Request for Indexing Hax Layering/Smurf Hax on Profiles

[azontr]

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

We are making a standard, but the standard is not something people will be forced to add to profiles. Obviously, one needs to establish a standard of how layers/dimensionality will be portrayed on profiles, should someone decide to add it to their profiles, as a completely non-mandatory option. We need guidelines.

Not at all standards are mandatory. Standard just means the general/agreed way of applying or doing something.

 

[Vietthai96]

Iirc dimensionality already has standard, just not layers

 

[azontr]

Dimensionality of certain abilities is usually not listed specifically on profiles, aka, smurf hax.

 

[StekFence]

Layers shouldn’t be too hard to describe. Just say the power in question, followed by potency, followed by reasoning, right?

 

[azontr]

Layers shouldn’t be too hard to describe. Just say the power in question, followed by potency, followed by reasoning, right?

Well, usually people would make blogs where they detail layers and dimensionality and shit, so they could add that if they don't already I guess. Not at all people make blogs or explanation pages though so that's faulty.

 

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

I think this conversation has derailed immensely, we need more staff input at this point.

 

[azontr]

I think this conversation has derailed immensely, we need more staff input at this point.

We have plenty of staff input lol

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I'm assuming we're gonna need a lot more tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up becoming a staff thread actually.

 

[azontr]

I'm assuming we're gonna need a lot more tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up becoming a staff thread actually.

That'd be a moment

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I'm assuming we're gonna need a lot more tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up becoming a staff thread actually.

Tbh i prefer it that way since they are the one will do quality control on such.

I agree with encouraging this but like painto12 says. One size fits all. And an explanation on how layers works might be required preferably on hax page. There are varying uniqueness when it comes to hax or layer. Example would be bleach ang their infamous soul crush we treat it as layer if ones soul is strong enough to resist despite it just them being well strong enough to be affected. Then there are dragonball where instead we treat some hax that do not work on stronger being as a weakness of their hax. I can go more with other verses i know but tbf some verses treats layer differently which is what makes layering hard to implement universally or equally

 

[azontr]

Tbh i prefer it that way since they are the one will do quality control on such.

I agree with encouraging this but like painto12 says. One size fits all. And an explanation on how layers works might be required preferably on hax page. There are varying uniqueness when it comes to hax or layer. Example would be bleach ang their infamous soul crush we treat it as layer if ones soul is strong enough to resist despite it just them being well strong enough to be affected. Then there are dragonball where instead we treat some hax that do not work on stronger being as a weakness of their hax. I can go more with other verses i know but tbf some verses treats layer differently which is what makes layering hard to implement universally or equally

I'd agree with that tbh, it is a lot of work to properly evaluate and maintain a system like this on a case-by-case basis with how layers are portrayed differently in different series'. But again, this isn't a mandatory standard, you don't have to add it to your pages, this is only to make someone's VS Wiki time a little easier so they don't have to go around asking countless knowledgeable members or sitting through countless blogs. We aren't trying to reinvent the wiki system or whatever.

 

[Bobsican]

Keep in mind that inevitably this will lead to "this X layers isn't in the pages or a blog, so get it accepted on a CRT" becoming way more prevalent on versus threads as users won't be able to just rely on word of mouth alone anymore, which in a way encourages users to at least make this stuff more accessible.

 

[azontr]

Keep in mind that inevitably this will lead to "this X layers isn't in the pages or a blog, so get it accepted on a CRT" becoming way more prevalent on versus threads as users won't be able to just rely on word of mouth alone anymore, which in a way encourages users to at least make this stuff more accessible.

Well, again, since this won't be mandatory, one won't have to get it accepted in a CRT or a blog. It'd probably be a lot more encouraged to do so, though, and would encourage people to not just take shit at face value, yes.

