• 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.

Rewriting the Abstract Existence page pt.2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the issue right now is more "should we have a type 3 to begin with?"

Also, anyone has a good wording in mind for the thing in the OP? I can't come up with anything decent
 
I still don't think we need type 3. It doesn't really sound like abstract existence tbh. They can literlally be affected/killed without the concept even being in the mix.
 
So should the draft in its current version be applied without type 3 then?
 
Okay. I would appreciate further staff input.
 
Yes. The initial draft with 2 types can probably be applied.
 
I wanted some suggestions for the stuff quoted in the OP as well.

Should I message the other staff members? It's a fairly big revision (pretty sure that it affects a few hundreds of pages)
 
I think a note like this should be good unless I misunderstood stuff

"Note: keep in mind that there are different levels of abstract existence that fall under the same type, depending on what a character embodies. For example, the embodiment of an idea is not on the same level as the embodiment of a concept, and being able to affect the former doesn't mean being able to affect the latter"

Or something like that
 
@Kaltias

You can message the other staff members if you like.
 
Kaltias said:
@DT

Essentially the idea with type 3 is that being an abstract grants you some powers, but not related to survivability/being difficult to affect
 
Monarch Laciel said:
What was this type 3 I keep hearing about?
The ones guys like the Creation Trio and the Ones of Mortis would have: embodying a concept, but not having immortality reliant on it.

You could argue abstracts whose concept die alngoside them when they die of regular death could be a type tho.
 
I am Neutral on Type 3 existing, though I do agree it seems a bit superfluous I would like to hear more input regarding it.

The rest seems fine, as is Genki's suggestion
 
"Also, if we are regrouping various kinds of abstracts (ideas, concepts, possibilities etc) under a single term, would it be a good idea to specify that even if the type of AE is the same, the kind of abstractions also makes a difference?

For example killing a type 2 abstract reliant on an idea =/= killing a type 2 reliant on a concept"

My input:

"Beware that the abstract nature of different characters can stem from different sources (ideas, concepts, possibilities,...), as such, being able to affect a subtype of a category does not mean a character can affect all types of abstractions."
 
@PaChi

I like it. It could go in the summary after the brief explanation of the power
 
I also agree with this. Also think type 3 is a bit unnecessary.
 
Ultima Reality said:
I am Neutral on Type 3 existing, though I do agree it seems a bit superfluous I would like to hear more input regarding it.
The rest seems fine, as is Genki's suggestion
Me.
 
I can agree to this existing since we've been slowly getting more specific in our types for our abilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top