Indexing scaling chains and calc values

[Mr. Bambu]

If you need to explain 40 characters on each profile, just make a blog. It's foolishness to bother including all of that required reading on the profile itself, it makes no sense.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

In my opinion, I actually don't find putting the value of what characters scale to at the end of their AP description a problem, that's my opinion. Some methods are just easy for others, heck I've seen people still ask what value the characters scale to despite the value and link to the feat was clear in the AP section so I don't think it being their or as a note at the bottom of the page has any big difference. As for scaling chains, I used the method of adding a section on the verse page regarding who scales to what. A blog like Mr. Bambu suggested works just as well in my opinion.

 

[Propellus]

But at the same time, just moving the values to the reference section just makes it tedious that you would be forced to scroll literally all the way down just to find what exactly they're scaling to. Especially with pages that has characters with a bunch of keys at onces

 

[LordTracer]

While I do prefer listing the values in the AP justification over putting them all in the notes section, I don’t see why we can’t just have both as options.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I don’t know if this matters for me to say at this stage or not, but I feel like it’s a good time to clarify that the proposal is intended to be completely optional

 

[Flashlight237]

Is this some weird "it's hip" trend like bolding abilities for some alien reason or something?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Is this some weird "it's hip" trend like bolding abilities for some alien reason or something?

The goal of it is to fix a common scenario in which someone just needs to find the calculated value that a character scales to, but they have difficulties finding it ranging from something like having to click a link to a calc up to more annoying circumstances in which you have to click through several profiles and scroll through AP and durability justifications to find it
by putting the exact value at the beginning or end of the AP justification, it minimizes the amount of action needed to find the information, thus maximizing convenience, while only using up a negligible amount of space to do so.

 

[Flashlight237]

The goal of it is to fix a common scenario in which someone just needs to find the calculated value that a character scales to, but they have difficulties finding it ranging from something like having to click a link to a calc up to more annoying circumstances in which you have to click through several profiles and scroll through AP and durability justifications to find it
by putting the exact value at the beginning or end of the AP justification, it minimizes the amount of action needed to find the information, thus maximizing convenience, while only using up a negligible amount of space to do so.

Why not just put the dang calcs in the Verse page? We do that a lot of the time and nobody went bananas about it.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Why not just put the dang calcs in the Verse page? We do that a lot of the time and nobody went bananas about it.

Because that requires additional clicking and scrolling
While putting it on the verse page is cool and there’s no reason to stop, I think it is ideal to be able to get all relevant information about a character by looking at said character’s profile. This is just one way of making profiles more informative and able to stand up on their own two feet, in a way, but it’s primarily a convenience.

 

[Propellus]

Why not just put the dang calcs in the Verse page? We do that a lot of the time and nobody went bananas about it.

People still do that, but the point of this is be more open-minded and have more conveniency in creative use. This is also useful for verses that rely on a bunch of multipliers for their scalings

 

[Agnaa]

I don't like that. I prefer including multipliers and the like in the calculations that are linked from the profiles.

This calc works as an example of that.

 

[Kachon123]

This calc works as an example of that.

I heavily disagree with this.

The jobs of calcs is not to write down scaling of characters and multipliers and whatnot. It's to simply find how strong or fast something is. Having a separate blog is cool, but in my opinion, your personal preferences on what you like to include in your calc blogs should be kept to yourself and shouldn't be used to propose ideas in site-wide revisions like this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't like that. I prefer including multipliers and the like in the calculations that are linked from the profiles.

If you need to explain 40 characters on each profile, just make a blog. It's foolishness to bother including all of that required reading on the profile itself, it makes no sense.

I agree with these takes

 

[Kachon123]

I don't like that. I prefer including multipliers and the like in the calculations that are linked from the profiles.

For multipliers, it can be included in a different blog or in the notes, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be included inside of calc blogs, as that's not really what they're meant for.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

This calc works as an example of that.

If I may ask, could you put into words why exactly this has any benefit at all? After all, the only tangible difference between putting it on the profile and putting it in the calculation blog, is that doing the latter requires more clicking and reading, while the former makes it possible to instantly get important information for the character...by looking at the character's profile, where information about them is supposed to be indexed. I'm not if there exist any practical benefits whatsoever to this, and I can say that numerous common vsbw users (spectators discussing offsite) are not fond of this version, so perhaps personal preference is a bit shaky here as well? I just don't really follow.

