@mlgzed:
Yeah I like to break it down into Quantity of EXP (how many battle situations ( training or real-combat, especially real combat you have been in), Quality of EXP ( the diversity and difficulty of the battle situations you have been in- what did the character get the opportunity to learn- fighting superior numbers? fighting those with equal or even better physical stats? different terrains or weather conditions? different fighting styles or special powers? And ofc, more importantly, I'm overlapping experience here with the actual expertise- knowledge & skills- acquired.
Yea that sounds good to me.
You use the quantity and the quality of experience to get to the relevant experience- which at a basic level includes basic knowledge of the opponent or basic experience in dealing with the opponent's abilities and strategies. Like knowing the basics of chess- pawn movement, knight movement, queen movement, bishop movement, rook movement, queen movement, king movement, en passant capture, castling, and promotion, every studious novice has a grasp on this. At a higher level, it would include having advanced knowledge of strategies and tactics, like studying and battling against chess grandmasters and quickly recognizing complex patterns of pieces and game situations quickly and accurately.
Yea agreed.
Or from another perspective, quantity and quality of experience together form the character's general combat experience. Relevant combat experience would include the knowledge that's most directly relevant to their opponent at hand. Both general experience and relevant experience matter, but relevant experience is weighted more. Even if you don't have much relevant experience, with some good innate IQ, time, and sufficient basic info, you can probably find something in your general experience that's at least tangentially related to compare to and you use that to generate the knowledge you need to figure out your specific opponent as well as effective strategies or counter-strategies on the fly.
Yea agreed. One thing I would add is some characters can learn from watching other characters. We can call that "second hand experience". I am thinking of stuff like Deku from MHA studying other people and learning from them.
But then on the point of innate IQ (fluid intelligence), the problem I run into, when circling back to my first paragraph here, is that IQ also influences your ability to attain expertise from your combat experiences in the first place. But you may have trainers/instructors who can help make it easier for you to gain the feedback you need and analyze properly, whereas in battle you likely don't have them most of the time. In any case then, a Character's Battle IQ is a function of both their experience and innate intellect. But if a smarter person all else equal learns quicker and learns more and with better quality from their experiences and study, that also implies they would build crystallized intelligence and experience faster as well. So I guess the main question here, is how big the gap in experience needs to be to eliminate such a possibility.
Well I think battle experience increases your battle intelligence. The idea is your learning from your past fights. If a character doesn't make use of their experience because of their low intellect than that should probably be considered.
If you're familiar with Naruto, take someone like Tobirama vs Madara and Hashirama. Tobirama is smarter than the two of them in terms of fluid intelligence, but they have an age advantage over him and also have high-quality combat experience from fighting each other directly. So it would entail Tobirama's raw computing power quickly generating a complex and effective strategy that Hashirama and Madara haven't seen before. They've seen a wide variety of Suiton users and their approaches born from trial and error and likely some modicum of intelligence, and fought groups of them before, and they know of Flying Thunder God, hmm.
Well Hashirama and Madara aren't that much older than Tobirama and Tobirama isn't lacking in experience. I don't think Tobirama is behind either of them in battle IQ or experience. Not in a way that matters. If anything I think you can argue Tobirama made better use of his experience fighting the Uchiha because he invented the flying thunder god technique to counter the sharingan. In a way you might even be able to argue Tobirama has higher quality experience because Hashirama and Madara are so much stronger Tobirama needed to get more creative.
Or to use the chess example again, when you're fighting a chess grandmaster, you're not just fighting that chess grandmaster, you're fighting that chess grandmaster plus, roughly, their coach if they had one, and all the other chess players they have ever fought or observed, which would also likely include other chess grandmasters and also any computer engines they have faced before. And it's known that you don't need to be an exceptional genius to become good at chess ( though ofc it would help you get a higher potential ceiling). So maybe that's how to conceptualize an average mind with tons more and better experience vs a genius mind with comparatively less experience.
Well as I said I think it depends if a character is able to learn from past battles or if they just constantly make the same mistakes.
@dingus__ said:
@professorrespect: Karnak is geniunely stupid, what he has is not combat intelligence at all, he just has a unique ability that he uses very, very poorly. Someone with actual combat intelligence would be unbeatable if they had karnak's ability.
Karnak does have combat intelligence though by the definition of such.
He's a master martial artist that developed his powers through sheer mental will and focus. He inherently knows far more than many due to knowing their flaws better than they do. The main issue is that alone doesn't win him fights.
I feel combat intelligence is more than just martial arts. Use of the environment, strategy in a fight, etc. If other characters are taking advantage of his ability to see the flaw in stuff than that means he is being outsmarted.So Karnak has high technical skill but not high combat intelligence.
Log in to comment