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

[H3110l12345I20]

****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)

I decided to bold this part since the line between weapon and nonweapon can be vague for armor. Should we allow armor that isn't a weapon on site? We can handle their durability much like the shields' oversimplified durability.

I haven't suggested this part yet.

Also, I'll need to get images for at least 1 shield or armor to create source code for armor and shields' respective sections. Give me a bit more time, as I only found images for the former.

 

[Antvasima]

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 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]].
***Their durability is judged based off their ability to withstand the force of cutting weapons.
***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)

I think that this seems good to apply.

 

[Antvasima]

I decided to bold this part since the line between weapon and nonweapon can be vague for armor. Should we allow armor that isn't a weapon on site? We can handle their durability much like the shields' oversimplified durability.

I haven't suggested this part yet.

I think that that also seems fine.

Also, I'll need to get images for at least 1 shield or armor to create source code for armor and shields' respective sections. Give me a bit more time, as I only found images for the former.

Okay. No problem.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The "shields" section should be below the clubs and above the swords section (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Riotshield.png|Riot Shield
</gallery>

The "Armor" section should be in and below the "others" section. Which is under the weapons section of the page (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Chainmailarmor.png|Chainmail Armor
</gallery>

Though before the latter is used, while it would technically not really hurt, or get us in legal trouble to include IRL armor on-site. The editing rules state weapons only. That's the problem.
("

• The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse.
  
  • Please do not make profiles for real life vehicles, unless the vehicle in question is combat-oriented, such as a tank. Ordinary civilian vehicles are not notable or distinct enough for pages.

")

• So do we only include armor that can used as a weapon unlike most household items? Or change the rules to include real life armor that's more combat-defense orientated?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I think that that also seems fine.

Okay. No problem.

Done vvv

---

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 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)

Edited this reply above ^^^, and made this reply Ant vvv

The "shields" section should be below the clubs and above the swords section (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Riotshield.png|Riot Shield
</gallery>

The "Armor" section should be in and below the "others" section. Which is under the weapons section of the page (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Chainmailarmor.png|Chainmail Armor
</gallery>

Though before the latter is used, while it would technically not really hurt, or get us in legal trouble to include IRL armor on-site. The editing rules state weapons only. That's the problem.
("

• The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse.
  
  • Please do not make profiles for real life vehicles, unless the vehicle in question is combat-oriented, such as a tank. Ordinary civilian vehicles are not notable or distinct enough for pages.

")

• So do we only include armor that can used as a weapon unlike most household items? Or change the rules to include real life armor that's more combat-defense orientated?

 

[Antvasima]

I have slightly modified our rules according to the outcomes of this discussion thread.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?type=revision&diff=8693000&oldid=8667790

Thank you for helping out.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I have slightly modified our rules according to the outcomes of this discussion thread.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?type=revision&diff=8693000&oldid=8667790

Thank you for helping out.

Ant, there's plenty of minor changes (including the inclusion of IRL armor in our rules), so do you mind if another staff member evaluates that change and the minor sandboxes here first?

====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Riotshield.png|Riot Shield
</gallery>

The "Armor" section should be in and below the "others" section. Which is under the weapons section of the page (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Chainmailarmor.png|Chainmail Armor
</gallery>

===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)

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

This looks alright to me.

Medeus, we might need your vote again regarding my and H3's suggestions considering recent rule changes (again, to adhere to the rule of staff voting for this revision + make sure the decision is not unilateral), please and thanks.

I have slightly modified our rules according to the outcomes of this discussion thread.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?type=revision&diff=8693000&oldid=8667790

Thank you for helping out.

Ant, there's plenty of minor changes (including the inclusion of IRL armor in our rules), so do you mind if another staff member evaluates that change and the minor sandboxes here first?

^^ These are the recent changes being referred to.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @AKM sama @Agnaa

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @AKM sama @Agnaa

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

Um, Ant, is it OK if I could request to please help notify them again later this week during the weekend? I think they'd be more free and able to respond during that time. (Also cause we're still waiting for a go-ahead from at least two staff members regarding what H3 and you have discussed as well as what we have agreed on earlier in this thread as referenced below.)

This looks alright to me.

Medeus, we might need your vote again regarding my and H3's suggestions considering recent rule changes (again, to adhere to the rule of staff voting for this revision + make sure the decision is not unilateral), please and thanks.


^^ These are the recent changes being referred to.

I think if it's OK I'll also link this thread over to CrackerVolley's Real World Discussion Thread to ask them for additional input here.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Let me see if I can summarise everything we've covered so far and still need to do:

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.

^ These messages cover the agreements for reorganising the format of the Real World Page.

Ant, there's plenty of minor changes (including the inclusion of IRL armor in our rules), so do you mind if another staff member evaluates that change and the minor sandboxes here first?

Medeus, we might need your vote again regarding my and H3's suggestions considering recent rule changes (again, to adhere to the rule of staff voting for this revision + make sure the decision is not unilateral), please and thanks.


^^ These are the recent changes being referred to.

^ These cover the changes we still need to address.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @AKM sama @Agnaa

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

Let me see if I can summarise everything we've covered so far and still need to do:


^ These messages cover the agreements for reorganising the format of the Real World Page.



