Thumbed that crowner down, as "It's misleading" is the only argument offered, with no evidence to back it up.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
...can still bite
As for Mighty Glacier and the missing tropes, I think we should split the difference. Mighty Glacier, defined as "strong and tough but slow" works fine as it is. Additionally, from a physical viewpoint it makes sense to define it that way, since muscle mass adds both strength and toughness, and heavy weaponry is often paired with heavy armor. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I think it would just be simpler that if there was misuse with examples that only refer to "strength" or "toughness" but not both, to just edit out those examples, and only if there was a significant amount of such examples would there be a justification to split the trope.
However, Fragile Speedster in both name and description refers to "fast but not tough", and therefore leaves a void for a trope for "fast but not strong". It also makes sense to keep these separate, since while a character may be capable of being both offensively fast or defensively fast, they may only choose to take advantage of one of those attributes. For instance, in Bleach, Yoruichi and Soi Fon use their speed to launch quick attacks, while Byakuya uses the exact same speed technique to dodge attacks (his offense is telekinetic rather than wholely physical).
To sum up, my position is 'nea' for splitting Mighty Glacier, and 'yea' for a new "fast but not strong" trope. As I said before, I have already made a YKTTW for such a trope the last time we went through this discussion. It's called ForcelessSpeedster
, you guys should check it out.
edited 27th Aug '13 11:51:14 AM by shiro_okami
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
Then you missed my earlier post.
Please see here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1375910344098917700&page=1
Attribute #1
- How effective a character is in eliminating their opponents. Typically this refers to how much damage a character does "per attack". However, edge cases (such as Damage Over Time effects or attacks that do no "damage" but can incapacitate permanently) do exist, which is why "damage" is not the proper term, strictly speaking. This term is best defined as a character's overall offensive output.
Attribute #2
- How effective a character can endure physical stress. Typically this refers to properties that reduce or ignore damage. It is not unusual for a game or story to reduce incoming damage (such as armor or natural toughness) or allow a character to suffer more damage before dying (such as high HP and/or quick HP regeneration). The properties that allow a character to avoid incoming attacks altogether are usually considered part of Attribute #3. Cases where game systems in which armor increases the enemy chance to miss, instead of reducing damage directly can be problematic. Remember that the attributes are defined by the character's actions, not the game rules. The term is best defined as a character's overall ability to withstand sustained attack.
Attribute #3
- How action-efficient a character is. Typically this affects three things: mobility, attacking speed, and dodging. However, other factors can also affect a character's attack speed and ability to avoid damage. Where other characters must choose between an active defense or an active offense, these characters may be able to do both, or go double on the defense/offense, with a loss in the other. This term is best defined by a character's overall action economy.
Note:
- These attributes are defined by their story behaviour. We understand Gameplay and Story Segregation don't always allow these attributes to have clear 1:1 connections with game systems and rules. Don't focus on the numbers available in the system; look at the play style of the character, just as if you were reading a story about them. We look for characters with these traits, not statistics that can be argued to fit one or more of the attributes.
@Septimus Heap:
Added a link to the wick check post on Page 4 of this thread. What other "evidence" do you suggest to make a stronger case? We're looking at an over 60% rate of misuse, and that's a conservative estimate (excluding Zero Context Examples).
I should think that the fact that the name doesn't agree with the description is pretty self-evident.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The problem with leaving Mighty Glacier as-is (+ATK / +DEF / -SPD) is that it invites people to continue trying to shove new three-attribute tropes through YKTTW. Viewed in a bubble the trope is okay, but within the greater trope family it causes problems.
I think the description in the Forceless Speedster YKTTW could use some work. As written, it specifies that a character MUST have a fast rate of attack to count, and doesn't make any mention of movement speed or dodging. I think that's too specific; it should be written to be inclusive of characters that have a fast movement speed and/or dodge ability but don't necessarily attack fast or at all. Fast-moving healers, buffers/support characters, etc.
