Request for Indexing Hax Layering/Smurf Hax on Profiles

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Dragon Ball??. Benefit???. Man, i still remember peoples saying Goku resist Hakai is Hakai weakness, not Goku's resistance

Sorry, I should've specified DBH, I do recall some layered/smurf hax from there. Point is a lot more verses than just Marvel and DC would stand to gain from listing layered/smurf hax.

 

[Vietthai96]

Sorry, I should've specified DBH, I do recall some layered/smurf hax from there. Point is a lot more verses than just Marvel and DC would stand to gain from listing layered/smurf hax.

Well, about layered DBH, since the verse used UES system for hax, peoples could gonna go the Hakai route again, say that it is their hax weakness, not layers......

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Well, about layered DBH, since the verse used UES system for hax, peoples could gonna go the Hakai route again, say that it is their hax weakness, not layers......

This revision won't really affect that debate at all. If there's a consensus that it's layering, great, throw it on the profiles. If the decision is that it's a weakness and not layers, don't add it to the profiles. Literally all that'll change is that people will be able to see those decisions reflected on the profiles, when otherwise, there's no way to tell.

 

[Phoenks]

I believe that this should be highly recommended, not mandatory. And I do think this thread has a reason for existing despite that as it popularizes this trend and encourages these specifications which is overall very beneficial for the wiki as a whole. If this thread wasn't made it is unlikely that any change would come.

Also, Impress is actually pretty right when it comes to Marvel and DC making up an extremely large chunk of all Smurf hax. That verse has an extreme amount of characters with an extreme amount of different issues. Many of them end up scaling to the greater cosmology in some way.

"Layered" hax, not so much though. There's thousands of characters with layered hax.

 

[azontr]

Who gives a **** if Impress doesn't wanna do it with Marvel and DC It won't be a mandatory standard so she can do whatever the hell she wants with the verses she supports.

 

[Bobsican]

Yeah, while it wouldn't be "mandatory" out of cases like that, we can at least make it so that there's a standard as to how to index it in cases where that's plausible to do.

I'd also suggest to do templates to ease using the same justification across profiles while also simplifying maintenance, but that'd be unlikely to pass, unless...?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

So in terms of staff approval we have

Agree: 4 (AbbadonTheDisappointment, DueDate8898, Phoenks, Confluctor)

Disagree: 2 (SirOvens, The_Impress)

???: 2 (Saikou [said the idea was fine but didn't like using dimensions to measure smurf hax], Antoniofer [not sure if they gave an opinion, just brought up issues with layering])

We definitely need more input lol

 

[Confluctor]

Put me for agree ig. I wouldn't mind this being a thing, but I don't want it to become a standard where everyone is forced to write this stuff down. It should be optional.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Put me for agree ig. I wouldn't mind this being a thing, but I don't want it to become a standard where everyone is forced to write this stuff down. It should be optional.

That seems to be the option most people are leaning towards anyways, so I don't think that'll be a problem.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Put me for agree ig. I wouldn't mind this being a thing, but I don't want it to become a standard where everyone is forced to write this stuff down. It should be optional.

And this will require someone finding a one size fits all for the way hax should be layered.
When actually in majority of the verse, the characters don’t get extra layers to their hax, they just get stronger AP wise and then they can affect people who could stomp them with the hax that could not affect them prior to their increase in strength.
So, it’s not 2 layers into it, it’s just “1 layer, higher after amp”

But if there is a way anyone can find a one size fits all way to get this layering then it’s fine.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

And this will require someone finding a one size fits all for the way hax should be layered.
When actually in majority of the verse, the characters don’t get extra layers to their hax, they just get stronger AP wise and then they can affect people who could stomp them with the hax that could not affect them prior to their increase in strength.
So, it’s not 2 layers into it, it’s just “1 layer, higher after amp”

But if there is a way anyone can find a one size fits all way to get this layering then it’s fine.

