• 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.

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

Antvasima said:
I currently have my forum activity display disabled. Can the rest of you still see it anyway? I would appreciate your help with this.
Click to expand...

unknown.png
 
I'd also suggest to encourage in the Immortality page to index the Regeneration level certain ones cover.

This'd notably include type 2, 4 and 8, which'd be nice to cover up to how much someone could theoretically withstand or come back from these immortalities based on feats and all. I'd also mention type 3 but that'd be redundant given its criteria.

I could turn this into another thread if it's too much for this thread.
 
What do you mean, more specifically?
 
For example, someone that can ignore damage up to a Mid level could have "Immortality (Type 2, Mid)", someone whose type 8 has shown to work up to a Mid-Godly level would have "Immortality (Type 8, Mid-Godly), and so on.
 
Last edited:
That seems like a too complicated topic to handle here. You can try with our staff forum instead if you wish.
 
Coolboy6 said:
The part on your profile that says "viewing thread" should have an option to be hidden because literally anyone could see what you are doing and that may make some people uncomfortable tbh.
Click to expand...
Our system manager has hopefully handled this now. Bureaucrats and Administrators can still see your online activity, even if you have disabled this option, though.
 
Antvasima said:
Our system manager has hopefully handled this now. Bureaucrats and Administrators can still see your online activity, even if you have disabled this option, though.
Click to expand...
It appears to be working as intended now.
It only displays when you were last online.

Edit: Though, I can still see some other people, like Bobiscan. Don't know what their settings are.
 
You can still see the online activity of members who have not disabled the ability of others to watch it in their user settings.
 
Just to make sure, can anybody still see my activity here? I can see it myself, which is odd, but if nobody else can see it then there's no problem.
 
Rose_of_Ragnarok said:
I think it would be great to add more features to editing tables.

As for the table border, I think it would be 0 - 5 pixels thick. Sometimes, people don't need borders for their tables, so they can choose 0 pixels for no borders.

There should also be a choice for us to align tables between Top, Middle, and Bottom. As of now, we can only align our tables between Left, Center & Right.

We should also have the ability to change table colors. As for those who don't want their tables to be colored, they can set their table background to be transparent.
Click to expand...
I had this suggestion earlier.
 
While I'm fine with restricting the check on whether someone's online or not for privacy purposes, I don't think users should be unable to check which staff members are online, as it seems this restricts which ones may appear in the main page in this regard in particular.
Namely because I think it'd be worth for emergencies and all.
 
Very good point. I think that we only restricted the ability to watch the last visited page, not whether or not somebody is online, but I will ask about it.
 
That can too easily be misused so important revisions are accidentally forgotten.
 
Continuing from here

I think it'd be a good idea to do templates to every verse-specific power and ability page, given their nature as just listing several powers inherent to those with the element or physiology, it'd be a good indexing tool to have a template that not only links to the respective page, but that it also grants the inherent categories.

This way not only we keep consistency on several pages, editing also becomes far easier as whenever the verse-specific power page is revised, only the template would have to be edited for the most part, rather than having to be concerned about categories as well.
 
I think that it would turn far too time-consuming to apply and complicated to maintain. Sorry.

We also haven't even made nearly sufficient progress with the tier templates yet, due to Amelia being busy IRL (presumably with schoolwork) and Promestein also having gone missing for a few weeks.

I also do not think that setting up an automatic replacement script for internal powers and abilities links would be nearly as simple, as there are far more variations of them.
 
Well, I didn't picture that their application would be automatic, but rather manually upon each time a new verse-specific power page was made. Significant updates of each one would deserve a CRT for staff to evaluate then again.

I'm unaware on if it's possible to inherit the categories of a page (in this case a verse-specific power) to a template (more importantly besides the verse-specific powers category in itself of course), but otherwise that'd be a good way to automatically keep the template up to date.

I'd also say that it'd still be less work than manually listing every category related to a verse-specific power to every page with such verse-specific power, and so it'd be a net positive thing long-term in any case, even if simply unplausible to do at the moment going by what you're saying.
 
It would be an absolutely tremendous work to apply templates instead of short links to all listed abilities in all powers sections in all 28,000+ character pages in the wiki, especially without being able to use the AutoWikiEdit browser to properly do so automatically.

