All right, specific reversions, separated by "~"s for (hopefully) easier navigation. Where there's a previous form that I'd like to revert to, I give the current form first, followed by the older form to which I'd like to revert.
(And I stand for argument on these, of course!)
~
I'd like to revert:
back to:
This is because, under Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors, the elements are arranged in a pattern of fixed relationships to each other: Element A beats element B; element B beats element C; and so on.
While I agree that the preceding paragraph is perhaps better joined, I feel that this one works a bit better split up: It places the fundamental description of "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" on its own, easily caught by the eye, and perhaps more-easily digested without other information around it.
~
I'd like to revert:
back to:
~
In the same place, I'd like to reinstate the paragraph break, so that it goes from this:
to this:
That said, cyclical patterns are not uncommon—likely because a cycle instates a degree of balance, with no one element being "the best".
~
There are also two removed lines that I'd like to re-instate:
(Unless the latter is too specific an interaction, as with "Situational Damage Attack"?)
~
Regarding this line:
I like the idea of consolidating the various ways in which the relationships between elements can be changed, but I would argue that—if I'm understanding the trope correctly—a "Barrier Change Boss" doesn't really change the relationships—it just changes its elemental association. Similarly, a "Kryptonite-Proof Suit" is less a change of relationships than armour of a sort.
~
Regarding this line:
I honestly don't recall what the thread's consensus was on the matter. I know that I see "Elemental Tiers" to be a specific sub-trope of "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors"—it's a simple form of non-cyclic "Rock-Paper-Scissors"—but I don't recall whether the thread at large agreed with me on that.
~
And finally, as mentioned in a previous post (included here so that it's not missed), I'd like to remove the paragraph that starts with "Elements are almost always immune".
(I do think that mention of "Non-Elemental" effects might be worth mentioning somewhere; perhaps the matter could be given a short paragraph to itself?)
~
Whew! And that's it, I believe! ^^; My Games & Writing
I'll try my best to reply to all your points
~
back to(...)
While I agree that the preceding paragraph is perhaps better joined, I feel that this one works a bit better split up: It places the fundamental description of "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" on its own, easily caught by the eye, and perhaps more-easily digested without other information around it.
I guess that could work, though I worry more on how splitting the paragraph could lengthen the page.
~
You can revert this one back if you find it better.
~
~
I find "Beware the Infinity +1 Element." too short to be worthy of a paragraph, so maybe we can expand it further first.
As for the Field Power Effect, I removed it as terrain effects do not directly influence an enemy's elemental weaknesses/resistances.
~
~
~
(I do think that mention of "Non-Elemental" effects might be worth mentioning somewhere; perhaps the matter could be given a short paragraph to itself?)
~
I still prefer the page to be kept short as possible, though I would like to hear a third party whether the paragraph breaks from points 1 and 3 should be re-instated.
Edited by Kindle4Light on Oct 23rd 2019 at 11:52:31 PM
I do likewise want to keep the article short—but not at the cost of reducing readability or comprehension.
Thank you; I'll do that shortly then, I intend. ^_^
My intention was less that it be a full paragraph than that it be a sort of minor "Wham-Line"; a final line that leaves an impact through the blunt mention of an element that can significantly disrupt the stability of the "Rock Paper Scissors" tactics.
Expanding on the line would lessen that impact, I think.
The thing is that they could: one could potentially have a "Field Power Effect" that reshuffles or reverses the hierarchy, for example.
However, if there are no such examples, then I'm happy to leave it out. I think that I may have taken it from the original form of the page, and may have misinterpreted its inclusion there.
Is there any reason that they should be all kept in a single sentence? Each seems fairly distinct to me. They needn't be long sentences—I think that in that "see also" section of the trope-description it's likely fine to have a series of brief sentences.
I would argue that they're only on an equal level if they're part of a cycle. If they're part of a non-cyclic chain, then, given an element A that beats an element B, it can be argued that element A is better than element B.
In addition, even within a cycle, if we look at individual pairs of elements one could argue that an element that beats another is "stronger" than that other.
Fair enough—I'll remove that paragraph presently then, I intend.
