Matches With Restricted "Possibly" Abilities

[Agnaa]

(I tried doing this on the old forum but was told to come to staff discussion here once CRTs were allowed)

A lot of characters have abilities on their pages listed under a "possibly". Under SBA they're assumed to have these since characters are at their strongest, but can these be restricted?

If they can be, how would these restrictions be listed when the match is added? Especially for extreme examples like Caelius West who has two dozen abilities like this that turn him from fairly weak to pretty overpowered.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yes, they can be restricted. In fact, the SBA technically doesn't actually specify whether or not they are used at all, although I'm fine with assuming they are, I guess.

I think if it's just a few simply list the ones that are restricted. If they are too many for that just write "with various abilities restricted" and call it a day.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean honestly I would prefer that they're not assumed, but for stuff like this people have told me "SBA says they're at their strongest" means including their most powerful stuff, even if it's under likely/possibly.

But thanks for the comprehensive answer, I think that's a good way to go about it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The SBA strictly speaking define "at their strongest" only as "the one with the highest tier; if there are multiple versions with the same tier, then the most recent version." It states nothing about which abilities. IIRC I left it out when I created the SBA because it would have been difficult to agree on and I thought at the time that one might as well debate it in the vs-thread. Or maybe I just didn't think of the issue... not sure anymore.
Personally I would kinda like to exclude at least the "possibly", as those are often complete guesswork. On the other hand that would mean constant bargaining over whether something really can't be listed as "likely" instead, so it might be better this way.

 

[Wokistan]

I don't think SBA actually specifies strongest strictly referring to tier, and abilities that are total guesswork can't even be added as a possibly. You'd need some support that's just ultimately indeterminate.

Either way you can specifically say no to them in your OP yeah

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think SBA actually specifies strongest strictly referring to tier

Well,

The strongest canon version of a character is used, that we have listed. The strongest version being defined as the one with the highest tier; if there are multiple versions with the same tier, then the most recent version.

sounds to me like it is defined as strictly referring to tier.

and abilities that are total guesswork can't even be added as a possibly. You'd need some support that's just ultimately indeterminate.

Well, possibly things are statistics with indeterminate probability of being true, as opposed to likely statistics were the probability must be at least favourable. They can't be total guesswork, but they are per definition usually plenty questionable.

 

[Agnaa]

Doesn't SBA still assume characters to be at their highest tier, even if that tier is merely a "possibly"?

 

[Antoniofer]

I wouldn't agree adding abilities based in assumptions, either one add the ability as a whole (nature and effect), the effect (the more vague the effect, the more nlf-ish the power may appear) or do not add anything. If the power is described in a flowery way it should be determinate in a thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not familiar with how our versus matchups generally work, mostly due to a lack of interest.

What are the conclusions so far about how to update our Standard Battles Assumptions page?

 

[Agnaa]

There isn't quite a consensus yet, we may need some time to talk it over.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

You can ask other appropriate staff members to comment here if you wish.

 

[The_Impress]

I think by default SBA shouldn't allow for "Possibly" abilities, they're moreso like Optional Equipment to me, as such the OP should specify whether they're allowed or not.

 

[Elizhaa]

I do share the same thought that SBA still allowed abilities to be restricted.

Similar to what others said, something like this could work: SBA, with "insert abilities" restricted.

 

[Agnaa]

Small aside, I think this question also applies to "likely" abilities. What would our default assumptions be ability-wise?

 

[Eficiente]

I believe the standard should allow them and that when restricting and adding the match we should write that "some abilities/stats under "Possibly" were restricted", at least when that's the case with many of them. That way people will notice the match was somewhat unusual and look up its description if they feel like it.

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, they can be restricted. In fact, the SBA technically doesn't actually specify whether or not they are used at all, although I'm fine with assuming they are, I guess.

I think if it's just a few simply list the ones that are restricted. If they are too many for that just write "with various abilities restricted" and call it a day.

I am fine with this approach.

 

[Agnaa]

Does anything actually need to be changed for us to start doing that? I think we may just be able to start adding those matches without any instruction page alterations.

 

[AKM sama]

We could mention something of the sort in our Versus Thread Rules.

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh, I think I see the rule to change:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted.

This should be reworded to say that abilities can only be restricted if they're indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly", any ideas on how to include that? Maybe add onto the last sentence:

or if the ability being restricted is indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I use the @Username command to bring this discussion to the attention of our administrators?

 

[Agnaa]

Any administrators who haven't left a comment here already, sure if you feel it's necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not sure whether or not it is important enough in this case. Maybe we should just try to be patient and wait for further input to start with?

 

[Agnaa]

That works.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[AKM sama]

I'm going to ping a few staff members who I've seen participating in vs threads so that they can share their views.

