• 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.

Skill Revisions (Standards Change)

I want to ask something, so a verse I would be putting on the wiki soon has a character that has is extremely skilled with the sword, so much so that he states and has been shown to be capable of cutting through anything with a sword in fact to the point that he can cut through an enemy that should be around tier 8 if not higher with an entirely normal leaf. How would this CRT affect that.
 
Is possible for a character that possesses Enhanced Accuracy to cut hard beings by aiming to ligaments between bones and bland points of the body, plus the typical blade/piercing weapon advantage that close the gap between the strength and the durability of both character. It also depends of the quality of the weapon (naturally, a conventional may be destroyed if crashes against a hard object/being, even if the user is strong).
 
while true the enemy cut through buildings beforehand and he directly cuts through said enemy's blades as well as the enemy itself with a leaf(that he finished eating from).
 
I agree with all points made and i believe a page explaning how Skill is handled in the wiki needs to be created, so we can avoid some awkward situations.
However i would like to have a explanation on how point 5 works in practice.
And would the platonic concept of war still be limited to what is showed in the verse or would go further than that ?
 
I mean, having a page making clear how skill works, would shut down any skill wanker which also includes misinformation related to Skill and his use and also some VS threads already turned into war debate because of skill never having a clear and open explantion to users in general + alot of users that doesnt know how Skill is handled in the wiki. Excluding all those people is wrong.
fandom_00potato said:
Why just translate this thread into a page or save it so no more skill wankery gets let by.
Click to expand...
Like fandom said, someone can just summarize KOS points and done.
 
Should this be restarted as a staff only thread in the staff forum?
 
fandom_00potato said:
So do we just wait for earl?
Click to expand...
Yes pls. I do have a bunch of things to say about this. As some are legit, but some are far from it, and that "page for skill", just.... just ugh. Who comes up with these ideas? Argue skill on your own in fights, it's not a standard. A page about skill is probably the worst thing mentioned in the op. Considering how broad the concept is.

Anyway I will be here to answer those points in about....17 hours from now.
 
So what are the summarised conclusions so far here?
 
Actually, I think it's considered an excellent skill feat for a really strong character to be curbstomping a bunch of weak characters without accidently killing them.
 
The "page for skill" is more a "blog about what hax qualifies as skill" and, like I said in both the OP, it's a neat idea to me, but not the priority.

The primary focus is changing the standards used in debate regarding skill.
 
Yeah, avoid killing groups of enemies is notable as a combat feat; naturally, still not valid if the character can't simply be put down due durability or any kind of invulnerability, neither by using non-lethal powers.
 
@Rocker1189 Yeah, and things like Goku being able to go SSB Blue and make it looks like he's evenly matched and going all out with Krillin despite technically being able to stomp him in base form.
 
Although, that is more akin to control their own strength and speed (not real reason to decrease toughness), combat would be more the character makes sure to not hit vitals, while still running the risk of being killed by any individual.
 
As for number 5, the issue is we ignore how being a type 1-2 concept of skill affects you relation to skill, entirely. Every single feat within a verse as massive and complex as Warhammer 40k, and Khorne, concept of martial combat, violence, and war that he is, isn't considered the most skilled being on the wiki.

Well we shouldn't ignore it, but we shouldn't have it auto-trump every other verse on the wiki.

I'm not in those "most skilled being" threads since they sound ******* awful, but my suggestion would simply be to argue better. People must have a reason for disagreeing with you.
 
Being the concept of skill should only give you the skill feats of the verse you're from, equalizing it to the scale of the concept of skill in every other verse is absolutely wrong. For example, I have the concept of Death from Verse X, and pit him against a DC Comics character, that doesn't mean the scale of Death from Verse X is now equalized to be of the same as the scale of Death from DC Comics; the same should apply here, the concept of skill from one verse isn't equalized to the one from another.
 
Antoniofer said:
In contrast with what Dargoo said, I do agree that defeating groups of enemies to be a combat feat, however there's few conditions:
Click to expand...
I didn't actually say this. I said that for characters who just mow through a group because they have higher AP or speed.

Same goes for 1-on-1 combat ; for skill to be argued the characters should be at a comparable AP or the character in question should be at a realistic AP disadvantage. Granted this depends on context around the feat.
 
This feels like it will come down to someone either bragging a lot or insulting a lot, I care not to see which.

1 and 2 make total sense, though with context 2 could be ignored in some cases. Agree with 3, 4 is probably wrong given that context trumps arbitrary rules like this, though that said I have a feeling this is pointed at some specific case where your point is probably right, and as for 5... see above? Obviously, that's a huge skill feat and if you're inclined to argue such things, being the platonic concept of skill across a large verse (seems Warhammer is the example) would make you a god tier skill guy. But I think saying there can be no equal among mankind is shortsighted at best.

Given what little info I have about the toxic miasma that is skill threads, I think I can connect the dots and figure out the characters you're looking at with some of these. So, with that in mind: I agree with your points in the context of those characters specifically. But not in general. If that makes sense.
 
