• 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.

SCP Discussion Thread 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Kal No, it won't take a while at all, it can be done in all week

There are arent feats to be added, none whatsoever, nearly all feats in the entire verse are tale exclusive and with the new regulations we can't use any of them

The verse is dead
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Kal No, it won't take a while at all, it can be done in all week
There are arent feats to be added, none whatsoever, nearly all feats in the entire verse are tale exclusive and with the new regulations we can't use any of them

The verse is dead
Click to expand...
then why did you agree with it?
 
What do you mean when you say "dead"?

"People won't care about it anymore"? That's dumb and you know it. No one likes a verse solely because it's strong

"It won't be as strong as it used to be"? Who cares

"A bunch of characters will have unknown ratings"? Perhaps. You can make good pages with unknown ratings too you know
 
Plus, entries on collaborative legs that pertain to a specific SCP still count, as long as they stay up.
 
Its dead becausr the rwgulations essentially put over half of the scp site on a ban list for use in profiles which makes it nearly impossible to make actual profiles as 80% of scps are completely featless and vague

Its dead. Its more strictly regulated than marvel and dc on this site now and thats saying a LOT
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Its dead becausr the rwgulations essentially put over half of the scp site on a ban list for use in profiles which makes it nearly impossible to make actual profiles as 80% of scps are completely featless and vague
Its dead. Its more strictly regulated than marvel and dc on this site now and thats saying a LOT
Click to expand...
Dude, I even calced 682's new feats based off of the profile alone. You can still get tons of feats just off of the profiles, and you can still use tales and other SCPs written by the same author as long as they don't directly contradict themselves.

076 might actually stay Large Building level if we actually try and calc some of his normal feats instead of just scaling him and caling it a day.

You can also calc SCPs that have caused major containment breeches by looking at the containment specifications and seeing what it would take to destroy/break through them.

(EDIT): Also, I updated the rules; I have far too many issues with the composite keys, as having them doesn't really solve anything. Please check out the blog post.
 
What really surprised me is that 106 isn't even touched by these changes, Treats, which is written by Gears cements all of the Pocket Reality feats, and its regular abilities/stats didn't come from scaling, but its own profile.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Its more strictly regulated than marvel and dc on this site now and thats saying a LOT
Click to expand...
It needs to be more strictly regulated because it's way more easier to abuse scaling and wank them by simple nature. They are essentially glorified fanfiction.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
And I'm in my corner happy because at least Yalda and Mek stay tier 2 by their own feats. ovo
Click to expand...
No they dont, neither have tier 2 feats by their original authors

Trust me, i spent all last night looking
 
I hope no one here thinks I hate SCP or that I'm trying to ruin everyone's day by pushing for these changes.

I love SCP. My early teens were spent reading through the site every single day, and I feel in love with Series 1, then 2, and so on. I've read through these suckers day in and out, and have a lot of respect for some of the better writers on the site.

However, I want to see us looking at the verse as it broadcasts itself; there is no canon. Every author on the site is free to interpret the Foundation however they like and that's amazing. What that just means is that we need to accomodate for that; prevent ourselves from combining multiple views of the reality as a whole, combining different stories that the authors aren't even aware of. We need more elbow greese to figure out powers and abilities because we have less to work with, but we definitly have enough to still make some great profiles.
 
@weekly you I think it will be more intersting more debates would be far more intersting i mean thats what the wiki is for...making debates and having a good time
 
@Cain

Because I love the stories that feature them and want them well represented?

@Weekly

"Canon/Series/Collaboration: Series of articles that are clearly brodcasted as a collaboration, with a hub specifying which tales and SCPs exist in that canon, are allowed to have scaling feats within themselves. Due note, however, that this only applies to tales and SCPs specifically written for a canon/series. For example, while SCP-3125 is consistent in all of the Antimemetics stories, SCP-055 was not originally written for the series, and therefore feats and abilities from the canon cannot be applied to it."

Karcist and Church of the Broken God qualifies, if I'm not mistaken.
 
If Agdalla's statement of "all higher and lower dimensions" or "all dimensions" is still there, Hanged King, Mekhane, Yald, Ambassador, and the Lords of Agdalla are all at least Tier 2.
 
@Lephyr My attitude is realism

Coming from someone who has spent years reading SCP and the last three specifically reading them for feats here, there is nothing.
 
There may be no canon, but there is generally consistency. But since there's no canon, sometimes people break that consistency, and it's obviously a joke or alternate universe.

