Request for Indexing Hax Layering/Smurf Hax on Profiles

[Scottycj256]

EVERYONE just explained how we already have a one size fits all approach to hax layers, and how we've all treated it as a commonly accepted practice, and how somehow people are construing this into something it doesn't need to be because "Too much work"

jesus christ we can't even get a SINGLE. SIMPLE. THING. through a CRT

we're making arguments out of things that should be ******* common sense

use common sense people

I know people won't use common sense and instead rely on their preconceived notions to judge something they refuse to comprehend but it's still good to just put it out there

 

[Vietthai96]

Uh oh, you can edit your comments, no need for multiple posts though

 

[Scottycj256]

we can make references section mandatory and scans alone not enough, but suddenly making a small straightforward note of layered and smurf hax in P&A is "too much work"?

come on now, stop bullshitting us

 

[Vietthai96]

we can make references section mandatory and scans alone not enough, but suddenly making a small straightforward note of layered and smurf hax is "too much work"?

come the **** on now

Hey, no need to get angry, but for the record scan is mandatory because it is obvious that you can't just slap tier or hax on profile without something to verifies their validity, and reference is for the context, it is a must

 

[Scottycj256]

yeah, if we can make profile creation infinitely harder on people trying to make franchises on this wiki, then surely we can do some more work in regards to casual reader convenience and giving them essential knowledge on a silver platter

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Although Scotty is being a bit aggressive I agree. Where not reinventing the wheel, something this small should really not have this much controversy as if it will break how the wiki works. At the moment the truth of the matter is we have nothing, not a thing stopping people from lying about layers in VS Battles. Supports either have to be present to verify things or arguments carry on for entire pages and end up going nowhere.

It wastes people's time massively and is a detriment to any newcomers who may want to set up a battle. They don't understand the concept of layers or smurf hax, and if they want to understand they have to trek through 5 blogs that aren't actually listed on the profile. This is an actual issue so unless someone has a better idea, something that could solve this issue we should focus more on trying to come to a conclusion on how this system should work instead of trying to shut the very concept down.

Ontop of all that this system does not need to be perfect, we arent 5 years old and we have common sense. The gap that may exist between two hax on the same level doesn't need to be spelled out for us if the feats behind the use of sed hax are provided for comparison.

 

[Vietthai96]

Anyway, i switch to neutral, it can or not go through, i'm will not trying to push to either side for a while

But well, if we make an explaination page about what is smurf, requirement for it, well i can agree with it, because even if this get through and we slap layer/smurf on profile but without explaination, newcomer will still not know what the hell these term is

 

[DontTalkDT]

Explanations of hax potency may be optionally given (like, really, every explanation). However, I should note that "x layers" as potency measurement alone is difficult, because there are lots of variables involved in comparing resistance and potency. It's not always simply comparing number of layers. Other factors can matter as well. A more complete description of potency is preferable.

 

[Scottycj256]

alright so...

Agree: 7 (AbbadonTheDisappointment, DueDate8898, Phoenks, Confluctor, me, Azontr, DontTalkDT)

Disagree: 4 (SirOvens, The_Impress, Antvasima, Damage3245)

Neutral: 1 (Vietthai96)

ugh

 

[Antvasima]

Not exactly. DontTalk said that optional explanations are fine (much like I did earlier), but that you need to provide a more complete description of potency that is not solely dependent on an arbitrary number of layers. I don't really mind this evaluation.

 

[azontr]

alright so...

Agree: 7 (AbbadonTheDisappointment, DueDate8898, Phoenks, Confluctor, me, Azontr(?), DontTalkDT)

Disagree: 4 (SirOvens, The_Impress, Antvasima, Damage3245)

Neutral: 1 (Vietthai96)

ugh

I have 0 idea why a ? Is put next to my name when I agree and have very obviously agreed to this thread multiple times.

 

[Infera28]

alright so...

