that an attack that can circumvent the durability of a building level character can also circumvent the durability of a galaxy level character is a NLF, unless further informations on the attack are known.

It is specifically designed to ignore both the armor statistic and magic resistance of a target. I am not sure how this would not count as durability negation.

For example it could be an attack that gets stronger corresponding to the targets armor and magic resistance. (basically attack = normal attack + what the armor would take away from it)

Or basically do what power Nullification does to opponents attacks, just to their durability instead. (imagine a punch with Touma 's Imagine Breaker, but any durability higher than human level counts as supernatural)

Or it could work due to something similar to granting very short debuffs, in the style of statistics Reduction.

So, should we list this as a rule/suggestion, and if so, where, and what should it say?

Personally I would suggest adding something like "The Mechanism behind an attack is the deciding factor on whether or not it negates durability. Hence the mechanism has to be known in order for the attack to qualify." at the end of the Summary of the Durability Negation page.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

Except....Luna's description is that it negates half of dura, not a "can cut through all things" description

 

[Primaris_Brian]

Im Folowing this...Stellaris Profiles also have durability negation because of the in game description and function ignores the games durability thing..but first i need to go to college..

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@DontTalk

My problem with that explaination is that multiple characters in the game do use statistics reduction to shred armor. True Damage doesn't lower armor, it just bypasses it entirely.

 

[Aridwolverine]

Thing is, that wether or not they are canon isn't the point.

Even if a character in the game literally said "this sword strike ignores durability" it wouldn't get rid of the issue.

As said it is basically the same as an description being "this sword can cut through anything". That wouldn't be taken as durability negation either, but only be taken seriously within the realms of the verse. That is unless you know how it works. If you know it is space cutting saying it negates durability is no problem.

Saying that an attack that can circumvent the durability of a building level character can also circumvent the durability of a galaxy level character is a NLF, unless further informations on the attack are known.

It is not the same. You are comparing a canon feat that is ingrained into the series to a statement. They are different.

Besides, you are saying that durability negation working against a galaxy level being is NLF. Wouldn't it be the other way around? How does being physical strong automatically make you immune/resistant to durability hax?

Hax and Stats are independent from each other, I'm sure we can agree on that. High tier characters are determined not necessarily by how powerful they are, but by their raw strength, in other words their stats. How does being able to destroy a galaxy automatically make you immune/resistant to hax if said physical feats are independent of hax, and said character never shown any resistances in the first place?

 

[PaChi2]

Except....Luna's description is that it negates half of dura, not a "can cut through all things" description

It negates half dura in some games, in others it bypasses it completely. Tbh the half dura thing imo is just for balancing purposes.

 

[BleedingPeach]

@DontTalk

My problem with that explaination is that multiple characters in the game do use statistics reduction to shred armor. True Damage doesn't lower armor, it just bypasses it entirely.

The same could be said about DotA. There are Heroes who deal Pure Damage and bypass entirely the fact that you are immune to magic or the amount of armor you have. But on the other hand it's not a safe deal to scale the embodiment of the concept of gravity to a zealot who make people bleed. In that case I think it would be needed to analyze it case by case. Let's say Bloodseeker use [[1]] on Chaos Knight. Does it even damage him? Or could make him bleed despite the fact that he is non-corporeal?

 

[Friendlysociopath]

(Well, in we go)


Why would League's true damage not be a game mechanic? Nothing in lore suggests the characters can bypass how strong someone's armor might be- the closest thing I can bring to mind is stuff like Demacian Steel and disintegration beams, and the former is unique for being able to harm spirits- not negate durability. The latter theoretically shouldn't "negate" durability at all since a more durable person should be harder to disintegrate.

Can Darius make skeletons and robots bleed? I don't see much of a difference there- true damage exists to not be reduced by armor or mr.


You can also shield it, both with magical and natural means such as spells and thick skin. Certain characters can also block it- which they shouldn't be able to do if it can hurt anything- right? If magical abilities and beings can prevent it from hurting them as badly- does it even negate durability since most fictions also have a fictional power-source to make them more durable?

 

[Primaris_Brian]

Ok so in Stellaris we have 2 case:
First there are severals weapons who is listed to have 100% penetration on both Shield and Armor while also have in game description who say the weapon itself can ingore Shield and Armor, and while all weapon have different penetration value, in my stellaris content revison we generaly agree to only treat these weapons who have 100% penetration value as the real durability negating weapons.