 

[Scottycj256]

I agree with the whole putting layers on a PNA, considering a casual reader won't know any better about layers and go "hey he has soul resistance, lets put him up against a Bleach character" and then get clowned on because Bleach has several layers of soul hax thats mentioned absolutely nowhere on the profile

 

[Scottycj256]

Yeah, this really isn't that complex. Literally everywhere I go I see "layered hax" applied in the same way; (x) resists an ability, ( y) is able to affect (x) with that ability anyways, ( y) has layered hax. I have never seen an example of layered hax that deviates from that formula, and that sort of layering has every right to be indexed on profiles.

also this

people make layers much more complex than it needs to be

when all it is is a character's hax overcoming another character's resistance to said hax

 

[Scottycj256]

if we make it brief and concise in how we show layers/smurf on a profile it could be standardized

i think i saw something earlier that was styled like "Soul Manipulation (5 layers; 5-D; blah blah blah)" or whatever

 

[Vietthai96]

Then there are dragonball where instead we treat some hax that do not work on stronger being as a weakness of their hax

Wow...........and unsurprising

 

[azontr]

Wow...........and unsurprising

deadass don't list it for Dragon Ball, then. Or make a blog and figure it out through a CRT. Stop making this more of an issue than it is.

 

[Scottycj256]

but yeah layers are already a standardized thing, "gaps in power" or whatever are needless complications

its just "character's hax being superior to another characters resistance = layered hax" or "character's hax that can affect higher dimensions than itself = smurf hax"

which is something that can 100% be indexed on a P&A and its mind boggling that it's never been done

 

[Phoenks]

@Antvasima do you have an opinion on this being an addition to our guidelines?

And can you please contact more staff to give their thoughts on this?

 

[azontr]

And can you please contact more staff to give their thoughts on this?

I exist so staff members are no longer necessary

 

[Vietthai96]

deadass don't list it for Dragon Ball, then. Or make a blog and figure it out through a CRT. Stop making this more of an issue than it is.

What the hell man, you get heated with me everytime i comment because i disagree with the thread, or i voice some opinion???

 

[azontr]

What the hell man, you get heated with me everytime i comment because i disagree with the thread, or i voice some opinion???

I mean if you think I'm heated then go ahead lmao, your disagreement doesn't effect my emotional state nor does it make me angry.

 

[Antvasima]

This is so unnecessary. We have an actual section on pages to elaborate on abilities if anyone actually cared or bothered to use it. This whole thread wouldn't even be an issue if people read the whole page.

We have forgotten that the P&A section is supposed to be concise and to the point. This is just adding filler nobody outside thread debating actually care about.

Hax potency is not a verifiable metric. There's no universal system between verses. We have no way of portraying a standardised potency that we can use between all profiles.

It's not so cut and dry. Mechanics differ between verses and it's better to explain how a verse's mechanics affect the potency of their hax rather than simply using an objective system of measurement.

Just because you're of a higher dimensionality it does not mean you perfectly resist the hax of lower dimensional characters. You're putting dimensionality and potency on this pedestal that is highly subjective between verses.

As an example, mindhax can have layers of defined potency, yes. However simply resisting your mind being controlled does not prevent your mind from being read in every case. No amount of layers would help you in this case and simply listing "Mind Manipulation resistance 100 layers" is disingenuous to the specific circumstances of such a resistance.

Yes and that's what the Notable Techniques and Abilities section is for. We don't need another system of justification to add on to our profiles. Simply making users aware that hax potency exists and abilities are not linearly scaled is sufficient. To that effect a simple explanation on a rule page should be fine but I'm entirely against a concrete system of measurement.

Listing "dimensionality" is a terrible idea. The Wiki doesn't center around dimensions anymore for higher tiers. This would just be confusing and backwards.

I don't disagree with listing hax potency in some way. But I don't think there should be a solid model for how to implement it. It's too variable.

I think what he means is that there's no proper way to measure layering objectively. Layers are not universal. Saying "layer" means absolutely nothing because what that means between verses is not the same.

A > B for one verse is not the same as A > B for another. It's just not that simple.

This is a standardisation nightmare. Adding dimensionality or layered hax to literally every listed power is bloating.

