- 32,358
- 20,298
It's not a bandwagon. It's just that the majority disagrees with what the OP said. I would rather not assume they didn't even read the major posts in the thread. I find it hard to believe 13 people liked my post without reading it.
-
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.
Revising Area of Effect
- Thread starter Austrian-Man-Meat
- Start date
- Status
- 5,232
- 708
Well lets see. Judging by the last two posts:
Just to clarify, my apologies, but we are definitely not doing away with area of effect as far as I am concerned.~Ant
Ant is right on all counts there ~Prom
See what I mean? AMM said he wants to revise the AoE rules, ant says he isn't going to remove AOE and close the thread, and prom just agrees saying hes right when infact amm has stated plenty of times that is not his intent to do so.
Just to clarify, my apologies, but we are definitely not doing away with area of effect as far as I am concerned.~Ant
Ant is right on all counts there ~Prom
See what I mean? AMM said he wants to revise the AoE rules, ant says he isn't going to remove AOE and close the thread, and prom just agrees saying hes right when infact amm has stated plenty of times that is not his intent to do so.
- 32,358
- 20,298
Reworking AOE so that it is only accepted when there is an in-universe explanation for the lack of collateral damage is basically the same as removing it entirely.
- 32,358
- 20,298
Deal away with it when it involves attacks hitting the environment, and / or there's no canon explanation for it.Antvasima said:
That would basically affect all Verses on the wiki.
- 11,531
- 8,017
AMM is only referring to when someone directly hits the environment itself and when there is no canonical explanation for AoE. And even then it can still be counted as a low end outlier if the character has much better feats or powerscaling. His change isn't all that radical and somewhat agreed upon by us already ("Use AoE but don't abuse it to justify outliers") If people are fully aware of his arguments and respectfully disagree however, I'm fine with it not being implemented.
- 15,418
- 5,748
Like I said before, it can't be expected that any and all attacks that don't hit a character would wield the Destruction of the full AP of the character. This is a ridiculously strict rule to apply to all fictions. Especially if we're just going to ignore it for verses who tries to Lampshades it, which are extremely rare.
This is only reasonable to apply when a character shows consistent difficulty in destroying/damaging obstacles, in my opinion.
This is only reasonable to apply when a character shows consistent difficulty in destroying/damaging obstacles, in my opinion.
- 32,358
- 20,298
Literally the only Verse in all of fiction I've seen where there's a canonical, lampshaded explanation for a lack of destruction is Saint Seiya.Saikou The Lewd King said:
I can't think of any other.
- 11,531
- 8,017
I can agree with lenience towards environmental attacks as well. I am simply saying AMM is not trying to get rid of AoE or do it away all together. He only wants to revise one specific aspect of it as to create a better standard for how we currently treat "Use AoE but don't abuse it to justify outliers". I'm trying to defend him in that regard.
In the case of "showing consistent difficulty in destroying/damaging obstacles" I can agree.
Also let's be real when a character strikes the ground with all their might, emotion and anger while physically struggling to do so, and only destroys a mountain as a result. It is blatantly clear they aren't hiding a multiple sun destroying attack into that mountain buster. Them destroying the mountain is being represented as the extent of their strength. AoE doesn't apply there. "This mountain bust is a low end outlier because the character has much better feats and powerscaling" is a more valid argument against such downgrade IMO.
In the case of "showing consistent difficulty in destroying/damaging obstacles" I can agree.
Also let's be real when a character strikes the ground with all their might, emotion and anger while physically struggling to do so, and only destroys a mountain as a result. It is blatantly clear they aren't hiding a multiple sun destroying attack into that mountain buster. Them destroying the mountain is being represented as the extent of their strength. AoE doesn't apply there. "This mountain bust is a low end outlier because the character has much better feats and powerscaling" is a more valid argument against such downgrade IMO.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"In the case of "showing consistent difficulty in destroying/damaging obstacles" I can agree."
I do too. What I don't agree with is treating every instance of a character hitting the environment as a representation of their full power. Because it tends to almost never be.
I do too. What I don't agree with is treating every instance of a character hitting the environment as a representation of their full power. Because it tends to almost never be.
- 11,531
- 8,017
I want to leave a few closing remarks before I stop responding to this thread unless there's any drama or personal attacking to take care of.
- I am very adamant about AoE. I have been since I've first joined this site and will be after I retire. I absolutely disagree with doing away with it all together. I believe that not showing considerable lenience towards it in most situations and us expecting fights to always "blow shit up" is an extremely poor standard.
- However I'm also against using "AoE" to handwave any outlier. There has to be a certain degree to which we draw a line say "No, AoE cannot be used here" or else every high end ever can be used. I think literally everyone here agrees with that to an extent. If we didn't, why do outliers even exist?
- If a routinely Planet level character only makes a small crater punching the ground, you don't always need to use "AoE" to get rid of it. Calling it a low end outlier can easily get rid of the downplay as well.
- AMM doesn't want to do away with AoE at all. He simply want to draw a bolder, more clear line between AoE and Outlier. A line we already have, yet do not define real well.
- If the majority of staff disagrees with AMM's idea of not counting direct environment strikes as AoE I'm fine with that. I can also completely understand said disagreements.
- 815
- 570
I agree with the premise of the suggestion.
However, I disagree at the moment regarding characters striking environment to be unacceptable.
There are several instances in which characters hold back by default, and are not explicitly shown doing so. Any direct environmental strike in such a case would be misinterpreted as per OP guidelines.
Also, there is the fact to consider that quite a lot of characters in many Verses can vary their AoE as per requirement, which would make it possible for there to be 12 other instances of the character not doing so, while doing so once.
So I disagree with the OP's suggested guidelines. There may be a requirement for more clear guidelines, but not the ones suggested in the OP.
Also, I would also like to state that I also don't see AMM's intention being an attempt to have us revise all profiles, but to instead have a set of guidelines to prevent misuse of the AoE argument to derive fallacious results.
However, I disagree at the moment regarding characters striking environment to be unacceptable.
There are several instances in which characters hold back by default, and are not explicitly shown doing so. Any direct environmental strike in such a case would be misinterpreted as per OP guidelines.
Also, there is the fact to consider that quite a lot of characters in many Verses can vary their AoE as per requirement, which would make it possible for there to be 12 other instances of the character not doing so, while doing so once.
So I disagree with the OP's suggested guidelines. There may be a requirement for more clear guidelines, but not the ones suggested in the OP.
Also, I would also like to state that I also don't see AMM's intention being an attempt to have us revise all profiles, but to instead have a set of guidelines to prevent misuse of the AoE argument to derive fallacious results.
- 2,072
- 240
- Thread starter
- #56
"There may be a requirement for more clear guidelines, but not the ones suggested in the OP."
Perhaps lack of damage to the environment despite the character visibly showing strain (like how Ryu describes) would be more clear? So e.g "Even though Hercules states this attack (which clearly differs from mostly every other feat he's done) to be his most powerful strike, it is not to be used to call his tiering into question as it is a hilarious outlier"
Perhaps lack of damage to the environment despite the character visibly showing strain (like how Ryu describes) would be more clear? So e.g "Even though Hercules states this attack (which clearly differs from mostly every other feat he's done) to be his most powerful strike, it is not to be used to call his tiering into question as it is a hilarious outlier"
- Status
Similar threads
