It's that time we discussed layering and qualitative superiority

[ItsMeat]

Persmission to post this from @Damage3245

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the concept, but here we go:

Spoiler: Introduction

Introduction:​

Layering is the ability to bypass resistance to a certain ability by using a stronger version of that ability. Resistance negation is another ability and is fundamentally different, even if their effect might seem similar.

It is also crucial to say that abilities which can be measured trough magnitude, like Heat Manipulation, or which rely on the amount of power the user has, like most abilities in many popular Shonen anime series, such as Dragon Ball, do not qualify for layers.

What about multipliers?​

Each layer is qualitatively superior to the lower levels of the ability and, as such, no amount of multipliers, be it infinite or even greater, qualifies for an additional layer.

Not even when it is shown to bypass resistance?​

Not even then. In that case, this only means the resistance bypassed was merely limited resistance.

Then, how can we know when a resistance is beyond all quantitative levels of the ability?​

Simply not having any antifeats like this one is considered to be enough. However, careful consideration is necessary when evaluating such resistances.

What about an ability receiving an upgrade?​

Unless it bypasses a resistance that worked against the previous form of the ability, it still doesn't qualify for any layers. We call that ability "enhanced".

What about an ability bypassing invulnerability?​

We call that invulnerability negation.

What about an ability that is shown to overpower a similar ability?​

Such feat doesn't qualify for layering. It only shows quantitative superiority.

Now that we are done with explaining, let's get to the point of this CRT. This is the current definition of layering:

Spoiler: Currently

Layering is the ability to break through resistances to one's ability/hax. Successfully using an ability against a resistant character means that the ability is "layered." Further, resisting a layered ability is an indication of layered resistance, so on and so forth. An ability becoming stronger does not automatically mean it is layered unless it is shown to overcome a resistance. Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, which overcomes resistance via a special additional ability rather than the hax itself being more powerful.

Moreover, layering should not be thought of as applying to abilities which intuitively can be overcome with magnitude, such as heat resistance or analytical prediction. For instance, it is not layered fire manipulation to burn someone with a heat source hotter than they can withstand.

What are the problems with it? First, it is very vague at some points, such as the ability becoming stronger. Let's say I double the power of my soul manipulation and now it works on you even if you resisted to its previous version. Obviously this doesn't add any layer at all, but the wording allows such interpretation.

Second, it is quiet about: qualitative superiority, an ability overcoming itself, multipliers and so on.

So the proposal of the CRT is to change that page into something like this:

Spoiler: Proposal

Layering is the ability to break trough one's resistance to a certain ability/hax by using a qualitatively superior version of the same ability/hax. Further, resisting to a layered ability is an indication of layered resistance and so on so forth. Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, which overcomes resistance via a special additional ability rather than the hax itself being more powerful.

Due to the qualitative nature of the gap between a layered ability and a version of it inferior by one layer, no amount of multipliers qualifies for layering. Further, overcoming resistance to a previous form of an ability after multiplying its potency is an indication of the resistance in discussion only being limited. In this case, the superior version of the ability is considered to be enhanced.

Do notice that for an ability to have potential for layering, it's potency must not be measureable trough magnitude. As such, abilities like Heat Manipulation should not qualify for layering. Fiction commonly depicts abilities whose potency relies on the amount of power the user has. Such abilities also usually do not qualify for layering.

Additionally, an ability overwhelming a version of itself used by someone else, such as changing the future which has been set by someone trough Fate Manipulation, does not qualify for layers.

Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[Vietthai96]

Alright, first, i need to ask, do you have permission from staff to make a staff discussion?, it is required that you need staff permission from evaluating staff to make the thread, if you do not have, i will lock this thread until you have the permission

 

[ItsMeat]

Alright, first, i need to ask, do you have permission from staff to make a staff discussion?, it is required that you need staff permission from evaluating staff to make the thread, if you do not have, i will lock this thread until you have the permission

Yes, I do, forgot to mention, damage gave me permission

 

[Vietthai96]

Alright, but you need to show the post so other staff could see it

 

[ItsMeat]

Uhhhh, isn't it public? Or, if you mean damage giving me permission, here.