That's fair; I'll leave those points until someone else has weighed in on the matter, I intend!
[edit] I've made those two edits.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 23rd 2019 at 7:45:16 PM
My Games & Writing
Expanding on the line would lessen that impact, I think.
In addition, even within a cycle, if we look at individual pairs of elements one could argue that an element that beats another is "stronger" than that other.
With the above two issues, I would like to revise the the last paragraph as I have an idea on how to fix them.
And finally, I have hollered about this crowner's result.
Edited by Kindle4Light on Oct 28th 2019 at 11:31:04 PM
Good good, and thank you! ^_^ (But see my final response!)
You know what, I suppose that it's not exactly and important point. Why don't we split the difference, and simply include it as the last sentence of that final "see also" paragraph?
I would argue that "Scissors Cuts Rock" is less a change of the rules, than an external rule overriding the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" relationship. Technically, the "Scissors" are still ranked below the "Rock", but in this specific case the former just has so much raw power that it overcomes that relationship. In a sense it's a subversion of the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" relationship.
I would say much the same for the "Kryptonite-Proof Suit": It's less a change the rules—the relationship between elements still holds—than a shield against them.
... All that said, it occurs to me that these tropes might fit better in the article on standard "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" than in this more-specific trope.
I think that this is what I was indeed arguing. ^^;
Fair enough—but see my next reply!
Ah, fair enough! In that case, why don't we leave these changes on the table until a mod either calls the crowner or indicates that more time is to be given for voting. If the crowner is called, we can swap in the sandbox and then treat it as a normal wiki-page in terms of editing. If more time is given, we can keep discussing and editing.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 30th 2019 at 7:48:47 PM
My Games & Writing
^ Yeah, I guess it's for the best, or we'll complicate what other tropes really want when it comes to changing the trope description into which options.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
The top crowner option is unanimous at ten yeas. Is it safe to call?
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
I believe that a mod has been hollered for the purpose of deciding it. (Although we can always poke the mods again if it comes to seem that the first holler may have been missed or forgotten.)
My Games & Writing
Hollering for a mod to weigh in on the status of the crowner...
[edit] And hollered.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 5th 2019 at 7:30:25 PM
My Games & Writing
I've re-hollered it again.
Hi
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Great, and thank you! ^_^
All right, with the crowner closed, it looks like we're swapping in Sandbox 1, as linked in the crowner.
I take it that we just do that? Copy-paste the new version into an edit of the page, and then cut the "Analysis" section and paste it onto the "Analysis" page? I'm not experienced in this part of the process, I fear. ^^;
My Games & Writing
I went ahead and edited the main page as well as added analysis page. I also put both sandboxes to the cut list.
What's left for me to do is to finish both articles in the analysis page. We may also want to take a look at Tactical Rock–Paper–Scissors whether it's cyclical, especially given the examples, but I'll leave it to the other tropers for now.
Ah, thank you for doing that. And it's good to see the final result of this thread's work implemented on the page. ^_^
And you know what? I think that I'm going to leave my editing of the page there: let the wiki do its thing.
As to "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors", indeed, I've been thinking about that, and have been tempted to open a thread for it. I suspect that it will come as little surprise that I'm inclined to argue for similar flexibility there as I've argued for here.
My Games & Writing
A few more thing we need to do:
- We need to look at the examples in Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors whether they meet our final definition of this trope.
- I almost forgot I've made an TRS that is about element effectiveness towards an enemy on an individual basis: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=1p66ltooh01s3ny789l8gemm
Whether you agree that it's tropeworthy or not, please vote accordingly on the link provided.
Ah, sorry for the delay in response! I missed your post at first, and then gave some time to thinking about how I wanted to deal with the matter.
I can start looking at the examples, I think—but there are an awful lot, and I'm not likely to give it more than a little time each day. As a result, my part of it is going to take some time, I fear. I'd appreciate help in doing this!
As to the launchpad entry, I've commented and thrown in a hat in favour of launching. ^_^
My Games & Writing
All right, I've made a start:
- I've cleaned up an example from the "Western Animation" section, part of which seemed to be describing something other than one element "beating" another.
