Verse Equalization Minor Wording Change

[AKM sama]

Currently the verse equalization note says:

It is also important to note that characters won't lose or gain any abilities or resistances which they do or do not inherently possess. However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, stated by at least a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalization.
Equalization works highly on a case-by-case basis, so many relevant cases should be discussed in the versus thread itself.

I think this wording is prone to misinterpretation in that people may think that strictly a statement is required to establish a weakness or limitation of any ability. While writers don't always rely on direct statements and rather focus on showing how it works through its use. Feats > statements also mean that we prioritize what is shown to us over what is stated, and the latter works best when we haven't seen the ability in use.

I think the following wording with a slight change will be better to make things clear:

It is also important to note that characters won't lose or gain any abilities or resistances which they do or do not inherently possess. However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, shown throughout its use or stated by a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalization.
Equalization works highly on a case-by-case basis, so many relevant cases should be discussed in the versus thread itself.

 

[Rocker1189]

Seems fine to me and makes sense.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree to this

 

[KingTempest]

I can agree with this

 

[Antvasima]

This seems fine to me as well.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think?

 

[Damage3245]

Sure. Seems okay.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

An extremely uncontroversial, and honestly, common sense minor edit. It's okay with me.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Pretty straightforward, fine with me.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Looks ok.

 

[SamanPatou]

I agree with the others.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Quick question: How do we determine the difference between it being a weakness and it being a resistance in this scenario?

It seems like you could just call any of it a weakness or a resistance without any actual real reason to go with one or the other.

 

[Bobsican]

This reflects our standards more accurately, so it should be a non-controversial change.
Edit: The above would be best being replied, however.

 

[Loyd]

makes sense to me

 

[AKM sama]

Quick question: How do we determine the difference between it being a weakness and it being a resistance in this scenario?

If there is no actual reason to go with one or the other, we always assume the negative by default. Rather than giving everybody in the verse some resistance, it's more sensible to say that the ability itself has a weakness, if I am getting your context right.

 

[Axxtentacle]

If there is no actual reason to go with one or the other, we always assume the negative by default. Rather than giving everybody in the verse some resistance, it's more sensible to say that the ability itself has a weakness, if I am getting your context right.

Ok, so if someone just moves in a time stop with no given explanation. We assume the time stop has some arbitrary weakness? That seems illogical.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I don't agree that it's more sensible to say an ability has a weakness we're never told about. Why should we just go "yes, this time stop just has a weakness that we don't know about and is never specified" instead of just saying "the person simply has time stop resistance"?

Assuming someone just has a resistance to it would be significantly easier than saying the ability has some kind of specific weakness and reason that it just doesn't work on the person.

 

[Antoniofer]

Whenever someone have resistance to a power or if the power itself its weak it may be relative.

We always deemed DB characters resisting few powers as a weakness of the power but, why tho? Is not wearing off effects from "weaker" people notable enough? Of course, "more powerful" may as well have a different meaning from verse to verse (you can bet, verses will never refer to AP, as this term does not exist outside of here).

 

[Axxtentacle]

Yeah, it MAY be relative. So we don't always assume a weakness over resistance, because that would just be saying "there's some random reason this ability specifically did not work on this person".

And even then, the easiest assumption for the reason it did not work on them is that they simply resisted it.

 

[AKM sama]

Ok, so if someone just moves in a time stop with no given explanation. We assume the time stop has some arbitrary weakness? That seems illogical.

Just a note that this isn't meant for a one-off case where a character resisted some ability. Because that does not showcase the weakness of the ability. The weakness only becomes apparent when the ability is shown to not work on many different characters all of whom happen to share the same set of condition with respect to the ability. It's more context and case dependent, not meant for a single showing of an ability not working on a character.

 

[Loyd]

if the context is literally some guy is able to move in time stop, he gets resistance to time manip or limited resistance to time
no weakness thr

if the context is from the whole series as an example this Death manip can/only has worked on fodder not immensely higher power beings then via energy equalisation said death manip won't work if the opponent has stated immense power in that verse makes sense to me

 

[ibot4649]

I know that this is a staff discussion thread and I probably don't even have enough edits to post this without mod approval so their is a chance that no one is going to see this but anyway I just wanted to say that this has gone from a minor change in wording that only affects vs battles to an addition of standards that could affect a great number of profiles. I also want to say that the verse equalization page is a terrible place to list major standards like this which directly affects how feats should be interpreted. Whatever is decided in this thread I think that a note should be added to either the hax page or resistance page to reflect the standards on how to treat weaknesses of hax and how to tell if hax have a weakness.

 

[AKM sama]

Axxtentacle has suggested the following wording to be more clear.

However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, consistently shown throughout its use (such as not working on characters under a specific condition, like energy gap) or stated by a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalization.

Either one is fine with me.