 

[Vietthai96]

oke, permission from Damage

@Theglassman12 @DontTalkDT @Planck69 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Agnaa

Sorry for the ping, but i think you guys will be interested in this topic

Oke, now i'm confuse on what you are trying to propose?, layer is just very simple, B resisted X hax from A, C with the same X hax can affect B, so X hax from C will have layer

Also why the difference between layers is qualitative difference?, do you have any basis for this logic or just you feel it should be that way?

 

[ItsMeat]

Also why the difference between layers is qualitative difference?, do you have any basis for this logic or just you feel it should be that way?

I just feel like it

Uhhhh, simply that multipliers shouldn't qualify for layering at all, as said in the op. If numbers are meaningless, than the gap isn't quantitative but qualitative.

Thanks for tagging the avengers.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Each layer is qualitatively superior to the lower levels of the ability and, as such, no amount of multipliers, be it infinite or even greater, qualifies for an additional layer.

No, they aren't. That would imply that every layered ability is 1-A in some way, which isn’t the case. For example, if you have one layer of resistance to EE at 7-B, and a God who’s Low 2-C uses EE on the universe, then your resistance would just be overpowered by the higher AP.

Generally, as far as I remember, we treat resistances according to tier. The resistance needs to have evidence of working against an ability of a certain potency (AP). You can also have layers of resistance within that level of potency. The only exception is when potency is irrelevant, such as with EE or reality warping, since those abilities all do the same thing regardless, just at different sizes.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Responding with permission from @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless.


"Layering is the ability to break trough one's resistance to a certain ability/hax by using a qualitatively superior version of the same ability/hax. Further, resisting to a layered ability is an indication of layered resistance and so on so forth. Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, which overcomes resistance via a special additional ability rather than the hax itself being more powerful."

Layering is not an outright ability. It is used to take note that a character A's hax worked on Character B, when Character B has history of resisting said hax. Because hax feats can vary in application, a character can only resist a certain application but be vulnerable to another way the ability is being used.

"Due to the qualitative nature of the gap between a layered ability and a version of it inferior by one layer, no amount of multipliers qualifies for layering. Further, overcoming resistance to a previous form of an ability after multiplying its potency is an indication of the resistance in discussion only being limited. In this case, the superior version of the ability is considered to be enhanced."

There is no qualitative gap when it comes to layers. The layers of each individual has to be judged by a case by case basis. Having 3 layers of mind manipulation based on a showing where a character struggles to mind manipulate three people, is not comparative to a character who can effortlessly mind manipulate an infinite amount of people.

 

[Vietthai96]

It is also crucial to say that abilities which can be measured trough magnitude, like Heat Manipulation, or which rely on the amount of power the user has, like most abilities in many popular Shonen anime series, such as Dragon Ball, do not qualify for layers.

Also, why is this? As I have said about layers, if the verse itself shows exactly that hax can bypass resistance, then they should gain layers, even if it is via increases in power. Why do Shonen anime series not qualify?. Heat Manipulation is a completely different thing, because physically speaking, you can't resist a heat attack of 10000 Celsius if your heat resistance is just 500 Celsius. But supernatural hax don't abide this physical logic

 

[ItsMeat]

No, they aren't. That would imply that every layered ability is 1-A in some way, which isn’t the case.

Idk what to say about this.

For example, if you have one layer of resistance to EE at 7-B, and a God who’s Low 2-C uses EE on the universe, then your resistance would just be overpowered by the higher AP.

I think ee is a bad example due to the various versions of ee... Also, wouldn't this only matter when ap is relevant? Like the whole point of hax is to ignore stats as long as it's not R>F transcendence.

Generally, as far as I remember, we treat resistances according to tier. The resistance needs to have evidence of working against an ability of a certain potency (AP). You can also have layers of resistance within that level of potency. The only exception is when potency is irrelevant, such as with EE or reality warping, since those abilities all do the same thing regardless, just at different sizes.

