Durability Negation CRT

[Mr. Bambu]

Well. We've gone in circles awhile now. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I vote what I think. I think this is just a bad idea and it will add another wrinkle to our mountain of nigh-incomprehensible jargon. I'd rather leave it general and understandable.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

Well. We've gone in circles awhile now. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I vote what I think. I think this is just a bad idea and it will add another wrinkle to our mountain of nigh-incomprehensible jargon. I'd rather leave it general and understandable.

Fair enough IG

 

[Bobsican]

Got permission to comment here by @Vietthai96 here

I have a major concern with how the new page doesn't mention the concept of Hax at all, and while the old one doesn't either, the way it's being revamped would make it quite ideal to also include some mention of it while at it.

More specifically, the 2 concepts overlap quite a lot, in fact it'd be fair to argue that Durability Negation as a page is to Hax what Superhuman Physical Characteristics is to the Tiering System, a profile-indexable variant of a given pertinent bit of a site standard. Because of this, dividing it into types just comes off as redundant and confusing, the Hax page already does that in a much more comprehensive manner, and so any changes of that kind would be more appropiate on the Hax page itself (or the Resistance page). In particular I think that it'd be wise to remove the inclusion of Durability Negation "types" and to just link to the Hax and Resistance pages for further information.

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

Got permission to comment here by @Vietthai96 here

I have a major concern with how the new page doesn't mention the concept of Hax at all, and while the old one doesn't either, the way it's being revamped would make it quite ideal to also include some mention of it while at it.

More specifically, the 2 concepts overlap quite a lot, in fact it'd be fair to argue that Durability Negation as a page is to Hax what Superhuman Physical Characteristics is to the Tiering System, a profile-indexable variant of a given pertinent bit of a site standard. Because of this, dividing it into types just comes off as redundant and confusing, the Hax page already does that in a much more comprehensive manner, and so any changes of that kind would be more appropiate on the Hax page itself (or the Resistance page). In particular I think that it'd be wise to remove the inclusion of Durability Negation "types" and to just link to the Hax and Resistance pages for further information.

I'm not quite sure I understand the concern? There's abilities listed throughout the proposed page which could qualify for "hax" and the page doesn't put an emphasis on said abilities being stat dependent, just that the listed examples are easy short hands for what each type represents. Do you mean to say that you'd want Durability Negation melded into the general Hax page as opposed to its own individual page?

Hax in general is a catch-all term for "ability which doesn't care about stats to affect opponents", what I wanted to establish with this page is a proper standard for indexing Durability Negation abilities based upon whether or not they actually interact with Durability, as opposed to having "Durability Negation" and "Durability Circumvention" as separate pages given that the current page just nebulously melds them together as "yeah abilities which can hurt opponents despite durability."

I'm not as married to the types as it might seem, but I just think it provides a better standard and level of specificity as opposed to the current page. If you feel like the page might be improved by linking to Hax or having a section about Hax/the Hax page having a section on Durability Negation, I don't mind that addition.

 

[Antvasima]

I still agree with Bambu here. Should we close this thread?

 

[IbukiDoujisGiantTail]

I still agree with Bambu here. Should we close this thread?

We did have some agreements earlier in the thread, if everyone whose responded so far could give an official vote?

 

[Antvasima]

@Planck69 @KingTempest @DarkDragonMedeus @Vietthai96

What do you think about Bambu's objections here?

 

[Vietthai96]

Looking back i can see Bambu point, it is kind of redundant to make the page this way, too much micro-detail that is extra unnecessary and redundant, type 2 dura neg is just an extra way of saying character using obvious exotic, non-physical haxs that obviously not really care about durability to hax people, and this common knowledge is already mentioned in Hax page

Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant.

The most common hax are the ones that ignore durability, and their scale/potency are unrelated to their users' AP & Tier

So the page is not truly improve anything, it just repeating thing we already have under different wording. And it make the users to do unnecessary micro-adjustments that is mostly a waste of time because they are actually repeating thing on page under different wording

For example, character A have concept hax that obviously don't care about durability, then somehow we repeated this same thing under a different wording that is Type 2 Durability Negation, saying again character A can bypass durability with their concept hax. So this is the same situation as Quantum Manipulation page exists along side quantum manipulation section under Matter Manipulation

So i'm against the thread, workload isn't my concern, i'm fine with updating the our page even if it is heavy workload, but if the workload is redundant, unnecessary then i'm against it. I think just keep the page broad as of now, let users freely adjusts their own profile and express what the ability actually do

Though if i get outvoted then it is what it is

 

[Vietthai96]

Though i think the examples in the samdbox is very nice, we can update the current Durability Negation page with those examples since it is pretty detailed on what method was used to negate durability

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Though i think the examples in the samdbox is very nice, we can update the current Durability Negation page with those examples since it is pretty detailed on what method was used to negate durability

I'm not opposed to aesthetic changes like providing examples. Even detailed examples. I am only opposed to the functional change of typifying the ability.

 

[Antvasima]

Though i think the examples in the samdbox is very nice, we can update the current Durability Negation page with those examples since it is pretty detailed on what method was used to negate durability

I'm not opposed to aesthetic changes like providing examples. Even detailed examples. I am only opposed to the functional change of typifying the ability.

That seems fine to me as well.