We just do not anywhere near have the resources to do this, especially as we cannot even properly keep up with all the work we are drowning in already, and the benefits would be near nonexistent. As such I reject this suggestion. It just isn't remotely realistic. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Wait, 28,000 pages? Uh... verse-specific power pages have far less pages they're linked to than that given that unlike "regular" power pages they're limited to a single verse each (And there aren't many verses with over 100 characters indexed, let alone as users of the respective verse-specific power), they can easily be filtered with what pages currently link to the respective one, and would still be a good way to improve editing and consistency.

I can undertand the lack of bot support for these tasks at the moment however, but this can be kept for later and all, as it's not an urgent thing either, but it'd still be an improvement plausible to do in my eyes.
 
If we add this function for all the links to verse-specific powers and abilities, our members would also demand and start to use it for all of our other powers and abilities section links. It would create an unbelievable mess for me to not at all keep up with trying to manage that they use the correct application of.

Much like some of your other suggestions (not all of them) this is not remotely realistic for us, and especially me, to handle, as I am the one constantly stuck with doing most of the edit patrolling every day. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
I said this a few months ago but nothing really came of it.
We should have a Dimensionality part of profiles who are Low 1-C or higher in order to prevent mismatched fights and to know how far a character is in said tier. (Low 1-C up to Low 1-A) It will greatly help with understanding a character's tier and prevent accidental stomps.

Tier: 1-B

Dimensionality: 24th Dimensional

Name: Dimensionality test model

Origin: vsbattles suggestions thread

(Rest of the profile things)
 
As much as I also like the idea, really seems like a lot of work, and is unlikely to be allowed solely because it ***** with the standard profile format. We have over 1,000 tier 1 profiles, last I checked, and this isn't covering character whose dimensionality isn't set in stone (ie; characters with '[tier 1], possibly [other tier 1 tier]' ratings).
 
Pepsiman25th said:
We should have a Dimensionality part of profiles
Click to expand...
Not strictly needed in this capacity, which I think is far more work, but in general I think exact APs need to become more common in profiles in general.

If not directly on the profile, then far easier to find on the verse page or elsewhere. A simple "Scales to this calc." or "See here for scaling chain." would be nice. Right now the format encourages people to only list who they scale to directly, which leads constantly to circular chains or scaling that's impossible to determine from the profile alone (and often not from the verse page either).
 
Well, I think that our character profile pages are already required specify the degree of infinity for them in either the attack potency sections, bottom explanation sections, or linked blogs, but maybe we should add an editing rule for it as well?
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I think that our character profile pages are already required specify the degree of infinity for them, but maybe we should add an editing rule for it as well?
Click to expand...
I often don't see that on profiles.
It's often just a vague: "About as strong as X", with X sometimes having similar justifications that become impossible to follow after a couple clicks, and most of the time there's not a scaling blog.
An editing rule would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I am open for suggestions/draft texts for what the rule should look like.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I am open for suggestions/draft texts for what the rule should look like.
Click to expand...
I'll try my best to word it.

"It's recommended that when making a profile put how far a character scales to another. Context on scaling is recommended. (EX; Character A scales above character B and Character C beat B. C wont scale to A unless proven/context showing it is provided)"

Thats the best I could think of. Feel free to correct me on anything if there's anything wrong.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I am open for suggestions/draft texts for what the rule should look like.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how to word it, but something similar to:
If practical, profiles should link directly to the calculations which they scale from. If it does not scale to a calculation, it should contain or link to an explanation of the scaling chain it's apart of or the exact degree of infinity it scales to.
Click to expand...

I understand that often the calculation is on the verse page, but I've heard countless times off-site people complain about being unable to find the calculation, because this simply isn't intuitive. The casual viewer has no idea that they have to go to the verse page to find exact APs. Also, sometimes it is not on the verse page.

In addition, the verse page isn't always helpful. Sometimes a scaling chain puts someone in a different tier, especially when multipliers are involved but not explicitly stated in profile justifications, and sometimes the verse page may contain a plethora of similar calculations with no indication who scales to what, or which calculations are central or supporting feats.

All of this assumes it's a calculation which the profile scales to, and not a degree of infinity in a higher tier.
This is an example of how big scaling chains can be. Without a blog like this, somebody would be completely lost as to how powerful a character from this series is outside of their general tier which has a potentially infinite range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
70
Views
8K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
AKM sama
Super Moderator Promotions and New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Greenshifter
Greenshifter
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
69
Views
11K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Back
Top