Something About Layered Hax

[Deagonx]

Inshallah. Fuji we can go ahead with this then.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Inshallah. Fuji we can go ahead with this then.

What do I need to do?

 

[Deagonx]

If you can unlock the Hax page and add this section at the bottom of the "Summary" section with the first word "Layering" in bold:

Layering is the ability to break through resistances to one's ability/hax. Successfully using an ability against a resistant character means that the ability is "layered." Further, resisting a layered ability is an indication of layered resistance, so on and so forth. An ability becoming stronger does not automatically mean it is layered unless it is shown to overcome a resistance. Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, against which layering is irrelevant.

Moreover, layering should not be thought of as applying to abilities which intuitively can be overcome with magnitude, such as heat resistance or analytical prediction. For instance, it is not layered fire manipulation to burn someone with a heat source hotter than they can withstand.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

If you can unlock the Hax page and add this section at the bottom of the "Summary" section with the first word "Layering" in bold:

Done. Close this.

Hax

Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant. The most common hax are the ones that ignore durability, and their scale/potency are unrelated to their users' AP & Tier, however, they can be measured with...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Dereck03]

Closing.

 

[DontTalkDT]

One is away for two days and you guys start all kinds revisions

Anyway, I reopened this since I have two things I would like to change.

First

Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, against which layering is irrelevant.

I feel like this would generally depend on the mechanism involved. Just like power null can't necessarily nullify powers that are far more impressive than what they have been shown to be used on.

Second, since it's a common misconception, I would use the fact that we explain layering to then add a more explicit note in spirit of what Note 2 already explains: There are different kinds of potency aside from layers and they are equally valid. Something without layers could overcome layered resistance if it has high enough potency otherwise and vise versa. The exact comparison is heavily case-by-case and in general not possible, though.

So my adjusted version would be something like

Layering is the ability to break through resistances to one's ability/hax. Successfully using an ability against a resistant character means that the ability is "layered." Further, resisting a layered ability is an indication of layered resistance, so on and so forth. An ability becoming stronger does not automatically mean it is layered unless it is shown to overcome a resistance. Crucially this is not the same as resistance negation, which overcomes resistance via a special additional ability rather than the hax itself being more powerful.

Moreover, layering should not be thought of as applying to abilities which intuitively can be overcome with magnitude, such as heat resistance or analytical prediction. For instance, it is not layered fire manipulation to burn someone with a heat source hotter than they can withstand.

As mentioned above layers are just one form to prove exceptional potency of an ability and could be overcome by abilities that have shown potency by other means. In reverse, an ability with many layers could also be potent enough to overcome a resistance that worked against a hax that is exceptionally potent in other ways. How exactly different showings of potency compare is highly case-by-case and in general might be inconclusive.

 

[Elizhaa]

I am fine with DontTalkDt's text.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

That's fine, but I would like it if there were actual examples of this, because it seems to be a pretty specific exception.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's fine, but I would like it if there were actual examples of this, because it seems to be a pretty specific exception.

Examples regarding which of the two changes?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Examples regarding which of the two changes?

The latter (non-layered abilities being able to overcome layered abilities). I'm aware that smurf hax may be an example, but I assume there are others if you're not mentioning smurf hax by name.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, for example, if you have someone with one layer of resistance to mind attacks they do not necessarily resist mind manipulation that can affect a million people at once and for which amount of people is a relevant measure of potency.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Didn't we stop using number of people affected to measure potency ages ago? That aside, in cases like that, I'd rather have a verse establish that such methods actually correlate to increased potency, rather than just assuming that quantity > quality.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Didn't we stop using number of people affected to measure potency ages ago? That aside, in cases like that, I'd rather have a verse establish that such methods actually correlate to increased potency, rather than just assuming that quantity > quality.

No. As I said, that is a common misconception, which is why I wish to add the note.
The hax page in fact already has a text about how we do this:

When judging the potency of hax-based abilities such as Mind Manipulation and Soul Manipulation, and the resistance against them, there is a variety of factors to be potentially considered. Such as the mechanisms involved, how many people the power can affect, whether it has demonstrated to break through resistances, how great the effects are, etc.

