"Speed Blitzes" and "One-Shots"

[Abstractions]

Option 2 IS inclusive of Option 3 if you’d note, so if this trend continues I’ll suggest doing Option 2, it’s just Option 3 but with added info.

Well, yes. Just a matter of if people want approximated multipliers or not, it's inclusive but sometimes people just want less.

 

[FinePoint]

Wait, I am getting confused abit, basically every input thus far, save for two members, is amounting to “either two or three are fine”

Option 2 IS inclusive of Option 3 if you’d note, so if this trend continues I’ll suggest doing Option 2, it’s just Option 3 but with added info.

I wouldn't say 2 is inclusive of 3, but that 3 is partly exclusive of 2. Option 2 still involves listing multipliers for different situations, Option 3 argues that no multipliers should be anywhere official, just examples of matchups which would be blitzes.

 

[Damage3245]

Option 3 seems best to me.

 

[The_Impress]

I wouldn't say 2 is inclusive of 3, but that 3 is partly exclusive of 2. Option 2 still involves listing multipliers for different situations, Option 3 argues that no multipliers should be anywhere official, just examples of matchups which would be blitzes.

I'll argue this out then, if both starting distance and AoE are fixed, thee are only trivial CIS factors to limit derivation of speed ratings

 

[FinePoint]

I'll argue this out then, if both starting distance and AoE are fixed, thee are only trivial CIS factors to limit derivation of speed ratings

I apologize, but what does CIS stand for in this context?

There is more than just the measured radius of an AoE attack to account for. If a beam hits the ground and explodes, the explosion does not necessarily appear instantly. The exact mechanics of an attack can vary a lot, and when imagining a battle scenario these arbitrary speed multipliers are simply not that helpful when compared to our common sense and an educated guess based on our understanding of the specific character in question.

It is also entirely dependent on the specific details of the factors whether they are trivial or not. Character differences and hax in play could make a small difference, or they could make a massive difference.

To use the example from earlier:
The Flash from the Arrowverse constantly stops to talk to his opponents, and is hit by them despite being able to dismantle their entire body before they could blink as a result. He's just not that good at using his speed, and this should be a factor when debating in general. A trained soldier at mach 20 going for the kill is scarier than a kid at mach 20 playing around.

The proposal of setting in official policy multipliers based off a few factors incentivizes people to dismiss these additional factors entirely when debating, and likely dissuades them from making the match to begin with as a result.
I know that many staff do not care about VS debating, but please don't give people more ammo in dismissing a thread entirely before they even think about the factors at play.

---

This question: "Does this character's speed allow them to win?" It's not something we can generalize, there's simply too many things going on in a battle between two unique characters. It's an essential part of a versus thread debate, and it should stay that way rather than devolve into people quoting made-up multipliers which ignore the matchup to skip to a conclusion without proper thought.

 

[The_Impress]

I apologize, but what does CIS stand for in this context?

Character Induced Stupidity where a character randomly decides not to go his typical speed.

There is more than just the measured radius of an AoE attack to account for. If a beam hits the ground and explodes, the explosion does not necessarily appear instantly.

This is AoE and attack speed, yeah. List it better on the file instead of bringing it up haphazardly on the thread.

The exact mechanics of an attack can vary a lot, and when imagining a battle scenario these arbitrary speed multipliers are simply not that helpful when compared to our common sense and an educated guess based on our understanding of the specific character in question.

Arbitrary speed multipliers is an assertion that needs proving beyond your claim.

Also keep in mind educated guesses, are still guesses, and closing a thread on guesswork, which given trends on wiki is likely from a staff member, only serves to push the narrative of staff having

It is also entirely dependent on the specific details of the factors whether they are trivial or not. Character differences and hax in play could make a small difference

Minor differences in vs. debating terms, unless again, we’re doing CIS where the character just doesn’t have the speeds.

To use the example from earlier:
The Flash from the Arrowverse constantly stops to talk to his opponents, and is hit by them despite being able to dismantle their entire body before they could blink as a result. He's just not that good at using his speed, and this should be a factor when debating in general.