I'm also not sure it's sufficiently distinct from Gradual Grinder as written, either.
edited 27th Aug '13 1:39:49 PM by hbi2k
...can still bite
If you want it to mention dodging too, then you might as well rewrite and rename Fragile Speedster to cover all aspects of speed.
Anyway, can't we just say that we are not accepting anymore three-attribute tropes? Besides, if the tropes die in YKTTW it doesn't really matter anyway.
Maybe the solution is to re-describe Mighty Glacier and Fragile Speedster to be more vague and broad. We could make it so that they are mighty/fragile in offense, defense, or both.
Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.
Fragile Speedster, as currently written, DOES cover all aspects of speed.
Anyway, we can say that we're not accepting three-stat tropes, but the question is whether people will listen. And part of the reason this thread was started was that tropes weren't dying in YKTTW. At least, Paper Ram didn't, and it took a while to get it properly cut and sent back to YKTTW.
Defining things clearly and simply prevents cleanup from being a constant chore.
I can see the argument for keeping Mighty Glacier as-is, because the slow tough powerful guy is a pretty common trope, but I don't think that redefining Fragile Speedster as +SPD, -ATK and/or -DEF really helps anything. If anything, I think it muddies the waters and makes things more confusing.
edited 27th Aug '13 3:32:08 PM by hbi2k
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
It's hard to make people listen when the information is something they have to find, even harder when people seek completion. With six specialist trope definitions, and five types of generalist tropes, every combination can be covered.
- Fast and powerful, but easy to K.O.? Fragile Speedster and Glass Cannon.
- Powerful, but uncoordinated and defenseless? Mighty Glacier and Glass Cannon.
- Not strong, quick, or armoured, but is still able to defeat enemies? Lethal Joke Character.
- Destructive, Quick, and Tough, but gets outshone by weaker characters with more skill? Lightning Bruiser.
Jupiterian Local
For the record, I'm for splitting Mighty Glacier and Fragile Speedster (ie, creating Iron Crawler and Speedy Weakling, or whatever we end up naming them), for renaming Stone Wall, and for using broader definitions of speed/attack/defense.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
I wonder if these are actually splittable differences. Eespecially given that they've more than 1000 wicks each.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
.......I lost the thread of conversation about 6 pages back. what's the current proposal?
The current proposals are:
- Redefine the four established tropes (Stone Wall, Fragile Speedster, Glass Cannon, Mighty Glacier) based on the three attributes of Attack, Defense, and Speed to one good attribute, and one bad attribute apiece. (Currently the first three are already defined this way, so the only one that would need redefining is Mighty Glacier. But by doing this, we would also exclude any new tropes from the family that don't fit the same scheme.)
- Redefine Mighty Glacier as +ATK / -SPD, with no mention of DEF.
- If the above passes: Make two additional tropes to cover the missing +Attribute and -Attribute pairing.
- Iron Crawler for +DEF / -SPD.
- Speedy Weakling for +SPD / -ATK.
- Redefine Lightning Bruiser to having the three Attributes, but a flaw that prevents them from being broken compared to the other tropes in the family?
- Rename Stone Wall (+DEF / -ATK) to something that doesn't imply that it is either stationary or slow in speed. In essence, replace the "Wall" part of the name, which seems to be a major culprit in the current rampant level of misuse, with something better. Iron Weakling seems to be the current frontrunner. There's a crowner for this one here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/SingleProposition/StoneWall
By the way, that crowner doesn't seem to be doing very well, but nobody seems to be chiming in on WHY they feel a rename is not warranted. I thought we'd already pretty well discussed this and come to the conclusion that Stone Wall was a bad name. If there are good reasons why the name should stay, I'm open to hearing them, but it's a little frustrating to get through 10 pages of discussion where everybody seemed to be all in favor of a name change and then put up a crowner only to find that I'm apparently the only one in favor after all. What gives?
edited 28th Aug '13 8:31:42 AM by hbi2k
It has more than 1000 inbounds and 921 wicks. That's likely the reason why people don't want a name change.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Yeah, and if the wicks are anything like the examples, that means there are almost 600 incorrect wicks in there. That seems like reason enough for a name change to me.