These factors need to be examined with the mechanism in mind, to determine if they actually demonstrate potency. For example, for a mind-controlling gas simply affecting more people with it, by using lots of the gas, would not indicate an increase in potency of the gas as simply more of it was used. The effect couldn't be accumulated to be as strong on a single target as it is on all affected individuals summed up.

Whether a power can overcome a resistance against it based on certain feats has to be determined by comparing the various factors at play. For example, a resistance can be overcome by Mind Manipulation with higher potency in any factor, if the resistance is equal, less or unknown in all other factors. When it comes to resistance that is above the Mind Manipulation in some factors, while the Mind Manipulation that is superior in other factors, one has to see on a case-by-case basis whether a convincing argument can be put forth. Otherwise, such a situation will have an inconclusive result.

But evidently additional notes are necessary.

 

[Dereck03]

Well, for example, if you have someone with one layer of resistance to mind attacks they do not necessarily resist mind manipulation that can affect a million people at once and for which amount of people is a relevant measure of potency.

This seems to be more related to the scope or range of the person affecting the others, as it can easily affect the million or 1 person but the potency will remain the same, more elaboration would be needed.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This seems to be more related to the scope or range of the person affecting the others, as it can easily affect the million or 1 person but the potency will remain the same, more elaboration would be needed.

Yeah, see the existing standard I quoted above. Whether it works or not is determined by mechanism.

I didn't bother explaining how determining "for which amount of people is a relevant measure of potency" works, in my example, because the text on the hax page already explains that.

 

[Dereck03]

Hmm, anyway, the most I can think of as an example would have to do with case by case or verse context, where some hierarchical chain is directly specified where the difference is recognized as layers, and someone for example, naming 1 as lower and 10 as higher, then the power of 1 can overcome the resistances of 10 with pure power without needing to be at the same level in the power hierarchy, more or less like Elizhaa's example.

 

[Deagonx]

One is away for two days and you guys start all kinds revisions

Anyway, I reopened this since I have two things I would like to change.

First

I feel like this would generally depend on the mechanism involved. Just like power null can't necessarily nullify powers that are far more impressive than what they have been shown to be used on.

Second, since it's a common misconception, I would use the fact that we explain layering to then add a more explicit note in spirit of what Note 2 already explains: There are different kinds of potency aside from layers and they are equally valid. Something without layers could overcome layered resistance if it has high enough potency otherwise and vise versa. The exact comparison is heavily case-by-case and in general not possible, though.

So my adjusted version would be something like

I'm fine with this

 

[Bobsican]

Uh... it's not a misconception, the number of targets affected isn't usable to measure hax layers by default, now if that thread got accepted stuff that was fundamentally questionable it's another thing.

If you mean on the hax potency (non layered) sort, while it can be argued to matter even if never shown to directly interact with a layered resistance, quite a lot of extrapolations are often involved to correlate it meaningfully to a (layered, sometimes not even) ability/resistance (whether the ability can be concentrated to a single target, a power output being constantly applied (rather than just like an illness just being "on" after merely triggering it), the degree of the effect (weakening a opponent barely, weakening to the point they can't even breath), etc.).

In fact, under the current system a character with tier 0-ranged hax can still have baseline non-smurf hax potency (in the sense of layers) out of this.

 

[SeijiSetto]

hey now i can post without needing to ask

again, i agree it shouldn't be layered, but i just want it taken out of the sentence in the draft where it's bunched up with fire manip as an example of things that can have numbers or magnitude (such as degrees) attached to it lol

i never got an answer about this one
why's analytical prediction being used as an example of a quantifiable thing alongside fire manip

 

[Bobsican]

I'd think it's because Analytical Prediction is an ability that can't be really measured based on layers, as that's like having layered intelligence, it just doesn't work like that and can wildly vary depending on the awareness and outsmarting capabilities of the character in question (and what's being predicted, applying yomi layers in chess isn't the same as doing the same thing in physical combat, or war strategies), especially given it's not even hax to begin with.

Fire Manip currently is used as a way to measure AP by heat, therefore such ability can't be layered as it's sufficiently mundane to more properly measure, as much we measure AP by Joules and not only by "layers" (in this context, scaling).

