Specialisation vs Versatility

I go with versatility

Versatility always.

In sports.

Video games.

Comic Books.

Life.

Women. Versatility will always win.

Both have there perks

Specialization is for insects.

Versatility I feel is the most useful.

Pretty much this. If you're only good at one thing and something happens and you can no longer preform that one thing, what happens then? Better to be able do many things well than just one.

@pipxeroth Specialization. No doubt about it.

If you're good at one thing, and focus your attention on one goal, you will be more likely to achieve success. And it's always better to be the best in one field than good in a few.

Specialist. I'd rather be a master at one thing, than an amateur in a bunch of things.

Versatility.

Usually its better to be amazing at one thing than to be decent at a bunch. But when you're so powerful than even the things you're only "decent" at are still really powerful then versatility is better. Like Odin for example. Or batman.

I dunno man, I keep thinking of people like Karate Kid (DC) who is good at just...karate, but he's so good at it, he beats down Kryptonians or Mihawk from One Piece who's the world's best swordsman. Plus, having the title "World's Best" in your name is pretty impressive, lol.

Specialization in one area and some versatility.

Yeah but Batman is so awesome that he can have the title of World Best Detective and be an expert on different fields.

You got me there...

Between the two, versatility would be the route I'd take. Knowing what to do in many situations, regardless if I can do it nigh perfectly would be better than being useless in most.

What's the point at being the best at one thing if you suck at everything else.

I'd rather be good in multiple subjects than be perfect at just one.

Let's use the JL as an example.

What good would be Superman if he could only fly.

What good would be Batman if he just knew how to fight.

What good would be Wonder Women if she just had super strength.

What good would be Aquaman if he could just breath underwater.

What good would be GL if the only thing he could do was blast energy from his ring.

What good would be Flash be if all he did was run fast.

Both have their perks. I'd say versatility may edge out slightly, because we never know what kind of situation we'll face.

Um well,

Superman could still save people if he could fly.

Fighting is pretty much all that Batman needs to be awesome.

Wonder Woman would still kick a bunch of ass with just super strength.

Aquaman could be a circus entertainer/magician (??)

GL would still be super powerful

What else does flash do?

And remember if they were specialised they wouldn't just be their average/current power level in that thing. Like Batman would literally be almost unbeatable in a straight up fight, wonder woman would throw the moon around at people, GL's blasts would destroy planets etc. etc.

@pipxeroth: Point being if they could ONLY do or have those things they wouldn't be much to deal with as a team. Their versatility is what makes them a great team.

Well actually I think a team of specialists would far outclass a team with lots of versatile members. A team of members with lots of versatility seems more of a waste, but a team with all the people having specialisation is much stronger; the teammates are there to cover the weak spots. To use a gaming example here, having a group of people with guns that can fight at all ranges in close quarters, going against a group of people with guns specialised for close quarters, the versatile guns will lose. And if that team then decides to fall back where their guns are better than the close range ones so they could win, the other team would be covered by the long range specialists. Teams work much better if you have people who are great at one thing, not so great at the other, but then another team-member covers that weak-spot. To me versatility only seems useful for going solo, but even then if you make sure to pick your fights, I find specialisation better in every way.

#debatingonanofftopicthread

@pipxeroth: How? Every Superhero or Villain who has multiple abilities would not lose to a counter part with only one of their abilities.. that makes no sense.

A Batman that just knows how to fight would not beat a Batman that's strategic and knows how to fight.

How does justice league that has one power for each member beat a versatile justice league?

You aren't understanding my point. I'm not talking about 1v1's. I'm talking about the fact that a strong team of specialists who cover eachother's weaknesses would be more powerful than a team of people who are only pretty good in all areas. Lets say you have a battle 3v3. On team one there are people who are pretty fast pretty strong pretty smart. On team 2, there is one who is extremely fast, one with enormous strength, and an absolute genius. My money would be on team 2.

If the team 1 tried attacking with brute force, they'd be immediately shut down by the super strong one. The fast guy on team 2 could go for an attack, lets say. Let's say for example his weakness would be his smarts. But the genius on the team covers his weak spot, tells him exactly what to do, so he does it and kicks ass. Team 1 tries to get to the super smart guy, but can't get past the super strong one.

@pipxeroth: Your example is vague.

T1: Superman-Silver Surfer-Mr.Fantastic.

T2: "Enormous Strength-Extremely Fast-Absolute Genius"

T1 has everything T2 has and more. So how does T2 win?

You're not understanding what I'm saying ._.

T1 would not be stronger in everything, which you're seeming to suggest they are. If you did a list for stats it would be like:

T1 St Sp Sm

Guy 1 3 3 3

Guy 2 3 3 3

Guy 3 3 3 3

T2

Guy 1 5 2 2

Guy 2 2 5 2

Guy 3 2 2 5

@pipxeroth: It doesn't need to be. Just because you have the smartest the fastest and the strongest.. doesn't mean that team is the better team if each member of that team lacks what the oppossing team has and then some.

You're assuming that because Team two are specialist.. they are the best at what they do, which isn't right to assume.

No I'm saying that team two are better than team 1 in their respective areas... Also I hope you realise it's nigh impossible to debate a theoretical battle because, obviously, a versatile guy who was better than a team of specialised guys would win, and a specialised guy who was better than a bunch of versatile guys would also win. saiodjf;alksdjfasudnfa;soidufn my point is i think that teams work better in a rock-paper-scissors kind of way.

@pipxeroth: Is there even a rock paper scissor team?

I don't know. I think knowing a little about everything and a lot about one thing is the best for being successful in life, but I can tell you that the specialization of society drives my dad crazy. He's in his sixties, and he's probably got wider knowledge than most people in his generation, but he could build a house, survive in the wild or build complex chemical and mechanical devices on his own, and it drives him crazy that most people these days have no idea how to do much of anything.

If an EMP knocked out the power grid today, (which is actually possible) how long would you last? Studies would have shown 80% of the American population would be dead within a year. It's a problem.

Versatility >> Specialization if working with an individual.

Granted; when making teams for Tournaments in the Battle Forums I always have some members who are specialized while others are versatile.

Specialization.