 

[Agnaa]

Because the exact information isn't actually necessary for the vast majority of people; that's why our site is set up with tiers and the like. Since it's usually just the general range that matters, not the specific values.

Cluttering the page with information that most people don't need, and which often looks ugly with the completely unnecessary 12 decimal places a lot of users maintain, isn't great.

Specific values only really matter when we get down to making matches, and even then, most characters within the same tier can match with each other just fine.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Because the exact information isn't actually necessary for the vast majority of people; that's why our site is set up with tiers and the like. Since it's usually just the general range that matters, not the specific values.

sort of, although this does completely fall apart with big tiers like high 6-A, and even more so with supermassive tiers like 4-A
but hell, even street level alone has multiple one-shot gaps within it, and wall level has a shit ton

Cluttering the page with information that most people don't need, and which often looks ugly with the completely unnecessary 12 decimal places a lot of users maintain, isn't great.

I haven't actually seen any cases where people include 12 decimal places
here are some more examples of this formatting being put into practice
Naruto
just looking at this otherwise large profile for under 10 seconds, I was able to easily find the tier and calculation value of his base, sage, and rasenshuriken. Extraordinarily easy.
Jumbo Josh
as you can see, this is a good example of the formatting having absolutely nothing to do with clutter, as even with simple and short justifications, the calc value doesn't even take up 8% of the space used in the Attack Potency section
Mash
once again, in an otherwise very large AP section, it literally took me less than 3 seconds to find his base form's initial value.
so, when put into practice, I absolutely do not see any reason to deliberately go with the option that takes longer, just for the sake of saving 2 words worth of "clutter" space.

Specific values only really matter when we get down to making matches, and even then, most characters within the same tier can match with each other just fine.

The bolded section is still irrelevant, since knowing who even has a 2x AP advantage is typically a big deal in versus threads. There is rarely a situation in which you shouldn't be seeking the exact AP values of characters when making a vs thread.


With my personal preference out the way, I've responded in this way for the purpose of being as objective as possible, since reiterating my opinion on what looks cool won't be of much help of course.

 

[Agnaa]

I haven't actually seen any cases where people include 12 decimal places

Mash
once again, in an otherwise very large AP section, it literally took me less than 3 seconds to find his base form's initial value.
so, when put into practice, I absolutely do not see any reason to deliberately go with the option that takes longer, just for the sake of saving 2 words worth of "clutter" space.

My bad, it uses 8 instead of 12. Still completely unnecessary, our calcs are rarely accurate beyond two significant figures, and such small differences don't matter at all for fights.

For the rest of it, I'm not trying to disprove your subjective aesthetic preferences, or debate you on which parts of the community one should save work for by imposing work on other parts of the community. I just told you my view on those completely arbitrary ideas. All you gotta do is note down that vote.

 

[Damage3245]

But at the same time, just moving the values to the reference section just makes it tedious that you would be forced to scroll literally all the way down just to find what exactly they're scaling to. Especially with pages that has characters with a bunch of keys at onces

What? Who said you have to scroll all the way down?

That's not how references work.

 

[Propellus]

What? Who said you have to scroll all the way down?

That's not how references work.

Those boxes are pretty tiny as they redirect you what's being referenced

 

[Damage3245]

No, if you hover over it instead of clicking it then it will tell you the value without having to move you to the bottom of the page.

 

[Agnaa]

DaReaperMan, this is a staff only thread. Please provide information on which discussion mod/admin individually approved each of your three posts, or on which bureaucrat gave you general permission to post.

EDIT: As per this response, I've deleted your posts. Get permission next time.

TBH I wasn't even thinking when I tapped the thread on whether it was staff-only or not-

 

[Agnaa]

Looking back through the thread, from when it was apparently made staff only, I see that @LIFE_OF_KING, @ElajRuengies, and @Kachon123 have made posts.

Can any of you provide information on which staff members allowed your posts here? Preferably on my wall or in DMs.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

There's several who were most likely familiar with the thread a while back, before it became a staff only thread, so it's more likely that they just didn't notice.

 

[Antvasima]

Kira's profile has a good compromise for this.

It seems like Ziller's suggested policy change here has been rejected by our staff, but what do you all think about the above solution instead? It seems sensible to me at least.

 

[Therefir]

It seems like Ziller's suggested policy change here has been rejected by our staff, but what do you all think about the above solution instead? It seems sensible to me at least.

