12,227
edits
User talk:Suic12-: Difference between revisions
→Pain Split
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:I tested it in Generations VI and VII, and it seems that {{user|Kermalis}} tested in Generation V. I also have tested Color Change and Pain Split separetly in some other ocasions in Ganeration IV, and everything so far indicates that Color Change activates from damage-dealing moves and that Pain Split doesn't directly deal damage, which is why I concluded that this is the general pattern. If you think it still deserves to be tested in the Generations left, then we can put back the research template, but I see no reason to believe it would be different. | :I tested it in Generations VI and VII, and it seems that {{user|Kermalis}} tested in Generation V. I also have tested Color Change and Pain Split separetly in some other ocasions in Ganeration IV, and everything so far indicates that Color Change activates from damage-dealing moves and that Pain Split doesn't directly deal damage, which is why I concluded that this is the general pattern. If you think it still deserves to be tested in the Generations left, then we can put back the research template, but I see no reason to believe it would be different. | ||
:About having the information in both pages, I don't really oppose to it, but I saw that even pages of moves like Future Sight and Doom Desire, that have changed whether they trigger Color Change or not, don't say so in their own pages, instead leaving it to the Color Change page, so I didn't think that a move that (supposedly) didn't change that mechanic would need to mention it. [[User:Suic12-|Suic]] ([[User talk:Suic12-|talk]]) 19:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | :About having the information in both pages, I don't really oppose to it, but I saw that even pages of moves like Future Sight and Doom Desire, that have changed whether they trigger Color Change or not, don't say so in their own pages, instead leaving it to the Color Change page, so I didn't think that a move that (supposedly) didn't change that mechanic would need to mention it. [[User:Suic12-|Suic]] ([[User talk:Suic12-|talk]]) 19:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
::Alright, thanks. | |||
::What I was trying to argue is that there's a tautologic aspect, "dealing damage" is not particularly well defined (AFAIK), it's basically defined like "damage triggers <X/Y/Z>, so if <X/Y/Z> isn't triggered, it's not damage" (that might be equivalent to "damage is what uses some routine"). But that's based on observation, it's not law or something; it shouldn't be an axiom you base your deductions on. So yeah, I believe it would need to be proven independently (even though, as I said, it probably isn't different). | |||
::Fair enough (although I think symmetry for interactions is generally a good thing). [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | |||