-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Question
- Thread starter Livinmeme
- Start date
- Status
- 9,953
- 1,999
Eh, you'll need to express yourself better, I do not u derstand what you are trying to say...
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #4
oh srry my english kinda sucks
A character use 9-A weapons for years and B constantly figth agaist that weapons
so.. B tanks the 9-A weapons or what
PD: the feats are off screen
- 4,451
- 1,947
If you can prove they tanked said weapon, yes.
- 14,636
- 20,234
You’d need to prove they got hit by said 9-A weapon.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #7
.... oh the irony
- 61,134
- 14,478
Really dude? Your thread gets closed for being incorrect so you just make another one?
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #10
not really i make this thread a while ago to answer if my reasoning was correct so.. no this treath wasnt created by getting that characters to certain levels
- 61,134
- 14,478
To clear up livin's purposeful vagueness, Team Fortress 2 has weapons that atomize the characters in the verse, livin is asking that even if they are not shown to tank them can they be assumed to have tanked them off-screen at some point due to the characters having been fighting for years
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #12
yep that i just dint specify because i dint want to become another *cough *cough 8 bit theather *cough *cough
- 9,953
- 1,999
Either way, when people says "tank" means they are stroke and receive moderate damage, not if they are severe injured, in whose case they does not scale.
- 4,451
- 1,947
Because you wanted people to agree with you without them knowing you're using an argument from probability.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #15
i am 100% that they just downscale that certain feat to a uknown amount because someone did a thread in the old wiki
- 61,134
- 14,478
In this case the characters are flat out atomized
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #17
wasnt a posibility and i would give you proves but i dont want to derail the thread so.. there is that
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #18
IN-Game weekly also stop trying to derail the thread pls
- 9,953
- 1,999
If it kills you then you don't scale.
Plus atomize can pretty much be matter hax, in whose case is not AP related.
Plus atomize can pretty much be matter hax, in whose case is not AP related.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #20
it was AP and i said that please stop trying to derail the thread pls
- 9,953
- 1,999
I'm trying to answer your question, not quite derailing.
- 1,808
- 2,809
Too vague.
It's probably safer to use the actual confirmed tier justifications for "B character", rather than use a "possibly this tier" for fighting against A offscreen? Because I think using the term "possibly" should be used minimally, and it is the most you'd be able to accomplish at best. Not to mention, there are also issues such as these that you have to be careful of. If there's a lot of feats that relates or are comparable to B character's physical justifications, then it's probably best to keep it at the confirmed tier (which is at B character's level), rather than using something that exceeds theirs, to make it even more consistent.
It also depends on what the weapon does, if it attacks with actual quantifiable AP, or just plain hax.
It's probably safer to use the actual confirmed tier justifications for "B character", rather than use a "possibly this tier" for fighting against A offscreen? Because I think using the term "possibly" should be used minimally, and it is the most you'd be able to accomplish at best. Not to mention, there are also issues such as these that you have to be careful of. If there's a lot of feats that relates or are comparable to B character's physical justifications, then it's probably best to keep it at the confirmed tier (which is at B character's level), rather than using something that exceeds theirs, to make it even more consistent.
It also depends on what the weapon does, if it attacks with actual quantifiable AP, or just plain hax.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #23
yes but i am refering to AP because if i was refering to Hax i wouldnt be making this thread
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #24
so.. is valid if anything the feats doesnt contradict other feats? if is then thanks
- 4,451
- 1,947
If you can prove it happened, yeah.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #27
- 1,808
- 2,809
Too vague. I won't exactly answer to that.
My answer will not be applicable to every case. It has to be discussed on a case by case basis. It has to be proved that it happened, and that the offscreen fight implied that A (Mostly A's weapon), and B are at least physically comparable to each other.
Last edited:
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #29
- 464
- 93
At this point, just leave it.
The Team Fortress cast scaling to these weapons is not going to be accepted on here, and pushing for it any further is just unnecessary as long as you don't present concrete evidence supporting your stance.
Them tanking shots by, say, the Cow Manger is gameplay-only, in none of the cinematics or comics were shots by it tanked by anyone. At this point, this is your best bet for 9-A mercs in any way, shape or form.
The Team Fortress cast scaling to these weapons is not going to be accepted on here, and pushing for it any further is just unnecessary as long as you don't present concrete evidence supporting your stance.
Them tanking shots by, say, the Cow Manger is gameplay-only, in none of the cinematics or comics were shots by it tanked by anyone. At this point, this is your best bet for 9-A mercs in any way, shape or form.
- 9,953
- 1,999
Simply "fought x" is not reason to scale to anything; fights are not like pokémon battles in the games, is not "A attack, B losses x amount of HP, now B attacks and A losses y amount of HP", its more complicated than that.
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #33
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #34
i am pretty sure that is how it works because you know scaled specially if the figth constantly can make the scalling more constant
- 9,953
- 1,999
People parry attacks, dodge, aim dodge, keep their distances, use variable powers... There's a bunch of maneuvers that can be performed during a fight than simply "I hit, then you hit me".
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #36
yes but at some point they should tank the atacks and it would be extremlly stupid to say they dont get hit specially if the strategy of the characters are use AP instead of hax
- 4,451
- 1,947
Argument from probability
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #38
yes but the probality of them using the 9-A and tanking it would be far far far far higher that not using them so.. yeah no
- 1,808
- 2,809
If this thread is being used for justifying a verse upgrade, I think it'd be better to make a CRT, rather than a Questions and Answers thread, no?
- 7,701
- 3,740
- Thread starter
- #40
not really i tried to make it but... while umm 3 people gang me up with MUH PROBALITY also i am gona do it in the future so.. there is that
- Status