It looks great, I don't mind using this format at all.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

It seems like Ziller's suggested policy change here has been rejected by our staff, but what do you all think about the above solution instead? It seems sensible to me at least.

It should be removed from the Pages that use it, right?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

It seems like Ziller's suggested policy change here has been rejected by our staff, but what do you all think about the above solution instead? It seems sensible to me at least.

What exactly is rejected? Most staff members said that they did not mind it being optional, so there is not currently any agreement to remove the formatting from pages that currently utilize it.

 

[Antvasima]

It should be removed from the Pages that use it, right?

Yes. That is correct.

 

[Antvasima]

What exactly is rejected? Most staff members said that they did not mind it being optional, so there is not currently any agreement to remove the formatting from pages that currently utilize it.

Well, currently the staff members who responded here all seemed to say that they disagree with you, but if somebody can write down a reliable tally that would be appreciated.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I will attempt to get a tally (unless someone else is willing to sooner) of those who believe it should be optional

although I do think this is moving a bit hasty compared to other site revisions, especially given that it's only recently become an active thread once more, so after the vote there may still need to be more discussion...

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I’m still in agreement with Ziller. Especially on the point about the formatting stuff, our own standard format has optional parts to it, namely Standard Tactics, Feats (the section, obviously, not feats in general) and Notable Attacks/Techniques. There’s nothing wrong with adding another optional thing that people can add if they want to, and don’t have to add if they don’t want to.
Also, listing the values on the profiles would make it significantly easier for new users. They could just find the profile they’re looking for, see exactly what they scale to, and then be on their way. That’s a lot easier than forcing them to go out of their way to the verse page or to a even farther removed blog to find out where one character scales.

In my opinion, I actually don't find putting the value of what characters scale to at the end of their AP description a problem, that's my opinion. Some methods are just easy for others, heck I've seen people still ask what value the characters scale to despite the value and link to the feat was clear in the AP section so I don't think it being their or as a note at the bottom of the page has any big difference. As for scaling chains, I used the method of adding a section on the verse page regarding who scales to what. A blog like Mr. Bambu suggested works just as well in my opinion.

I also agree with Ziller

I'm fine with this, but don't make it something we need to implement to all the old ones, maybe "it's encouraged to do this for all the new profiles made"

Honestly, people should do as they want to. If I don't like how a profile looks like I won't bitch about it, as long as it isn't part of the ones I take care of. Just let people be creative doing new and nice stuff.

I think listing the values in the page is good, for calcs that scale to a large portion of but not all characters it would be hard to specify who scales to an AP value in the verse page.

there appear to be 6 votes that either agree with the proposed formatting, or agree that it should be optional for editors to use or not use it if they choose.

Definitely not mandatory, I think there are specific cases where it would be helpful to specify the numerical value though, for instance when there's a lot of calcs for a verse (specifically in the same tier) or a lot of scaling chains/multipliers within the same tier. But even then a well written profile should be able to communicate that information in other neater ways.

this appears to be agreeing that it should be optional, or is just neutral, but more looks like the former.

The OP sounds really annoying in that I agree it would ***** up my beautiful pages. I don't think we necessarily need a policy here, though, as I don't see the harm in including the exact values in the AP section if you really want to- I just, don't really want to.

this seems to be neutral, leaning towards disagreement, although it does clarify "I don't think we necessarily need a policy here, though" which could also count as optional. Hopefully it can be clarified by Bambu himself, but for the moment I won't put it in the tally.
(clarifed as disagreement)

Why not just put the dang calcs in the Verse page? We do that a lot of the time and nobody went bananas about it.

implied disagreement

I disagree

It looks great, I don't mind using this format at all.

I agree with these takes

I'm afraid I share my sentiments with Therefir.

People should make an effort to see how we obtained that value and why we obtained it that way.

Yes. That is correct.

disagreements/agree with removal of all profiles using the formatting

so overall

agree/optional: 7
disagree: 8

hopefully this suffices, and perhaps a couple people mentioned could clarify where they stand

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I feel like this would be better along with placing any scaling chains in the explanations section as well just so it's all in one place.

oh, and here's one more disagreement it seems, my apologies
so it's essentially an exact even split at this point

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Disagree, for me, btw.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

noted

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Kira's profile has a good compromise for this.

I think this format is a good solution.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, the compromise solution above seems like our best option here, since our staff is too split for this suggestion to be accepted.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If staff are split, then wouldn't that mean that the rule banning the formatting cannot be applied?