That's a layer. What you just described is one of the most blatant examples of hax layering I've seen. 1 layer of hax --> 1 layer of resistance --> 2 layers of hax after the the amp. Thank you for demonstrating just how straightforward this is though, even if that wasn't your intention.

 

[PrinceofPein]

That's a layer. What you just described is one of the most blatant examples of hax layering I've seen. 1 layer of hax --> 1 layer of resistance --> 2 layers of hax after the the amp. Thank you for demonstrating just how straightforward this is though, even if that wasn't your intention.

I’m pretty sure, someone gaining an increase in AP does not mean their haxes gain one layer.
And you must be trying to do this on purpose and trying to act like you can’t read I said “some verses treat increase in AP as increase in hax layers” when it’s just “baseline, higher with amp”

An ideal higher layer would be infinitely more powerful than a lower layer.
So for it to be another layer when they get an increase in AP, the character must become infinitely more powerful than prior, meaning a 10-B needs to become High 3-A.

Don’t misconstruct my words to fit your misguided narratives.

But like I said prior, if anyone can get a “one size fits all“ for how to layer hax for literally all verses, then I agree but so far I disagree with this, if we will hold different verses to different standards

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I’m pretty sure, someone gaining an increase in AP does not mean their haxes gain one layer.
And you must be trying to do this on purpose and trying to act like you can’t read I said “some verses treat increase in AP as increase in hax layers” when it’s just “baseline, higher with amp”

I know it doesn't (usually). But here you are giving me an example where an AP amp increases hax layers. But now you're also saying that increasing hax layers in this way... Doesn't increase hax layers? Can you please pick a side here?

The reason why hax layers increase is irrelevant. If it's correlated to AP, cool. If it's tied to the cosmology of a verse, cool. But ultimately they're still hax layers and we can still index them.

An ideal higher layer would be infinitely more powerful than a lower layer.
So for it to be another layer when they get an increase in AP, the character must become infinitely more powerful than prior, meaning a 10-B needs to become High 3-A.

...No???? Can you show me ONE character that this would apply to? Because I have ******* never seen hax layers work this way. And honestly, we wouldn't treat that as an additional layer anyways unless the verse makes it very clear that an increase in AP indicates an increase in hax potency.

Don’t misconstruct my words to fit your misguided narratives.

This coming from you of all people is a form of irony I wish I could find funny.

But like I said prior, if anyone can get a “one size fits all“ for how to layer hax for literally all verses, then I agree but so far I disagree with this, if we will hold different verses to different standards

The "one size fits all" is if hax can overpower resistance to those hax. If a character has resistance to mind manip, and a character affects them with mind manip, the latter character has layered hax. That is how we have always treated layering on this site. This is not rocket science.

 

[ÆONS]

I’m pretty sure, someone gaining an increase in AP does not mean their haxes gain one layer.
And you must be trying to do this on purpose and trying to act like you can’t read I said “some verses treat increase in AP as increase in hax layers” when it’s just “baseline, higher with amp”

An ideal higher layer would be infinitely more powerful than a lower layer.
So for it to be another layer when they get an increase in AP, the character must become infinitely more powerful than prior, meaning a 10-B needs to become High 3-A.

Don’t misconstruct my words to fit your misguided narratives.

AP and Power have nothing to do with hax, you should know that.

A person with a certain layer of hax is one who's capable of overcoming a character who already has resistance to a weaker form of it. So for example:

A character who has 0 layers of Fate Manipulation (whose abilities are simply baseline) would be unable to affect—or at least have difficulty affecting—a character with 0 layers (baseline amount) of resistance to said hax. However, a third character with 1 layer of Fate hax would be a character who can overcome the resistances of the second mentioned character since their capabilities are obviously above baseline. None of this involves having higher AP or power.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I know it doesn't (usually). But here you are giving me an example where an AP amp increases hax layers. But now you're also saying that increasing hax layers in this way... Doesn't increase hax layers? Can you please pick a side here?

