Real World Page Entry Addition And Arrangement Modification Discussion Thread (ie/tldr Real World Discussion Thread)

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Watching

The essential purpose for the thread's dealt with though (as in the points and proposals I sent have been answered), pretty sure the best course now is to just close this thread and redirect to Cracker's more general-purpose thread on the Real World.

 

[Javenplayz253]

The essential purpose for the thread's dealt with though (as in the points and proposals I sent have been answered), pretty sure the best course now is to just close this thread and redirect to Cracker's more general-purpose thread on the Real World.

Oh

 

[H3110l12345I20]

3) Given that real world durability standards do not follow our greatly simplified system for fiction, I do not think that it seems realistic or useful. My apologies.

This is missing the point. The point here is that the shields can be used as weapons (which is primarily AP/strength purposes). By that logic, none of the IRL weapons pages should exist since they all have durability.

And even if the shields are that prevalent in fiction to where their durability/AP could be considered, a vast majority of our usually known guns, & melee weapons are 9-C. And cutting weapons are also oversimplifed to 9-C despite any calc going above/below that level out of the sheer piercing effectiveness of them. The shields being simplifed 9-C in durability should be fine for most of them since we give piercing melee weapons the same treatment.

The shields by themselves already have 10-A AP feats and Above Average Human/Athletic Human Lifting Strength feats. Riot Shields can overpower and push rioters, and the Scutum has been used to push other ancient people soldiers. Etc.

Even then, what do we do in selective circumstances where a character uses/takes pushes from a shield in verse (and ones especially portrayed to be realistic)?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

This is missing the point. The point here is that the shields can be used as weapons (which is primarily AP/strength purposes). By that logic, none of the IRL weapons pages should exist since they all have durability.

And even if the shields are that prevalent in fiction to where their durability/AP could be considered, a vast majority of our usually known guns, & melee weapons are 9-C. And cutting weapons are also oversimplifed to 9-C despite any calc going above/below that level out of the sheer piercing effectiveness of them. The shields being simplifed 9-C in durability should be fine for most of them since we give piercing melee weapons the same treatment.

The shields by themselves already have 10-A AP feats and Above Average Human/Athletic Human Lifting Strength feats. Riot Shields can overpower and push rioters, and the Scutum has been used to push other ancient people soldiers. Etc.

Even then, what do we do in selective circumstances where a character uses/takes pushes from a shield in verse (and ones especially portrayed to be realistic)?

Well, thanks for backing the point up (though I should mention they usually leave out durability regarding weapons, but it could be added for shields), and thankfully you made it before the thread closes, hope Ant sees and responds to this properly before closing the thread.

3) Given that real world durability standards do not follow our greatly simplified system for fiction, I do not think that it seems realistic or useful. My apologies.

Ant, may I ask if you could respond to H3 about the rebuttal to your point, and perhaps the both of you could discuss this issue more thoroughly before closing the thread?

 

[Antvasima]

This is missing the point. The point here is that the shields can be used as weapons (which is primarily AP/strength purposes). By that logic, none of the IRL weapons pages should exist since they all have durability.

And even if the shields are that prevalent in fiction to where their durability/AP could be considered, a vast majority of our usually known guns, & melee weapons are 9-C. And cutting weapons are also oversimplifed to 9-C despite any calc going above/below that level out of the sheer piercing effectiveness of them. The shields being simplifed 9-C in durability should be fine for most of them since we give piercing melee weapons the same treatment.

The shields by themselves already have 10-A AP feats and Above Average Human/Athletic Human Lifting Strength feats. Riot Shields can overpower and push rioters, and the Scutum has been used to push other ancient people soldiers. Etc.

Even then, what do we do in selective circumstances where a character uses/takes pushes from a shield in verse (and ones especially portrayed to be realistic)?

Okay. Never mind then. I trust your professionalism and sense of judgement regarding this verse, so I would like to see what you think should be done here.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Okay. Never mind then. I trust your professionalism and sense of judgement regarding this verse, so I would like to see what you think should be done here.

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.
• For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.

Okay. That seems reasonable to me, but we need more staff input here.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Okay. That seems reasonable to me, but we need more staff input here.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

Well, damn, I didn't think we'd summon a frickton of staff, but the more the merrier, at least this will allow us to receive all the help we need.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.

