Reactive evolution redraft

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It definitely is. Just because they are shown to adapt through some of their limits doesn't mean they can break past all of them, unless you want to make them tier 0. And if we all accept that they aren't capable of shooting that high, then we agree that there must be some limits to the ability, and at that point invoking NLF is completely valid. But I'm not really doing that anyways, Glassman is setting some limits in place, the issue is that they're completely arbitrary and set in stone without actual care for the verse's portrayal.

tier 0's existence is being called into question, but thats beside the point.
but if character has shown to adapt into new quantitative layers ( 4-D to 5-D, and so on) or qualitative layers (r>f layers), and they have no shown limit to their adaption, it'd be incorrect to just apply one.
re pretty much gets limited by the method and speed in which they adapt, anyway, meaning just because its theoretically possible doesn't mean they can.

 

[Armorchompy]

"We know the character can get stronger, so it'd be incorrect to assume there's any limit to how strong they can get"

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

"We know the character can get stronger, so it'd be incorrect to assume there's any limit to how strong they can get"

well yea, if a character can freely adapt to higher infinities or r>f layers, is there a conceptual difference preventing them from getting any higher?

 

[Armorchompy]

1: None of those words are in the Bible
2: Yes, the fact that we don't assume a character can do infinite layers of something they do unless it's explicitly stated. It's like saying that "if a character can freely adapt to higher amounts of AP, is there a conceptual difference preventing them from getting any higher" and reaching the conclusion that anyone with RPL can hit High 3-A

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, we really shouldn't invert the burden of proof to give to make the ability to a range of unproven things until shown otherwise.
The range of effects needs to be determined by feats and mechanism of the ability.
And despite that I don't think the ability is useless at all. Adapting to things similar to those that have been shown is still something that can help you out in a fight.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Adapting to things similar to those that have been shown is still something that can help you out in a fight.

And how do we define similar?

Let's say someone resisted soul manipulation via RE.

What else could he resist through RE in a VS?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

1: None of those words are in the Bible
2: Yes, the fact that we don't assume a character can do infinite layers of something they do unless it's explicitly stated. It's like saying that "if a character can freely adapt to higher amounts of AP, is there a conceptual difference preventing them from getting any higher" and reaching the conclusion that anyone with RPL can hit High 3-A

Evolution is typically referred to as a constant, never-ending process, so I think that approach is fair unless the verse implies otherwise.

 

[Armorchompy]

Evolution is typically referred to as a constant, never-ending process, so I think that approach is fair unless the verse implies otherwise.

We bringing semantics into this? 1) Reactive Evolution is a name we gave the ability, not an in-verse term 2) RE is not at all like actual evolution 3) actual evolution is absolutely not capable of escalating infinitely 4) this is a weak ass argument to go from Low 1-C to Low 1-A or whatever

Why are we even discussing this? This isn't pertinent to the OP.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr._Bambu How exactly is it harmful to expand upon the different ways Reactive evolution works? I seriously wanna know because you’re not remotely elaborating on anything beyond “it’s harmful”.

Yes, I did.

As I said, removing the notion of NLF from one specific ability is harmful. I had figured that would be self explanatory. By removing the idea that an ability has limits in terms of how powerful it can become, you then allow every user of that ability to be more or less infinitely "good" with this ability. We, as a wiki, are meant to offer fairly conservative estimates of what a character can do- removing a system there solely to maintain that standard hardly seems like a good idea.

Right here.

RE is basically NLF the ability. Users of RE constantly adapt, breaking their limits in response to incoming threats. "Muh NLF" isnt exactly a good counter.

Not so, that's what this CRT would make Reactive Evolution like that, which is really bad for prior reasons. NLF currently applies to the ability, I don't understand the sudden urge to pretend it doesn't.

 

[Bobsican]

As the one that made that note get in the page to begin with, I extremely disagree with the proposal of this thread, I'm aware the intent of Reactive Evolution is to let characters overcome virtually everything, but as a site that generally leans to more conservative takes for the sake of NLFs, this is inappropiate, especially as most RE users don't have the semantics of the ability explained beyond merely having it.

At most the note should be rewritten to minimize vagueness, instead of removing it and inviting NLFs, so yeah, I agree with Mr. Bambu and DontTalk.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mr._Bambu You do realize the types by design are made to shown the upper limits of a character's evolution right? There's a reason why something like Doomsday is categorized onto a lower level because while diverse in his evolution, he's shown evolution against far more conventional abilities than stuff that revolves around the supernatural or metaphysical side of things.

@Armorchompy Can you actually explain why the current standard is not arbitrary when it makes the ability so redundant it defeats the entire purpose of Reactive evolution in the first place? Like seriously what part of the current standard of "only the feats you're shown to adapt to" is remotely in line with what the first sentence of the page says?

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously lacked.