^ These cover the changes we still need to address.

^ Sorry Ant, but we might still need to get more staff input for these (hope the staff including yourself are not too busy, but yeah it's already been nearly 2 weeks) (also, I'm hoping the changes are administered sooner rather than later so that said changes do not clash/occur during the time any match-up results are posted for Real World entries, given that the reorganisation of the page will majorly affect what the Real World entry profiles look like, which may be confusing)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am too busy. Still, I will provide my input if none other can.

I don't mind reorganizing the page. Most verses wouldn't even require a CRT for that, cleaning up pages is encouraged. In the case of the Real World, I agree that subcategories would help solve the issue of entire categories of pages taking up all screen space, if such a thing can be considered an issue. I support doing it, even if I think it is a non-issue.

Armor doesn't really have tiers we can work with. Perhaps as a measure of something to break- this guy breaks armor, and so he must have this tier, but really and truly that depends on the type of breakage. No, I think armor should not be allowed. I'm ambivalent about shields, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

If I missed something, please link to the original comment discussing the thing, not a comment that links to a comment that links to a comment and so on. I'll try to speak on it. Note that I am not offering infinite support here, as I lack the time and my focus is also necessary elsewhere, and so what changes you want should be made clear.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am too busy. Still, I will provide my input if none other can.

I don't mind reorganizing the page. Most verses wouldn't even require a CRT for that, cleaning up pages is encouraged. In the case of the Real World, I agree that subcategories would help solve the issue of entire categories of pages taking up all screen space, if such a thing can be considered an issue. I support doing it, even if I think it is a non-issue.

Armor doesn't really have tiers we can work with. Perhaps as a measure of something to break- this guy breaks armor, and so he must have this tier, but really and truly that depends on the type of breakage. No, I think armor should not be allowed. I'm ambivalent about shields, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

If I missed something, please link to the original comment discussing the thing, not a comment that links to a comment that links to a comment and so on. I'll try to speak on it. Note that I am not offering infinite support here, as I lack the time and my focus is also necessary elsewhere, and so what changes you want should be made clear.

Armor just has durability and not really AP yeah, and even if we made profiles for shields, they are more or less in the same boat as swords. There are reliable ways to index durability, but the AP really just depends on the person using them.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @AKM sama @Agnaa

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

Ant, there's plenty of minor changes (including the inclusion of IRL armor in our rules), so do you mind if another staff member evaluates that change and the minor sandboxes here first?

Let me see if I can summarise everything we've covered so far and still need to do:


^ These messages cover the agreements for reorganising the format of the Real World Page.



^ These cover the changes we still need to address.

OK, Ant, H3, letting you both know Bambu and Medeus have given their input.

I don't mind reorganizing the page. Most verses wouldn't even require a CRT for that, cleaning up pages is encouraged. In the case of the Real World, I agree that subcategories would help solve the issue of entire categories of pages taking up all screen space, if such a thing can be considered an issue. I support doing it, even if I think it is a non-issue.

Armor doesn't really have tiers we can work with. Perhaps as a measure of something to break- this guy breaks armor, and so he must have this tier, but really and truly that depends on the type of breakage. No, I think armor should not be allowed. I'm ambivalent about shields, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Armor just has durability and not really AP yeah, and even if we made profiles for shields, they are more or less in the same boat as swords. There are reliable ways to index durability, but the AP really just depends on the person using them.

OK so Bambu and Medeus have also agreed with Ant and the proposal that H3 and I have put forth about reorganising the pages, but still there's some issues pertaining to AP and durability of armour and shields from them...

OK wait, sorry, but Bambu, Medeus, I should remind both of you that:
Armour can indeed also add to AP in certain cases (think weighted sap gloves, steel-toe and composite-toe boots, spiked gauntlets/cestus, etc), but yeah, at best they should scale to street or potentially wall level based on peak human power + durability of the material of the armour (strength + durability), skill (intelligence, in this case pertaining to combat ability) and acceleration (speed, but in this case more of rate of increase of speed, since F = ma where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration).
Shields can have both blunt and piercing damage based on how they are designed (consider the lantern shield, maduvu, and other spiked shields as well as shields with reinforced metal rims and faces such as the buckler).
So these points should refute the argument for armour not being allowed while supporting the argument for AP depending on the person using them.

Nguni shield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nguni shield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scutum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Riot shield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Other than that I guess we're essentially all in agreement for reorganising the Real World page in general... so I'll take this as a greenlight/go-ahead then?
Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion.

 

[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.)