Flash from Arrowverse is also a character who is LAUGHABLY INCONSISTENT in regards to his speeds, even from a mainstream perspective, and this level of argument is the same as going against AP multipliers altogether for oneshots, just because Comics!Spider-Man may have inconsistent stats.

This is just a terrible example to have, if you can argue that the character in question in-character isn’t threatening, genuinely, guess what? Say that on the thread, you can mitigate it being a speedstomp, EXACT SAME WAY, you can argue for glass cannon matches to be valid, opponent AP doesn’t become relevant in the fight

A trained soldier at mach 20 going for the kill is scarier than a kid at mach 20 playing around.

A trained soldier at 9-A going for the kill is scarier than a kid at 9-A playing around. Same argument, why aren’t you debunking AP multipliers?

The proposal of setting in official policy multipliers based off a few factors incentivizes people to dismiss these additional factors entirely when debating,

Having what a speedstomp is be guesswork and having it re-estimated over and over given multiple differing opinions is far worse than irrelevant hypothetical incentives you bring up. People surprisingly don’t want their characters losing, FinePoint

and likely dissuades them from making the match to begin with as a result.

I think having 40 messages be pondering in the thread whether the match is a speedstomp or not, draining every thread voter and OP’s enthusiasm for the match, is worse than “OMFG YOU DIDNT CONSIDER THIS ONE POINT”, which, just bring up the point in question. Not tough.

I know that many staff do not care about VS debating, but please don't give people more ammo in dismissing a thread entirely before they even think about the factors at play.

…Mate I have 4 Vs. Threads of my own open right now and am following like, 30 of them. Pander against someone else, your proposal is suggesting GUESSWORK, likely by said staff many of who “do not care about VS debating”, on a thread spurred DUE TO SAID guesswork ruining and derailing the match with no one knowing what to do and there being conflicting opinions on it.

Not that this thread experience matters that much noting we’re discussing entirely new territory for Speed Unequalized matches, which feel once-per-month

---

This question: "Does this character's speed allow them to win?" It's not something we can generalize, there's simply too many things going on in a battle between two unique characters. It's an essential part of a versus thread debate, and it should stay that way rather than devolve into people quoting made-up multipliers which ignore the matchup to skip to a conclusion without proper thought.

Yes instead, made up arguments on what a user’s personal feelings are on the match being a speedblitz or not, that’s superior(???)

If you don’t generalize you discriminate, many matches can now be deemed a stomp based on pure speculation and NOTHING ELSE, something which very well may not be considered such in others, it’s ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on who found the thread.

FinePoint, everything you said is applicable to the already accepted and not disputed policy of wiki multipliers, and genuinely dude, if people are:

quoting made-up multipliers which ignore the matchup to skip to a conclusion without proper thought.

This is known as improper debating, can you try and address it on the thread like how a proper debate would? Exact things happen in Speed Equalized matches with AP multipliers and if it is argued the stronger AP opponent will not be able to hit the weaker AP one before hax oneshot, or not be able to reach him in time, or can’t relevantly harm him in time, or isn’t skilled enough to land a hit proper, we ignore the multiplier.

You’re rejecting what are basic site policies cemented in tradition, because your ideal of vs. thread behaviour got slightly deviated. You just gave toxic verse supporters a way to FRA-train a thread closure via stomp, congrats.

 

[Arkenis]

In verses being just 2x stronger can allow someone to one shot while other verses will have their characters get the same thing but won't get one shot. So their should be a standard range of what allows for a blitz and a one shot otherwise people can argue against one shots in vs threads with their characters being able to withstand attacks two times stronger or more. This would just end up with characters maybe having greater durability than their ap (in most cases) as characters tend to withstand attacks far greater than their previously shown ap and dura. This does kinda mess with the scaling of the verse though in a way since one verse may not apply the same feats for a difference in speed or power. One verse's 2x faster could be insignificant, while another's could show an incredible difference and trying to apply it into a neutral setting would just beignoring the verse's standard for its characters.

 

[FinePoint]

This is AoE and attack speed, yeah. List it better on the file instead of bringing it up haphazardly on the thread.