The reason why hax layers increase is irrelevant. If it's correlated to AP, cool. If it's tied to the cosmology of a verse, cool. But ultimately they're still hax layers and we can still index them.


...No???? Can you show me ONE character that this would apply to? Because I have ******* never seen hax layers work this way. And honestly, we wouldn't treat that as an additional layer anyways unless the verse makes it very clear that an increase in AP indicates an increase in hax potency.


This coming from you of all people is a form of irony I wish I could find funny.


The "one size fits all" is if hax can overpower resistance to those hax. If a character has resistance to mind manip, and a character affects them with mind manip, the latter character has layered hax. That is how we have always treated layering on this site. This is not rocket science.

The problem here is you thinking there can’t be a clear gap between a hax of the same layer. And that much I cannot help you with.
I still stand with

if anyone can get a “one size fits all“ for how to layer hax for literally all verses, then I agree but so far I disagree with this, if we will hold different verses to different standards

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

The problem here is you thinking there can’t be a clear gap between a hax of the same layer. And that much I cannot help you with.
I still stand with

I have given you that "one size fits all" description of layering, the same one numerous other people have been explaining this entire thread, and the same one we use in virtually every VS debate on the site. You just seem intent on ignoring it.

I'm not saying there can't be a gap between hax of the same layer. In fact, I don't recall ever saying that. Could you please point that out to me?

 

[PrinceofPein]

I have given you that "one size fits all" description of layering, the same one numerous other people have been explaining this entire thread, and the same one we use in virtually every VS debate on the site. You just seem intent on ignoring it.

I'm not saying there can't be a gap between hax of the same layer. In fact, I don't recall ever saying that. Could you please point that out to me?

So if you know there can be gap, how do we determine the gap? Or when do we say this is above the gap, and already on another layer?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

If there is a gap and it can't be accurately determined the next best thing would be using our common sense as we do for everything else. It doesn't need to be a perfect System down to the most minute detail, just better than what we have at the moment which is nothing.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

So if you know there can be gap, how do we determine the gap? Or when do we say this is above the gap, and already on another layer?

We already do this with transformations and new keys; We simply say "same as before on a much higher level" in regards to hax, usually formatted like this:

There is already a solution to the problem you brought up, and it's been this way for quite a while now.

 

[PrinceofPein]

We already do this with transformations and new keys; We simply say "same as before on a much higher level" in regards to hax, usually formatted like this:

There is already a solution to the problem you brought up, and it's been this way for quite a while now.

This does not answer my question in the slightest or solve the problem.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

You were asking how to quantify gaps in hax potency that don't equate to another layer. This is how. The description Aeons gave on layering also solves the issue of when we should apply layering.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You were asking how to quantify gaps in hax potency that don't equate to another layer. This is how. The description Aeons gave on layering also solves the issue of when we should apply layering.

I’m not asking how to quantify it for a verse, I’m saying generalize it for all verse. This was the question
So if you know there can be gap, how do we determine the gap? Or when do we say this is above the gap, and already on another layer?


Also, Aeons description also does not solve the gaps I said.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I’m not asking how to quantify it for a verse, I’m saying generalize it for all verse. This was the question
So if you know there can be gap, how do we determine the gap? Or when do we say this is above the gap, and already on another layer?

Yeah alright you're obviously not reading any of the posts here. Aeons, ActuallySpaceMan, and I have all given you ample explanation. If you don't get it, then that's a you problem. I'll quote their own posts for the sake of argument, but I don't really feel like wasting my time here anymore.

AP and Power have nothing to do with hax, you should know that.

A person with a certain layer of hax is one who's capable of overcoming a character who already has resistance to a weaker form of it. So for example:

A character who has 0 layers of Fate Manipulation (whose abilities are simply baseline) would be unable to affect—or at least have difficulty affecting—a character with 0 layers (baseline amount) of resistance to said hax. However, a third character with 1 layer of Fate hax would be a character who can overcome the resistances of the second mentioned character since their capabilities are obviously above baseline. None of this involves having higher AP or power.