This idea is part of what the CRT challanges... If its power is multiplied enough, a 7-B can become 2-C, but multipliers shouldn't make for any layer.

 

[ItsMeat]

Also, why is this? As I have said about layers, if the verse itself shows exactly that hax can bypass resistance, then they should gain layers, even if it is via increases in power. Why do Shonen anime series not qualify?. Heat Manipulation is a completely different thing, because physically speaking, you can't resist a heat attack of 10000 Celsius if your heat resistance is just 500 Celsius. But supernatural hax don't abide this physical logic

It is based on the same qualitaive gap idea

 

[Vietthai96]

I think ee is a bad example due to the various versions of ee... Also, wouldn't this only matter when ap is relevant? Like the whole point of hax is to ignore stats as long as it's not R>F transcendence.

It is based on the same qualitaive gap idea

But qualitative difference mean 1-A difference, the same as R > F

but multipliers shouldn't make for any layer.

but why?, you have yet to show a logical ground to support this idea of difference between layers is qualitative, and quantitative increases in power shouldn't qualify

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

This idea is part of what the CRT challanges... If its power is multiplied enough, a 7-B can become 2-C, but multipliers shouldn't make for any layer.

Multipliers don't make a layer, but they can overpower layers. Layers only have value when the abilities in question are in the same Tier of power; otherwise, it's NLF.

 

[ItsMeat]

Layering is not an outright ability. It is used to take note that a character A's hax worked on Character B, when Character B has history of resisting said hax.

Yeah, another reason why the current page should be changed.

Because hax feats can vary in application, a character can only resist a certain application but be vulnerable to another way the ability is being used.

Yeah. One can have layers of resistance to law manipulation as in changing a law, but no resistance to law manipulation as in the destruction of said law.

There is no qualitative gap when it comes to layers. The layers of each individual has to be judged by a case by case basis. Having 3 layers of mind manipulation based on a showing where a character struggles to mind manipulate three people, is not comparative to a character who can effortlessly mind manipulate an infinite amount of people.

True. Normally the latter would be superior, but against someone with 2 layers of mind manipbresistance, I think the former wuld be better

 

[ItsMeat]

Multipliers don't make a layer, but they can overpower layers. Layers only have value when the abilities in question are in the same Tier of power; otherwise, it's NLF.

So layers are quantitatively superior to less layered forms of the ability?(on the same scale)

 

[ItsMeat]

But qualitative difference mean 1-A difference, the same as R > F

This is not about the tiering system at all...

but why?, you have yet to show a logical ground to support this idea of difference between layers is qualitative, and quantitative increases in power shouldn't qualify

I am commiting a massive argument from belief

Simply doing the same thing that got "hax needs scale" thing accepted. I show the idea of multipliers making for layers is pretty ridculous, based on common sense.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So layers are quantitatively superior to less layered forms of the ability?(on the same scale)

Hax Layers and superiority are separate things. If two abilities are in the same Tier, then layers are what decide what overpowers what, or what resists what.

 

[ItsMeat]

Hax Layers and superiority are separate things. If two abilities are in the same Tier, then layers are what decide what overpowers what, or what resists what.

Forget "abilities". Let's talk about hax. Idk if a moon lvl character with baseline soul manip resistance could resist something like 5 layers of soul manipulation from a building lvl character. The very idea of hax is to ignore stats. Would the moon lvl guy be unaffected by the building lvl character's ability?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Forget "abilities". Let's talk about hax.

All hax are abilities, but not all abilities are hax.

Idk if a moon lvl character with baseline soul manip resistance could resist something like 5 layers of soul manipulation from a building lvl character. The very idea of hax is to ignore stats. Would the moon lvl guy be unaffected by the building lvl character's ability?

That's not how Soul Manipulation works.

Being Moon Level has nothing to do with how strong your Soul Manipulation is, since you can't Soul Manip a Moon. If, for some reason, your verse makes it so that everything can have souls, including planets, then that would just be the range for your Soul Manipulation. The same goes for if you can Soul Manip 600 Souls or something.