And Second there are type of weapons who doesn't completely ignore Shield and Armor but still being treated as durability negating weapons due to this, It's some type of matter manipulation weapon.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Friendly

Why would League's true damage not be a game mechanic? Nothing in lore suggests the characters can bypass how strong someone's armor might be- the closest thing I can bring to mind is stuff like Demacian Steel and disintegration beams, and the former is unique for being able to harm spirits- not negate durability. The latter theoretically shouldn't "negate" durability at all since a more durable person should be harder to disintegrate.

Even if lore doesnt play a part in their in-game abilities, the in-game abilities take priority, we already had a huge discussion about this a while back. Demacian Steel doesnt ignore durability (and it cant harm spirits, not sure where you got that), and Vel's desintegration beams literally refer to them as breaking down matter (Which should actually be listed as matter manipulation on his profile).

Can Darius make skeletons and robots bleed? I don't see much of a difference there- true damage exists to not be reduced by armor or mr.

How does this in any way matter?

You can also shield it, both with magical and natural means such as spells and thick skin. Certain characters can also block it- which they shouldn't be able to do if it can hurt anything- right? If magical abilities and beings can prevent it from hurting them as badly- does it even negate durability since most fictions also have a fictional power-source to make them more durable?

Hence why it ignores CONVENTIONAL durability. True damage literally cant be resisted without certain spells.

 

[Antvasima]

Personally I would suggest adding something like "The Mechanism behind an attack is the deciding factor on whether or not it negates durability. Hence the mechanism has to be known in order for the attack to qualify." at the end of the Summary of the Durability Negation page.

What does the rest of the staff think of this suggestion? I do not mind, but would prefer if the wording/intention turned easier to understand for visitors to the page.

 

[Chartate101]

I think it's on a case by case basis

 

[DontTalkDT]

Except....Luna's description is that it negates half of dura, not a "can cut through all things" descriptio

Which makes the case even more clear. I find it hard to imagine a case where a technique gets rid of exactly half the defense without power being a factor.

There is a difference between getting rid of half of building level and half of galaxy level. In the latter case the absolute amount of defense you have to subtract is way bigger.

Heck, durability negation essentially goes both ways. In the weakness of Beatrice they have armours that reduce attacks of specific attributes by certain percentages. Should we also say that it isn't a NLF to assume that those works regardless of attack power? Would be great, 'cause some characters have 100% immunities meaning we accept absolute immunities then.

@DontTalk

My problem with that explaination is that multiple characters in the game do use statistics reduction to shred armor. True Damage doesn't lower armor, it just bypasses it entirely.

Which isn't a justification at all. As said it could literally be attacks imbued with "negate durability" attribute in the same way power negation negates a power.

As long as you don't know how it works you can not just deny this possibilities, because it doesn't fit your image of how the attack should work.


The fact that we couldn't judge which characters would have a resistance against it, if we would accept it as durability negation, basically shows just how unreliable and stuffed with assumptions the entire thing is.

It is not the same. You are comparing a canon feat that is ingrained into the series to a statement. They are different.

Besides, you are saying that durability negation working against a galaxy level being is NLF. Wouldn't it be the other way around? How does being physical strong automatically make you immune/resistant to durability hax?

Hax and Stats are independent from each other, I'm sure we can agree on that. High tier characters are determined not necessarily by how powerful they are, but by their raw strength, in other words their stats. How does being able to destroy a galaxy automatically make you immune/resistant to hax if said physical feats are independent of hax, and said character never shown any resistances in the first place?

You miss the point.

Read what I wrote at the top of the thread again.

As I said there the problem is that you have to proof something negates durability for realms of power higher than the author ever intended it to be used against and that is only possible by bringing proof that the mechanism of the attack is of a nature that a change in durability, independent on how large it is, will not affect the damage the attack does.


If this attacks have such a mechanism, for example if they erase spacetime, there is no problem to saying they can harm far more powerful characters, because we know fro how they work that this is not an issue of durability.

But as long as such a mechanism is not known, as long as it is just a technique that can somehow harm characters on a certain level, it is a No Limit Fallacy to assume that however they do that will certainly not fail against something more powerful just because they said durability doesn't matter (which is always only true in the realms they fight against).


And whether or not the source of that is a reliable character statement or some in game description or narrator statement is really irrelevant to the discussion. If an author describes a sword as cutting everything or negating durability in its item description the issue is the same.

Ok so in Stellaris we have 2 case:
First there are severals weapons who is listed to have 100% penetration on both Shield and Armor while also have in game description who say the weapon itself can ingore Shield and Armor, and while all weapon have different penetration value, in my stellaris content revison we generaly agree to only treat these weapons who have 100% penetration value as the real durability negating weapons.