- The rest of that folder (including the remained of the cleaned example) looks fine to me, however.
- Web Original looks fine, I think. I'm not entirely confident about the "Demon Thesis" entry, but from the description it looks like it's probably reasonable to include it.
- From Webcomics I've removed the entries for "Triquetra Cats" and "Adventurers!"—they establish that elemental powers are available, but don't indicate a "rock-paper-scissors" relationship between those powers.
- Similarly, I've removed the "Slightly Damned" entry, as the example doesn't provide much context, and the comic-link seems to have become broken.
- I've slightly expanded the "Bob and George" entry to give it a little more context.
- With the above changes, Webcomics is fine, I think.
- In the Toys section, I'm not sure of whether the aversion example should be kept; I'm leaving it for now, given that doubt.
- Otherwise, the Toys section looks fine.
- Live-Action TV looks fine.
- Fan Works looks fine, I think.
I'm dubious of the contents of the "Comic Books" folder; I wonder whether those wouldn't fall more under standard "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" (or some other such trope) than this trope. Any thoughts?
Aside from the above-mentioned "Comic Books" folder, this leaves the following folders still to be done:
- Anime and Manga
- Literature
- Tabletop Games
- Video Games
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 14th 2019 at 7:42:00 PM
My Games & Writing
Just made a cleanup on the video game section. There are a few that I'm unsure of, though.
Thank you for that. ^_^
Which ones are you unsure of?
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 22nd 2019 at 6:49:28 PM
My Games & Writing
War of Worldcraft is one, as I'm unsure whether the enemies are elemental-assigned and the only common attribute is that they absorb their own elements.
There's also Yu-Gi-Oh! Reshef of Destruction, in which for its first point, I'm not sure whether it counts as Elemental Powers.
I may miss a few out, but I'll let you know once I do.
World of Warcraft never had checks and balances but a fire monster was immune to fire and an ice monster was immune to ice. Also specific ooze boss was weak to ice attacks.
Players would have to respec from various specs when they came to certain bosses in raids as they could not actually damage those bosses. Entire 40/25/10 man raids themselves would need elemental resist gear to negate damage done by bosses as well.
Holy was the only exception, that could never be resisted or immuned outside of a low level and really rare Holy Resistance Potion.
That all went out the window midway through a series of balance patches and reworks during The Burning Crusade expansion and Wrath of the Lich King as they removed all those effects to normalize all classes but they did not remove the player used resist gear and potions from early xpacs.
Edited by Memers on Nov 24th 2019 at 11:54:01 AM
Regarding World of Warcraft: To start with, I haven't played World of Warcraft (that I recall), so I'm going by the descriptions above and in the example entry.
That said, while the description above doesn't sound like it fits the trope, the description given in the example-entry does seem to me to fit. It does give the caveat that "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" isn't a huge thing in the game, but it does seem to indicate that it is present to some degree. There's note of certain elemental creatures taking additional damage from opposing elements;
The sub-point regarding Ragnaros can probably go—that's just an elemental resistance, not a relationship between two or more elements.
On the other hand, the second sub-point (regarding elementals in the Arathi Highlands) seems to me to be a very clear example: elemental creatures that are outright one-shot-killed by specific elementally-aligned items.
I'm not sure about the inclusion of the sub-point regarding player resistances. Most of it seems like an aversion of the trope, which I think doesn't generally get listed unless the trope is ubiquitous. But the bit about "Shadowfire", etc., is unclear to me from the description given there.
The bit about pet battles looks like standard "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" to me, rather than the elemental form, and thus doesn't fit this trope, I feel.
The rest of the entry seems fine to me!
Regarding Yu-Gi-Oh: Yeah, that's a tricky one. Some of what's described there sounds elemental—"Light" beating "Dark", for example. But some of it sounds somewhat non-elemental—is "Fiend" an element?
That said, overall I think that it fits. The "Fire > Forest > Wind > Earth > Thunder > Water > Fire" loop seems like a pretty straightforward elemental set to me, and I'm comfortable with "Dream" and "Shadow" being considered elements alongside "Light" and "Dark".