 

[Vietthai96]

non-physical hax like soul hax isn't tied to dimensionality anymore so idk why you guys arguing about tier, unless it is 1-A and above

This is not about the tiering system at all...

your argument about difference between layers should be qualitative, and qualitative difference is 1-A and above, that mean if you argue this way, each layer of hax is 1-A level above the lower layer

 

[ItsMeat]

All hax are abilities, but not all abilities are hax.

Yeah, I should've been more clear in the op.

That's not how Soul Manipulation works.

It's a hax and one that can have layers, to my knowledge.

Being Moon Level has nothing to do with how strong your Soul Manipulation is, since you can't Soul Manip a Moon. If, for some reason, your verse makes it so that everything can have souls, including planets, then that would just be the range for your Soul Manipulation. The same goes for if you can Soul Manip 600 Souls or something.

Yeah, that's why idt all abilities need scale. Obviously with a fireball that barely worked on a building lvl guy, you're not even scratching the moon lvl one, but with abilities that ignore stats, things should be different as long as it's the same ontological level.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Yeah, that's why idt all abilities need scale. Obviously with a fireball that barely worked on a building lvl guy, you're not even scratching the moon lvl one, but with abilities that ignore stats, things should be different as long as it's the same ontological level.

There already is, though. I don't get what's being discussed right now.

 

[ItsMeat]

There already is, though. I don't get what's being discussed right now.

Technically the topic is proposals to change the layering section on the hax page

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Technically the topic is proposals to change the layering section on the hax page

But nothing needs to be changed, and your proposals were incorrect.

 

[ItsMeat]

I think the ability overriding itself part and the multupliers thing were correct

 

[Godernet]

I guess I do see some merit in being a bit more direct about what Hax-based abilities can and should have layers, as well as going into a bit more detail about what ItsMeat is currently describing as "Qualitative Superiority."

Because it is true that Layered Hax abilities typically ignore a person's resistance to said ability in a sort of hierarchical system of progression that runs completely separately from Hax Potency, which only really exists in higher dimensionally tiered Hax and above.

It's a different sort of qualitative measure from the tiering system in that power doesn't typically affect how it functions, more so, just ignoring the resistance rather than fighting against it.

Whereas 1-A Hax is qualitatively superior because it's a transcendent tier above everything else on the tiering system.

In that regard, I do feel like calling layered hax "hax that denotes superiority in the same tier of power" is a bit misleading.

For one, higher potency hax only exists in a very small part of the tiering system overall that transcends everything else in the system.

And Tier 8 with layered Spatial Manip should still be very capable of affecting a Tier 4 with baseline resistance as long as the hax doesn't function off of power level and has feats of being hierarchically superior to lesser forms of Spatial Manip (granted they don't get oneshotted first)

But 1-A Hax qualitatively does surpass all other qualitative measures for Hax in lesser tiers.

So I guess in that regard, Hax can be measured qualitatively in three separate ways.

Potency: complete qualitative superiority via transcendence over lesser things.

Layers: a higher quality Hax measured via hierarchical superiority demonstrated over inferior Hax that can't be measured via magnitude or multipliers (Inferior qualitative measure to Higher Potency Hax)

Misc: (I'll call it Hax refinement for now): Some hax, like Matter Manipulation, have levels to their refinement, such as affecting Matter at a Molecular level vs a Macro-Quantum level, or how Regen and Regen Negation have levels from Low to High Godly.

I don't think it would hurt to explain it in more detail in the layered hax section if there is some confusion as to the different ways hax can be of a higher literal quality than other hax.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Qualitative superior is not the term we want to casually involve here due to its tiering use. Also because the difference between layers can absolutely be quantitative. We just generally don't have the quantifier.
That aside, this sounds a lot like it's born from the idea that potency = layers or that layers beat all other forms of potency. As the Hax page notes, layers are just one form of potency and ultimately one pretty much has to compare feats to feats.
Heck, there is no reason to believe that all "layers" signify the same gap either, which is why I always say that feats should be compared not the damn numbers.
So, ultimately, whether you consider quantitative increases as layers or as potency that can be equivalent to layers is pretty much just a semantics game.

