Needs Help: Fragile Speedster

Then why have they been listed as foils, with inverted wording up until this argument started and you changed them?

A foil isn't the same thing as an inversion. There is enough contrast between them (one is fast, one is slow) that they sometimes function as foils, but they're not exact inversions of one another.

In fact, the definition of foil straight-up says that a pair of foils are often Not So Different except for one crucial difference.

edited 19th Mar '15 2:50:46 PM by hbi2k

They are listed as inversions in places that have not been recently changed

Mighty Glacier

Fragile Speedster

edited 19th Mar '15 2:57:19 PM by acrobox

^ So change that to reflect the current definition and the vast majority of the current usage. Takes about five seconds.

edited 19th Mar '15 2:58:21 PM by hbi2k

All I'm saying is that there is enough drift for it to be given a nod without changing the core definition. and the data proves such.

edited 19th Mar '15 3:05:11 PM by acrobox

I also don't want to acknowledge the 'current' definition and 'current' usage based on the changes you've made to various pages after this argument started.

edited 19th Mar '15 3:14:13 PM by acrobox

^^ The key phrase is "without changing the core definition." The core definition includes "fragile." Always has. No example that does not include "fragile" counts.

^ Which hasn't always been the case. And isn't always the way it is used as proven by the wick check.

The motion, I discovered, would actually revert it to an older definition.

Read: The current 'fragile + fast' as opposed to 'weak + fast' is a result of changing the definition over time. The tide is shifting back the other way.

Even if we wanna push it as foil, that will ruin our already accepted notion of the trifecta of offense/defense/speed of the Competitive Balance that is brought by a number of other tropes as well.

If a definition drift did happen, as you said, it's probably because of Glass Cannon and Stone Wall.

edited 19th Mar '15 7:21:45 PM by DAN004

We are not going to make 27 different tropes just for the sake of symmetry. That's how many it would take to cover every combination of speed/offense/defense.

Evidence that earlier drift made it "fragile + fast" when it was at one point "weak + fast" : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Laconic.FragileSpeedster

And no, we don't need 27 tropes for every combination of the trifecta. That's going to get really messy really fast.

It was already drifting back to being weak + fast, and the foil pairings were the 'accepted notion' and working fine until the DBZ Xenoverse edit war that led to this.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:03:11 PM by acrobox

The Laconic Pages never are proof of what the trope really means. That's what the main page is for.

Also, some of the entries in the "Ambiguous" section of the wick check may very well be legitamite examples of the trope as it is currently, it's just that there's no context to determine if they are examples or not. The fact that there's so few clear non-examples and misuse seems to point to there being more correct usage of the trope as is.

Clarification on one of the wicks... the context of the Team Fortress 2 wick is that it's part of a long list describing the characters with potholed terms as part of the example of another trope. The actual example for Fragile Speedster from the game is on this page and it's a correct example that cites "fragile + fast" with high offensive power being mentioned in the next sentence.

If you look through the history of the main page the definition and its relationship to glacier have been altered many times as well.

All tropes drift a little from time to time.

My point was not how we should have more tropes for different combinations. I'm saying that the current definition (taking the stats angle) is good already, we don't need to change it, and we can just fix misuses if there's any.

^^ Call it "drift" if you like, the point remains that there just plain aren't so many "fast + weak" uses that it warrants a redefinition. The current definition works fine.

^ categorically false proven by the wick check and the state of affairs on the indexes prior to this dispute

does it even matter?

Goes back to a crowner to ask if the definition for this trope needs changing. Assuming the crowner fails to achieve "change the definition" consensus, we need a concerted to clean the trope+wicks to eliminate the misuse.

The thing is it doesnt matter that much which is why i'm surprised that hbi2k is making it a big issue. I'm just proposing one line to acknowledge that speedster can be the foil pair to glacier in the trope description. Which is already acknowledged in their playing with pages and on various indexes around the site.

Like I'm not proposing any changes that havent already been implicitly okayed all over the place. It doesnt require changing any example descriptions, it doesn't disqualify anything that already qualifies.