My point is that Proposal 2 involves listing multipliers for various AOE and distance matchups, which doesn't even account for the inconsistencies inherent to AOE alone, and distance as a factor changes with speed as well, so now you have a complicated table with at least three different connected variables, it seems arbitrary at best and won't even apply properly to most matches.

Also keep in mind educated guesses, are still guesses, and closing a thread on guesswork, which given trends on wiki is likely from a staff member, only serves to push the narrative of staff having

No offense intended, but you didn't finish your sentence. I'll try to address the first part.
Everything we do in a versus thread is an educated guess. Obviously we don't actually know what a fight would look like unless it's already been done in an official capacity, especially once we start imposing our own rules and locations, and speculation to character. This sort of debate leaves room for all the variables to be accounted for, whereas a pre-determined multiplier cannot reasonable account for all of them.

Minor differences in vs. debating terms, unless again, we’re doing CIS where the character just doesn’t have the speeds.

There's more factors and examples than the single one I mentioned. Any number of hax or the conditions of the match to start.

EXACT SAME WAY, you can argue for glass cannon matches to be valid, opponent AP doesn’t become relevant in the fight

A trained soldier at 9-A going for the kill is scarier than a kid at 9-A playing around. Same argument, why aren’t you debunking AP multipliers?

This whataboutism doesn't address anything. I never claimed I supported the AP multipliers, I am simply more concerned with speed and it seemed from earlier in the thread that most people weren't that concerned about it either. In general though, I believe being able to blitz is far more impactful and harder to determine universally.

[Accusing me of pandering]

My statement wasn't to you specifically, that is all.
I don't want to have a long back-and-forth and flood this thread, so I'll stop arguing here. I apologize if any malice or ill-intent was felt from any of my posts, it was not my intention and I do not mean to discredit you in any way, I just want wiki policy to reflect what's practical.
I just don't think trying to apply universal speed blitz multipliers, even given three or so variables is a practical idea.

I still firmly believe an explanation of what a blitz is and some examples should be enough for reasonable people to determine if a match is a blitz.

 

[The_Impress]

I mean FinePoint if you acknowledge that your points also apply to AP multipliers I’ll just say, argue against AP multipliers right now as well since it’s a relevant thread topic, and is in violation with current wiki precedent.

It’s invalid is what I’m saying, for it to be used against speed alone

 

[Antvasima]

Wait, I am getting confused abit, basically every input thus far, save for two members, is amounting to “either two or three are fine”

Option 2 IS inclusive of Option 3 if you’d note, so if this trend continues I’ll suggest doing Option 2, it’s just Option 3 but with added info.

@LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Abstractions

I would appreciate if you consider which of option 2 and 3 that seems best to use.

@Damage3245 @Qawsedf234

Your ckntknued help here would also be appreciated.

 

[Abstractions]

I mean FinePoint if you acknowledge that your points also apply to AP multipliers I’ll just say, argue against AP multipliers right now as well since it’s a relevant thread topic, and is in violation with current wiki precedent.

It’s invalid is what I’m saying, for it to be used against speed alone

If you're for the abolishment of the AP multiplier factor as well then I wouldn't be in disagreement of that necessarily.

I would appreciate if you consider which of option 2 and 3 that seems best to use.

I'm more in favor of 3 but am understanding of those who pick 2 as it still enforces a minimum standard onto blitzes. I believe 3 opens up the avenue for further argumentation in matches (within reason, of course) and reduces the need to, well, reduce a character's ability for a match to occur. Which I think is a fair reason to be in support of this when the whole thing pertains to matchups.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Abstractions

I would appreciate if you consider which of option 2 and 3 that seems best to use.

@Damage3245 @Qawsedf234

Your ckntknued help here would also be appreciated.

Just put me done for option 2.

 

[Arkenis]

Im going option 2

 

[Antvasima]

Anyways the three options are:

1. Have a unified minimum speedblitz approximating multiple cases for indexing convenience
2. Have minimum speedblitz multipliers be case-by-case for different AoE and starting distance between characters, and list some common cases on the speed blitz page.
3. Have no speedblitz multipliers whatsoever, since the assertion is they’re arbitrary regardless the case.

You can read some of the arguments above for them.

@Antvasima can you gather any staff input for this, specifically the vote, thread is dead :v

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

Would you also be willing to give some input here please?