If there is a gap and it can't be accurately determined the next best thing would be using our common sense as we do for everything else. It doesn't need to be a perfect System down to the most minute detail, just better than what we have at the moment which is nothing.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah alright you're obviously not reading any of the posts here. Aeons, ActuallySpaceMan, and I have all given you ample explanation. If you don't get it, then that's a you problem. I'll quote their own posts for the sake of argument, but I don't really feel like wasting my time here anymore.

Your examples do not still answer the question or address it in the slightest.
While spaceman brought a solid point, it still won’t fit the “one size should fit all” as that’s the only way this thing works.
Things that we treat as layers and we want to generalize must have that (refer to tier 1 and how dimension scaling are treated)
There is a problem with your proposition and as the OP, you should bring solution to it, the problem being

So if you know there can be gap, how do we determine the gap? Or when do we say this is above the gap, and already on another layer?

But yeah, I’m not too bothered about this, just my two cents

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

There is a problem with your proposition and as the OP, you should bring solution to it, the problem being

The solution is to do what we're already doing, and say they're unquantifiably superior. This is how we have treated hax for a long time now.

 

[azontr]

I feel like this is less of a problem with the proposal and more of a problem with the concept of layers in general

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I feel like this is less of a problem with the proposal and more of a problem with the concept of layers in general

Yeah, I feel like any grievances people have with the concept of layers should be taken elsewhere.

 

[Vietthai96]

Now now guys, no need to get heated at each other over some fictional things.
Back to the topic, layers thing aside, with this become just optional, mean people can freely edit the profile the way they want, which back to my previous question, how do we do quality control??. People can slap infinite layers on the profile and others can't do about it, the match is made, peope get heated and toxic, then content revision thread is created for the sake of "revising" layers, things get heated again, get staffs attention, rule is made, standard is created, which again back to how we standardise layers, and then we need to patrol every profile to make sure people don't slap random layer number on profile, which in turn go back to: people need to make content revision to add layer number to the profile, which in turn, a standard need to be created to not inflate things up......

That is my main problem, for the record, i already do psuedo-layers listing on some DBH profiles with the use of word like: this guy's hax is so strong that he overwhelming that guy's resistance.

And let not say about how to structure them on profile to not look bad

 

[Ayewale]

This thread seems to be getting kind of heated. Which is a shame since the idea seems very universally acceptable...especially since lots of pages already do this. No need to get all bloodthirsty here brothers

I will say though that arguing that this would make the wiki easier to use is incorrect. Newcomers being warded off by having to read lots of pages for research won't be less warded off by 20-paragraph text walls that make LOTR look like light reading, lol. It's not an important argument but it's worth mentioning. Vsbattling can't really be made acceptable when half of the users here double as astrophysicists.

Mind Manipulation (Can create illusions. Can affect fifth-dimensional beings) seems very reasonable. A counterargument I thought of is that this should not be the case for characters who are already fifth-dimensional because it's assumed. Also, are high-dimensional beings granted an unconventional resistance to hax abilities of a low layer by default? If not then this seems unnecessary, but I'm not sure.

Overall I think I agree

 

[azontr]

Now now guys, no need to get heated at each other over some fictional things.
Back to the topic, layers thing aside, with this become just optional, mean people can freely edit the profile the way they want, which back to my previous question, how do we do quality control??. People can slap infinite layers on the profile and others can't do about it, the match is made, peope get heated and toxic, then content revision thread is created for the sake of "revising" layers, things get heated again, get staffs attention, rule is made, standard is created, which again back to how we standardise layers, and then we need to patrol every profile to make sure people don't slap random layer number on profile, which in turn go back to: people need to make content revision to add layer number to the profile, which in turn, a standard need to be created to not inflate things up......

That is my main problem, for the record, i already do psuedo-layers listing on some DBH profiles with the use of word like: this guy's hax is so strong that he overwhelming that guy's resistance.