For armour and protective equipment aside from shields, I guess technically we can scale off average or peak human strength and calculate how much the material of the armour (steel, composite, etc) would contribute to/reinforce other aspects of the profile? (particularly striking and lifting strength as well as durability perhaps, since quite a few types of protective equipment like exoskeletons or weighted/sap gloves or steel-/composite-toed boots enhance performance in those areas)

Powered exoskeleton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mecha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Future Force Warrior - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Weighted-knuckle glove - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bovver boot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Well, damn, I didn't think we'd summon a frickton of staff, but the more the merrier, at least this will allow us to receive all the help we need.

It's normal for Ant to do this. Though don't expect everyone he pinged to respond.

For armour and protective equipment aside from shields, I guess technically we can scale off average or peak human strength and calculate how much the material of the armour (steel, composite, etc) would contribute to/reinforce other aspects of the profile? (particularly striking and lifting strength as well as durability perhaps, since quite a few types of protective equipment like exoskeletons or weighted/sap gloves or steel-/composite-toed boots enhance performance in those areas)

Powered exoskeleton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mecha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Future Force Warrior - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Weighted-knuckle glove - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bovver boot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Armor isn't typically used as a weapon. Though the wiki can handle them being on-site since we give the oversimplified AP tier treatment to swords, we can do the same to their durability. Though since my argument relies on shields being used as weapons, we'll need staff to respond first if they'll allow armor.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

It's normal for Ant to do this. Though don't expect everyone he pinged to respond.

Armor isn't typically used as a weapon. Though the wiki can handle them being on-site since we give the oversimplified AP tier treatment to swords, we can do the same to their durability. Though since my argument relies on shields being used as weapons, we'll need staff to respond first if they'll allow armor.

To be fair with the second part, the stuff I linked (particularly gloves and boots, but also technically the mecha which also doubles as a vehicle) have both the defensive properties of armour (protection from received attacks) and the offensive properties of weapons (enhancing power of delivered attacks) so oddly enough armours could theoretically double as weapons, especially since we'd see stuff like spiked gauntlets (like the cestus) or even SWORD-GAUNTLETS/GAUNTLET-SWORDS (like the dandpatta) so yeah the boundary is blurry in those cases

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Okay. That seems reasonable to me, but we need more staff input here.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

... I'm not sure how many of them acknowledged the notifications/pings from here...

Ant, perhaps you could either notify them again or link this thread in their message walls so that they can more easily observe it and respond more efficiently/conveniently? (There hasn't been any messages from any of them since this notification message)

 

[Antvasima]

I do not have the time to summon them here in that manner, and cannot force them to be interested in helping out here.

 

[Antvasima]

1: Mahek proposes subcategories for each section of the IRL verse page; my opinion is that it should be more useful to categories that take up the entire screen at once (i.e. when a category gets too large much like how we treat tabbers).

2: "2: I propose to also keep this thread open as a way for members who contribute to the Real World Thread to throw in ideas for additions to the page entries for discussion" what Mahek said.

3: Should armour be included? If not, then what about shields since they can be used as weapons?

1) I personally do not mind slightly improving the organisation in our real world page, but it would have to be evaluated and handled by highly experienced members, preferably staff.

2) This suggestion seems to have been withdrawn.

3) Given that real world durability standards do not follow our greatly simplified system for fiction, I do not think that it seems realistic or useful. My apologies.

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.

Okay. That seems reasonable to me, but we need more staff input here.

Anyway, in lack of better options, I suppose that H3 can likely apply what I have accepted here.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Anyway, in lack of better options, I suppose that H3 can likely apply what I have accepted here.

So, as per rules, don't we need 1-2 more staff to accept these changes? The IRL verse has lots of content in a sense, and lots of pages on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Isn't this revision currently only about improving the structure of the verse page and accepting shields and armors? That does not seem very controversial.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Isn't this revision currently only about improving the structure of the verse page and accepting shields and armors? That does not seem very controversial.

It is potentially a very large revision though (that would change the way the page is navigated and contributed to), so it would probably still be worth checking in with other staff for more inputs and thoughts (if there's any staff who deal particularly with the real world page)

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Isn't this revision currently only about improving the structure of the verse page and accepting shields and armors? That does not seem very controversial.

In this case, having at least 1 staff member ok my suggestions wouldn't hurt.

For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

Btw, are you ok with this suggestion I edited in my original suggestions?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

In this case, having at least 1 staff member ok my suggestions wouldn't hurt.

Btw, are you ok with this suggestion I edited in my original suggestions?