 

[Elizhaa]

Option 2 seems best, to me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Option 2 as well

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Option 2 seems fine I guess.

 

[Joycap]

Potentially unrelated to anything but worth pointing out (I've only skimread this thread), if this 5x-7.5x range is what's being posited for a one-shot, does it scale with rank/rating? I.E: A one-shot for a 9-A character vs an 8-A character may be very different to the supposed 900x gap between subranks that a 3-C character vs a 3-A character may encounter (If a character is put at 3-C and somehow takes a hit from a 3-A character)?

EDIT: Just saw the options. If the above question is answered with 'yes', then I'm leaning towards option 3.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies.

Can somebody write a tally of the staff votes here so far please?

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Updated OP

Unsure on @Abstractions vote, although it looked like Option 2.

@FinePoint I assume you're voting for Option 3?

 

[Antvasima]

Anyways the three options are:

1. Have a unified minimum speedblitz approximating multiple cases for indexing convenience
2. Have minimum speedblitz multipliers be case-by-case for different AoE and starting distance between characters, and list some common cases on the speed blitz page.
3. Have no speedblitz multipliers whatsoever, since the assertion is they’re arbitrary regardless the case.

You can read some of the arguments above for them.

@DontTalkDT and @AKM sama

It seems like we have reached a non-conclusive result from the staff votes here, as you can see in the first post of this thread.

Are you willing to help out here please?

 

[Antvasima]

In order to act as tiebreakers that is.

 

[Damage3245]

OP should be updated with what the options are too above the votes.

 

[Antvasima]

OP should be updated with what the options are too above the votes.

@Colonel_Krukov

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Done

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[Joycap]

If we're voting I'll take Option 3

 

[FinePoint]

@FinePoint I assume you're voting for Option 3?

You assume correctly.

 

[The_Impress]

If it isn’t clear I’ also saying Option 2 is correct

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I also think that option 2 seems to make better sense, but I am not a good person to ask, so I would prefer further staff input, especially from @DontTalkDT .

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'll argue this out then, if both starting distance and AoE are fixed, thee are only trivial CIS factors to limit derivation of speed ratings

Skill also matters. As does durability. If it takes 10 hits to kill the opponent then they might have a chance to strike back. and you need to be able to chain those attacks.
Visibility is also a factor. Gotta find the opponent.
Of course, various superpowers shouldn't be involved.
Attack speed and reaction speed shouldn't be notably higher than combat speed.
And ultimately what the characters have shown of course takes precedence.
And then CIS stuff as you mentioned.

If, with all of those restrictions in mind, a value should be assigned, then sure, I guess. You guys will need to agree on the parameters, though.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk. It is very appreciated.

 

[Arkenis]

I have a question. How would we treat characters who one shot each other in their own verse for their overall scaling on their page? Say someone rips out another's heart with their hand, is that person now 7.5x stronger than the person they did it to?

 

[Qawsedf234]

How would we treat characters who one shot each other in their own verse for their overall scaling on their page? S

Depends of the verse. But there's no site multiplier accepted for one shots due to the massive scaling chains that would eventually come from that revision.

 

[KLOL506]

I have a question. How would we treat characters who one shot each other in their own verse for their overall scaling on their page? Say someone rips out another's heart with their hand, is that person now 7.5x stronger than the person they did it to?

Not necessarily, in some fiction you might not even need a 2x strength gap to achieve the same results. Like Goku going KKx2 and smashing Nappa's backbone.

 

[Arkenis]

Depends of the verse. But there's no site multiplier accepted for one shots due to the massive scaling chains that would eventually come from that revision.

Alright so then only the speed multiplier should be used in vs threads? Or would the speed multiplier also fall under that too

 

[Qawsedf234]

Alright so then only the speed multiplier should be used in vs threads?

Yeah. They wouldn't apply to in-universe stuff.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here so far based on what DontTalk and others said above?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, we are pretty split on whether we want to include a speedblitz multiplier at all. Currently, there is a small majority in favour.
If we do it, all the talk about what this multiplier should be still needs to be done, though.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the summary.

So what multiplier would you suggest then?