Issues with Energy Equalization (Staff Only)

[HST_Master]

2 wrongs don't make a right. If anything, thats just further bringing another ability in question that also needs to be discussed on whether or not Goku has the actual resistance or Hits ability has an actual caveat.

Except that's the problem. You're assuming it's a Caveat instead of a resistance when there's been no statements to say otherwise.

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

Except that's the problem. You're assuming it's a Caveat instead of a resistance when there's been no statements to say otherwise.

...But Goku straight up says he overpowered it.

 

[HST_Master]

And then we have it directly being capable of being used on Jiren. And Hit literally uses Time Skip to avoid getting socked in Goku's Kamehameha, before adapting.

 

[Naeblis495]

@Naeblis495, I get you mean. It just certain form of Hax don't work on characters with Higher AP. For example, in Supernatural, it was stated by some characters that Power Nullification don't work on those stronger than them. It would be the weakness of the Power Nullification, in this case.

but how do we know that unless directly stated ?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Because like everything else we assume a negative until we can show a positive.

 

[Elizhaa]

@Naeblis495, I get you mean. It just certain form of Hax don't work on characters with Higher AP. For example, in Supernatural, it was stated by some characters that Power Nullification don't work on those stronger than them. It would be the weakness of the Power Nullification, in this case.

but how do we know that unless directly stated ?

In th case, I believe it was actually stated for Supernatural.

 

[Naeblis495]

so without statement we assume resistance or caveat ?

 

[HST_Master]

Because like everything else we assume a negative until we can show a positive.

When did we ever do this for resistances? Because a large majority of resistances have no statement towards them.

 

[Naeblis495]

Because like everything else we assume a negative until we can show a positive.

When did we ever do this for resistances? Because a large majority of resistances have no statement towards them.

as it should imo . Unless stated otherwise ,resistance is the default option when countering/nullifying hax .

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Because like everything else we assume a negative until we can show a positive.

This. Or the ability is blatantly portrayed as being useless against comparable or stronger opponents.

 

[Elizhaa]

Honestly, the idea of a least one statement proving a caveats for a power system looks to work for me. Literally, at least for Hunter x Hunter, Nen is stated to be required for Hostile Nen resistance.

 

[Naeblis495]

Because like everything else we assume a negative until we can show a positive.

This. Or the ability is blatantly portrayed as being useless against comparable or stronger opponents.

the question is : do they resist because the ammount of the energy or the nature of the energy ?

if it is because the energy give more resistances to a certain hax the more you have of it , having a comparable ammount of another type of energy that doesn't grant resistance won't help at all .

 

[Elizhaa]

^^

This comment above, I think make me see where the confusions for the new proposed rule could be coming from. I did ask DontTalkDT for help in the wording of the text since he created the Standard Battle Assumptions page. Nevertheless, I think I could in theory make for a better wording soon and preferably tomorrow, now.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

When did we ever do this for resistances? Because a large majority of resistances have no statement towards them.

We don't. Which is bad. Because we're making a special case with the set of powers. We don't assume Saitama can destroy a universe, can we? Well if an ability doesn't work on someone, we look further into the context to see if it's a resistance or a caveat. And most times we attribute a resistance without looking into it because we want to buff someone as much as possible.

 

[Naeblis495]

i'm glad i was able to pass along my confusion with the new text properly .

as equalizing still won't give abilities or resistances , just having more Ap/energy shouldn't be enough to counter hax if you don't already resist it enough on your own .

just because a verse hax get resisted by stronger people isn't enough justification to call the hax weak to sheer AP . A lot of verse's energy system give resistances to the verse's hax against people having less of that energy , that doesn't mean that just being stronger is enough .

 

[HST_Master]

When did we ever do this for resistances? Because a large majority of resistances have no statement towards them.

We don't. Which is bad. Because we're making a special case with the set of powers. We don't assume Saitama can destroy a universe, can we? Well if an ability doesn't work on someone, we look further into the context to see if it's a resistance or a caveat. And most times we attribute a resistance without looking into it because we want to buff someone as much as possible.

Except no one has looked deeper into these resistance to label them as Caveats. It's simply being labeled without looking at all the context disregarding whatever brings it being a Caveat into question. Also false equivalency with Saitama, as unlike a resistance he's never show this.

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm almost certain "Saitama not being able to destroy the universe" is a massive false equivalancy in this topic about ability interaction between different universes

 

[Antoniofer]

Although "equalizing" energies shouldn't grant additional resistances/immunities, if the energy itself have functional principle behind it like "allows you to resist special effects caused by the infusing of qi/chakra/life-force cuz x" the principle still stand, so even if it do not show to resist paralysis inducement, if someone try to do that by infusing qi/chakra/life-force the character in theory can resist.

Naturally, that do not means it can resist paralysis inducement in general, just those caused by infusing qi/chakra/life-force, so nothing suggest it would resist one caused by magic.

 

[Heavens_Feel]

Yall heading down a dangerous path here. AP should never be able to nullify hax on it's own. (unless you're tier 2/Infinitely Above x Char)

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

Yall heading down a dangerous path here. AP should never be able to nullify hax on it's own. (unless you're tier 2/Infinitely Above x Char)

Who said that?