For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

I'm good with the suggestions, I'd agree most if not all shields are capable of being used as weapons but the same is not applicable for armours so yeah this is reasonable then.

I do not have the time to summon them here in that manner, and cannot force them to be interested in helping out here.

This is fair, though at least one other senior staff (particularly any staff who are experienced with the Real World page) offering their thoughts and/or opinions on the changes would be useful so this does not seem too unilateral as a decision.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

1: Mahek proposes subcategories for each section of the IRL verse page; my opinion is that it should be more useful to categories that take up the entire screen at once (i.e. when a category gets too large much like how we treat tabbers).

2: "2: I propose to also keep this thread open as a way for members who contribute to the Real World Thread to throw in ideas for additions to the page entries for discussion" what Mahek said.

3: Should armour be included? If not, then what about shields since they can be used as weapons?

1: Yeah pretty much, but specifically lumping individual entries into groups and noting the powers/abilities of individual record-holding/notable individual examples under Powers/Stats of the group pages (For example, all the individual AK assault rifles in the AK series, FN rifles, etc into groups like DMR/Battle/Assault Rifles which will be given their own page and then mentioning what, let's say the AKM, can do in the Powers/Stats section of the DMR/Battle/Assault Rifles page).

Since listing individual examples in each category would make the page extremely cluttered like what H3 has said (just clarifying since "subcategories for each section" can also sound like adding new headings/subheadings in the Contents list of the Real World page)

2: ^Yeah that's essentially it, but given that CrackerVolley's Real World Discussion Thread already exists and is more popular/has more users, I realise that this suggestion is kinda redundant.

3: Yeah, pretty much (sorry, at the time I thought specifying types of armour/shields would be useful)
(In reference back to point 2, we could discuss what armours and other protective equipment can be included in CrackerVolley's Real World Discussion Thread again, I just thought if we're adding a whole new category it should be brought up here in addition to the other modification proposals first before broaching the topic with other contributors to the page.)

Just reiterating the summaries of what the main points are here so anyone who joins the discussion can more easily catch up and understand what is being covered.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

For armour and protective equipment aside from shields, I guess technically we can scale off average or peak human strength and calculate how much the material of the armour (steel, composite, etc) would contribute to/reinforce other aspects of the profile? (particularly striking and lifting strength as well as durability perhaps, since quite a few types of protective equipment like exoskeletons or weighted/sap gloves or steel-/composite-toed boots enhance performance in those areas)

Powered exoskeleton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mecha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Future Force Warrior - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Weighted-knuckle glove - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bovver boot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's normal for Ant to do this. Though don't expect everyone he pinged to respond.

Armor isn't typically used as a weapon. Though the wiki can handle them being on-site since we give the oversimplified AP tier treatment to swords, we can do the same to their durability. Though since my argument relies on shields being used as weapons, we'll need staff to respond first if they'll allow armor.

Oh wait a Mechs section already exists:

The Real World

Real Life/The Real World/Reality. It is where we all live. Real Life is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether it is observable or...

vsbattles.fandom.com

We can add other real life mechas to the Mechs section.

Not sure where powered exoskeletons would go though... they'd probably double as armour and vehicles (and potentially weapons if enhancing user strength in addition to durability and speed) but debatable.
The gloves and boots would fall under armour primarily but since they add to user attack strength as well they can have AP added in agreement with what H3 has said:

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.
• For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

 

[Antvasima]

It is potentially a very large revision though (that would change the way the page is navigated and contributed to), so it would probably still be worth checking in with other staff for more inputs and thoughts (if there's any staff who deal particularly with the real world page)

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Colonel_Krukov @CrimsonStarFallen

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Technically not my area of expertise. But with another knowledgable user in weapons and preferably another staff member on the way here (so you may not have to do all the work here), I can think ahead and formulate a plan on how we can handle shield profiles.

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.
• For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

This is looking good; and yes. I do say all the time that AP values should exclusively be judged based on their own calculations. As for durability, that is often prone to case by case given the numerous sub categories of durability such as heat, force, electricity, corrosiveness, ect all being different forms of damage output. And even sub categories have sub categories such as slashing/piercing being more effective against various stretchy materials while being not so effective against rock hard objects. Then blunt going attacks such as flat hammers having the opposite effect. Same with heat resistance also being something such as having either a really high melting/boiling point vs it having specifically high heat capacity. There's also the fact that durability can also depend on specific surface area and/or volume of various objects or creatures.

