A New Type of Profile - Locations

[Lou_change]

Location: Central Park, New York City. The location can be left during the course of battle. If extreme advantages are generated via this location to one side, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the thread.

This logic should be assumed for all locations including ones that cause hostage negotiations.

 

[KieranH10]

Again, hostages and bystanders do not create a fair fight for our purposes.

Yes, but they would not affect a battle by default. Any fight that involves them would be Fun and Games.

 

[Antvasima]

If a hero constantly has to save the surrounding bystanders from getting killed, it would severely limit his or her chances to win in a fair fight without plot armor.

 

[Arceus0x]

time to add plot armor to powers and abilities

 

[Lou_change]

Okay there are at least two examples of how get around that listed and that takes away from characters the rely on people to manipulate or exploit.

 

[KieranH10]

If a hero constantly has to save the surrounding bystanders from getting killed, it would severely limit his or her chances to win in a fair fight without plot armor.

It would not be used in battles though. Any battle where bystanders or inhabitants were involved would be fun and games.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Then it seems fine to me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I'm not 100% sure on what's still allowed, but from what I get the from the intention is to use iconic locations from various media and add them as location profiles, as long as they have enough environmental features that make it unique/interesting. Is this right?

 

[KieranH10]

That seems to be the case at the moment. I still personally believe that the standard should be a little more lenient, but I'm willing to compromise, so that is how it is currently.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm not 100% sure on what's still allowed, but from what I get the from the intention is to use iconic locations from various media and add them as location profiles, as long as they have enough environmental features that make it unique/interesting. Is this right?

That is correct, yes.

The key issue seems to be if we should allow them to be populated with innocent bystanders or not.

 

[KieranH10]

The key issue seems to be if we should allow them to be populated with innocent bystanders or not.

I don't believe that is the main issue personally, as that was only recently brought up, and has already been answered to my knowledge.

Any inhabitants should be noted on the profile, for indexing's sake, but will not influence battles unless explicitly stated, in which the battle would become fun and games, as it would involve outside help.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I think it should it should at least be noted on the profile, at least for accuracy sake. Whether or not it should included on a vs-match, I personally think the standard assumption is that they should be included, since that it's more realistic and it's a core part of the character to defend people. If people want a fight without the limitation or it makes the battle unfair, it's easily avoided by bloodlusting the character or stating the location is void of people. I guess if it counts as outside help, just make the match under Fun & Games, that works too I guess.

 

[Metalballrun]

Inhabitants are only an issue if the location is gonna be used as a stage for versus battles.

It seems that some location profiles doesn't have to be a battleground as long as they are unique locations and/or with unique properties, so they won't have that problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We need to make very clear in our rules that the location should not create an unfair advantage in any case.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay. We need to make very clear in our rules that the location should not create an unfair advantage in any case.

Well, that's quite variable, some characters rely entirely on being in a certain place for their tier and several capabilities, and in others the stage may as well just kill both participants before either can do anything to the other. I think it would be best to just keep the condition for the purpose of vs threads that the place in question shouldn't lead into a one-sided argument nor the place itself being the "winner", but rather a usable win condition at most.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Do we need to clear up anything else?

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think so. As long as it is mentioned that civilians that interfere in any way in a fair fight are disallowed, the instructions page can probably be created now.

 

[Bobsican]

I don't think so. As long as it is mentioned that civilians that interfere in any way in a fair fight are disallowed, the instructions page can probably be created now.

i think that detail would go better in the Versus Thread Rules, if it wasn't there already, given that this affects any sort of location, even the one in SBA.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems reasonable.

Is somebody willing to write a draft text for this?

 

[Lou_change]

What about fights with characters that rely on exploiting people to fight like mind controllers, animal users, and weird gimmick Characters like Dark Lord (Miitopia).

 

[Bobsican]

I suppose that seems reasonable.

Is somebody willing to write a draft text for this?

Let's see... huh, "outside help" has never been mentioned at all within the Versus Thread Rules, it seems it was an unwritten sort of rule for all of these years.
Anyways, as that's the case, it'll have to be a bit more explicit than what I expected, so...
"Only the selected participants for a match-up are to be involved in the versus thread, meaning that any other animated beings that would be in the selected place for the battle won't be around, and this also translates into neither participant being able to call for help unless it's in a combat-applicable manner, such as what's covered as a summon or familiar"
Note that this still leaves open a potential issue where the place in question relies on its inhabitants (or someone in particular) to be around in the first place.

