- 16,171
- 12,705
I have a few minor issues with our Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats page. These aren't going to be a super drastic changes, mostly clearing up the wording and acknowledging a few edge cases, nothing that should affect too many profiles. And since a lot of this is going to be "people argue X, so it should be fixed so that they can't", I wanna be clear that I'm not trying to make the standards harder or prevent attempts at circumventing them, it's just that as they are they're a bit unclear so it makes sense to misunderstand them a bit, and that's what I'm trying to improve.
First off, "The beam refracts in a new material, such as a liquid or..." and "The beam diffuses in a reasonably realistic way or reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror." are two separate standards but they're essentially saying the same thing. Both could be summed up as "behaves realistically when interacting with materials", and I've seen a lot of people arguing that an example of the latter should count for both. Considering refraction is much rarer to find in fiction than reflection when it comes to light, I think these two standards could be fused into just one, that could go something like: "The beam behaves in a reasonably realistic way, such as reflecting off non-magical mirrors, emanating heat or refracting and diffusing through liquids and materials." I think this makes things a good deal more intuitive. I also added a bit about heat because, well that's also a thing that real-life lasers do, and I think a decent sign that one is being portrayed realistically-ish.
Another one that I think is a bit vague is "It has its origin at a realistic source of light, such as a camera.". This one's fine but something else I've seen a lot is the idea that sci-fi technology such as a robot or a laser gun are "realistic sources of light", which they really aren't, it's fiction, it can be literally anything and there's a lot of examples of beam attacks in media that clearly don't behave like realistic light (that's arguably the whole reason this page exists). So I'd reword this as "The beam originates from a real source of light, such as the Sun or the flash of a camera. Note that a beam does not automatically qualify for this requirement by having a technological source." It's a bit clunky and I'd appreciate if someone could figure out a way to slim it down or make it clearer, but I think it's good to specify this.
This may be a bit more controversial but I would actually add a bit of a clause in the requirements that even if it doesn't fit enough requirements, if there's exhaustive enough evidence of something being realistically treated as light it should be viable to treat as SoL. Like if there's multiple reliable statements that a beam of light moves at the speed of light or if a verse goes into really precise detail in explaining how light works scientifically (I've seen both of these happen), I think it fits the intent of the standards, which is to only allow "realistic" light to qualify, for those to work (provided there's not much evidence against them, yadda yadda). I'd also say argue we already account for this to an extent ("This is not a full list of qualities that can qualify/disqualify a feat as a true laser/light beam"), and this is just making it clearer. I'd word this as something like "Particularly thorough and consistent evidence of a light beam or laser being portrayed in a very realistic manner and/or moving at the speed of light can qualify for the requirements on its own."
The "It is tangible and can be interacted with physically by normal humans." bit has always bugged me because, well you can interact with light as a normal human. Put your hand in the way of a light source and it's going stop it, so a character blocking a laser beam isn't unrealistic at all. I think it'd be better to say "The beam is shown to carry kinetic energy, be tangible or explode upon contact with matter.", which covers the same ground of "someone physically grabs the beam or bats it away", and also covers other similar common fiction things that real life light doesn't do.
One last thing, light-based constructs do not (necessarily) move at light speed. This is, again, something I've seen argued that just isn't true, a construct doesn't move at any particular speed no matter what it's made of (and also light would lose its speed upon gaining mass), so I'd clarify this somewhere. For example: "Note that objects, weapons or projectiles constructed of solid light are not considered to be capable of moving at the speed of light without proper evidence, because light would realistically lose its properties upon being made to act in such a manner." Again, a bit clunky, sorry.
Ok, revision's done, but here's a few other bits of awkward wording that I'd want to fix just to make things flow a bit better, hopefully.
Finally, if anyone has a good picture for the page, I think that's always welcome.
First off, "The beam refracts in a new material, such as a liquid or..." and "The beam diffuses in a reasonably realistic way or reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror." are two separate standards but they're essentially saying the same thing. Both could be summed up as "behaves realistically when interacting with materials", and I've seen a lot of people arguing that an example of the latter should count for both. Considering refraction is much rarer to find in fiction than reflection when it comes to light, I think these two standards could be fused into just one, that could go something like: "The beam behaves in a reasonably realistic way, such as reflecting off non-magical mirrors, emanating heat or refracting and diffusing through liquids and materials." I think this makes things a good deal more intuitive. I also added a bit about heat because, well that's also a thing that real-life lasers do, and I think a decent sign that one is being portrayed realistically-ish.