And Second there are type of weapons who doesn't completely ignore Shield and Armor but still being treated as durability negating weapons due to this, It's some type of matter manipulation weapon.

The latter sounds fine, given that a mechanism to how it works is explained.

The former on the other hand literally sounds like "I have an all piercing spear", which is a NLF.

Honestly, the fact that everyone now debates the issue for their favorite pet verse here instead of having a general debate about the issue reminds me why I usually ask people to refrain from making verse specific examples in such threads... Eh, given that I started with the examples myself that is my fault, I suppose.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

@DT I think you missed my earlier comment.

 

[Friendlysociopath]

Even if lore doesnt play a part in their in-game abilities, the in-game abilities take priority, we already had a huge discussion about this a while back. Demacian Steel doesnt ignore durability (and it cant harm spirits, not sure where you got that), and Vel's desintegration beams literally refer to them as breaking down matter (Which should actually be listed as matter manipulation on his profile).

Why would in-game abilities take priority? Many lores have additional abilities listed that are not part of the game at all due to limitations/difficulty being implemented and quite a few game abilities do things lore doesn't imply belong at all. Quite a few sources of true damage don't even have anything special about them- Darius again comes to mind as he just hits harder than normal to inflict it. Fiora kills her opponent and a giant healing field appears- despite this not at all being stated in her lore.

Demacian Steel resists all magic AFAIK, not just spirits. Mordekaiser hurls necromatic sorcery at a knight and his steel armor resists it in the Harrowing.

How does this in any way matter?

It's one reason gameplay is full of game mechanics and shouldn't be used for genuine feats/abilities without question? That's without the obvious considerations of things like Galio being like 3-4 stories tall and Vayne being able to condemn him with a crossbow bolt.

Hence why it ignores CONVENTIONAL durability. True damage literally cant be resisted without certain spells.

Or natural defenses: as Tahm Kench, Skarner, and Malphite have as they respectively have thick skin, an exoskeleton, and a second skin of rock. An example: Shen's shields are powered by ki energy for example, would that mean true damage won't work on DBZ characters since they're naturally shielding their bodies all of the time? Wouldn't this then mean any fictional character with magical durability-enhancing energy isn't going to be afflicted by true damage? Is it even ignoring conventional durability then?This seems like it raises a lot of questions and stipulations rather than just going with it being a game mechanic. Especially when you consider some champions gain/lose true damage without any part of their lore being touched- purely because of balance reasons.

Still, it seems you discussed this previously? What was the reasoning for gameplay being excusable for canon abilities when the entire reason gameplay previously existed in canon (The Institute of War and the League) are no longer canon?

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DT I think you missed my earlier comment.

Oh eh.... you mean this one?:

So to list an example. In Digimon, WarGreymon's Brave Tornado is mentioned to bypass the physical defense stat in game. In this case we would label it as ignores the durability of those on his level or something like that?

Yeah, I forgot that.

If you ask me something like that would be fine.

Personally I see no difference between saying "the move ignores the durability on his level" and "the move has AP on his level" in this case, but if people like the former better it is something that would be fine with me.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Okay then, thanks.

 

[Antvasima]

Does anybody have a suggestion for an easier to understand wording of DontTalk's suggested new regulation in the Durability Negation page?

 

[Kaltias]

"Please note that in order for a technique to be considered as durability negation, it is necessary to know the mechanics of the technique itself, otherwise it isn't possible to determine whether or not the technique works only up to the highest level shown or not"

^ This can work?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I'm really just not sold on this regulation. Seems like we're searching for anti-feats at this point. Trust me, I want to be the Wiki as accurate as possible, but removing this ability from so many characters and verses with an extra stipulation is a massive undertaking in labor and a rather presumptive argument in the first place.

I know Weekly is against this, and I am as well. Perhaps we should move this to staff only to see what opinions manifest?

 

[Antvasima]

If this would cause a massive amount of hard to organise revisions, then I am against it as well. My apologies to DontTalk, but we simply do not have the resources right now, and the upcoming Narutoforums calculation blogs replacement project is greatly prioritised.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I think it is also best to save this until after that stuff is done. Not throwing it out, but putting it on the back burner.

 

[Kaltias]

I think that if we can't implement it now, discussing it and implementing changes when possible is the best course of action

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but there are some other important projects that should be prioritised.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I have placed a note of this in my VS Battles to-do list.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I agree

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

in the case of something like Pokemon, would we just push the level of durability ignoring to the strongest character who has said technique? lIke Nightshade for example