I personally don't mind putting shields in the armor category. Since one could argue tackling someone while wearing full metal armor can have similar effects to using a shield as a smashing board.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

As for durability, that is often prone to case by case given the numerous sub categories of durability such as heat, force, electricity, corrosiveness, ect all being different forms of damage output. And even sub categories have sub categories such as slashing/piercing being more effective against various stretchy materials while being not so effective against rock hard objects. Then blunt going attacks such as flat hammers having the opposite effect. Same with heat resistance also being something such as having either a really high melting/boiling point vs it having specifically high heat capacity. There's also the fact that durability can also depend on specific surface area and/or volume of various objects or creatures.

We scale on physical blows, so we should only be concerned about blunt/piercing force. But yes, your arguments are valid here.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

This is looking good; and yes. I do say all the time that AP values should exclusively be judged based on their own calculations. As for durability, that is often prone to case by case given the numerous sub categories of durability such as heat, force, electricity, corrosiveness, ect all being different forms of damage output. And even sub categories have sub categories such as slashing/piercing being more effective against various stretchy materials while being not so effective against rock hard objects. Then blunt going attacks such as flat hammers having the opposite effect. Same with heat resistance also being something such as having either a really high melting/boiling point vs it having specifically high heat capacity. There's also the fact that durability can also depend on specific surface area and/or volume of various objects or creatures.

I personally don't mind putting shields in the armor category. Since one could argue tackling someone while wearing full metal armor can have similar effects to using a shield as a smashing board.

1: Mahek proposes subcategories for each section of the IRL verse page; my opinion is that it should be more useful to categories that take up the entire screen at once (i.e. when a category gets too large much like how we treat tabbers).

2: "2: I propose to also keep this thread open as a way for members who contribute to the Real World Thread to throw in ideas for additions to the page entries for discussion" what Mahek said.

3: Should armour be included? If not, then what about shields since they can be used as weapons?

^1: Yeah pretty much, but specifically lumping individual entries into groups and noting the powers/abilities of individual record-holding/notable individual examples under Powers/Stats of the group pages (For example, all the individual AK assault rifles in the AK series, FN rifles, etc into groups like DMR/Battle/Assault Rifles which will be given their own page and then mentioning what, let's say the AKM, can do in the Powers/Stats section of the DMR/Battle/Assault Rifles page).

Since listing individual examples in each category would make the page extremely cluttered like what H3 has said (just clarifying since "subcategories for each section" can also sound like adding new headings/subheadings in the Contents list of the Real World page)

2: ^Yeah that's essentially it, but given that CrackerVolley's Real World Discussion Thread already exists and is more popular/has more users, I realise that this suggestion is kinda redundant.

3: Yeah, pretty much (sorry, at the time I thought specifying types of armour/shields would be useful)
(In reference back to point 2, we could discuss what armours and other protective equipment can be included in CrackerVolley's Real World Discussion Thread again, I just thought if we're adding a whole new category it should be brought up here in addition to the other modification proposals first before broaching the topic with other contributors to the page.)

Medeus, could you please also offer your opinions/thoughts on the reorganisation of the page as per point 1 in both H3's and my messages above?

It would be much appreciated, again because additional input is useful and serves to show that this decision is not unilateral.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Planck69 @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42

Your help would be appreciated here.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Thank you Ant, and BUMP PLEASE WE NEED MORE STAFF INPUT HERE (Medeus has provided opinion on shields and armour, but we also need input about the reorganisation and cleaning up of the page in terms of categorisation and grouping of entries)

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Thank you Ant, and BUMP PLEASE WE NEED MORE STAFF INPUT HERE (Medeus has provided opinion on shields and armour, but we also need input about the reorganisation and cleaning up of the page in terms of categorisation and grouping of entries)

Mahek. The wiki is one of the largest among fandom and far outnumbers the staff, if that work load weren't overwhelming them by now, then they would come to you by now.

Give them a couple of weeks (or months at most). They'll come (we can afford to wait since we all have a life). Though if they don't by then, ask them on their message walls.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Mahek. The wiki is one of the largest among fandom and far outnumbers the staff, if that work load weren't overwhelming them by now, then they would come to you by now.

Give them a couple of weeks (or months at most). They'll come (we can afford to wait since we all have a life). Though if they don't by then, ask them on their message walls.

