Location Pages Change (Allowing for Hybrids)

[Antvasima]

It seems quite good to me at least. What do the rest of you think?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Looks good to me.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Here's my shot at it. Obviously open to changes.

If we're doing separate drafts for this let's use the opportunity and add a note to the durability, that it should be clarified whether the durability is what is necessary to destroy the entire place in AoE or if it is the AP necessary to harm the character in the first place. I imagine for living locations that often is ambiguous.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's fine for me, not exactly sure how to word that though. Maybe something like this?

"The amount of attack power the location can withstand before any part of is is seriously damaged, if applicable (in bold). If only certain parts of the location are capable of combat, the durability section should only describe those."

Also I removed the last rule ("If a location is better represented by another profile format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above format") for obvious reasons and replaced it with a new one about hybrids not being usable as battlefields for locations.

 

[Antvasima]

That also seems fine to me.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's fine for me, not exactly sure how to word that though. Maybe something like this?

"The amount of attack power the location can withstand before any part of is is seriously damaged, if applicable (in bold). If only certain parts of the location are capable of combat, the durability section should only describe those."

Thought more of something in spirit of:

The amount of attack power the location/character can withstand before being seriously damaged (in bold). It should be clarified if this value is for destroying the location at large or for dealing any significant damage to one its parts and ideally both should be listed. E.g. a sentient city might be able to survive a Large Town level attack due to its size, yet each and every part of it could be destroyed through repeated Wall level attacks, just like a regular city would. Hence both values should be mentioned.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's fine but I don't think the Large Town level part should be part of the rating, since it's kinda eyebally and we normally wouldn't count "the part hit by the attack has been destroyed" as durability even if the character, or location in this case, would survive, if your leg gets blown off by a handgun that's not really a feat. Also I would like my part about certain parts of the location being indexed, given that some locations have only some sections capable of combat, with my example in the OP being such a case

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you both for helping out.

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think @DontTalkDT ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's fine but I don't think the Large Town level part should be part of the rating, since it's kinda eyebally and we normally wouldn't count "the part hit by the attack has been destroyed" as durability even if the character, or location in this case, would survive, if your leg gets blown off by a handgun that's not really a feat. Also I would like my part about certain parts of the location being indexed, given that some locations have only some sections capable of combat, with my example in the OP being such a case

I'm fairly certain we rank stuff like living planets as planet level durability by size alone... and it does make sense to an extend.
If you launch an attack at a character and the character gets a scratch from it, you would take that as tanking the attack, even if the character can technically be taken down by getting attacked like that a thousand times. Scale that scenario up in size by a thousand and you have the situation of a location receiving an attack and surviving it by size, no?

What your part is concerned: Even if only certain parts are capable of combat, the durability of the other parts is also relevant, no? After all, to kill the character you need to destroy those other parts, too. Perhaps you could even kill the character by only destroying the non-combat capable parts.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm fairly certain we rank stuff like living planets as planet level durability by size alone... and it does make sense to an extend.
If you launch an attack at a character and the character gets a scratch from it, you would take that as tanking the attack, even if the character can technically be taken down by getting attacked like that a thousand times. Scale that scenario up in size by a thousand and you have the situation of a location receiving an attack and surviving it by size, no?

This isn't the same as a scratch though, this is like a bullet passing through your leg cleanly, if you have immortality type 2 that won't bother you but you're not tanking it in any way, it's just a lack of AOE on the attack's part. There's also the fact that it would be a nightmare to tier this. Is a city's durability large town level, even though that's gonna destroy like 80% of it? How to tier a particularly tall tower, GPE? But it would surely be destroyed it if fell over like that. It's just not possible to come up with reliable ratings for durability based on size, which is why it should only be classified if the location has explicit feats for durability

What your part is concerned: Even if only certain parts are capable of combat, the durability of the other parts is also relevant, no? After all, to kill the character you need to destroy those other parts, too. Perhaps you could even kill the character by only destroying the non-combat capable parts.