I suppose that this may be one of the examples that shows the artificiality of tropes: we're trying to fit into discrete boxes things that in some cases can shade from one to another.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 25th 2019 at 5:07:26 PM
My Games & Writing
Updates:
~ I've cleaned up the "Anime and Manga" section ~
Changes:
- Removed the non-elemental sub-point for One Piece, being non-elemental.
- Deleted the first sub-point for Fairy Tale, as aversions aren't to be listed, I believe.
- The second sub-point (now the first, after the above removal) I'm leaving in place, I think.
- Removed the second sub-point for Soul Hunter, as it just looks like a matter of plant biology, not elemental effectivenesses.
The rest looks fine, I think!
The Bleach entry is an interesting one, as it involves two/sort-of-three elements in a stand-off. I think that it counts, but as a sort of weird continuous cycle in which the players keep converting each others' "Rock, Paper, or Scissors" into what they want.
~ I've cleaned up the "Literature" section ~
Changes:
- Removed the entry for Kaze no Stigma, as it just seems to be a simple elemental self-resistance.
The rest seems decent, I think!
~ I've cleaned up the "Tabletop Games" section ~
Changes:
- I've removed the base point for the Yu-Gi-Oh—but replaced it with its sub-point, edited to point to the Yu-Gi-Oh "Franchise" page. The base point seemed to be talking about standard "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors", to me, but the sub-point seems to be elemental.
- Promoted the last sub-point for Magic: The Gathering to level-two, as it doesn't seem to be a sub-point to the level-two point to which it was attached.
- Removed the entry for HERO System, as it seems to primarily be an aversion, with an exception that seems to be more a matter of standard elemental resistance than rock-paper-scissors. I do stand for correction by someone who knows the game better, however.
The "Feng Shui"/"Shadowfist" entry lacks a bit of context, I think; if someone knows more about it, perhaps it might be edited for clarity.
The rest appears to be acceptable, to me!
~ Regarding the matter of the two disputed Video Game entries ~
I also removed the World of Warcraft sub-entries for Ragnaros and player resistances, for the reasons given in my previous post. I left the pets in, since elements are included amongst the pet-types, so looking again it does seem to partially fit this trope.
I left Yu-Gi-Oh unchanged, again for the reasons given in my previous post, above.
~ That should be everything, I believe! ~
(Sorry that I haven't been attending to this overmuch!)
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 11th 2019 at 1:27:23 PM
My Games & Writing
How sweet it is
Okay then, time to close.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
Crown Description:
Which path should we take in fixing this trope?
Frustratingly, the way that the edit-history seems to work makes it a little hard to compare across multiple revisions. (Presuming that I'm not missing a feature.) If a given revision indicates one change, then I have to check subsequent revisions for later changes to that area. Conversely, a change in a given revision only tells me how it compares to the previous revision, not to the specific revision that I want to look at.
However, I intend to try a little later to do so; it may take a bit of time, so bear with me!
(If I could just get the text from the revision on October 15th, I could put that into a diff tool with the current revision and see how they differ...)
I do think that the paragraph that begins with "Elements are almost always immune or resistant to themselves" might be better-placed in the proposed super-trope about elemental interactions. After all, an element connecting to itself doesn't really fit the pattern of this trope.
I don't see a major problem with that, as long as there's one idea per paragraph.
It might make for slightly uneven pacing, but better than combining multiple ideas into a single paragraph, I feel.
(Unless there were places in which I had the same idea split across multiple paragraphs, in which case combining them may well be better!)
I mean, it doesn't seem much less necessary to me than the other related tropes.
It's basically saying that there are some systems in which "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" isn't always used, and that in those cases, the use of "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" is a case of "Situational Damage Attack."
[edit]
On reflection, I think that you're right about this line: we don't need to list every possible way in which the trope can be used. Cutting it leave the description more elegant—less muddied by superfluous details.
[/edit]
That was intentional, to give it a bit more impact. ^^;
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 20th 2019 at 7:57:46 PM
My Games & Writing