Can somebody summarise what is being suggested here please? I am extremely busy at the moment.
 
Ant: Suggestion is for various changes to what sorts of feats we consider applicable to combat skill (and how highly we value them as combat skill feats) for the sake of vs threads and lists.

The OP also suggested an instructions page for what qualifies as combat skill.

Quite a few people in this thread agreed with everything in the OP. Me and a few others took issue with one or two parts of it but generally agreed. And Earl's planning a big response but hasn't had time to post it yet.
 
Ah, my mistake then, but ye, wrecking through group of enemies is not combat feat if it done through massive condition difference (as I say, if the character is relatively invulnerable then how good it fight doesn't matter, even being reckless wouldn't result in damage), speedblitzing, or aoe attacks (although this will obviously fall under supernatural power).

Never commented about the 5th point, but I rather stay away from metaphysical stuff (but knowing fiction and bad writing, wouldn't be surprised if some embodiment of combat is defeated by the Mc or something).
 
Agnaa:

Thank you for the explanation.

Would this new skills page be applicable for our character statistics profile pages, or just for versus discussions?
 
Just for versus discussions I think, we don't really index skill on profiles, aside from listing feats.
 
Okay. I am uninterested in versus discussions, so this isn't my type of thread then.

Anyway, I have to unsubscribe from this thread due to time constraints. You can notify me later via my message wall if you need my help after you have reached a conclusion. Alternately, a staff member can use the @Username notification system.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
This feels like it will come down to someone either bragging a lot or insulting a lot, I care not to see which.

1 and 2 make total sense, though with context 2 could be ignored in some cases. Agree with 3, 4 is probably wrong given that context trumps arbitrary rules like this, though that said I have a feeling this is pointed at some specific case where your point is probably right, and as for 5... see above? Obviously, that's a huge skill feat and if you're inclined to argue such things, being the platonic concept of skill across a large verse (seems Warhammer is the example) would make you a god tier skill guy. But I think saying there can be no equal among mankind is shortsighted at best.

Given what little info I have about the toxic miasma that is skill threads, I think I can connect the dots and figure out the characters you're looking at with some of these. So, with that in mind: I agree with your points in the context of those characters specifically. But not in general. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I intend to avoid insulting anyone, and I won't be bragging if this does go through, primarily because I intend to follow this subject rather than sit on any "laurels" it would win me, if that can even be used.

5 seems the most controversial change in standards, and I'm perfectly fine with leaving it behind until later if I feel a need to debate it further.

I can understand what you mean, though, and there are some specific characters who inspired some of the additions here. However, I do plan to have more rigorous standards put on how we consider skill in general, because as of current there is no defined idea of what is skilled, and people have used that gap to push things as far as they want to.

In a sentence, I want standards changed to avoid those specific problem cases repeating themselves, as well as taking care of them in the first place.
 
KnightOfSunlight said:
I intend to avoid insulting anyone, and I won't be bragging if this does go through, primarily because I intend to follow this subject rather than sit on any "laurels" it would win me, if that can even be used.

5 seems the most controversial change in standards, and I'm perfectly fine with leaving it behind until later if I feel a need to debate it further.

I can understand what you mean, though, and there are some specific characters who inspired some of the additions here. However, I do plan to have more rigorous standards put on how we consider skill in general, because as of current there is no defined idea of what is skilled, and people have used that gap to push things as far as they want to.

In a sentence, I want standards changed to avoid those specific problem cases repeating themselves, as well as taking care of them in the first place.
Click to expand...
I agree with this Sentiment.
 
Ok so i am back and will reply to everything in order.

1. This is a point that I have argued quite a bit ever since i started the whole skill thing and i've tried to make it common knowledge that indeed "i cut concepts with skill and then yeeted the entire fate of the universe" is not skill. And the OP even captured the reasoning correctly: "we cannot be certain what level of skill is needed to perform these hax, and thus they should be considered non-feats", or as i usually say "they are not quantifiable". So not only do I agree, but i have also tried to make this common knowledge for as long as i've been debating skill. However i do not agree with the wording "is not a skill feat", they are skill feats, just not sensical enough for us to put a metric on them.

2. This is where the points start getting a bit bad now. "Close a 7.5X AP gap". Skill does not allow you to close a gap, it allows you to fight despite the gap. And the AP can be as high as it wants, it does not matter to us, if the reasoning is good enough that is. If the reasoning isn't good enough the character would just scale to those characters. If he outright just reflects their attacks i don't see why a 9-B beating a 5-A matters, it's not that he's doing it through means we don't understand. So that AP gap just gets flung out of the window, you need good reasoning, not a number. Now on to speed. While it is true that you can't just beat a dude 1 million times faster, there is an issue.
Let's assume a gap of 3 and 7. Character X can beat a dude that's 3x faster (with skill), character Y can beat a dude that is 7x faster (also through skill). According to the OP we are supposed to say "X > Y" even though Y outright did the same thing X did but better. Any normal human would have trouble with that level of speed, however it is pretty stupid to say a character who did a lesser feat is the superior one in skill. It just doesn't work. So just get rid of that entire point as it leads to pretty stupid claims.