 

[Antvasima]

Would this version be acceptable?

"Only the selected participants for a versus thread are allowed to be involved in the match-up. Meaning that any other beings that would normally be in the selected location for the battle should not be considered to be present, neither as bystanders that need to be rescued or as being able to provide outside assistance."

 

[KieranH10]

Only the selected participants for a versus thread are allowed to be involved in the match-up. Meaning that any other beings that would normally be in the selected location for the battle should not be considered to be present, neither as bystanders that need to be rescued or as being able to provide outside assistance.

This seems fine to me personally.

 

[Bobsican]

While the wording looks far better, what about the potential issue where the place in question relies on its inhabitants (or someone in particular) to be around in the first place? Do we just assume the place remains as "usual" even if the one that would be there to sustain it isn't there, and so it would normally collapse otherwise?

 

[KieranH10]

While the wording looks far better, what about the potential issue where the place in question relies on its inhabitants (or someone in particular) to be around in the first place? Do we just assume the place remains as "usual" even if the one that would be there to sustain it isn't there, and so it would normally collapse otherwise?

In a case like this, I don't believe the person sustaining the location would be considered outside help, as long as it's specified that they aren't taking part in the battle, then it should be assumed that they aren't allowed to intervene directly.

 

[Lou_change]

Also are we banning plants, fungi, and diseases from existing in the area.

 

[Antvasima]

Also are we banning plants, fungi, and diseases from existing in the area.

A match-up wouldn't work if one or both of the participants get poisoned or severly ill from outside interference.

 

[Lou_change]

I get that but powers like Plant Manipulation, Fungus Manipulation, Disease Manipulation, Animal Manipulation, Mind Manipulation(sometimes), Perception Manipulation's famous everyone looks like my worst enemy, and so many more. Rely on other people being around.

 

[Tllmbrg]

A match-up wouldn't work if one or both of the participants get poisoned or severly ill from outside interference.

It can, depends on who fights lol

 

[Armorchompy]

There's also characters like Kilgrave who rely on controlling other people to fight.

 

[Bobsican]

I get that but powers like Plant Manipulation, Fungus Manipulation, Disease Manipulation, Animal Manipulation, Mind Manipulation(sometimes), Perception Manipulation's famous everyone looks like my worst enemy, and so many more. Rely on other people being around.

I suppose such powers would just become (nearly) useless unless either participant can summon something that can be affected by those.

 

[Armorchompy]

Why would we just negate a fuckton of powers? That's literally against the rules too "It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment."

 

[Antvasima]

I am not sure how we should handle characters like Killgrave. I suppose that we will have to skip matches involving them for the sake of making most of them work instead.

 

[Lou_change]

No we shouldn't just effectively match ban or delete characters and powers should a fight include such characters happen it will be part of the exception rather than the rule again I feel we should have a thread just to add matches using location profiles and exceptions to the rule and I would be willing to help with that thread.

 

[Bobsican]

Why would we just negate a fuckton of powers? That's literally against the rules too "It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment."

The powers aren't restricted, this is no different from someone with Telekinesis not being able to use it in an empty place out of there being nothing to manipulate with it in the first place, a character not being able to use Earth Manipulation in a place that has no earth to begin with, or how some characters have some powers that work in more specific circumstances but can't be verse equalized.

By this logic we may as well ban match-ups where a "immunity" to Soul Manip out of lacking a soul to start with is relevant.

 

[Lou_change]

Again

Location: Central Park, New York City. The location can be left during the course of battle. If extreme advantages are generated via this location to one side, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that something like this might be added to the rules text, yes:

"If extreme advantages to one side are generated via a location, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the relevant versus thread. This can include bystanders that need to be rescued or are able to provide outside assistance, as well as poisons or diseases that are present in the area."

 

[Bobsican]

In a case like this, I don't believe the person sustaining the location would be considered outside help, as long as it's specified that they aren't taking part in the battle, then it should be assumed that they aren't allowed to intervene directly.

Would either participant be allowed to be assumed to potentially indirectly or directly threaten this person? And would we assume it does nothing in regards of this?

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that something like this might be added to the rules text, yes:

"If extreme advantages to one side are generated via a location, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the relevant versus thread. This can include bystanders that need to be rescued or are able to provide outside assistance, as well as poisons or diseases that are present in the area."

Would this be a better alternative to my previous suggested rules text?

 

[Lou_change]

I personally think it is a lot better.