And let not say about how to structure them on profile to not look bad

So basically your upset because people may vandalize profiles or put inaccurate information? If that's the case, then we make CRTs to fix the inaccurate information, or report people who change the information without a CRT or just put random shit. We do this for literally every single thing we ******* do, there is 0 reason we have to treat the appliance of Layers onto profiles any differently than we treat applying any other standard.

And you being worried about toxic threads is really only your problem, dude.

 

[Duedate8898]

Now now guys, no need to get heated at each other over some fictional things.
Back to the topic, layers thing aside, with this become just optional, mean people can freely edit the profile the way they want, which back to my previous question, how do we do quality control??. People can slap infinite layers on the profile and others can't do about it, the match is made, peope get heated and toxic, then content revision thread is created for the sake of "revising" layers, things get heated again, get staffs attention, rule is made, standard is created, which again back to how we standardise layers, and then we need to patrol every profile to make sure people don't slap random layer number on profile, which in turn go back to: people need to make content revision to add layer number to the profile, which in turn, a standard need to be created to not inflate things up......

That is my main problem, for the record, i already do psuedo-layers listing on some DBH profiles with the use of word like: this guy's hax is so strong that he overwhelming that guy's resistance.

And let not say about how to structure them on profile to not look bad

CRT's of course. We already do them to upgrade resistances and hax's so it'd would be in a CRT which the levels are discussed

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Like everyone said it should be optional to include layers on a profile, HOWEVER, there should be a CRT if you decide to do so, and the reason why those things reach that many layers should be included on sed CRT for anyone to view in the future if they want to verify.

Other than that we do what we always do and report and correct any unaccepted changes and vandalziing.

 

[azontr]

I don't think people get that while standards may not be mandatory, that doesn't mean can go around and putting unaccepted scaling on profiles. We will still add new information through CRT just as we do with anything.

 

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

Now now guys, no need to get heated at each other over some fictional things.
Back to the topic, layers thing aside, with this become just optional, mean people can freely edit the profile the way they want, which back to my previous question, how do we do quality control??. People can slap infinite layers on the profile and others can't do about it, the match is made, peope get heated and toxic, then content revision thread is created for the sake of "revising" layers, things get heated again, get staffs attention, rule is made, standard is created, which again back to how we standardise layers, and then we need to patrol every profile to make sure people don't slap random layer number on profile, which in turn go back to: people need to make content revision to add layer number to the profile, which in turn, a standard need to be created to not inflate things up......

That is my main problem, for the record, i already do psuedo-layers listing on some DBH profiles with the use of word like: this guy's hax is so strong that he overwhelming that guy's resistance.

And let not say about how to structure them on profile to not look bad

The quality control would be.... CRTs? Like everything else? To apply the layers it'd have to be applied through a CRT, so you wouldn't be able to slap anything on it without agreeance.

 

[Vietthai96]

And again, when it involve CRT, this will not become something called optional anymore, CRT involve mean there will be standard, there will be rule, that not called "optional" anymore

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Yeah, but keep in mind some hax potency is already detailed on accepted blog posts (eg; Maou Gakuin and Umineko) so not everything would need a CRT. Everything not already on the wiki obviously would need a thread though.

also why the **** did my notifs for this thread die for like 2 hours

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

And again, when it involve CRT, this will not become something called optional anymore, CRT involve mean there will be standard, there will be rule, that not called "optional" anymore

...What? It's still optional, you can just... choose not to make a CRT.

 

[azontr]

And again, when it involve CRT, this will not become something called optional anymore, CRT involve mean there will be standard, there will be rule, that not called "optional" anymore

Tf are you talking about.

We have to change everything with a CRT even if you don't necessarily have to add it to profiles. If you do decide to add layers and shit to profiles obviously you'd need a CRT to change the stats.

 

[ÆONS]

Unfollowing.

 

[Vietthai96]

I mean, when a CRT is involved mean standard need to be made for layers, or otherwise people can just do "popularity vote", and as before, how to standardise layers????.

I could be thinking too hard, but whatever, be safer than sorry