Agree: 7 (AbbadonTheDisappointment, DueDate8898, Phoenks, Confluctor, me, Azontr(?), DontTalkDT)

Disagree: 4 (SirOvens, The_Impress, Antvasima, Damage3245)

Neutral: 1 (Vietthai96)

ugh

I disagree too, but even if the layers are added, the difference between each layer should be one infinite or one resistance negation, which is supported by many evidence, logically, we cannot calculate the amount of resistance or potency numerically, so we must use infinite or resistance negation

 

[azontr]

I disagree too, but even if the layers are added, the difference between each layer should be one infinite or one resistance negation, which is supported by many evidence

Why do you disagree.

 

[Infera28]

Why do you disagree.

I said it several times in the thread

 

[azontr]

I said it several times in the thread

I don't particularly understand your reasoning that "the definition of layers is vague and layers are often wanked" reasoning, though lol.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@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

I think Sir Ovens makes a good point.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Infera28]

I don't particularly understand your reasoning that "the definition of layers is vague and layers are often wanked" reasoning, though lol.

Nice nitpick, that wasn't my only reason. I said that if A can resist B's ability, but cannot resist C's ability, it can only be because 1. C's ability was higher than A's resistance 2. A had weakeness to C's ability 3. C's ability had different properties 3. it was a verse mechanic, and in verse, if you are stronger than someone, your abilities go beyond resistance of weaker opponent

Also, yes, for the reasons I said, layers are very vague, you act as if the definition of layer is universally accepted. Some people believe that if your ability is higher than someone's resistance, it is a layer, but others believe that the difference between each layer should be one infinite and some people also believe that difference between each layer should be one resistance or even full immunity negation, there are 3 different definitions for it and no one has accepted your definition in the thread yet. So stop acting like we are against a universally accepted truth

Due to the vague nature of the layers, they can also be very wanked

 

[azontr]

Nice nitpick, that wasn't my only reason. I said that if A can resist B's ability, but cannot resist C's ability, it can only be because 1. C's ability was higher than A's resistance 2. A had weakeness to C's ability 3. C's ability had different properties 3. it was a verse mechanic, and in verse, if you are stronger than someone, your abilities you go beyond resistance

Also, yes, for the reasons I said, layers are very vague, you act as if the definition of layer is universally accepted. Some people believe that if your ability is higher than someone's resistance, it is a layer, but others believe that the difference between each layer should be one infinite and some people also believe that difference between each layer should be one resistance or even full immunity negation, there are 3 different definitions for it and no one has accepted your definition in the thread yet. So stop acting like we are against a universally accepted truth

Due to the vague nature of the layers, they can also be very wanked

I just woke up and didn't backread through the entire thread to find your arguments, so don't assume I'm simply nitpicking when that's literally the first thing I saw you argue.

I'll wait until I wake up fully and we get more input from staff to really debunk anything, probably gonna wait for @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara since she's the OP.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

I wouldn't be opposed to making hax potency something that's more clear on the profiles since I did have thoughts like this before myself though we'd need to see how exactly it should be implemented if we decide to do so.

 

[Newendigo]

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but why is this even tagged as Staff Discussion? There so many normal users that have posted here and I highly doubt the vast majority of you have asked permission.

Very few Staff have posted their point here and we already decided to count votes?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Explanations of hax potency may be optionally given (like, really, every explanation). However, I should note that "x layers" as potency measurement alone is difficult, because there are lots of variables involved in comparing resistance and potency. It's not always simply comparing number of layers. Other factors can matter as well. A more complete description of potency is preferable.

That's obviously preferable when needed, but layers have been a notable part of VS debating for a while now. The general concept of what a "layer" is isn't particularly hard to explain, and while the mechanics of what constitutes a layer may vary between verses (such as whether it depends on AP or the cosmology), I do think layers are the most consistent and logical way of measuring hax potency. I'd also like to see an example of a verse where hax layers are hard to measure when compared to another metric of potency, just for the sake of argument.

 

[azontr]

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but why is this even tagged as Staff Discussion? There so many normal users that have posted here and I highly doubt the vast majority of you have asked permission.

Very few Staff have posted their point here and we already decided to count votes?

Because this was originally a normal Content Revision Thread before @Antvasima changed the board, in which multiple normal users had long since voiced their opinions.