If you do add layering to Anos, you'd have to do it to Joker or Batman too. Do you understand how redundant that is for a majority of the wiki?

Again, why can't any of this be listed under Notable Techniques and Abilities? Why is it so prudent that we show how many layers of hax a characters has when it can just be simply explained that it's not baseline in the proper section? Charles Xavier is an Omega level Mutant. If we assume Charles is above the likes of some random Marvel guy who can use mindhax, how do differentiate the potency? Could he mindhax Cad Bane, who resisted the mindhax of 3 Jedi Masters? How do we measure Jedi mindhax in comparison to Mutant mindhax?

Layers are not standard. We need to stop assuming everything can be dumbed down like this.

But yeah to expand on this, my verse is Marvel, stats are constantly in a flux because they keep adding like 50 new issues every month made by different writers with their own interpretation of the characters' power levels.

We're struggling to keep 5 fields maintained as is, I'm genuinely gonna ape if in addition to that I'll have to check dimensionality for every cosmic or X-Men fucko's resists and hax, and the 9 quadrillion revisions it'll have because suddenly when something has a number on it within the file wankers try their damndest wreck it.

DC and SCP also suffer the same shit, these are some of the biggest verses on site, if there is an indexing requirement exclusively they don't have then it'll look wacky.

So yeah if it's a standard or a standard-to-be I'll be against it, if it's a suggestion there shouldn't be a thread.

It shouldn't be recommended in any official capacity, since that bluntly gives the expectancy pages need to have shit like it, and not having it is a negative in some form.



"If a third of the page candidates don't even list the officially recommended standard because it is literally impossible to maintain what is the problem?"

If you just null the context of a majority of pages belong to those verses just not being able to have this shit then yeah it does sound like bias, Fuji, thankfully we have context to suggest otherwise and demonstrate within relevant context the afflicted characters will still mostly not have the justifications you demand.

If you want there to be justification for these "dozens of verses", just add them in, it's only justification expansion and it doesn't need an official ruling to make verses that literally can't do it look bad.

Thread's either unnecessary or inconsiderate, pick your poison.

I have absolutely no bad blood with the OP or any of the people for the revision. I just disagree with the change and because we literally do not have a precedent for this. And whenever we pass things half-baked it tends to have a negative effect on the wiki. Bullet points on profiles is one such effect and I intend to do something about that soon but that's for another thread.

Yeah, I can literally just spam out the layered pages off Marvel alone endlessly

Fuji you straight up didn't know what even constituted Marvel and DC smurf tier before Confluctor gave a hyper basic estimation, but now you're magically a Marvel and DC expert who knows how many smurfs all of them have and now you have deemed them insufficient to make up a relevant composition.

Or you're just saying stuff to have a semblance of an argument when you literally just said a wordy "no its not" to my assertion. Have a "no it's not" back from me, along with "you have no credibility to make this counter-assertion with this much confidence"

Why, should everything be according to your five verses now? That don't make up a notable composition of the category? This is so blatantly inconsiderate to larger verses you may as well have begun your OP with "**** connected ongoing verse supporters"

But it isn't standard, it can't be standard, so you're arguing null.

This is laughable debating once you actually begin to read the stuff said tbh.

I agree with most of the above sentiments. A one size fits all standard regarding this would not remotely be practically feasible to apply or worth the massive work involved.

That said, if you want to mention such information for verses that use such concepts, that is probably fine, but it should not be made into an official guideline.

Also, as I keep telling our members, and they keep ignoring, significant policy change suggestions should always be posted in our staff forum, so I moved this thread to there.

 

[azontr]

I agree with most of the above sentiments. A one size fits all standard regarding this would not remotely be practically feasible to apply or worth the massive work involved.

That said, if you want to mention such information for verses that use such concepts, that is prpbably fine, but it should not be made into an official guideline.

Also, as I keep telling our members, and they keep ignoring, significant policy change suggestions should always be posted in our staff forum, so I moved this thread to there.

