Follow TV Tropes
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."
 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
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:
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.
I'll try my best to reply to all your points
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!
 I've made those two edits.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 23rd 2019 at 7:45:16 PM
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
^ 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.
The top crowner option is unanimous at ten yeas. Is it safe to call?
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.)
Hollering for a mod to weigh in on the status of the crowner...
 And hollered.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 5th 2019 at 7:30:25 PM
I've re-hollered it again.
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. ^^;
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.
A few more thing we need to do:
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. ^_^
All right, I've made a start:
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 14th 2019 at 7:42:00 PM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?