 

[Arkenis]

This is a good idea. I was gonna make a thread for just this but I'll share my thoughts on how layers should be seen and addressed.

This will be about the issue and vagueness and seemingly apparent misunderstanding or wanking of layers for power nullification in verses. An issue that is commonly not addressed on the characters pages is that when a character has power nullification their layers aren't mentioned. This is obviously a problem as people may think its fine to do a match not knowing that the character's resistance is layered, which can lead to stomps and a shitstorm of arguments within the thread over who's got more layers.

A simple remedy for this is when a character has layers to their power nullification instead of only stating what and who they power nulled and or resisted, we should put Layered Power Nullification (what they nullified, how it works and how many layers does it extend to). Now obviously this will likely result in verse supporters needing to be on the same track and come to a consensus on the layers.

Another remedy can be that a new page be made titled Hax Potency. The page would go over how the potency of hax works from layers to amount of individuals affected to others way hax potency can be measured.

For starters

Quantity: The amount of individuals affected by said hax. Naturally this may allow characters to affect a large amount of targets to counter characters with cloning or summoning of others.

Layers: The extension and superiority that a hax such as Mind Manipulation or Power Nullification has over one’s resistance or their own e.g Sasuke’s genjutsu being able to affect Itachi.

This is all I had so far but tell me what you think.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

This is a good idea. I was gonna make a thread for just this but I'll share my thoughts on how layers should be seen and addressed.

This will be about the issue and vagueness and seemingly apparent misunderstanding or wanking of layers for power nullification in verses. An issue that is commonly not addressed on the characters pages is that when a character has power nullification their layers aren't mentioned. This is obviously a problem as people may think its fine to do a match not knowing that the character's resistance is layered, which can lead to stomps and a shitstorm of arguments within the thread over who's got more layers.

A simple remedy for this is when a character has layers to their power nullification instead of only stating what and who they power nulled and or resisted, we should put Layered Power Nullification (what they nullified, how it works and how many layers does it extend to). Now obviously this will likely result in verse supporters needing to be on the same track and come to a consensus on the layers.

Another remedy can be that a new page be made titled Hax Potency. The page would go over how the potency of hax works from layers to amount of individuals affected to others way hax potency can be measured.

For starters

Quantity: The amount of individuals affected by said hax. Naturally this may allow characters to affect a large amount of targets to counter characters with cloning or summoning of others.

Layers: The extension and superiority that a hax such as Mind Manipulation or Power Nullification has over one’s resistance or their own e.g Sasuke’s genjutsu being able to affect Itachi.

This is all I had so far but tell me what you think.

Well, as far as I remember, we don't use quantity as a measure of potency anymore. I think that change is what made layers much more important to begin with, actually.

 

[azontr]

This is a good idea. I was gonna make a thread for just this but I'll share my thoughts on how layers should be seen and addressed.

This will be about the issue and vagueness and seemingly apparent misunderstanding or wanking of layers for power nullification in verses. An issue that is commonly not addressed on the characters pages is that when a character has power nullification their layers aren't mentioned. This is obviously a problem as people may think its fine to do a match not knowing that the character's resistance is layered, which can lead to stomps and a shitstorm of arguments within the thread over who's got more layers.

A simple remedy for this is when a character has layers to their power nullification instead of only stating what and who they power nulled and or resisted, we should put Layered Power Nullification (what they nullified, how it works and how many layers does it extend to). Now obviously this will likely result in verse supporters needing to be on the same track and come to a consensus on the layers.

Another remedy can be that a new page be made titled Hax Potency. The page would go over how the potency of hax works from layers to amount of individuals affected to others way hax potency can be measured.

For starters

Quantity: The amount of individuals affected by said hax. Naturally this may allow characters to affect a large amount of targets to counter characters with cloning or summoning of others.

Layers: The extension and superiority that a hax such as Mind Manipulation or Power Nullification has over one’s resistance or their own e.g Sasuke’s genjutsu being able to affect Itachi.

This is all I had so far but tell me what you think.

Literally this bro.