To simplify this ^:
6. Extinct Organisms

7. Extant Organisms

6.1.1 (under 6.1 Precambrian)/6.2.1 (under 6.2 Paleozoic)/6.3.1 (under 6.3 Mesozoic)/6.4.1 (under 6.4 Cenozoic) Eukarya
6.1.2 (under 6.1 Precambrian)/6.2.2 (under 6.2 Paleozoic)/6.3.2 (under 6.3 Mesozoic)/6.4.2 (under 6.4 Cenozoic) Prokarya
OR
6.1.1-6.1.7 (under 6.1 Precambrian)/6.2.1-6.2.7 (under 6.2 Paleozoic)/6.3.1-6.3.7 (under 6.3 Mesozoic)/6.4.1-6.4.7 (under 6.4 Cenozoic) Bacteria/Archaea/Protozoa/Chromista/Plantae/Fungi/Animalia

7.1-7.5 Animals, Plants, Fungi, Bacteria, Protists 7.1 Eukarya + 7.2 Prokarya
7.1.1-7.1.6 Invertebrates, Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals 7.1.1-7.1.7/7.2.1-7.2.7 Bacteria/Archaea/Protozoa/Chromista/Plantae/Fungi/Animalia

Phyla and Classes (such as Chordata and Mammalia respectively), on second thought, can become sections/categories under the Domains or Kingdoms (Eukarya/Prokarya and Bacteria/Archaea/Protozoa/Chromista/Plantae/Fungi/Animalia respectively)

Individual pages (let's take whales as examples, Genera/Species such as the blue whale/Balaenoptera musculus, and fin whale/Balaenoptera physalus, etc) can be grouped under Orders/Familiae (such as, accordingly, Artiodactyla/Balaenopteridae respectively) which would be given their own pages, with record-holding/notable genera and species being displayed in the Powers And Stats of the new order/family page (such as the blue whale's notable abilities being noted in Powers And Stats of the Artiodactyla/Balaenopteridae page)
(Still a bit complicated to simplify further, this is the best I can do)

The "shields" section should be below the clubs and above the swords section (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Riotshield.png|Riot Shield
</gallery>

The "Armor" section should be in and below the "others" section. Which is under the weapons section of the page (image used) vvv
====Shields====
<gallery orientation="square" widths="120" spacing="small" captionalign="center" captionsize="small" hideaddbutton="true" position="center" navigation="true">
Chainmailarmor.png|Chainmail Armor
</gallery>

Though before the latter is used, while it would technically not really hurt, or get us in legal trouble to include IRL armor on-site. The editing rules state weapons only. That's the problem.
("

• The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse.
  
  • Please do not make profiles for real life vehicles, unless the vehicle in question is combat-oriented, such as a tank. Ordinary civilian vehicles are not notable or distinct enough for pages.

")

• So do we only include armor that can used as a weapon unlike most household items? Or change the rules to include real life armor that's more combat-defense orientated?

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)

H3, we have Ant's, Bambu's and Medeus's approval.
WE SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO, I HOPE THIS ALL WORKS OUT!

boop

I'm not sure. It would make things more assembled, but the way the page is designed just makes things less complicated, despite not being as organized. I wouldn't mind the change, though. Bump

@DemiiPowa @Elizhaa @Colonel_Krukov @CrimsonStarFallen @ElixirBlue @Antvasima

Watching

THANK YOU ALL FOR AIDING IN AND PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION!

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @AKM sama @Agnaa

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

I am too busy. Still, I will provide my input if none other can.

If I missed something, please link to the original comment discussing the thing, not a comment that links to a comment that links to a comment and so on. I'll try to speak on it. Note that I am not offering infinite support here, as I lack the time and my focus is also necessary elsewhere, and so what changes you want should be made clear.

Armor just has durability and not really AP yeah, and even if we made profiles for shields, they are more or less in the same boat as swords. There are reliable ways to index durability, but the AP really just depends on the person using them.

Ant, Bambu, Medeus, I think we can finally close the thread. Thank you for participating and aiding in this discussion as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that any accepted revisions should be applied in our wiki before we close this thread.

@H3110l12345I20

 

[Antvasima]

@H3110l12345I20

Are you willing to help out here please?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you greatly for helping out.

So what, if anything, is left to do here then?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Thank you greatly for helping out.

So what, if anything, is left to do here then?

H3, we have Ant's, Bambu's and Medeus's approval.
WE SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO, I HOPE THIS ALL WORKS OUT!





THANK YOU ALL FOR AIDING IN AND PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION!




Ant, Bambu, Medeus, I think we can finally close the thread. Thank you for participating and aiding in this discussion as well.

I think we can close the thread since we've essentially settled the discussion, but we should keep the thread visible for reference regarding what needs to be done for the Real World page.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Thank you greatly for helping out.

So what, if anything, is left to do here then?

Done.

I think we can close the thread since we've essentially settled the discussion, but we should keep the thread visible for reference regarding what needs to be done for the Real World page.

H3, hope that you have time to implement the changes (or that you can ask the other Real World contributers to help implement them if they have time and you're too busy).

Ant, I think we can close the thread, I linked it over to the Real World discussion thread already so that they know what we've agreed upon/what the plan is for the page's restructuring.

The Real World Discussion Thread

No, I meant should we add the traits of archaic humans to the composite human? (Sorry for being unclear) Since technically they're still human, if the composite human is just the Homo genus rather than specifically the Homo sapiens species. It's been 5 years since composite human moved out of...

vsbattles.com

Please and thanks.

 

[Antvasima]

@H3110l12345I20

It seems like you need to apply some accepted revisions based on this thread. After that I think we can close it.