@The_real_cal_howard @Dargoo_Faust @Schnee_One @Abstractions @The_Wright_Way @Warren_Valion

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Possibly ratings should not be used in VSes at all, in my opinion, even considering SBA, as they use feats we have catalogued as vague, implicit, hypothetical, or just us being uncertain about a rating.

Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should also be indeterminate.

This is different from the strongest "version" of a character, as in when that character is strongest in the story - the "possibly" statistic is just a rating we have deemed far less likely than another rating for the same version of a character and is not a separate entity from any of the keys, weapons, or attacks listed on the profile.

I do not think us having VS matches added to profiles using hypothetical ratings looks good on us. These matches should be delegated to the Fun and Games Forum.

 

[Warren_Valion]

I agree with the notion that SBA assumes that all abilities, including likely/possibly abilities (as long as it is in-character) are being used in a fight - and that these abilities can be restricted with the matches still be counted.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Okay, I agree with Agnaa's approach, that they shouldn't be SBA and that the match up additions should note whether they are restricted or not. Albiet, I don't really care enough about wether they are or aren't SBA too really care which way that goes.

The idea of not using "Possibly" stats at all is ridiculous though. They're not "hypothetical" stats. They're stats that are either implied, or have equal proof leaning for or against their inclusion.

Also, I'd argue that you could easily reverse that argument. Ignoring certain abilites because they hypothetically might not be there, even if they're implied to be, could also look bad on us.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Anyways, it's midnight here. I'll continue tomorrow.

 

[Agnaa]

Dargoo, I am a bit curious, would you say "Likely" abilities should be used under SBA, or no?

I might wanna start tallying votes on everyone's position for this.

 

[Warren_Valion]

Well, I am going to bed and unwatching this thread.

@ me if you need my opinion again.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Dargoo, I am a bit curious, would you say "Likely" abilities should be used under SBA, or no?

"Likely" is also defined as a hypothetical statistic that is, by definition, not fully supported by feats or scaling for that specific version of the character. It should also not be used for VS matches, and not be included under SBA.

 

[Agnaa]

Not everyone was ultra-clear, so here's my best try at summarizing people's opinions from the thread

Allow all abilities by default: 9 (Warren Valion, AKM sama, GyroNutz, Ogbunabali, Moritzva, Elizhaa, Mr. Bambu, Wokistan, WeeklyBattles)

Allow only likely abilities by default: 4 (DontTalkDT*, The Imp-Ress, Qawsedf234*, Sir Ovens***)

Allow neither likely nor possibly abilities by default: 3 (Dargoo Faust**, Antoniofer, Abstractions)

Don't Care: 1 (The Wright Way)

*DT would prefer to only include possibly, but that would mean constant bargaining over whether something could be listed as "likely" instead, so he thinks it may be better to allow all abilities. Qawsed agreed with DT's suggestion.

**Dargoo also believes that, beyond not being assumed under SBA, matches with such abilities or ratings should not be added to profiles at all.

***While Sir Ovens wants "possibly" abilities to be disregarded by default, he wants "possibly" tiers for ability potency (i.e. immortality) to be accepted by default.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Allow neither likely nor possibly abilities by default:

For reference, I actually don't think likely or possible ratings should be allowed for threads (as they are currently defined) that are to be added on profiles for the reasons I explained above.

However, I feel like it's more important to have us stop assuming hypothetical statistics just because they're higher than what can be demonstrably proven on a profile. And also because this hypothetical isn't a "version" of the character to begin with, it's possible rating for a single version of a character.

Zark has brought up that how we official define "likely" and "possibly" ratings isn't indicative of how they're more typically used, which might be worth discussing here.

 

[Agnaa]

My bad for leaving that out, I've added a footnote that I hope gets your view across.

 

[The_Impress]

Our definitions for Possibly and Likely implies that they can just be added with little to no basis whatsoever i.e. I can 100% list Iceman as Likely or Possibly 1-A based off the Oblivion feat, or any God character as Tier 0, and hell, Saitama as Possibly High 3-A, and I do not have to care for either context, verse showcase or other's approval since it is a hypothetical tier, and there isn't a criteria for the basis of them.

They likely should be tweaked to include the ideas of "likelyhood of a feat existing" and "contextually this feat should be present" and "need of a solid basis". This I think is a topic that needs discussion prior as it is causing problems in this thread. I haven't really seen people add feats based off PURELY hypotheticals tbh

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, would you be able to create a separate thread for that then? :3

 

[The_Impress]

I mean considering this thread is sorta related to that thread this would need closing :V

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure if this really counts as a verse for our new CRT rules, but I'm fine with this being put on hiatus, even if it means closing it until the likely/possibly section is reworded.

 

[The_Impress]

Moreso the factor that the conclusion can likely not be reached here :/