Quantity is no longer anything we use to measure potency unless it's explicitly stated in series that quantity = potency, though.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Well, as far as I remember, we don't use quantity as a measure of potency anymore. I think that change is what made layers much more important to begin with, actually.

We still use quantity, but on a case-by-case basis. like someone who can mind manipulate thousands of people but only do minor influences towards them will most likely not affect someone who resisted a mind manipulation aimed to completely control someone.
or
someone who mind hax thousands towards complete control will be able to mind hax someone who only resisted a mind hax whose influence is weaker in comparison despite having 2 layers of it on that level of potency

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's obviously preferable when needed, but layers have been a notable part of VS debating for a while now. The general concept of what a "layer" is isn't particularly hard to explain, and while the mechanics of what constitutes a layer may vary between verses (such as whether it depends on AP or the cosmology), I do think layers are the most consistent and logical way of measuring hax potency. I'd also like to see an example of a verse where hax layers are hard to measure when compared to another metric of potency, just for the sake of argument.

We use several ways of comparing potency in conjunction. Besides layers, there is also amount, scaling and quality to consider.
E.g. in Inheritance you have statements and examples of certain people being better in mind combat than others. Those aren't layers, but still clearly higher potencies of mind manipulation. Similarily amount of people mind hax is used on is relevant for that verse, as it is clear that more people are harder to mind hax than few.
An example of quality would be On a Godless Planet's resistance negation. Their attacks are so unresistable, that resisting them causes a logical paradox. That is qualitatively better than just basic resistance negation.
Not even all layers are necessarily equal. In some verses those of a lesser layer can still use hax on those of a higher to a minor extend, while in others its complete immunity.
To that come things like mechanism considerations.

Basically, comparing resistance and hax potency is hard and one should go into more detail than just slapping a number on it. It really wouldn't hurt to put more explanation in if one already bothers to do it.

 

[azontr]

We use several ways of comparing potency in conjunction. Besides layers, there is also amount, scaling and quality to consider.
E.g. in Inheritance you have statements and examples of certain people being better in mind combat than others. Those aren't layers, but still clearly higher potencies of mind manipulation. Similarily amount of people mind hax is used on is relevant for that verse, as it is clear that more people are harder to mind hax than few.
An example of quality would be On a Godless Planet's resistance negation. Their attacks are so unresistable, that resisting them causes a logical paradox. That is qualitatively better than just basic resistance negation.
Not even all layers are necessarily equal. In some verses those of a lesser layer can still use hax on those of a higher to a minor extend, while in others its complete immunity.
To that come things like mechanism considerations.

Basically, comparing resistance and hax potency is hard and one should go into more detail than just slapping a number on it. It really wouldn't hurt to put more explanation in if one already bothers to do it.

I don't think anyone planned to not properly elaborate on esoteric/weird abilities like the one you mentioned, should it come up. This is why things would be taken case-by-case should one decide to add such information to a profile, and not everything will be strictly limited to numbers. I'd like to think we are not that inflexible.

It is just that in most cases, ability potency can be summed up as just numbers if explained properly. It's not always difficult to explain.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

We use several ways of comparing potency in conjunction. Besides layers, there is also amount, scaling and quality to consider.
E.g. in Inheritance you have statements and examples of certain people being better in mind combat than others. Those aren't layers, but still clearly higher potencies of mind manipulation. Similarily amount of people mind hax is used on is relevant for that verse, as it is clear that more people are harder to mind hax than few.

In cases like that, we would just explain how they are superior to lesser characters' hax. We don't always need an exact measurement when it comes to hax potency; For example, look at characters with transformations or new keys. They just get a "same as before on a higher level" added onto their P&A without really saying that they gained new layers or whatever.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here; I'm only trying to make it so layers and smurf hax are indexed when applicable. Not every verse is going to have those, obviously, so we're not gonna force a new standard on them. If a verse has alternate mechanics of measuring potency, we'd explain those in the justification itself. For the example you gave, we'd do something like "Mind Manipulation (Said to be better in mind combat than (x), and their mind manipulation could affect more people than (x))". Of course, if said character has layered hax on top of that, we'd throw the number of layers at the beginning as well.