By design the ability is supposed to be a counter measure against abilities the user hasn't encountered before, but saying that it's only viable against whatever they adapted to flies in the face of this altogether.

@DontTalkDT How exactly is that remotely lined up with the page mentioning that RE adapts in ways the user previously lacked though? Unless we need to change the definition to the point it's just a botched version of evolution I don't really see the logic in here.

@Bobsican Even though we have numerous characters in the wiki that have Reactive evolution that works in a wide variety of ways in numerous situations so trying to limit the potential of some of them by just saying case by case rather than categorize them with an ability as complicated as this would help a lot.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr._Bambu You do realize the types by design are made to shown the upper limits of a character's evolution right? There's a reason why something like Doomsday is categorized onto a lower level because while diverse in his evolution, he's shown evolution against far more conventional abilities than stuff that revolves around the supernatural or metaphysical side of things.

I realize that the types give some restrictions, yes, but really and truly what they do is remove a lot compared to what we currently have. I maintain my position: this is a terribly harmful change that I suspect will mostly lead to unwarranted ratings for this ability. There's no reason to abandon our current standard.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Can you actually explain why the current standard is not arbitrary when it makes the ability so redundant it defeats the entire purpose of Reactive evolution in the first place? Like seriously what part of the current standard of "only the feats you're shown to adapt to" is remotely in line with what the first sentence of the page says?

By design the ability is supposed to be a counter measure against abilities the user hasn't encountered before, but saying that it's only viable against whatever they adapted to flies in the face of this altogether.

Nail on the head. If people are so unwilling to budge on actually making the ability do exactly as it entails or to provide any form of alternative to make the ability substantial in any regard then it really should just be deleted. I don't see the point in keeping an ability on the site that does 0, either properly index it or remove it. The only outright limitation and NLF I agree should be applied to the ability with 0 argument is the ability to evolve to higher dimensions, other than that it's being purposefully obtuse to the topic.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"If you won't let it be more powerful than it shows, you should just delete it"

No.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

"If you won't let it be more powerful than it shows, you should just delete it"

No.

No. It is redundant in all facets of the word "redundant". Characters who have used reactive evolution to evolve and adapt to abilities or create new abilities on the fly is already covered in them having said specific abilities or resistances labeled on their profile at the same time. More powerful doesn't begin to describe the dissonance here. The ability as applied now does nothing. What is the point of keeping an ability on the site if people refuse to properly index it.

If the ability was actually applied as intended on the page

< Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously lacked.

It would be a very broken ability indeed. How is an ability being very powerful an argument to not properly index it? Abilities have been on the chopping block for far far less. It's just a placeholder in the best case scenario, otherwise a complete waste of place on character profiles (re-labeling) and pads the overall wiki page count.

I'll wait for more evaluation though because for a site wide revision thread like this it's still in its infancy stage.

 

[Armorchompy]

@Armorchompy Can you actually explain why the current standard is not arbitrary when it makes the ability so redundant it defeats the entire purpose of Reactive evolution in the first place? Like seriously what part of the current standard of "only the feats you're shown to adapt to" is remotely in line with what the first sentence of the page says?

It's case by case. That's literally the opposite of arbitrary. It's just conservative.

 

[Deagonx]

This thread should be in Staff Discussion right? Since it addresses changing site standards?

 

[Armorchompy]

not really, it's just one specific ability. I wouldn't consider "we're altering how this is treated somewhat" a site standard. But if OP prefers it that way I don't mind.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Also it's pretty chill so no reason for that. There is a general agreement that the change allows way too many cases to go into nlf territory.

 

[Deagonx]

Okay, no worries. For my part, having read through the arguments on the matter, I am more inclined with the opposition. The caveat quoted in the OP is not as limiting as I think people are making it out to be, it just means that you have to put in some actual leg work and thought into arguing for a specific use case of the ability instead of just saying "reactive evolution gg."

So my vote would be disagree.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Glass has told me he is sick and won't be able to give further clarifications or responses for some time until he gets better.

 

[RedReaper]

I feel like there’s a strange disconnect here.

I don’t think anyone’s saying we should let NLF’s hop into the ability—In fact, the Supporters clarify this isn’t the case several times, and even point out that “legwork” will be needed by putting the correct justifications, assigning the ability, etc. Due to this, it’s ALSO still a case by case basis. Nor are they suggesting there’s no reasonable limit.

The objective is simply to make the ability actually DO what it CLAIMS to DO.

Because, (though I am a mere nobody), as far as I’m concerned, they’re right on this case. For a while now, RE hasn’t been RE. The whole point is gaining NEW THINGS to combat what you HAVEN’T SEEN before.

As in, within the context of their story, a character who has never came into contact with Soul Manip gains the ability to resist and counter it over time.

