I got a couple of PMs after this had been closed.
jinzin wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 02:17 PM:
Hmmmmm... Well I think you already know what I think about this subject.It's my personal conviction that on panel feats should always take precidence over what people think a character should be capible of doing.
Inferred power estimation, or basing a matchup off powersets alone, while making things less complicated in debating these fights also is not an accurate presentation of character portrayel.
Classic versions of Hulk might have the powerset to beat on the Avengers but if he doesn't have the brains to back that powerset up, then it brings into question the outcome of the fight.
I mean in all seriousness by powersets alone Rhino "should" be able to curb Spiderman 10 times out of 10. Rhino's strong enough to rip through his webbing, he does have superhuman amounts of speed and stamina, his body is super durable, and his armor is so durable that there was a time where it was questionable as to what really could even penetrate it.... Even though Spiderman's superhumanly fast, agile and has a Spidersense, he "shouldn't" be able to beat a fast, impenitrible street fighter who can go rounds with Hulk.... but you, I, and every other member on this forum knows that Rhino>Spiderman is just plain nonsense.
Then we also have the issue of powers and abilities that are clearly represented by consistent comics but never attributed to characters outright. For instance, Captain America's superhuman durability. It's clearly up there with even Spiderman foes, we seen instance upon instance of him taking superhuman punishment only to continue to outperform strict superhumans but based on established and documented powersets alone, there's never been one mention of such an attribute.
Of course there's going to be issues with what people regard as PIS but that's were I've ALWAYS been of the opinion that consistency is EVERYTHING.
How many likewise instances of "PIS" (similar feats) has this happened?
Did the character perform similarly?
Did he not?
If the character has 1 extremely impressive feat of dodging something, punching through something etc etc, then how do his other feats stack up to it? Do they make a good case for it? Do they show the opposite?
Consistency is the reason I'm under the impression that Wolverine can take class 100 shots in a fight without going down to a one shot more often than not. It's the reason why I think Spiderman's nearly impossible to shoot, but easy to hit if your a good fighter.
It's why I think Frank Castle can go rounds with tons of supers and make a good show of it.... and speaking of which... where does that leave street levels? If we were to go off of powersets alone, guys like Daredevil, Batman, Punisher and Bullseye would never have a chance in 1 on 1 against superhumans, hell, they may have little chance against something as simple as a lion or an attack dog. 😬
For those guys, going off powersets alone reduces their entire career into a practical non factor; they "shouldn't" even be able to beat a group of armed thugs.
Even Daredevil with his radar sense.. For the time that it takes the brain to process the sense of touch (which is basically what that is to him) he wouldn't have enough time to even react to a bullet coming at him much less dodge the thing.
Does it make any sense to ignore a character's entire career based on legitimate powersets though? Could we even consider that to be the same character at that point? I certainly don't think so.
When it comes to Abstracts, Celestials, and Heralds inferred powers are probably easier to apply since you can't see the limits to what they can do as clearly as you can with streeters even by comic standards, but on panel feats still take precedence over what we might assume them to be capible of. As such I'd never think Tyrant to be so dominant over Thanos or such a threat to Galactus based on their inferred power but their fights tell a different story.
So basically I think comic evidence should be the most suitable evidence for comic book debates. They should be based around the STANDARD showings of a character and not the extreme highs or the exteme lows... This means that if a character does something that seems ridiculous or extreme to us, but does it multiples of times that the characterization has been presented as such and is considered capible of doing that thing, or vice versa.
If people want to debate based off powersets alone they should be able to do so in marked threads as not to cause confusion.
As for changing rules... I don't know... PIS is very subjective, has to be applied on a case by case basis, and most people call PIS on something simply out of distaste for it and not an actual reason so it's hard to make up a rule based around subjectivity..... perhaps a position should be established for each thread to have at least 2 judges who can decide if something is PIS or not.... I know that's pretty much impossible due to the sheer overwhelming defections towards PIS as well as the amount of threads out daily but it's also the only real way to keep everyone on the same page, otherwise you just have people interpreting rules and panels as they see fit if not flat out ignoring them.... as they do already.
When it comes down to it, people are always going to have problems with other people and characters on this site, it's a given. That's simply the nature of the beast when it comes to arguing over favorites, and real debating needs real judges, refs, etc to make calls, as does any game for non partison consolidation of the outcome.
But, since that's outside the scope of our ability to provide, and these boards are supposed to be for fun, then I re-affirm my thoughts already stated...
Consistent/standard on panel evidence is what should be considered more than anything else unless it's proven otherwise (not a standard etc). Anyone who wants to debate a character based on abilities alone should do so in specially marked threads. And unless you can find a way to mark judges for every debate, then we should probably just leave the rules alone.
I don't know if this helps at all, I hope it does, sorry if it doesn't and I hope everything else in life is going well for you friend.
Cavalier wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 10:51 PM:
I know we don't have the thread open anymore, so I thought I'd PM you.What if we started with a new term that encompasses what we're using CIS for?
CIS stands for Character Induced Stupidity, right? But Flash not speedblitzing each match isn't him being stupid, it has to be that way for the plot.
So it's technically PIS, but PIS carries with it such a negative connotation that everybody ignores it, which leads to Flash speedblitzing each match, which is unrealistic.
I propose a term that has to do something with "Comic Mechanics" or "Character Mechanics" (I took it from Game Mechanics from the Games Vs)
Just to mean that there are some ways that characters just don't fight.
They don't kill the villain, they don't always BFR if they can, they don't speedblitz, because the mechanics of comics dictate that this would lead for short lived villains, or shorter comics, which makes less money.
Just a thought...