Not even all layers are necessarily equal. In some verses those of a lesser layer can still use hax on those of a higher to a minor extend, while in others its complete immunity.
To that come things like mechanism considerations.

I think that's just a problem with resistances in general though, regardless of layering. Sometimes baseline resistances appear immune to baseline hax, and sometimes they're only slightly affected. Basically, even if we don't list layers, this issue would remain.

Basically, comparing resistance and hax potency is hard and one should go into more detail than just slapping a number on it. It really wouldn't hurt to put more explanation in if one already bothers to do it.

Yeah, obviously. We're not gonna eschew detailed explanations in favor of just a simple "(x) layers". It's just something we can use to better quantify hax when needed.

We're not trying to introduce some new system for how layers work. Like, people are already making threads for determining how "layered" their verse's hax are, like with One Piece. We'd just be showing the layers accepted in CRTs like that on the profiles themselves.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but why is this even tagged as Staff Discussion? There so many normal users that have posted here and I highly doubt the vast majority of you have asked permission.

Very few Staff have posted their point here and we already decided to count votes?

The thread was inaccurately posted originally. All policy revision threads should be posted in our staff forum with comments from regular members only being posted if they are very important, and sometimes completely disallowed if a topic is controversial enough.

 

[Antvasima]

Explanations of hax potency may be optionally given (like, really, every explanation). However, I should note that "x layers" as potency measurement alone is difficult, because there are lots of variables involved in comparing resistance and potency. It's not always simply comparing number of layers. Other factors can matter as well. A more complete description of potency is preferable.

We use several ways of comparing potency in conjunction. Besides layers, there is also amount, scaling and quality to consider.
E.g. in Inheritance you have statements and examples of certain people being better in mind combat than others. Those aren't layers, but still clearly higher potencies of mind manipulation. Similarily amount of people mind hax is used on is relevant for that verse, as it is clear that more people are harder to mind hax than few.
An example of quality would be On a Godless Planet's resistance negation. Their attacks are so unresistable, that resisting them causes a logical paradox. That is qualitatively better than just basic resistance negation.
Not even all layers are necessarily equal. In some verses those of a lesser layer can still use hax on those of a higher to a minor extend, while in others its complete immunity.
To that come things like mechanism considerations.

Basically, comparing resistance and hax potency is hard and one should go into more detail than just slapping a number on it. It really wouldn't hurt to put more explanation in if one already bothers to do it.

Anyway, if DontTalk specifies exactly what approach he wants to take here, I am obviously willing to listen.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Anyway, if DontTalk specifies exactly what approach he wants to take here, I am obviously willing to listen.

Well, if I had to choose, detailed explanations of the abilities in the Notable Attack/Techniques section, as is my usual approach.

In cases like that, we would just explain how they are superior to lesser characters' hax. We don't always need an exact measurement when it comes to hax potency; For example, look at characters with transformations or new keys. They just get a "same as before on a higher level" added onto their P&A without really saying that they gained new layers or whatever.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here; I'm only trying to make it so layers and smurf hax are indexed when applicable. Not every verse is going to have those, obviously, so we're not gonna force a new standard on them. If a verse has alternate mechanics of measuring potency, we'd explain those in the justification itself. For the example you gave, we'd do something like "Mind Manipulation (Said to be better in mind combat than (x), and their mind manipulation could affect more people than (x))". Of course, if said character has layered hax on top of that, we'd throw the number of layers at the beginning as well.


I think that's just a problem with resistances in general though, regardless of layering. Sometimes baseline resistances appear immune to baseline hax, and sometimes they're only slightly affected. Basically, even if we don't list layers, this issue would remain.


Yeah, obviously. We're not gonna eschew detailed explanations in favor of just a simple "(x) layers". It's just something we can use to better quantify hax when needed.

We're not trying to introduce some new system for how layers work. Like, people are already making threads for determining how "layered" their verse's hax are, like with One Piece. We'd just be showing the layers accepted in CRTs like that on the profiles themselves.

