Standard Format for Character Profiles: Small proposal

[Eficiente]

Sometimes, a profile's given stats like Striking Strength, Durability, and even Lifting Strength would give no explanation. This is because the reasoning is scaling, and the scaling is already implied in the AP of the profile.

We all know the best solution to this is to write down an explanation for the scaling in each stat. But if it's a verse with too many profiles, people may not do that.

I got an easier solution to that, just write "(Same reasoning as Attack Potency)"

I was having a short talk about this with Agnaa. See, when new people come to the wiki, everything may be a lot to take in; The weird terms only powerscalers use, knowing how to navigate the wiki, and judging if seemingly crazy claims are reasonable or not. To us, it's obvious that if a stat gives no explanation, then that means there is scaling going on (Either that or the stat is bs). But it is understandable that a new user may view every stat as a thing that should stand on its own. Why wouldn't they think that?

Over the years, somehow, I have seen a lot of cases of people looking at 1 random stats and thinking that's VS Battles wiki's whole explanation for X character's power. Not looking up more of the profile beyond that bc of it. And you know, it's their faultare to a degree. And to another degree, their confusion is reasonable. Starting on Vs is a lot. And at least Striking Strength and Lifting Strength sound like they're talking about power.

I believe it makes a world of difference if the Standard Format for Character Profiles encourages users to write "(Same reasoning as Attack Potency)" on stats where that is true, and that already say nothing otherwise as an explanation anyway. It means people will see the stat, know they need to see the AP, and then there it is, the reasoning for the stats.

 

[Agnaa]

Eh, I'm ultimately neutral. Adds a small bit of information, as well as a small bit of bloat.

Also, gonna move this to staff threads since it's a revision of our overall policies.

 

[LordTracer]

I already do this for any profile I work on, granted with the slightly different wording of “Comparable to the Attack Potency”, so I agree with this addition.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Feels like a lazy move, but ig if others fine with it. Otherwise I am neutral too.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think this is needed per say, while it is preferred to say something, sometimes, AP scaling pretty much makes Striking Strength and durability scaling pretty self explanatory. And there are times where scaling chains are mentioned in the verse page.

 

[Eficiente]

Feels like a lazy move, but ig if others fine with it. Otherwise I am neutral too.

You can call it lazy. I tried to add this while making edits on a verse with too many profiles to work with, and many changes yet to be implemented. I think it's a realistic move in such cases.

I recognized a proper explanation was better but was recommended to make a thread about this to see how we feel about it.

I don't think this is needed per say, while it is preferred to say something, sometimes, AP scaling pretty much makes Striking Strength and durability scaling pretty self explanatory. And there are times where scaling chains are mentioned in the verse page.

Well, like I say in the OP; "when new people come to the wiki, everything may be a lot to take in; The weird terms only powerscalers use, knowing how to navigate the wiki, and judging if seemingly crazy claims are reasonable or not. To us, it's obvious that if a stat gives no explanation, then that means there is scaling going on (Either that or the stat is bs). But it is understandable that a new user may view every stat as a thing that should stand on its own. Why wouldn't they think that?

Over the years, somehow, I have seen a lot of cases of people looking at 1 random stats and thinking that's VS Battles wiki's whole explanation for X character's power. Not looking up more of the profile beyond that bc of it. And you know, it's their faultare to a degree. And to another degree, their confusion is reasonable. Starting on Vs is a lot. And at least Striking Strength and Lifting Strength sound like they're talking about power."

So you could say it's a matter of:

• 1. Do we care what a regular person, or a new user trying to start getting into the wiki, thinks?; Do we say it's fully their fault for not looking at AP, or knowing they need to click and read the verse page, like an experienced might know?
• 2. We are an indexing wiki. As a standard in indexing, should individual stats communicate from where they're coming from?