We should honestly ban layer numbers from profiles to force better potency debates

 

[FinePoint]

No, they aren't. That would imply that every layered ability is 1-A in some way, which isn’t the case. For example, if you have one layer of resistance to EE at 7-B, and a God who’s Low 2-C uses EE on the universe, then your resistance would just be overpowered by the higher AP.

Heck, there is no reason to believe that all "layers" signify the same gap either, which is why I always say that feats should be compared not the damn numbers.
So, ultimately, whether you consider quantitative increases as layers or as potency that can be equivalent to layers is pretty much just a semantics game.

I essentially agree with the two points above,

Whether an ability bypasses a resistance should generally be discussed in the versus thread using relative feats and logic, not applied based on a universal rule.

 

[Godernet]

Yeah that definitely makes sense.

And honestly removing numbering for hax layers to promote actual nuanced discussion over hax superiority should definitely be discussed at some point.

 

[Agnaa]

I generally agree with DT here, but I think that instead of removing layer numbers from pages, we should simply add a line of text somewhere saying something like:

"Layers" of potency/resistance for abilities are not fixed quantities; they can vary in relevance between series, and even within a series. There are many different extents to which an ability can be resisted, and many different baseline potencies of abilities. If discussed in matches, they should be compared on a case-by-case basis, not by simply looking at which ability has more layers to it.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa's suggestion here seems to make sense to me.

 

[FinePoint]

I generally agree with DT here, but I think that instead of removing layer numbers from pages, we should simply add a line of text somewhere saying something like:

Wording seems good to me. It addresses the issue of people being too absolute about layers while still allowing them for clarity in-verse.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I generally agree with DT here, but I think that instead of removing layer numbers from pages, we should simply add a line of text somewhere saying something like:

I also agree with this.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Vietthai96 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Godernet

What do you think about Agnaa's suggestion above?

 

[Vietthai96]

@DontTalkDT @Vietthai96 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Godernet

What do you think about Agnaa's suggestion above?

It looks fine to me, but I have a feeling it is going to generate more intense debate in VS matches than before. Though that is future problem, for now what DT have suggested is good

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I generally agree with DT here, but I think that instead of removing layer numbers from pages, we should simply add a line of text somewhere saying something like:

The primary page of relevance regarding these things is the hax page.

I wanted to revise the existing explanation for a while, because "layer number needs to be on profile or your potency isn't accepted" has been a rather persistent rumor.

In principle, I do not mind the suggested note. However, the entire explanation on layers and potency has been grown by adding more and more notes. I think a bit of rewrite could be good. And an example on the topic might be useful as well.

How about this for a new potency section on the hax page?

Potency​

When evaluating the potency of hax abilities, it is first essential to distinguish between an increase in a character's overall power and an actual increase in the potency of a specific ability. Statements in profiles such as "as before but to a greater scale" generally indicate that the character has become stronger or more proficient, not that their hax has improved in potency. If one wishes to indicate that a hax ability has increased in potency on a profile, one has to do so with a more specific statement in the Powers & Abilities section, in Notable Attacks & Techniques, or elsewhere on the profile.

Potency for abilities such as Mind Manipulation, Soul Manipulation, or other forms of hax is determined by examining a variety of possible factors. These may include the mechanism the ability relies on, the number of targets it can affect, whether it has overcome resistances, the depth of its effects, or any other meaningful demonstration of potency. These factors must always be interpreted through the mechanism of the ability, as not all more impressive feats constitute increases in potency. For example, a mind-controlling gas affecting a larger number of people does not become individually stronger simply because more gas was released. Its effectiveness cannot be "summed" across multiple targets to claim greater potency against one.