 

[SeijiSetto]

I'd think it's because Analytical Prediction is an ability that can't be really measured based on layers, as that's like having layered intelligence, it just doesn't work like that and can wildly vary depending on the awareness and outsmarting capabilities of the character in question (and what's being predicted, applying yomi layers in chess isn't the same as doing the same thing in physical combat, or war strategies), especially given it's not even hax to begin with.

i already said i agree with everything here, but simultaneously - its NOT quantifiable.
i cannot have 20 degree ana-pre the same way i can have 15 million K fire, for example.

i'm saying to put LITERALLY anything else there.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Uh... it's not a misconception, the number of targets affected isn't usable to measure hax layers by default, now if that thread got accepted stuff that was fundamentally questionable it's another thing.

If you mean on the hax potency (non layered) sort, while it can be argued to matter even if never shown to directly interact with a layered resistance, quite a lot of extrapolations are often involved to correlate it meaningfully to a (layered, sometimes not even) ability/resistance (whether the ability can be concentrated to a single target, a power output being constantly applied (rather than just like an illness just being "on" after merely triggering it), the degree of the effect (weakening a opponent barely, weakening to the point they can't even breath), etc.).

In fact, under the current system a character with tier 0-ranged hax can still have baseline non-smurf hax potency (in the sense of layers) out of this.

Yes, the number of targets can't measure layers, but that's not what I said. I said it can affect potency and you can potentially overcome layers with potency.
So that numbers generally don't matter is in fact a misconception. If (and only if) the mechanism (or statements) indicates that numbers matter, they are a sign of potency. And layers are one part of potency, but not the whole part. (in fact, not all layers are necessarily equal)
Layered resistance can be overcome by things more potent than them, but judging whether potency that does not come from layers is above or below the potency of it is usually difficult and case-by-case. We don't default to either stance.
That's what was in fact decided in the thread you linked and what is written on the page as a result.

 

[Bobsican]

In that case it may be wise to first define what'd be potency and how it can be "above" layers without actually interacting with a resistance to begin with, as that's often how an ability goes in a verse.
I'd rather some care being taken here as we all know users often try to argue for infinite hax potency/layers for reasons of variable decency.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I mean, again, I feel like the existing passage handles explaining how potency and comparing to layers works pretty well. Like, it has a paragraph listing some factors that could be involved in potency and a paragraph on the question of whether a potency feat can overcome a resistance and how to compare that regarding various factors.

When judging the potency of hax-based abilities such as Mind Manipulation and Soul Manipulation, and the resistance against them, there is a variety of factors to be potentially considered. Such as the mechanisms involved, how many people the power can affect, whether it has demonstrated to break through resistances, how great the effects are, etc.

These factors need to be examined with the mechanism in mind, to determine if they actually demonstrate potency. For example, for a mind-controlling gas simply affecting more people with it, by using lots of the gas, would not indicate an increase in potency of the gas as simply more of it was used. The effect couldn't be accumulated to be as strong on a single target as it is on all affected individuals summed up.

Whether a power can overcome a resistance against it based on certain feats has to be determined by comparing the various factors at play. For example, a resistance can be overcome by Mind Manipulation with higher potency in any factor, if the resistance is equal, less or unknown in all other factors. When it comes to resistance that is above the Mind Manipulation in some factors, while the Mind Manipulation that is superior in other factors, one has to see on a case-by-case basis whether a convincing argument can be put forth. Otherwise, such a situation will have an inconclusive result.

I'm not proposing anything that isn't already a standard. The only reason I want the additional explanation in the layers section is because this entire existing explanation is so often overlooked, that I think it's a good idea to mention the subject straight where we explain layers as well, so that people who think potency is nothing but layers hopefully can't continue not reading it.
As I reference that the explanation I quoted exists in the text I add, I don't think I need to repeat all this explanation states in the same detail, but can break it down to the short version, as I did.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, with these clarifications being done here I don't have further concerns here.

 

[Everything12]

The newest proposal looks good to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

DT already applied this, so I'll have this thread closed.