3. Knowledge =/= Skill. While true, this claim is also very short sighted. When we use the term "skill" in discussions, we tend to think of "Combat Proficiency", and when it comes to Combat Proficiency knowledge and skill both are a factor, so they both play into the same thing. And if you made this point while not having Combat Proficiency in mind, then what did you have in mind? What's the point of arguing "skill" if you think of it as such an incomplete term that does, on it's own, not determine the outcome of a fight? While i do agree that not all knowledge comes in play in a fight, knowledge needs skill and skill needs knowledge you can't just separate the 2 completely (just because you know where the pressure points are doesn't mean you can attack your opponent's pressure points, on the other hand just because you could theoretically attack them doesn't mean you can attack them if you don't know where they are). So this point while while it is not right, it is not wrong either and should be judged on a case by case basis instead.

4. "Skill is outright inferior to reality warping". Ok this point is just disgusting i have no idea where you came up with this honestly. Skill is not inferior to reality warping. Skill can be thought of as a source for whatever you can do, where it all comes from, not that it is weaker. And i know the first thought is "well are you saying skill is stronger", and my answer would be "NO! I am saying skill or reality warping have (let me emphasize this part) nothing to do with potency they are the means to something not how strong something is". Cus at that point i might as well say well Amane Shinomiya has Fate Manip from magic whereas Musashi has Fate Manip from skill therefore Amane's Fate Hax > Musashi's Fate Hax, even though the later can do stuff on a 2-A level whereas the former can't. People, potency has nothing to do with where something comes from (magic, chi, chakra, skill, nen, [insert thing here]), feats are what decide it's potency.
On the other part of this point though: "hax granted via skill cannot and will never be able to surpass resistance to reality warping hax". Assuming we got the "potency has nothing to do with where it comes from" out of the way. This is again a very bad point. Skill based abilities can definitely bypass resistances to reality warping hax, however they do not do so through being stronger. As DontTalkDT has said before (which is 1 of the statements i most agree with on this site) if the mechanics of an ability are different that does not mean that the same resistance will work, because the hax worked different mechanically. To give an example like Death Hax, if you resist Fate Induced Death Hax, it does not mean you resist Biological Induced Death Hax (ofc assuming we're not talking about Immortalities here). In other words, skill is not more powerful or weaker than reality warping, but just because sth from skill and sth from Reality Warping seem to achieve the same effect, does not mean they work in the same way which means it is not necessarily true that the resistance to Reality Warping will work. Conclusion: Skill can/may bypass resistance to Reality Warping, but not because of potency, it may bypass resistance because it works much different to what the opponent resisted.​
​
5. I won't bother too much with this as there doesn't seem to be a lot of support on this already. But no, existing as the concept of skill gives you the skill in your verse, not the verse of another guy. It doesn't work like that, if we did equalize stuff like that then we would be going around saying stuff like "Blackmist wins all of his matches by default because even the opponent is blackmist so unless the opponent kills himself he cannot win.", or "Ikki transcends fate, and fate in DC is a 1-A thing, so Ikki transcends 1-A fate cus equalized" and a lot more non sensical stuff like that. Being something in one verse does not give you power over another verse.
 
The last thing i want to talk about is "making a page" or "making a blog" about this. I die a bit inside everytime someone's solution to a debate is "make a page/blog". We are a versus "debating" site, but everyday we stray further from the "debating" part. We make a page about everything so there is no more debate anymore.

If you're capable enough, debate your way through all the arguments someone throws at you, don't just "well there is a page about it lul". We don't need a page or blog for every single thing, this is something that only gets debated in few threads and that's it, might as well just make a blog or page for what happens when Fate vs Probability clash, what happens when EE vs Death Manip clash. Just no, absolutely not, debate these things on a case by case basis stop trying to make a page about everything. As someone who has debated skill for quite a while now, I can safely say, skill absolutely does not need a page to be debated, especially considering how broad the concept is, you can shut down arguments with reason and it will work out.
 
latest

Agreeing with Earl​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Astral_Trinity439
Upgrade for Law Manipulation Layers for Skills and Magic [TenSura]
Replies
19
Views
2K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
SamanPatou
A tweak at the Pokemon Profile Standards page
Replies
16
Views
1K
SamanPatou
SamanPatou
Jozaysmith?
  • Locked
skill addition : Tensura thread
Replies
19
Views
2K
EL_xWatcher1234x
EL_xWatcher1234x
ashen
Ultimate skill user page (Tensura)
Replies
9
Views
1K
AzuRizzz
AzuRizzz
Wikisource
  • Locked
Tensura WN CRT: Quantum Manipulation and Resistance
Replies
30
Views
2K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Back
Top