• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Resistance Page Revision (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bobsican

He/Him
21,162
6,084
(I know I'm not staff, but Ant asked me to do this)
Okay, this is being borrowed from the past forum, anyways...

"Instances where a character A fails to defeat a character B, or equivalents, aren't enough for character B to have resistances to all the powers character A has. This is due to character A and/or the authors not remembering all their powers, the character not using them in-character or in that instance and negligence being done in favor of the plot/interesting confrontations. Cases like this may include complicated, long fights character A may want to win due to significant reasons, even if the details of the battle weren't clearly detailed. Exceptions include instances where it's explicitly indicated that "all of character A's powers won't work on character B", or equivalents."

In other words, something along the lines of this is to be added to the Resistance page as another note:

"Note 2: Keep in mind that Character A defeating Character B doesn't necessarily means that Character A resists the abilities that Character B holds, multiple factors such as CIS, Speed Blitz and Plot-Induced Stupidity can be at play if no further details are given."
 
Last edited:
I agree with this, but it creates a weird situation for off screen fights where it's not stated that either character has used "all their powers" but it was a fight to the death.

Though that being left as a case-by-case basis seems like an option.
 
Ye, x character could have defeated a haxxy character without the need of having resistances to said hax, but I would limit it to simply being CIS or PIS, it could have been the combination of several factors.
 
I agree with this. Resistances shouldn't be assumed by default.
 
Which staff members do you think would be well-suited to help out with this thread?
 
I'm gonna basically pray that we make the wording for this as elaborated as we can. This is just the type of things certain groups of somewhat young users can be extremely stubborn about while using a twisted logic to claim that the wording we used to explain the matter supports them. That simple note that's proposed is not going to do anything to anyone who feels like their case's special due to some non-worthy extra context, which they will argue makes the difference.

Is it worth it to have this rule look pretty by making it shorter?
 
Well, it being short isn't necessary, so if you can come up with a better wording it can be used.
 
"Instances where Character A defeats Character B, Character B fails to defeat a Character A, or the like, aren't enough for Character A to have resistances to all the powers Character B has. Multiple factors such as CIS, Plot-Induced Stupidity and/or a Speed Blitz can be at play if no further details are given. Cases like this may include complicated, long fights Character B may want to win due to significant reasons, even if the details of the battle weren't clearly detailed. Exceptions include instances where it's explicitly indicated that "all of Character B's powers won't work on Character A", or equivalents."

It's like the first thing you quoted in the OP mixed with the second, and there're a few things to note
  • It's not always "Character A defeats Character B", sometimes failing to defeat someone can make a fan think that no power should work, hence the character can't defeat the other characters. I imagine it's wider than that and fighting isn't even needed, so it needs to be kept vague with that "or the like".
  • People may argue that CIS, Plot-Induced Stupidity or a Speed Blitz couldn't have been going on if they feel that the writing was good around when the intance happened and if the motivation to use some power should have been there.
 
Eficiente's wording seems spot-on to me.
 
Maybe it could also be noted that the character might not use the lethal abilities just because they were unwilling to kill the other character. Because I have seen people claiming that a character should be resistant to someone's insta-kill hax even though they weren't meant to kill each other, they were only meant to defeat the other one. But I guess that could be covered in case-by-case scenarios.

Anyway, I agree and this addition looks fine.
 
I'm open to any changes on the wording that may add more. After that we should talk here about what characters should be affected by this, and apply those changes if unconventional.
 
While I do agree with the whole "this character beat another off-screen so the other's powers are all resisted" thing is stupid because authors often don't 100% remember everything a character can do at all times, there are times when this is completely reasonable.

Say that someone was described as beating Yogiri off-screen. Yogiri's death hax is not only basically his only power, but the one he constantly and consistently uses, so there's absolutely nothing logically wrong with assuming that the other character resists it.
 
I strongly disagree, a character can get ambushed, outsped, fall victim to pis, cis, be taken out from excessive range, etc.
 
That's highly reliant on the other characters... well, character, since not every character is willing to try to use special tactics, abuse range, etc or is even capable of it.
 
Great, we don't know, so no resistances should be given.
 
If the context is an exception showing that things were actually resisted, then it matters. But the sort of context you talked about isn't enough.
 
"Say that someone was described as beating Yogiri off-screen. Yogiri's death hax is not only basically his only power, but the one he constantly and consistently uses, so there's absolutely nothing logically wrong with assuming that the other character resists it."

If this reasons alone were on a profile for a resistance then that would be chaos. We don't know what "basically his only power" means, power=/=attack (can he punch people?), "he constantly and consistently uses"=/=always, can the power be dodged? Can it be blocked like that inevitable death spell in Harry Potter? Could a speed blizt had happened? Or CIS or PIS? Could the character simply not use the power and still lose? Can other power counter it without any resistance?
 
You do realize I chose Yogiri as an example for a specific reason, right? I don't think he's ever thrown a punch, given his entire schtick is that his power kills everything and that, in combat, he has always opened with it as far as I am aware and it has a bunch of properties that make a lot of means of trying to bypass it just not work, like it working off of instinct and just generally having no travel time. Yogiri not using his power isn't even CIS, because it has nothing to do with his wants for the most part, and I doubt it would be PIS given how, again, Yogiri's entire schtick is winning every fight without any trouble.
 
You can tell what I realized and what I didn't by the first thing I didn't quote; "If this reasons alone were on a profile for a resistance then that would be chaos." Idk that 1 character but if you want to say to this wiki matter is that the text should point out to exclude characters on what specific case then you're still not making that case clear, it doesn't even look like you have the full context to do so and I personally think it's kinda suspicios.

There will be cases that would not apply due to how certain characters work and what we know of how things went down, and there will also be dishonesty to claim those 2 aspects. So, do you still want the text to say something more?
 
what even

that entire thing was an example I pulled out of thin air. Afaik what I described has never actually happened in Instant Death. I used Yogiri because he had a singular main power that you can't get past through most of the normal means.
 
This goes nowhere. Idk if that was about how an example works due to the rule and not about the rule itself. You were missing info on both and the rule wasn't even made. I don't see the point on all that as it's as vague as the example given, I asked if you would insist on it and assuming you implied that you won't then we should continue with this thread.
 
I was describing a situation where there is absolutely no reason for someone not to gain a resistance or resistances even if they aren't explicitly stated to. I'm not even sure what the rule is meant to be at this stage, because it's so confusingly described and goes all over the damn place. I also don't have any ******* clue what your question was about as it seems to be based on the assumption that I was describing something that actually happened in Instant Death.
 
Don't know if I can comment here, since it is in the staff board (Bob isn't staff and it doesn't say staff only so...), but Yogiri Takatou is indeed a character who could not be defeated without resisting his Instant Death in some capacity. It's an ability that he always uses and it has immeasurable speed and grants immeasurable reactions.

No one in the novel has ever resisted it or been stated to have defeated Yogiri, but it would indeed be quite the conundrum.

Edit:

My bad, just re-read the title to see that it says staff only.
 
YungManzi:

I think that we can make an exception in this case, since your post provided useful information.
 
Anyway, should Eficiente's text be slightly modified then, and if so, in what manner?
 
Can i make a question about one verse where this kind of situation happens at least two times? The two situations were already rejected, but this rule could support the second to be actually valid.
 
Last edited:
I mean, it doesn't have to be black and white, we can add things like Likely or Possibly. But then again, if you don't think the wording should be fixed then maybe we should apply it first, see what profiles get stuff removed and then see into that.
 
Not as far as I know, so I would appreciate if some staff member could handle it.
 
I'm not a content mod/admin, I can't just apply it lmao.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top