I mean, we're going to have to clean all that up anyway, but it seems to me that with a name that actually reflects what the trope is, it would be less likely that someone would have to go through and do it all again in a year.
Wicks are not examples, though. Misuse patterns can exist in both, but don't have to.
I also wonder if the difference is splittable.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Not sure what you mean by "wonder if the difference is splittable."
Do you mean that you wonder if examples and wicks should be split between Stone Wall as it exists now (+DEF / -ATK) and a new trope that's defined as how people seem to want to use it (+DEF / -SPD)? Because I'm all in favor of that, I just think that it should be accompanied by a name change to reduce confusion.
These are video game stats you are talking about here. We discussed a while ago that the tropes are archetypes, not stat combos. I want to know if the difference is splittable on an archetype level, not a stat one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I was using "ATK / DEF / SPD" as shorthand, not as stats. If it helps you to have it spelled out, then here:
Do you mean that you wonder if examples and wicks should be split between Stone Wall as it exists now ("the combat archetype of a character that is poor at attacking and good at defending") and a new trope that's defined as how people seem to want to use it ("the combat archetype of a character that is good at defending but slow")? Because I'm all in favor of that, I just think that it should be accompanied by a name change to reduce confusion.
In any case, I think the fact that people want a "can soak up damage but is slow" trope so bad that they'll misuse Stone Wall that way en masse is evidence enough that it's tropable. As for whether it's distinct from "can soak up damage but can't deal it," I think it is. I mean, your stereotypical medieval knight is the former (due to the weight of his armor) but not the latter (because he's deadly with a sword).
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
Part of the problem with the crowner is you made the mistake of creating it before it was clear that Stone Wall has misuse.
If Stone Wall is defined as -atk and/or -spd, then there's no misuse. Although I'm against it, we have the option of redefining it to solve the misuse. That's why I said we had to define the tropes, and didn't include renaming on my list of PAGE ACTION crowner.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
I guess I don't see how it's unclear that misuse is happening. People are using it in a way that runs contrary to the way the trope is defined in the description. That's kind of the definition of misuse.
There are, as you say, two solutions to that: redefining the trope to fit the use people are putting it to, or correcting the misuse, renaming the trope in such a way that it no longer invites further misuse, and creating a new trope that fits the use that people want.
I'm in favor of the latter. If anyone wants to speak up in favor of the former, now's the time. It seems to me that doing so leaves us with a vague and ill-defined trope that doesn't fit well with the way the rest of the trope family is evolving, but if anyone has arguments to the contrary, let's hear them.
All tropes get a bit of misuse. You need significant misuse to rename a trope.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
60% isn't considered significant? I'm being serious here. I've never attempted to rename a trope before.
edited 28th Aug '13 1:37:28 PM by hbi2k
60% is very significant if you can back it up with a Wick Check.
edited 28th Aug '13 2:30:23 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I derived that number with a wick check. It's a few pages back (page 4). Stone Wall is heavily misused because of its name.
edited 28th Aug '13 3:09:32 PM by Rethkir
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
Crown Description:
The current name is misleading, implying as it does that a Stone Wall is either stationary or very slow. In fact, the trope description specifies that a Stone Wall is strong defensively and weak offensively. This has lead to rampant misuse. As such, the name should be changed. See discussion here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1375910344098917700&page=4
particularly the wick check on Page 4. Excluding Zero Context Examples, we're looking at a roughly 60% misuse rate.
Went ahead and created a Crowner for a Stone Wall name change. It's already defined as strong defensively and weak offensively, so it won't be affected one way or the other by the results of the crowners @crazysamaritan suggested.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/SingleProposition/StoneWall