That's not really the case in my example, but either way, I don't really think the concept of indexing a non combat-capable location's durability makes much sense, considering how much it varies. I mean if there's grass in it is it "Varies, from 10-C to [...]"? And just cause it's made of bricks that wouldn't make it 9-B, you can damage bricks if you're 9-C and determined enough, not to mention that the difference between harming a wall and destroying a larger portion of it can vary by hundreds of times.

I just don't think it's something that can be eyeballed consistently, so we should stick to feats like "was hit by a nuclear bomb without noteworthy structural damage" or "got in a fistfight with an 8-C guy".

 

[DontTalkDT]

This isn't the same as a scratch though, this is like a bullet passing through your leg cleanly, if you have immortality type 2 that won't bother you but you're not tanking it in any way, it's just a lack of AOE on the attack's part. There's also the fact that it would be a nightmare to tier this. Is a city's durability large town level, even though that's gonna destroy like 80% of it? How to tier a particularly tall tower, GPE? But it would surely be destroyed it if fell over like that. It's just not possible to come up with reliable ratings for durability based on size, which is why it should only be classified if the location has explicit feats for durability

Technically there is a certain amount of resistance. A planet will eventually absorb an attack, due to it using up its energy on destroying the small parts of it. That's not exactly just an AoE consideration.

In principle the idea isn't bad, but in practice you will run into problems when you try to decide whether the energy beam that left a crater did so due to durability or due to lack of AoE. Or due to a mixture of both. I'm all for separating the stats where it is possible, that's why I brought it up, but I think it in practice isn't always possible. Often we will have no choice but to consider that the size could be one factor in the durability feats of giant characters.

That's not really the case in my example, but either way, I don't really think the concept of indexing a non combat-capable location's durability makes much sense, considering how much it varies. I mean if there's grass in it is it "Varies, from 10-C to [...]"? And just cause it's made of bricks that wouldn't make it 9-B, you can damage bricks if you're 9-C and determined enough, not to mention that the difference between harming a wall and destroying a larger portion of it can vary by hundreds of times.

I just don't think it's something that can be eyeballed consistently, so we should stick to feats like "was hit by a nuclear bomb without noteworthy structural damage" or "got in a fistfight with an 8-C guy".

What you bring up is an inherent problem of indexing location-type characters. It doesn't change the fact that the durability is relevant. If you have a planet with guns on it, which the planet controls, then it doesn't make sense to only index the durability of the guns. A smart attacker would possibly destroy everything but the guns, because the guns are the parts that are the most durable.

Including only the weaponized i.e. probably most durable parts of a location would end up being very misleading.

 

[Armorchompy]

Technically there is a certain amount of resistance. A planet will eventually absorb an attack, due to it using up its energy on destroying the small parts of it. That's not exactly just an AoE consideration.

I mean that's only the case sometimes, a city or a building won't have that effect, and again determining the point at which something begins or stops being "tanking" is basically guesswork.

In principle the idea isn't bad, but in practice you will run into problems when you try to decide whether the energy beam that left a crater did so due to durability or due to lack of AoE. Or due to a mixture of both. I'm all for separating the stats where it is possible, that's why I brought it up, but I think it in practice isn't always possible. Often we will have no choice but to consider that the size could be one factor in the durability feats of giant characters.

That's true, but in such a case we go for a lowball, and stick to things that are clearly at least partially affected by durability, or simply don't index it at all, which is why the section is optional. Again, you'd need to come up with an exact standard that allows any user to determine what counts as tanking or surviving in your case and I just don't think that's possible.

What you bring up is an inherent problem of indexing location-type characters. It doesn't change the fact that the durability is relevant. If you have a planet with guns on it, which the planet controls, then it doesn't make sense to only index the durability of the guns. A smart attacker would possibly destroy everything but the guns, because the guns are the parts that are the most durable.

Yeah but like, it's still wrong to say "wall therefore 9-B", a wall can be 9-C or 9-A depending on the area you strike and that's a difference of literal thousands of times. So unless you can come up with an exact standard for tiering these situations, we should stick to explicit feats only.