 

[Loyd]

bruh.. this works too i guess wording is more clearer

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Which regulation text do you (and all other staff members here) prefer? AKM's original or Axxtentacle's modified version?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Either one seems ok. I suppose the modified version is slightly more precise in what kind of showings are needed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you. That is probably fine to apply then.

 

[ibot4649]

I disagree with this, the sentence "However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation then it should be applicable after the equalization" is totally fine because it pertains to equalizing energy between verses. The statements "stated by at least a valid and uncontradicted statement" after the revision "consistently shown throughout its use (such as not working on characters under a specific condition, like energy gap) or stated by a valid and uncontradicted statement" pertains to how feats are evaluated and does not have anything to do with verse equalization. Leaving this on the Standard Battle Assumptions page is likely to create a double standard between the way that feats are evaluated in vs threads and the way that they are listed on profiles. In the long run it will also force new members who want to create a page to read through a long page about the specific rules of vs debates to find a standard in the form of a handful of words tacked on in the middle of a sentence. Imo this deserves a more in depth note on the resistance page possibly with something along the lines of "Some abilities are repeatedly shown or outright stated to posses the caveat of not being able to function against characters which possess a greater quantity of supernatural energy. In these cases the character will not be granted resistance and should be treated as a weakness of the ability instead."

 

[Antvasima]

This is a staff discussion thread. Only interfere if you have something very important to say.

 

[ibot4649]

I realize that my statement was poorly formatted. My primary problem is that there is no concept of abilities having weaknesses such as those described here outside of this one statement on the Standard Battle Assumptions page. I just wanted to say that standards regarding this might be more appropriate in places such as the resistance page.

 

[AKM sama]

What you are suggesting is strictly something related to treatment of resistances. However, this case is only about how verse equalization can effect things in some cases. Not all verse equalizations will necessarily have the same effect and an ability doesn't necessarily have to be useless in all cases even if there is some limitation to it. So it's more related to how energy equalization may effect things than how standard resistances work, and I think the note should stay on the page for clarity.

 

[ibot4649]

I am confused. Based off of my interpretation of what you said, if someone creates a verse with a character that has the ability to petrify people and powerful mages are repeatedly shown to resist the ability the resistance would be justified on the profile. Despite that if the character used petrification on another character with similar properties to a powerful mage in a vs thread, not working on powerful mages would be considered a weakness and petrification would not work. At the same time powerful mages from the verse would still have resistance to petrification in their own vs threads. If this is the case than I am completely against this due to the amount of confusion that would result.

 

[Axxtentacle]

That's where your misunderstanding is. They would NOT have a resistance in that case if it's specifically shown not to work on people under some specific reason, like not working on someone with powerful magic (like a powerful mage).

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[ibot4649]

I still think that it is a bad idea to give characters different abilities on versus threads as opposed to profiles. Imo this would just cause confusion with no actual benefit. If you want to give characters weaknesses like those listed it should be listed on profiles.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I still think that it is a bad idea to give characters different abilities on versus threads as opposed to profiles. Imo this would just cause confusion with no actual benefit. If you want to give characters weaknesses like those listed it should be listed on profiles.

Yeah, that's what this is going to entail. We're not specifically saying that they should only have the weakness for a Vs Thread, we're saying that a weakness they're shown to have in-verse would be translated out to cross-verse matches.

If they have a weakness, they definitely should have is listed on their profiles.

 

[ibot4649]

This seems different from what AKM sama was saying. Anyway this goes back to my first point of shouldn't this be on the resistance page as opposed to forcing people to read the entire SBA page to make a profile.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Currently the verse equalization note says:


I think this wording is prone to misinterpretation in that people may think that strictly a statement is required to establish a weakness or limitation of any ability. While writers don't always rely on direct statements and rather focus on showing how it works through its use. Feats > statements also mean that we prioritize what is shown to us over what is stated, and the latter works best when we haven't seen the ability in use.

I think the following wording with a slight change will be better to make things clear:

Sorry for talking in staff only but I have a question about it, if it is applied, a verse that doesnt have vital energy will have vital energy just because the enemy verse has vital energy?

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think @DontTalkDT and @AKM sama ?

 

[AKM sama]

Anyway this goes back to my first point of shouldn't this be on the resistance page as opposed to forcing people to read the entire SBA page to make a profile.

This isn't related to people making profiles. This is related to vs threads. So clearing things out on the verse equalization note regarding how it works is pretty valid.
This will help avoid arguments like "this ability will work on you because you don't have specific resistance or because you don't have the same energy system" that ignores the limitation of said ability regarding the energy system.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Sorry for talking in staff only but I have a question about it, if it is applied, a verse that doesnt have vital energy will have vital energy just because the enemy verse has vital energy?

Sorry for talking in a staff only, but whay would happen to this?

 

[Antoniofer]

If the "verse-enemy" character covers all the requeriments to possesses "vital energy", then yes, it possesses "vital energy".