A new Fallacy

[Sera_EX]

The Attack Potency page already explains this well as DT said. The AOE argument is also not a fallacy (we don't need to keep making stuff up). The AOE argument is just a (very) bad argument.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DT and Sera basically repeated my thoughts exactly.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, DT's explanation is exactly what I was looking for.

So, if the description in the AP page has been reworded for better understanding as DT proposed, is there anything else left to do here?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I don't think that DontTalkDT has applied the addition yet, but it would be appreciated if he does so.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, I don't think that DontTalkDT has applied the addition yet, but it would be appreciated if he does so.

It's just one sentence, I think I can add that in myself. But if anyone else wants a better explanation like Yuri showed, I wouldn't mind.

 

[AKM sama]

I also don't think we should add this as a completely new fallacy along with other actual fallacies. This is already properly explained in our Attack Potency page and almost everyone knows about this. Unfortunately, being common knowledge doesn't stop people from making bad arguments, in the same way as something being listed under the fallacy page doesn't stop people from committing those fallacies, but what can you do about it. I am fine with DT's suggestion (not that it is really needed since it is already quite clear, but addling another line never hurt anybody).

Although I am surprised AoE isn't already in the VS Battles Glossary.

 

[KLOL506]

Although I am surprised AoE isn't already in the VS Battles Glossary.

Damn, you're right. Prolly someone should add it there since it's pretty important. Any ideas on how to word the definition?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Brief additions to the Attack Potency and VS Battles Glossary pages seems like the best solution then.

Is some staff member willing to handle it please?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I made the edit to the Attack Potency page I had suggested.

 

[AKM sama]

For the glossary page, how about:

AoE: An abbreviation for Area of Effect. Generally used to describe the magnitude of area covered by an attack.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk:

Thank you for helping out.

AKM:

That is probably fine.

 

[AKM sama]

I updated the page. This thread can be closed now.

 

[KingTempest]

Thanks everyone that contributed w/ the thread, those who agreed or disagreed it doesn't matter

 

[Sera_EX]

My vision is blurry so I can’t really read anything, but is it noted that the AOE argument isn’t valid due to powerscaling? Otherwise the AOE argument can be used in general discussions about feats to some extent (you can’t really say an attack that only blew up a planet actually had the power to blow up a galaxy without context, but that of course doesn’t mean that 3-Cs need to obliterate galaxies with every attack).

 

[KLOL506]

My vision is blurry so I can’t really read anything, but is it noted that the AOE argument isn’t valid due to powerscaling? Otherwise the AOE argument can be used in general discussions about feats to some extent (you can’t really say an attack that only blew up a planet actually had the power to blow up a galaxy without context, but that of course doesn’t mean that 3-Cs need to obliterate galaxies with every attack).

I believe the Powerscaling page should already have this noted down, no?

In any case, I don't mind if these were also added in the Attack Potency page to make doubly sure that such confusions don't arise in the future.

 

[Antvasima]

KLOL506:

Can you check through the current version of our Attack Potency page, to see if what Sera just mentioned needs to be added somewhere?

 

[KLOL506]

KLOL506:

Can you check through the current version of our Attack Potency page, to see if what Sera just mentioned needs to be added somewhere?

I do see the "A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces" sentence which gives a brief hint about Powerscaling but honestly I'd sleep much better if the reference was much more direct and it was explained in a bit more detail.

But, again, I suck at making good sentences for the pages, so help is once again appreciated.

 

[KingTempest]

The examples in the OP could be used, or someone could think of examples.

1. "The Raikage barely punched a hole in a hill with his full power punch, so he's barely above wall level".
2. "Goku Black was harmed by Vegeta's ki blasts which couldn't even destroy a city block, so he doesn't qualify for City Block level, much less Universal".
3. "Sonic hasn't been shown to destroy a planet, so he has no justification for his Planet Level tier on his profile".

 

[Antvasima]

I do see the "A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces" sentence which gives a brief hint about Powerscaling but honestly I'd sleep much better if the reference was much more direct and it was explained in a bit more detail.

But, again, I suck at making good sentences for the pages, so help is once again appreciated.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Sera_EX

Do you have any ideas?

 

[AKM sama]

I think that the current sentence is sufficient.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally, I feel like what is on there suffices. It's not just that sentence and also the next one. "it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction" seems to specify the handling in regards to powerscaling in my eyes.
As far as the explanation of the concept of "Small AoE =/=> Small AP" goes I think everything is said with that.

Of course one could include examples and stuff, but personally, I think that would be extending the topic too much for something only tangentially related to the topic of the AP page.
If a more specific note regarding the powerscaling considerations of the AoE ≠ AP principle is really necessary, maybe it can be put on the powerscaling page instead? I wouldn't really know what to say there that wasn't already said, though.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that we may have sufficiently handled this task then.

Should we close this thread?

 

[KingTempest]

Okay. I suppose that we may have sufficiently handled this task then.

Should we close this thread?

I apologize for the late response, this can be closed

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Will do