Including only the weaponized i.e. probably most durable parts of a location would end up being very misleading.

I mean, if only part of the location is indexed the durability section should make it explicit that, in absence of feats, the rest is as durable as normal buildings would be. Which would be the default assumption anyway.

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to continue to help out here?

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

This is a pretty simple dilemma so i would appreciate if the issue about durability could be closed out quickly, considering I don't even know if the format at large is accepted

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do not mind if we include a few optional sections, but it is not up to me alone.

 

[Armorchompy]

bump. I would really like to conclude this whole thread.

 

[Antvasima]

If you list all of the staff members who helped out here previously, I can send a notification to them.

 

[Armorchompy]

I can do that myself. @Sir_Ovens, @Abstractions, @AKM sama, @Tllmbrg, @The_Impress, @KieranH10, @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer, @Crabwhale, @Mr._Bambu

 

[Tllmbrg]

I’m confused, what do you want from me
I already agreed to having the format

 

[Armorchompy]

Mostly your opinion on my sandbox, I guess?

 

[Tllmbrg]

Looks fine to me ig?

 

[Antvasima]

Can you link to your sandbox please?

 

[Armorchompy]

It's this one

 

[Antvasima]

Can you link to your sandbox please?

It's this one

Thank you. That should hopefully help the others.

What do you think, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

 

[Armorchompy]

@DontTalkDT I would really appreciate your input given the CRT seemingly can't really go on without it.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The draft looks good.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[Elizhaa]

The draft seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT I would really appreciate your input given the CRT seemingly can't really go on without it.

@DontTalkDT

 

[Armorchompy]

Given that DT's issue was with a relatively minor detail, can I consider the greater scope of the thing approved?

 

[Antvasima]

I don't remember well enough to give you clearance. Can somebody summarise a tally for which staff members that think what here please?

 

[Armorchompy]

Agrees with me - Me (duh), Ovens, Kieran, Hop (I think), DarkDragonMedeus (I think), Tllmbrg, Elizhaa, DT (I think agrees, beyond one small point of contention regarding durability)

Unclear: Abstractions (Commented on a minor ruling, has not stated their overall opinion)

Disagrees - Bambu (Disliked the idea of messy-looking profiles, has not partecipated since the early parts of the thread or seen the sandbox), Impress (Disagreed because durability could be difficult to index, has not partecipated since the early parts of the thread), AKM (Believes the hybrids aren't necessary, but admits that's just their opinion)

Neutral - Crabwhale

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. It doesn't seem like a very conclusive verdict then, and I don't remember well anymore.

Should we call for the above-listed staff members?

 

[Armorchompy]

if you want i guess, there's a pretty clear leaning towards agreement tho

 

[Antvasima]

Agrees with me - Me (duh), Ovens, Kieran, Hop (I think), DarkDragonMedeus (I think), Tllmbrg, Elizhaa, DT (I think agrees, beyond one small point of contention regarding durability)

Unclear: Abstractions (Commented on a minor ruling, has not stated their overall opinion)

Disagrees - Bambu (Disliked the idea of messy-looking profiles, has not partecipated since the early parts of the thread or seen the sandbox), Impress (Disagreed because durability could be difficult to index, has not partecipated since the early parts of the thread), AKM (Believes the hybrids aren't necessary, but admits that's just their opinion)

Neutral - Crabwhale

Hmm. It doesn't seem like a very conclusive verdict then, and I don't remember well anymore.

Should we call for the above-listed staff members?

if you want i guess, there's a pretty clear leaning towards agreement tho

Well, it would at least be good if @DontTalkDT and @AKM sama would be willing to try to reach an agreement here.

I personally do not mind the suggestion in any case.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's this one

Have you decided against making the other hybrids? Personally, I think we should include all hybrid layouts on the page, if we make one. Or at least the used ones like character-weapon. (is weapon-vehicle a thing? I guess vehicle alone covers that)