Another one that I think is a bit vague is "It has its origin at a realistic source of light, such as a camera.". This one's fine but something else I've seen a lot is the idea that sci-fi technology such as a robot or a laser gun are "realistic sources of light", which they really aren't, it's fiction, it can be literally anything and there's a lot of examples of beam attacks in media that clearly don't behave like realistic light (that's arguably the whole reason this page exists). So I'd reword this as "The beam originates from a real source of light, such as the Sun or the flash of a camera. Note that a beam does not automatically qualify for this requirement by having a technological source." It's a bit clunky and I'd appreciate if someone could figure out a way to slim it down or make it clearer, but I think it's good to specify this.
This may be a bit more controversial but I would actually add a bit of a clause in the requirements that even if it doesn't fit enough requirements, if there's exhaustive enough evidence of something being realistically treated as light it should be viable to treat as SoL. Like if there's multiple reliable statements that a beam of light moves at the speed of light or if a verse goes into really precise detail in explaining how light works scientifically (I've seen both of these happen), I think it fits the intent of the standards, which is to only allow "realistic" light to qualify, for those to work (provided there's not much evidence against them, yadda yadda). I'd also say argue we already account for this to an extent ("This is not a full list of qualities that can qualify/disqualify a feat as a true laser/light beam"), and this is just making it clearer. I'd word this as something like "Particularly thorough and consistent evidence of a light beam or laser being portrayed in a very realistic manner and/or moving at the speed of light can qualify for the requirements on its own."
The "It is tangible and can be interacted with physically by normal humans." bit has always bugged me because, well you can interact with light as a normal human. Put your hand in the way of a light source and it's going stop it, so a character blocking a laser beam isn't unrealistic at all. I think it'd be better to say "The beam is shown to carry kinetic energy, be tangible or explode upon contact with matter.", which covers the same ground of "someone physically grabs the beam or bats it away", and also covers other similar common fiction things that real life light doesn't do.
One last thing, light-based constructs do not (necessarily) move at light speed. This is, again, something I've seen argued that just isn't true, a construct doesn't move at any particular speed no matter what it's made of (and also light would lose its speed upon gaining mass), so I'd clarify this somewhere. For example: "Note that objects, weapons or projectiles constructed of solid light are not considered to be capable of moving at the speed of light without proper evidence, because light would realistically lose its properties upon being made to act in such a manner." Again, a bit clunky, sorry.
Ok, revision's done, but here's a few other bits of awkward wording that I'd want to fix just to make things flow a bit better, hopefully.
- ""Light" or "Laser" dodging is a fairly common trope seen in fiction and often the center of debate regarding characters' speeds, given that light is the fastest known thing in the real universe. This article will set forth the standards of this wiki in determining what is considered a real "light beam" and what to do once the feat has achieved that status." -> "While light-based attacks such as energy blasts or laser beams are common in fiction, they are often portrayed in an unrealistic manner. On VS Battles Wiki, they are only accepted under certain circumstances."
- "Most lasers in fiction are not real or provable as real. Often they are supernatural in nature and do not function anywhere close to how real light should. Therefore, lasers/light beams are only accepted as real if they meet, at a minimum, a few of these criteria" -> "Typically, lasers and other light-based attacks are only accepted to really move at the speed of light if they meet, at a minimum, a few of these criteria"
- Generally making the wording on the standards more consistent, a few start with "The beam" and others with "It", one even with "They" for some reason.
- "Furthermore, there are a few criteria which show a beam is NOT real light:" -> "Furthermore, there are a few criteria which show that a beam is not behaving like realistic light:"
- "It is shown at different speeds in the same material." -> "It is shown to move at different speeds in the same material."
- "They do not travel in straight lines (unless you can prove refraction/reflection, see above.)" -> "It curves through the air or otherwise doesn't travel in straight lines (with the exception of realistic refraction or deflection)"
- "Additionally, if a series is very close to lightspeed or exceeds it in several other calcs and scenarios (such as what is seen in DBZ), there is less of a burden of proof to show that the laser is a true laser." -> "Additionally, if the characters that would scale to this light beam attack are already very close to light speed or even exceed it, there is less of a burden of proof regarding the light beam's validity." (I think it's better to word it this way, because the original wording would do stuff like validate FTL feats for Subsonic characters just because there's a MFTL spaceship or something, which I don't think was the idea.)
- "In all cases, when light beam feats pop-up, they must be discussed with the staff before implementation." - "In all cases, the validity of light-speed feats should be discussed with staff such as Calculation Group Members before implementation." CGMs are the people that actually evaluate this stuff, so, y'know.
- "it is still possible to aim dodge light" -> "it is still possible to aim dodge light-based attacks" How you gonna aim-dodge the sun?
Finally, if anyone has a good picture for the page, I think that's always welcome.
Last edited:
