• 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.

Adding an optional fighting style section to the standard format

Status
Not open for further replies.
DontTalkDT

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Bronze Supporter
10,901
12,337
I believe I have made this suggestion at some point in the past already, but that means it was likely a few years ago and I honestly can't find the debate anymore to check whether that was some proper thread or just mentioned somewhere in between.

So at risk of being a bit annoying I will suggest it again: We should add an optional "Fighting Style"-section to the standard format.

Workload
First reason for anything regarding the standard format to be shot down is the workload. Since this section is optional the only work to do is to edit the standard format page, the picture at the top of it and the Mediawiki page for the format. I can do all 3 of that on my own, meaning there is no obligatory workload for anyone else. Actually adding it to the pages is something that anyone can or can't do as he/she wants.

What's it for?
If someone comes into a vs-thread with a character he/she doesn't know, what are the first questions usually asked?

I think they are "What does this character open the battle with?" and "Does this character use [insert ability] early into the battle?" or similar.

In essence, while our profiles clarify which possible actions a character has available they often make no statements regarding which actions they will actually take.

There are also other things that fall into combat style, like if the character goes straight for the kill or fights more defensively, if they employ special tactics or if they have clever reactions to the opponent attempting certain things. One could also mentioned feats of combat prowess there. These last things could also go into the intelligence section, but they commonly aren't listed. I think a proper place for them would encourage authors to provide more informations.

Now, much of this would be free writing, which many people tend to avoid since its harder to create and debate. However, things like listing the starting move, the go to attacks and which attacks are rarely or never used are easy and objective enough that anyone could fill them in if they want to.

What do you think, everyone?
 
Verifying stuff that goes there might be an issue, but I guess it can't hurt due to optional
 
It's a good idea honestly. Especially it being optional.

Like Wok said, though, verification can be an issue but really I don't think it will that big of a problem.

As a suggestion, how about calling the section 'Standard Tactics'?
 
"Standard Tactics" as name is an option. Not sure if I prefer it over "Fighting Style".

What to call the section, should we add it, is another point of debate.
 
It would be problematic for game characters. I actually want to raise a revision about this later.

The way people do battle, they give quite a huge advantage for game character.

As the opponent changes, the starting move will be different too, giving them an advantage, which is unfair for the opponent.

It's like people give game character absolute precognition when they don't actually have that.
 
Eganergo said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
For characters that don't fight or only fight player controlled figuring out what they would do is difficult.

As you said we in principle should agree on some assumption, as the first move changing from fight to fight is contradictory.

So for the purpose of the section one could just not add it if one really has no knowledge to share on the issue.
 
I assume that this would also be a place to write how a character didn't use certain hax on certain occasion(s) as it knew or assumed it wouldn't be effective, no?

As well of how on certain occasions characters may have fought in a limited way as it was expected for them to do so or decided to limit themselves to that.
 
Eficiente said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
That depends.

Is it relevant to explain what a character will / won't do? Then yes.

If it's on the other hand just an explanation of why a thing a character did at one point is not what he will usually do, then that would not go there IMO. These things would be considered in us writing what he would actually usually do in the section. The same way we usually write down how strong a character is and not why we don't rank them as weaker/stronger due to other showings.
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time. It helps the general public see what the character does. However, one issue is that it could devolve into what the verse's supporters want people to think the character does.
 
A lot of times in vs debates someone will bring up how a character has a hax that could potentially win the fight even if the character hardly ever uses the hax, so I really like this idea and fully support going through with it.
 
I like this as an optional addition. I think "standard tactics" is better than "fighting style" since the latter to me sounds like it'd be for things like what weapon they use, what martial art they use, etc. while "standard tactics" sounds more to the point of "how will they come at a battle".
 
My question is how this would look

Like, what sort of things should be detailed here, in what sort of format?
 
If it's purely optional, then I see no harm with this. However, this does cause a little bit of concern for me in terms of how far it should go. If it's just saying what standard tactics the character will open with, fine, but should it also be used to address otherwise problematic haxes and abilities that people often jot down as an instant win, or even stomp, when it really is out of character of not that potent, such as with certain character's Mind Manipulation or Time Manipulation?
 
Another thing is that some characters with for each key may change their "tactics" - maybe because of their new skills/abilities or because of something that changed them and may have made them more ruthless or the opposite. There are a lot of factors that may change how the characters may start a fight for each key they have.
 
DMUA said:
My question is how this would look
Like, what sort of things should be detailed here, in what sort of format?
Click to expand...
Design decisions are up to debate.

I think for the most part it would be like intelligence, in that one just writes a few sentences of what we know about the character, instead of following a strict recipe. Making lots of bullet points, if it isn't absolutely necessary, would just stretch the page.

There are some things that can be established as simple listings, like "x's go to abilities are Air, Water, Fire and Earth Manipulation. He rarely uses his sealing and flight. While we know he has necromancy he has never used it in character".

I think some standard phrasings like that or similar will establish themself.

Aside from that the most common thing listed would probably be the opening move, where a set structure is difficult, due to the explanations just having varying length, detail and nature.

Beyond that there are several things that could also be included, as mentioned in the op.

To use Kamijou Touma as a practicle example for how such a section might look like (without thinking hard about it):

Standard Tactics: Touma will usually attempt to get close to the opponent as soon as the fight starts in order to beat the opponent in a fist fight. While doing so he ties to use his Power Nullification via Imagine Breaker and his Analytic Prediction to defend himself against incoming supernatural attacks and seeks for an understanding of the opponents abilities. Should it become evident that he can not defeat the opponent this way he will try to make use of his surroundings and attempt to stall until he finds an approach that might work. Touma will in character never use the dragons or the invisible thing on purpose.
 
Starter Pack said:
should it also be used to address otherwise problematic haxes and abilities that people often jot down as an instant win, or even stomp, when it really is out of character of not that potent, such as with certain character's Mind Manipulation or Time Manipulation?
Click to expand...
Thing like an ability not being as potent as people think, having different effects or having different mechanics wouldn't go here. That should instead go in a description of the ability in the Notable Attacks and Techniques section.

That it is out of character to use an ability on the other hand definitely belongs here.
 
I support this. Although I do feel we should excise caution & vigilance over how this is applied, & when it is. As mentioned above, we don't want users with some kind of strong feeling about the profile/'verse to place misleading information in such a section.

Characters with ambiguities or inconsistencies in how they behave could be especially liable to be given misleading information, I imagine.

Incidentally, what of behaviour as a section title, or part of it?
 
I do agree it's one of the most inquired about detail about a character in any debate, not sure how exactly such a section should be structured though
 
Imaginym said:
Incidentally, what of behaviour as a section title, or part of it?
Click to expand...
If we were to go like that it could be something like 'Standard Tactics & Behaviour'.

The Standard Tactics part can be about to how a charater appoarches combat in a general sense. What do they open with, how do they appoarch an enemy they know nothing about, etc.

Behaviour can be more of an elboration. Like what does a character do if they see their normal tactics aren't working? Will they charge on ahead.? Would they try and put some distance between them and their opponent to come up with a plan? Would they try and ambush?

Naturally, we'd have to be careful with this sort of thing but it has potential. With things like this being added, people should be able to better gauge matches.
 
Thinking on it, wouldn't Bloodlust be relevant to this? Especially if a character has anything distinct about how they act when bloodlusted?

How a character acts when bloodlusted may vary from character to character, not just because of different characters leading to different approaches, but different levels of intelligence, knowledge.

From what I read, a bloodlusted character also doesn't necessarily fight optimally; For example, a character could perceive a higher chance of victory if they take an injury, but they may not be actually the case because of stuff they don't know.
 
The Smashor said:
However, one issue is that it could devolve into what the verse's supporters want people to think the character does.
Click to expand...
I mean, isn't it better to have this debated in a CRT and then added to the profile and used consistently across all matches, than to have it debated in vs-threads with limited attention, where the claimed standard strategy can be whatever currently fits best?

Imaginym said:
Thinking on it, wouldn't Bloodlust be relevant to this?
Click to expand...
I think bloodlusted should not be considered for this.

For one thing what a character does bloodlusted will to some degree always be headcanon, unless the character is actually bloodlusted in some part of canon. Hence it would be difficult to debate and would be us essentially putting our headcanons on the profile.

Second reason is that writing two strategies per key is just a bit much.

Furthermore, like the standard equipment wouldn't consider use of weapons that the character never used, there is no real reason to consider a state of mind the character was never in, just because it might occur in vs-debates. That's why standard is probably a good thing to involve. There are lots of mindstates a character can be in and lots of situations, but we generally care for the usual one.

If you have solid showings of the character getting bloolusted and then acting a certain way, I guess you can still add details to the description regarding that. I just don't think it should be a common aspect of it.
 
@DontTalkDT: Considering what you've said, I think I agree with the general whole of your post, for what it's worth.
 
I do have one problem about this, because I think this would make it easier to create rigged matches

Like reading through a character's page and taking note of their fighting style so that you can choose another character that can counter or deal with their abilities, making it seem like they have already won from the beginning

Just sayin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Flashlight237
  • Locked
About The "Others" Section
2 3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
37
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3 4
Replies
147
Views
18K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Deceived3596
  • Locked
Particle Style Reexamination: It's Not Macro-Quantum Guys
Replies
27
Views
2K
UchihaSlayer96
UchihaSlayer96
Back
Top