And I think the answer to those is yes. I mean, if I was reading someone's work on other topics, I would want them to follow those standards.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, the OP gives an idea rather than proposing a wording to be used. So on that regard I propose the following, and it is subject to anyone's changes:

• Lifting Strength: [...] Less ideally, you may write "Same reasoning as Attack Potency" as as opposed to leaving no explanation for the stat if it is already covered in AP. Keep in mind, Lifting Strength scaling cannot be achieved by being vaguely comparable to others in power, or even trading blows on occasions; It requires lifting-related feats and comparisons.
• Striking Strength: [...] Less ideally, you may write "Same reasoning as Attack Potency" as as opposed to leaving no explanation for the stat if it is already covered in AP. Keep in mind, this doesn't work if the character isn't a physical attacker. Even in groups whose members all share similar high tiers, a series may have some members fully reliant on weapons or their abilities.
• Durability: [...] Less ideally, you may write "Same reasoning as Attack Potency" as as opposed to leaving no explanation for the stat if it is already covered in AP. Keep in mind, some characters' durability may only hold certain high stats in specific parts of themselves, such as armor; If parts of them hold lower tiers of durability, they should be ranked separately.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Eficiente]

Bump.

 

[Agnaa]

Eh, actually, thinking about it a bit more, with how many keys and ratings some pages have, I think this could end up adding way too much bloat.

Even without adding "(Same reasoning as Attack Potency)" to every statistic, a page like this already has ridiculously long statistics.

Plus, with some things not actually carrying over (i.e. having weapons with their own justifications that don't carry over to durability), I think just vaguely pointing to the AP can be confusing.

So I'm changing to oppose this.

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

@DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @GrathOfLux Thoughts?

 

[Eficiente]

Eh, actually, thinking about it a bit more, with how many keys and ratings some pages have, I think this could end up adding way too much bloat.

Even without adding "(Same reasoning as Attack Potency)" to every statistic, a page like this already has ridiculously long statistics.

I believe the value gained when adding this has more weight than the bloat gained, but I won't repeat my reasons. It's alright.

Plus, with some things not actually carrying over (i.e. having weapons with their own justifications that don't carry over to durability), I think just vaguely pointing to the AP can be confusing.

They shouldn't do it if the reasoning doesn't carry over 1-to-1.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Thoughts?

In my mind, making a profile clearer or reducing the number of other profiles you are forced to go through in order to find the base justification is always the preferable option. Stating explicitly that X scale to Y value is fine with me as a profile requirement.

 

[Agnaa]

In my mind, making a profile clearer or reducing the number of other profiles you are forced to go through in order to find the base justification is always the preferable option. Stating explicitly that X scale to Y value is fine with me as a profile requirement.

This isn't about pointing to other profiles.

It's about like, if a character gets all their stats from scaling to another one, currently the page would often be structured like:

Attack Potency: Building level (Able to fight against Joey, a Class 10 threat, meaning they should be comparable to this feat)

Speed: Hypersonic+ (Able to fight against Joey, a Class 10 threat, who was able to run across Europe this quickly)

Lifting Strength: Unknown, likely Class 100 (Able to fight against Joey)

Striking Strength: Building level

Durability: Building level

Since the SS and Durability stats there are the exact same as the AP, and they're typically linked, we expect people to understand that they have the same justification. While this revision would have the pages change to something like:

Attack Potency: Building level (Able to fight against Joey, a Class 10 threat, meaning they should be comparable to this feat)

Speed: Hypersonic+ (Able to fight against Joey, a Class 10 threat, who was able to run across Europe this quickly)

Lifting Strength: Unknown, likely Class 100 (Same reasoning as Attack Potency)

Striking Strength: Building level (Same reasoning as Attack Potency)

Durability: Building level (Same reasoning as Attack Potency)

Honestly, typing out this example makes me dislike this idea more. I think that stat justifications should link directly to the original feat, so speed/LS justifications cannot feasibly defer to the AP justification. Making the use-case of this a lot narrower.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think that stat justifications should link directly to the original feat, so speed/LS justifications cannot feasibly defer to the AP justification. Making the use-case of this a lot narrower.

I mean that's fine with me