My bad, but to be fair:

Okay. That seems reasonable to me, but we need more staff input here.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

This was on Jul 5 ^ and:

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Colonel_Krukov @CrimsonStarFallen

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

This was on Jul 10 ^.

So it's been around more than 2 weeks at least since the last pings from Ant.

I guess waiting another week or so should not be unreasonable but if there's still no response from anyone other than Medeus after that then message walls it is, though I also assume it's possibly because the staff have other more pressing alerts to respond to.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

bump

Bump too, we still need input from staff.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Planck69 @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42

Your help would be appreciated here.

Ant, sorry, but it seems like no one has responded yet. Is it possible to call on them through other means that are not too disruptive? (Forum and Fandom profile wall posts, private conversations, etc) (Also they would probably be more likely to respond if it was you contacting them rather than me or H3, considering our relative positions in this forum)

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus

What are your conclusions here so far, and what do we currently need to do here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Medeus, could you please also offer your opinions/thoughts on the reorganisation of the page as per point 1 in both H3's and my messages above?

It would be much appreciated, again because additional input is useful and serves to show that this decision is not unilateral.

This looks alright to me.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

This looks alright to me.

Thanks.

 

[Antvasima]

H3's suggestions can likely be applied then, but for safety reasons, can somebody summarise them first please?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I need information on the obstacles (if any else I don't know) and what it would take to create a weapon profile for shields. For now:

• The format will remain the same for other weapon profiles.
  • Like scaling piercing weapons based off of their cutting effectiveness, we judge how effective shields are against withstanding piercing weapons. This is for especially cases where only info is put for withstanding piercing weapons.
    • This usually results in the weapon (i.e. shield) being 9-C in durability.
  • For AP, as stated in my previous rebuttal, we can judge the shield's AP based off of it's raw power context (feats, reliable statements, etc).
• If there's at least 1 shield profile...
  • Rather than putting the shield profiles in the "Others" section of the melee profiles, shields deserve their own section of the melee weapons section. Shields by definition are different than clubs or swords.
• For armor, it's a different case since not all of them can be used as weapons unlike shields, not all of them have to have AP if they can't be effectively used as weapons. But giving their durability similar treatment to shields should be fine.

For more info, you can read my suggestions here ^^^. But basically...

1. The format remains the same as other weapons profiles
   1. We scale how effective shields are against piercing weapons, usually bringing them into 9-C durability in most cases.
   2. We judge a shield's AP based off of it's raw power feats.
2. If there's a shield profile, there should be a shields section below the melee weapons section.
3. We should give durability of armor the same treatment as shields.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that seems good in that case.

And where should we add an instruction text for this? Within the following page?

Standard Format for Item Profiles

Insert a portrait of the item here. Standard size is 400px thumbnail and the alignment is to the right, but you should adjust the image size if it turns too large or too small, and horizontally aligned images may be placed in the center of a verse page. Here you can add a summary/short info...

vsbattles.fandom.com

If so, would you be willing to add the information to it?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Much of the feats in fiction for shields and armor are higher than in real life, not to mention we'd fall back to Real Life standards for realistically portrayed shields.

I find it more practical we put it as a section in the verse specific rules in the page for "the real world". Considering that the intention of this thread was originally suggetions for the real world verse.

• Unless if course, there are counterarguments suggesting real life standards for shields apply to fiction

I'll type the source and suggest where it should be when I get home.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

This source should be below the line that says "and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]]." and above the line that says "==Supporters/Opponents/Neutral==" in the source vvv

===Items and Weapons Rules===
As stated in the [[Editing Rules#Types of Pages Allowed|editing rules]], common armors and weapons are allowed as profiles.
*Armor, cutting weapons, and shields are a vastly different case due to the oversimplifications in our tiering system against the latter's piercing damage.
**Cutting weapons should be tiered based off of their piercing effectiveness, rather than energy output due to their effectiveness as piercing weapons. Sufficiently sharp enough cutting weapons like [[Knife|knives]] and [[Machete|machetes]] can be 9-C due to their ability to cut flesh.<br><br>
**Armor and shields profiles are allowed, given that...
***They follow the [[Standard Format for Item Profiles|standard format for item profiles]].<br><br>
***Their durability is judged based off their ability to withstand the force of cutting weapons.<br><br>
***Their attack potency is based off of raw power.
****While you could technically use armor as a blunt force weapon. Their attack potency is optional if they don't have any notable attack attributes that stand out (spikes, being an effective blunt force weapon unlike most items in real life, etc)