This change doesn't really effect newer profiles and canon hubs, but it destroys all entities used across all sorts of canons and tales. GOI pages would be a mess if we tried to write them now, with task forces, god tiers, and popular SCPs being hit similarly.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Its from a tale just like all the other stats for the entire verse
Click to expand...
The New rules let you scale from tales as long as

A) They are from the same author as the SCP.

B) The tale and the SCP were both written as part of a series or canon.
 
Even that statement sounds a bit vague, do other articles/tales written by the same author describe alternate realities?

Just a lone "meeting of all dimensions" statement means nothing when there are no other statements in the canon about the number of dimensions or universes.
 
Agnaa said:
There may be no canon, but there is generally consistency. But since there's no canon, sometimes people break that consistency, and it's obviously a joke or alternate universe.
This change doesn't really effect newer profiles and canon hubs, but it destroys all entities used across all sorts of canons and tales. GOI pages would be a mess if we tried to write them now, with task forces, god tiers, and popular SCPs being hit similarly.
Click to expand...
There can be "general consitency" in Roleplaying groups and Fanfiction series, that doesn't mean we scale them to the actual characters.

It doesn't destroy entities from many canons and tales, it just forces you to look at the canons and tales individually and possibly make keys for different interpretations if they are expansive enough.
 
"Destroy" meaning "They have 1/30th of their prior number of feats". And also kind of meaning that it would make the profiles a mess.

The number of tales about the GOC written by the person who invented it would have almost zero feats compared to all tales about the GOC.

If we went by individual canon hubs featuring the GOC, most of them don't have that huge a mention of them. Each canon hub would maybe get one or two haxxed pieces of technology from them. Too many keys on a profile and it becomes a mess, with the number of feats each canon would have for these characters making a key for all of them would be pointless (most would have a handful of feats at most) and messy.
 
.... what?

Someone wrote an SCP light novel/manga (I forgot which).

Maybe it could be used as its own canon for certain characters?

EDIT: It's a light novel. 105/Iris is the main heroine, but it's completely in Japanese; we'd have to wait for a translation.
 
Agnaa said:
"Destroy" meaning "They have 1/30th of their prior number of feats".
Click to expand...
I'm like 90% sure that getting stats from actual specified and calcable destruction feats is like a million times better than scaling off of stories the original author has absolutely nothing to do with, or any regulation/sense of authenticity that comes with a company.

Agnaa said:
And also kind of meaning that it would make the profiles a mess.
Click to expand...
You mean like we had before?

On the topic of the Manga, I would be against using it because the moment we jump off the official website we're actually making fanfiction profiles.
 
The only profile that was messy aesthetically before imo was 682. Pages like Yaldabaoth looked perfectly fine.

If you mean "messy" as in "we used feats from multiple canons" then that's a difference of opinion. I think the profiles would just look shittier if we had 7 separate keys each with 2 or 3 feats backing them up.
 
If the profiles can't work out well when not just considering literally anything canon, maybe the scp isn't worthy of a profile. Most of the notable ones seem to be getting extended canon keys anyways.
 
Sure some of the better profiles may have more keys than that, but they usually have a large number of feats for each, or abilities are consistent across them so they say "same as previous", making them less cluttered.

Having a bunch of different keys each with a few feats and a few abilities completely canonically unrelated to each other would seem messy. And also, some of those profiles which use half a dozen keys are an eyesore to me. When I'm looking at two characters in a battle and one of them has an abilities section longer than my scree I just don't bother participating in that thread.

I'd support that because it's a collaborative writing site. Emphasis on collaborative. They're working together to create it, not separately as individuals. They're all part of the same SCP listing. They have quality control, a shared vision, and people who want to deviate from that vision are clearly not canon or an AU.
 
Not all wall of text characters are like that due to having several keys. Look at Doctor Doom for example, despite having multiple keys all those powers and abilities correspond to two of them. Same deal with Lavos, 3 keys is really not that many. 682 has more as is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vyfourthaccount
Containment fiction general discussion thread
Replies
8
Views
1K
Vyfourthaccount
Vyfourthaccount
Hsharpe
SCP-2747 VS SCP-682
Replies
2
Views
2K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Mr. Bambu
The Afterlife of SCP
Replies
23
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Comiphorous
SCP-682 adapted to VSBattles and is missing a weakness (NEEDS STAFF)
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
JustANormalPerson01
It seems our lizard finally made contact with some narrative hazards
Replies
22
Views
5K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
Back
Top