Within the current standards, the Wiki essentially has made RE meaningless. You can’t evolve to things you have not experienced, and I’d say limiting it to “similar things” is equally arbitrary when characters who have extensive feats often have no guideline.

Doomsday doesn’t specifically evolve to mind powers—He evolves to literally anything. If your name is Darkseid and you fire literal conceptual Death itself at the monster, (which he has done before) he’LL just get back up latter, “immune.” If you dump him in acid, he will get up immune to that. Same with tech powers, Soul powers, etc.

This means that, relatively speaking, you cannot say “only similar powers” for Doomsday, because he literally evolves to “everything.” It can be intangible, physical, and even metaphysical (though it stays mostly in the land of corporal). There is no “commonality.” No “structure.” He’s even evolved to gain powers to target others, like Martian Manhunter. This means the very standards of the Wiki unfairly—Not just limit—But destroy his very purpose as a being and threat, more than his litany of writers ever could have.

However, in that same breathe, while I can freely recognize that Doomsday could easily evolve to virtually any power, I can also freely say that something like plot manipulation is beyond his grasp. Those aren’t contradictory arguments or statements. They’re just observations of his given capabilities.

By that same token, the Types apply that same logic. Obviously, someone who evolves to Soul Manipulation isn’t necessarily able to evolve to Mind Manipulation. The Types are, at least to me, meant to be a relative/soft guideline so the ability can stop being redundant.

Also, a quick rewind: The Layer argument was completely ignored and I want to bring it up.

As RE stands now, not only can you not gain new resistances, or abilities in a VS, but layers too are also NLF territory too and also not freely observed from my experience. And as pointed out, if we did, how far would we allow them to generate layers? One layer? Two? Three? I can’t imagine that many ever being accepted, if any at all.

If the ability cannot account for layers due to the fear of it getting out of control—When the simple answer is to just judge it with both Case by Case and the Guideline logics at once—Then the ability literally can do nothing.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Reactive Evolution

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously lacked. This allowing them to be better capable of dealing with said issues faced, and this evolution can come in the following ways: Developing new powers or abilities...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Summary​

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously lacked. This allowing them to be better capable of dealing with said issues faced, and this evolution can come in the following ways:

• Developing new powers or abilities
• Developing new resistances
• Developing greater statistics. However, if this is the only way in which they "evolve", then Accelerated Development should be given instead to avoid redundancy.

VS

It would be a No Limits Fallacy to assume someone with this power can obtain any ability whatsoever. Its extent and complexity only go as far its feats and scaling have gone for it, in relation up to countermeasures to powers that already exist in the setting or similar, in a case by case basis.

You can't have two different diametrically opposite descriptions which are contradictory to each other on the same page. What kind of lame oversight is this lmfao?
Can the page be atleast consistent with itself?

If policy is to not allow developing of new abilities/resistences, then why even mention such things on ability page??

I recommend following changes.

Summary​

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously displayed ONLY. This allowing them to be better capable of dealing with said issues already faced, and this evolution can come in the following ways:

• Developing old powers or abilities
• Developing old resistances
• Developing greater statistics. However, if this is the only way in which they "evolve", then Accelerated Development should be given instead to avoid redundancy.

Also, a quick rewind: The Layer argument was completely ignored and I want to bring it up.

As RE stands now, not only can you not gain new resistances, or abilities in a VS, but layers too are also NLF territory too and also not freely observed from my experience. And as pointed out, if we did, how far would we allow them to generate layers? One layer? Two? Three? I can’t imagine that many ever being accepted, if any at all.

Holy ****! I forgot this policy also exists.

So with this in mind, new page should look like this.

Summary​

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, re-iterate in ways the user previously displayed ONLY. This allows them to be capable of dealing with said issues already faced, and this evolution can come in the following ways:

• Re-iterating old powers or abilities
• Re-iterating old resistances
• Developing greater statistics. However, if this is the only way in which they "evolve", then Accelerated Development should be given instead to avoid redundancy.

Now that is a page which I would call is honest with itself.

Thus I recommend changes as I stated above.

 

[Bobsican]

Those proposed changes are vague and really seem like spite on the idea of the ability being practically useless in vs threads. As DT has brought up it still is notable as a gimmicky way for a character to access some of their capabilities that require as a trigger the opponent having a particular ability used against them.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

You can already do that with Adaptation, no need of RE for that. I am just calling out things for what they are, you guys are just uncomfortable with the page actually saying things as they are.

And my grammar and presentation is bad anyways, maybe you can propose a better description.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Those proposed changes are vague and really seem like spite on the idea of the ability being practically useless in vs threads. As DT has brought up it still is notable as a gimmicky way for a character to access some of their capabilities that require as a trigger the opponent having a particular ability used against them.

Vs threads has 0 to do with the thread, it's indexing. You can't have the ability page say something and it not be the case in application.

 

[Bobsican]

I do agree that indexing accuracy should be an higher concern.