It'd hardly be noticed.

^ Every time we've had one of these Necessary Drawback tropes defined by three attributes (in this case, fast, fragile, and weak offense) there has been confusion about whether an example requires one, two, or all three attributes to count. I can't think why this would be any different. A two-attribute definition (one positive attribute balanced by one negative attribute, in this case speed balanced by fragility) has proved the most workable, and the wick check shows that it's been working perfectly fine for a while.

^^ Considering that acrobox and I have been going in circles for a while now, I'm all for a crowner so that we can move on, unless anyone else has anything they'd like to add.

Acrobox, since you're the one calling for a change, would you like to make the crowner so that you can ensure that the wording of the proposition matches what you're suggesting?

edited 20th Mar '15 9:32:49 AM by hbi2k

^ In my estimation Mighty Glacier seems to be doing fine.

Technically it is still two attributes. Including fast + weak for multiple definitions of 'fast' + 'weak' inclusive of fast + fragile, is still conceptually two attributes. Similarly Glacier is conceptually two attributes if you think of it as strong + slow for multiple definitions of 'strong' or 'slow.' The whole point is that these two attributes 'strength' and 'speed' and further two archetypes Speedster and Glacier exist even in places where three stats don't. And with one line we could make that clear without discrediting the places where the three stats do exist.

Is there any sort of compromise or third option to put on the table between our opposing viewpoints.

edited 20th Mar '15 4:35:31 PM by acrobox

^ If there is, I'm not seeing one. I can't get behind any definition of Fragile Speedster that allows for examples that are not fragile. I mean, it's right there in the name. Under a "fragile can mean offensively weak" definition, theoretically you could have examples that are heavily armored and tough as nails as long as they're fast and don't have any offense, and that just ain't right.

Now, if you wanted to add a line or two to the description comparable to the ones currently there about the overlap with Glass Cannon making it clearer that Fragile Speedsters sometimes have weak offense, I'd consider that unnecessary but probably harmless as long as it was worded carefully... but examples like the Xenoverse one still wouldn't count unless they could be shown to be fragile as well as offensively weak.

As for Mighty Glacier, it's... okay these days, but its description used to be a freaking mess full of confusing yakkety yak about whether it's slower or faster than a Stone Wall (which is not, according to its own definition, even necessarily slow) or whether it matters whether its offense and defense are balanced with one another or whether one is allowed to be stronger or weaker than the another. I lay that directly at the feet of the impulse to define it and tropes like it (such as Stone Wall and Fragile Speedster) by three attributes instead of one advantage and one disadvantage. It's also subject constant misuse by folks who assume that "size" is a good shorthand for "strength," which isn't necessarily the case.

edited 20th Mar '15 4:58:20 PM by hbi2k

The Xenoverse example should be Critical Status Buff anyway, since it only activates when you're at half health. What matters for this trope is overall fragile-ness, not HP-dependency (otherwise Lightning Bruisers would qualify for Fragile Speedster when they only have 2 Hit Points left).

edited 20th Mar '15 5:03:41 PM by Karxrida

As a thought experiment what you would do with a heavily armored fast guy with no offense with the porposed motion.

First you would look at Speedster and say 'fast + weak' so is there any metric of mobility where this character is above the baseline. Yes. High movement range, or maybe quick attack rate, or goes first in turn based battle. This person is fast.

Is there a metric of power where this person is below the baseline. Yes, low offensive power. This person is weak. This is a potential variation Fragile Speedster.

But wait! here's a metric of power where that person is above the base line. High defensive power. What else has high defense? Stone wall.

Stone wall is two metrics, High defensive power, low offensive power. We've already satisfied both.

This hypothetical character is a Fragile Speedster - Stone Wall hybrid. A counterpoint to the many Fragile Speedster - Glass Cannon hybrids that we already know exist.

No, it wouldn't be a Fragile Speedster - Stone Wall hybrid, because it wouldn't be a Fragile Speedster. Speedster, yes. Fragile, no.