If we're going to apply it to any profiles we need some sort of standard guideline to help people know how to properly apply it to profiles in the first place. A standard is a method, not a rule. Nothing will become mandatory either so it is completely up to the user or whoever to add this or not to the page or verse, should these concepts be there, so your not overworking yourself doing anything at all.

We're talking like a page, or at least something that encourages properly indexing stuff like that in verses that do use the concept. It really is not that deep, as people have been saying.

 

[Scottycj256]

literally all it is is "oh he has 5 layers and 5-D for so and so hax"

its actually not that deep lmao

 

[azontr]

literally all it is is "oh he has 5 layers and 5-D for so and so hax"

its actually not that deep lmao

yeah that and something to encourage people to do that in the first place Literally just recommend it if possible in the standard editing rules or some bullshit.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245

What do you think about this?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/request-for-indexing-hax-layering-smurf-hax-on-profiles.139968/post-4961715

 

[Damage3245]

A one size fits all standard regarding this would not remotely be practically feasible to apply or worth the massive work involved.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Scottycj256]

here come the yes men

 

[Antvasima]

They are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, but are generally sensible, rational, and unbiased, or they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place.

 

[azontr]

Can we not talk about the credentials of the staff in this thread, please? We all know everyone called is very qualified.

 

[Phoenks]

I don't get the whole thing about this being "one size fits all" or how that's somehow a bad thing.

Is that not how this wiki functions in general?

 

[Antvasima]

No, hax layering is just not a relevant concept for most fictions as far as I am aware, especially not if we base it solely on number of geometric dimensions.

 

[Scottycj256]

I don't get the whole thing about this being "one size fits all" or how that's somehow a bad thing.

Is that not how this wiki functions in general?

^^^^^

we keep saying how not complicated it is but people refuse to believe it can actually be something straightforward

 

[Scottycj256]

we already do all of this shit, just put it on the profile already for the convenience of a casual reader

 

[Scottycj256]

No, hax layering is just not a relevant concept for most fictions as far as I am aware, especially not if we base it solely on number of geometric dimensions.

hax layering is literally just

Character A uses hax to overcome Character B's resistance to said hax

it is totally relevant to most fiction, it is one of the most straightforward examples of a scaling chain i can think of

and it doesnt change shit when you have to apply layers and smurf hax to physiology profiles, since they're already made to be extensive, exhaustive overviews of a specific character type's abilities and hax

When you put 5-D, possibly 8-D on Servant Physiology or 9-D on Demon Physiology, it actually helps and doesnt undermine anything, since you are stating the extent of how potent said abilities are

another thing people keep forgetting is how much it helps casual readers trying to know the extent of a character's power

people keep complaining about how much work it is and how much it bloats profiles, but not mentioning that kind of information puts a **** ton of people, that dont frequent the wiki constantly like us, in the dark

 

[Phoenks]

No, hax layering is just not a relevant concept for most fictions as far as I am aware, especially not if we base it solely on number of geometric dimensions.

1. Most of the stuff we list on this wiki are not relevant concepts for most fiction.

However, when it comes to power scaling and indexing, which is what we do, layered abilities and smurf abilities are 100% relevant.

This is just scaling chains, but for abilities rather than statistics.

2. We aren't basing it "solely" on dimensions. Layering is prevalent in every single tier. The dimensional stuff is for smurfs, which are becoming increasingly common on this wiki. At the moment, it is very difficult to know who is and who isn't a smurf (and to what degree) without knowing about the verse/character in question. This could help fix that.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I don't get the whole thing about this being "one size fits all" or how that's somehow a bad thing.

Is that not how this wiki functions in general?

Yes that’s how the wiki works “one size should fit all”

And that’s why this won’t be practical as with hax layering different verses have different ways of doing it, not to mention there can be gaps in the potency of an ability without it being another layer.

While for the Smurfs, I think that’s already noted on the relevant pages already, unless I’m missing something.

 

[Scottycj256]

i JUST explained how its not- okay