Problem is you can't just say straight layers, as layers aren't a static metric. Layers differ and other circumstances also influence things.
Hence I'm not really in favour of just saying "x layers" and nothing else. Instead, I would go into the Notable A/T section and write a paragraph about what the layers are in nature, where they come from, their feats and extent and stuff like that. Makes it way easier to draw actual comparisons between verses than a contextless number.

 

[azontr]

Problem is you can't just say straight layers, as layers aren't a static metric. Layers differ and other circumstances also influence things.
Hence I'm not really in favour of just saying "x layers" and nothing else. Instead, I would go into the Notable A/T section and write a paragraph about what the layers are in nature, where they come from, their feats and extent and stuff like that. Makes it way easier to draw actual comparisons between verses than a contextless number.

I thought this was kinda always the main idea? Like obviously we aren't going to slap a random number/metric onto things that clearly don't fit into it, again, we have to take it and explain it case-by-case, since obviously not every verse treats these situations the same. I didn't ever think that this was something up for debate.

Though I figured it would come in some sort of blog/explanation page instead of a straight-up paragraph on the page itself.

 

[Livinmeme]

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

Man... Bleach literally does that with his soul reaitzu crush

 

[Livinmeme]

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.

Oh yeah and that is infinetly more reliable than getting contradictory information of people. Example is Anos verse that i heard that it was 99 layers and Infinite+99 layers.... In the same thread

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Problem is you can't just say straight layers, as layers aren't a static metric. Layers differ and other circumstances also influence things.
Hence I'm not really in favour of just saying "x layers" and nothing else. Instead, I would go into the Notable A/T section and write a paragraph about what the layers are in nature, where they come from, their feats and extent and stuff like that. Makes it way easier to draw actual comparisons between verses than a contextless number.

And that puts us right back at square one, where that information isn't easily accessible. I'm not saying that layers are the sole metric we should use to determine hax potency. But in situations where verse supporters agree that layers are a things, and a CRT is made an accepted for those layers, they have every right to be indexed in the P&A section. Also, using the NA/T section is a horrible idea, since not every character has one, not every NA/T section covers hax that may be layered (sometimes it's just one or two notable techniques a character has listed, even if they have dozens of hax), and NA/T sections virtually never cover resistances, which can also be layered or function on a higher potency.

Hell, this isn't even addressing smurf hax, which doesn't really have the same issues that you're describing with layers. If something functions on a low 1-C potency, that's something we should index.

I thought this was kinda always the main idea? Like obviously we aren't going to slap a random number/metric onto things that clearly don't fit into it, again, we have to take it and explain it case-by-case, since obviously not every verse treats these situations the same. I didn't ever think that this was something up for debate.

Though I figured it would come in some sort of blog/explanation page instead of a straight-up paragraph on the page itself.

Yeah, this is correct. If a verse has a clear-cut alternate means of determining hax potency, we give that precedence. But most verses don't have that, and in cases like that we go with layers or smurf hax.

 

[Livinmeme]

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.

You know that we are saying that should be a heavilly convinient chose THAT doesn't need to be forced

 

[Livinmeme]

Nice nitpick, that wasn't my only reason. I said that if A can resist B's ability, but cannot resist C's ability, it can only be because 1. C's ability was higher than A's resistance 2. A had weakeness to C's ability 3. C's ability had different properties 3. it was a verse mechanic, and in verse, if you are stronger than someone, your abilities go beyond resistance of weaker opponent

Also, yes, for the reasons I said, layers are very vague, you act as if the definition of layer is universally accepted. Some people believe that if your ability is higher than someone's resistance, it is a layer, but others believe that the difference between each layer should be one infinite and some people also believe that difference between each layer should be one resistance or even full immunity negation, there are 3 different definitions for it and no one has accepted your definition in the thread yet. So stop acting like we are against a universally accepted truth

Due to the vague nature of the layers, they can also be very wanked

1. That is a layers problem
2. That should be explained at detail
3. C problem should have a blog page anyways. Also bleach exist....again

 

[azontr]

Livin, stop posting multiple times in a row and stop responding to posts that have nothing to do with the current discussion.