AP is only ever a factor, it the hax specifies it is one (barring dimensional tiers). Even then, that wouldn't be a completely sure thing. It would heavily depend the all the mechanics of the characters in play.

What some of us are saying is that you don't specifically need a resistance to be able to overcome or power through a hax.

Simply, it's case by case.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im not sure why a few individuals here are making such a big deal about this. The "power>hax" topic has been brought up many times before in the past, even in the earliest days of vs debating. This isnt something new.

This is just something that is being applied to our standards finally for some reason.

 

[HST_Master]

Im not sure why a few individuals here are making such a big deal about this. The "power>hax" topic has been brought up many times before in the past, even in the earliest days of vs debating. This isnt something new.

This is just something that is being applied to our standards finally for some reason.

So because it's not new means it's not something to discuss? Several changes we've had to both the wiki in general and specific verses have been made despite that. So why should this be different?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Because there really isnt anything to discuss about this. If a hax is AP limited, then the power of the opponent will stop it from working on them. There are no resistances being given, its simply the quality of the hax being sub-par and ineffective to work on the opponent in the first place. Simple as that honestly.

There is nothing new in this discussion than the dozens upon dozens of ones we have had on a worse day in the past.

 

[HST_Master]

Because there really isnt anything to discuss about this. If a hax is AP limited, then the power of the opponent will stop it from working on them. There are no resistances being given, its simply the quality of the hax being sub-par and ineffective to work on the opponent in the first place. Simple as that honestly.

There is nothing new in this discussion than the dozens upon dozens of ones we have had on a worse day in the past.

And applying to this to something despite it never being remotely stated or implied, and even having context and info contradicting it being AP makes this a problem. And again just like several other discussions that have had multiple endings, why should this be any different? Applying a Cavaet to something soley cuz "we've always done this" isn't an argument, not to mention as I've already stated a majority of Resistances here have no statements of being so and are simply shown. It's contradicting.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It's implied already by being blatantly shown to only work on people who are fodder to you and not comparable otherwise. Any hax that isnt AP limited wouldn't be put under these circumstances.

It doesn't matter if they are "only shown", because we go deeper into the context of the narrative to determine if it was a resistance or the ability having a caveat. A case by case different thing. And if we don't do this already, we need to start applying it like Cal mentioned earlier.

 

[HST_Master]

It's implied already by being blatantly shown to only work on people who are fodder to you and not comparable otherwise. Any hax that isnt AP limited wouldn't be put under these circumstances.

It doesn't matter if they are "only shown", because we go deeper into the context of the narrative to determine if it was a resistance or the ability having a caveat. A case by case different thing. And if we don't do this already, we need to start applying it like Cal mentioned earlier.

Due to the person having resistance. The assumption it doesn't without any solid proof or context is just that, an assumption otherwise all characters who resisted a persons ability and just happened to be stronger would have no resistances without a specfic ability to prove so.

And as I've said already, the problem is no one is going deeper into context. Anything that contradicts the Caveat claim is diregarded. No one said case by case shouldn't be a thing, but what your proposing is no one should have a resistance to an ability without being blatantly stated to be resisted. And even then those statements can interpretd differently leading right back to the start.

 

[AKM sama]

This won't even apply to a majority of hax abilities unless they have have a well-established rule in verse of only working on fodder characters and not working on stronger characters.

Although this can be explained by the old "more energy X = more resistance" logic and even if characters get resistances that way in-verse, it's basically still the limitation of the ability as it directly depends on the amount of energy X of the opponent, and shouldn't work in case another energy Y that is similar to it is equalized.

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody who properly understands this topic and has a decent way with language willing to help Elizhaa to rework the regulation text so it flows better and is easier to understand? I can probably help to improve it further afterwards.

 

[HST_Master]

This won't even apply to a majority of hax abilities unless they have have a well-established rule in verse of only working on fodder characters and not working on stronger characters.

Although this can be explained by the old "more energy X = more resistance" logic and even if characters get resistances that way in-verse, it's basically still the limitation of the ability as it directly depends on the amount of energy X of the opponent, and shouldn't work in case another energy Y that is similar to it is equalized.

And it can't both be a resistance and a Caveat, it's again a contradiction.

 

[AstralKing7]

In verse it would be considered a resistance feat.

 

[Elizhaa]

Proposal - what AKM sama wrote simplified:

• It is also important to note that characters won't lose/gain any abilities or resistances which they do/don't inherently posses. However, if an ability have a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, stated by at least a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after equalization.

What do you guys think about the rewrite?

Improvement is welcome, of course.

 

[Antvasima]

I think it seems fine now. I just made a few minor changes:

"It is also important to note that characters won't lose or gain any abilities or resistances which they do or do not inherently possess. However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, stated by at least a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalisation."

 

[Elizhaa]

I think your text is fine, Antvasima.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[HST_Master]

In verse it would be considered a resistance feat.

And it would be a contradiction. It simply calling it a Caveat to get around the opposing character having no resistance.

 

[Elizhaa]

With Antvasima's apporval, I made the text change.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the help.

Is there anything left to do here then?

 

[Elizhaa]

You are welcome, Antvasima.

I think there is nothing left to discuss since the rule is a compromise from roughly all the the points brought here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Elizhaa]

I think we should closed the thread, @Antvasima.