With these factors in mind, determining whether an ability can overcome a resistance requires comparing the strengths and weaknesses on both sides. A resistance may be overpowered if the hax surpasses it in at least one relevant factor while being equal or weaker in the remaining factors. If the resistance is superior in some respects while the hax is superior in others, the outcome must be judged case-by-case, and if no clear argument can be formed, the result is considered inconclusive. The interaction between the mechanism behind the ability and that of the resistance is also an important aspect of this evaluation.

Layering refers to the demonstrated ability of a hax to break through resistance through its own potency. When an ability successfully affects someone who resists that type of hax, the ability is considered layered. Likewise, resisting a layered ability results in layered resistance, and this pattern can continue incrementally.
However, an ability becoming stronger does not automatically create layers. Layers only exist when resistance is actually overcome.
Layering must also be clearly distinguished from resistance negation, which bypasses resistance through an additional, separate mechanism rather than through increased potency of the hax itself.

Layering should not be applied to abilities that operate primarily on magnitude or quantitative thresholds, such as heat. Overcoming heat resistance by using hotter fire is not an example of layered fire manipulation; it is merely an increase in magnitude rather than a resistance-breaking demonstration of potency.

Although layering is one method of showing exceptional hax potency, it is not the only one. Abilities may demonstrate extraordinary strength through completely different means, and such abilities may still overcome layered resistances. Conversely, heavily layered hax might overpower abilities that are potent in other respects. How different demonstrations of potency compare is highly situational and frequently inconclusive without strong supporting evidence.

Importantly, layers themselves are not fixed or universal units of measurement. Their significance can vary between fictional universes and even within a single setting. Baseline hax potency and the depth of resistances can differ widely, meaning raw layer counts cannot be used as an automatic comparison metric.
For example:

• A setting might have a system where skills have levels between 0 and 100, growing stronger with each level. In that setting, it might be common knowledge that a spatial magic resistance skill will make you immune to all spatial magic of a level lower than the level of the spatial resistance skill itself. Meanwhile, spatial magic with a level equal or higher will break through the spatial resistance skill. Level 100 spatial magic would then be considered to have 100 layers.
• In another setting, a character may have a skill that makes them immune to all spatial magic. However, an angelic being comes around wielding a superior kind of angelic super magic, which surpasses all of mankind's spells and can break through said spatial magic resistance. This would constitute one layer of increased spatial magic potency.

While this is an accurate representation of layer numbers, it would be questionable to assume that the potency increase between a level 1 and a level 3 spatial magic skill in the first setting is superior to the potency increase between regular magic and angelic super magic in the second setting. The former may have more layers, but it is worthy of debate whether one layer of the latter kind may be worth several of the former kind.
Hence, in discussions or matchups, layers must always be evaluated in context and on a case-by-case basis.

Layer numbers may be listed on character profiles but require a Content Revision Thread to be added. The absence of a listed number of layers does not imply that a character lacks layers or equivalent potency. Profile authors may choose not to use numerical counts and instead rely on descriptive feats or explanations, which remain fully valid for comparisons in debates.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The primary page of relevance regarding these things is the hax page.

I wanted to revise the existing explanation for a while, because "layer number needs to be on profile or your potency isn't accepted" has been a rather persistent rumor.

In principle, I do not mind the suggested note. However, the entire explanation on layers and potency is grown by adding more and more notes. I think a bit of rewrite could be good. And an example on the topic might be useful as well.

How about this for a new potency section on the hax page?

I support this.

 

[Agnaa]

How much of the current Summary would you intend to delete to make way for that?

Layering should not be applied to abilities that operate primarily on magnitude or quantitative thresholds, such as heat. Overcoming heat resistance by using hotter fire is not an example of layered fire manipulation; it is merely an increase in magnitude rather than a resistance-breaking demonstration of potency.

I think this wording is a touch too strong. There can be cases of fire bypassing resistances without it being clear that hotter fire was used.

If you intend to assert that all fiction with cases like these actually use hotter fire, but to an unclear degree, that should be made more explicit.

---

Other than those things, that wording seems fine.