I'd be neutral on deleting RE, expanding the Adaptation page and making a redirect to it.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Adaptation

Adaptation is the ability to survive and adapt to different situations and natural environments. This can include developing abilities to breathe underwater or in air with variable compositions, withstand different atmospheric pressures, live in much colder or hotter climates, see in greater...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I think we should reword this page to include the stat increase adapation as well, and just delete RE.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

I do agree that indexing accuracy should be an higher concern.

I'd be neutral on deleting RE, expanding the Adaptation page and making a redirect to it.

This is a fair take. Although I do believe RE as an ability does exist but if people are adamant towards it the page should be removed for accuracy and combating redundancy.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Those proposed changes are vague and really seem like spite on the idea of the ability being practically useless in vs threads. As DT has brought up it still is notable as a gimmicky way for a character to access some of their capabilities that require as a trigger the opponent having a particular ability used against them.

And no one has said yet what would be "fair" for the character to do RE to evolve.

I asked if a character who did RE in soul manipulation could do RE in what other skills, and no one answered.

The ability as it stands now, besides being contradictory, is practically useless.

Even what you said is not RE, RE is gaining NEW resistances and NEW powers that the character never had before.

However, both are almost prohibited by the RE page itself, saying that the character is limited to what he has already done.

How does a skill give you NEW things but you are limited to what you have already demonstrated? This does not make any sense.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think gleaning abilities that the character could evolve in response to even if they haven't been shown to from context is fair, I just disagree with determining them through arbitrary types rather than a closer look at the context.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH in that case then I don't think the ability suits our current standards anymore and should be replaced with Adaptation as brought up before.

 

[Armorchompy]

To be frank I don't really understand why we split RE, Adaptation and RPL, even as things are. There's a lot of overlap and RE is really just the other two combined.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

To be frank I don't really understand why we split RE, Adaptation and RPL, even as things are. There's a lot of overlap and RE is really just the other two combined.

Basically that. Takes extra space on the profile also. Just slap an adaptation and link the feat and an explanation.

 

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

I think when it comes to layers, if RE able to evolve in higher quantitative aspect not qualitative , it would be fine.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx None of the normal users are causing any ruckus so I don’t see the point in making it staff only.

@Armorchompy you didn’t address my issue, the page literally talks about adapting to things the user has never encountered before and gaining new abilities and new resistances. You cannot say NLF and that it only works on what it’s shown while also having the page say the exact opposite for the ability’s capabilities.

@Mr._Bambu how does it remove a lot? The page itself is contradictory with itself. You have it be case by case and a NLF for the ability to gain new powers and resistances, but the beginning explanation of the power says the exact opposite of the NLF.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr._Bambu how does it remove a lot? The page itself is contradictory with itself. You have it be case by case and a NLF for the ability to gain new powers and resistances, but the beginning explanation of the power says the exact opposite of the NLF.

I don't know how better to explain it to you. I've reiterated the point multiple times. At this point I must assume you don't understand. You haven't addressed or countered any of my concerns, and so I cannot agree with this CRT- you seem to lack the understanding to even begin to address those concerns.

Regarding Armorchompy's ideas: I'm hesitant to remove it, but I see what it is you're going for, I think that's a suitable change for what people seem to want. Neutral regarding that.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mr._Bambu did you actually read the reactive evolution page or not? I have to assume you didn’t because you’re not even trying to refute the point me, Gilver and several others are making. You cannot tell me it’s a case by case basis and it’s a NLF to add new abilities when that’s literally in the description of the ability, either the ability’s base description needs to change or we expand on what the ability is capable of.

 

[Armorchompy]

@Armorchompy you didn’t address my issue, the page literally talks about adapting to things the user has never encountered before and gaining new abilities and new resistances. You cannot say NLF and that it only works on what it’s shown while also having the page say the exact opposite for the ability’s capabilities.

I never said it needs to only work on what it's shown to. What I did say is "you need to determine what it works on case by case" rather than putting down some random-ass types and saying "yep everything abides by these now xd" And I've been saying it for the last two pages so I would really expect that it'd be pretty damn clear by now.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Armorchompy Except for the fact that Doomsday's level of Reactive evolution would abide by some of the lower levels since he's never shown to adapt to more advanced abilities like type 1 concept hax, or plot hax or any other abilities. And again, the whole "case by case basis" argument doesn't hold up when the first sentence of the page literally says this.

Reactive Evolution is the ability to, in response to threats and adverse situations, evolve in ways the user previously lacked.

The fact the examples literally talks about the user gaining new abilities and new resistances as opposed to stuff they've dealt with before and only the stuff they've dealt with before doesn't remotely help this argument of case by case or it being a NLF for them to gain new abilities or resistances, either the NLF itself needs to change to the fundamental description of reactive evolution itself needs to change.