About "In-Character" for vs-battles....

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

What the title says and i'll just get straight to the point for this.

Now "in-character" matches are when characters here fight other characters based on their in-verse personality traits and that can be a factor in whether or not characters can/will ultiize a certain ability that can decide if they win or lose. Like for example, Goku who has some hax under his belt but would moreso resort to using physical strikes or energy beams, you know pure power-based moves as it fits his M.O. as a combatant.

Being honest, I don't like the "in-character" based side of vs battles. Or rather, not listing "Was in-character" on the pages of characters that win/lose against others. I dislike the "in-character" rule because while a character's personality is a factor in how they battle, it' not taking into account the full potential and capability of said character. And i'll use a hypothetical example to express my issue.

There's Character A and Character B. Both fighters are very haxy in their own right (not going into specifics here but maybe space-time hax, mind-hax, soul-hax, casuality hax, etc.). Both characters have enough hax, in quality and numbers, to defeat each other in a fair match. However, here's where the problem begins. In terms of personality, Character A is someone who doesnt want to beat around the bush and would want to use their hax right away to start lighting fireworks. Meanwhile, Character B is more of a brawler-type and is more akin to using damaging-based moves first before relying on abilities. So by factoring in that, Character A would win immediately because they would use a hax Character B wouldnt have a chance against with just powerful attacks first as opposed to his own hax.

Reading that, a question rises. What exactly is fair about this matchup? The answer is that it's not fair, at all. Both characters, despite having a comparable arsenal of hax, have different opinions on their own said hax. Character A loves it, while Character B doesn't. And because of Character B's morals in not using a haxy move right away, Character A immediately takes the win no matter how much hax both parties have.

In other words, what im trying to say is that there's no point in pitting 2 equally skilled, powerful, and haxy characters against each other if their morals will just decide the matchup in a matter of seconds. Like what happened for A and B. It's not giving the other side a chance to do anything, or rather use their stuff at full capacity, if they're own morals work against them and they lose before ever using the abilities that would make the match fair in the 1st place. Yes, I know there are many other ways a fight can go down, but this is what I thought of when making this.

TDLR: Im not saying we should change matchups to mindless character matches/technique comparisons. Im not even saying we should neccesarily take away the "In-Character" aspect all together. But what I am saying is that if someone is going to lose because of it, we should at the very least mention it on the characters pages so its known they lost for reasons other than having everything they use be defeated.

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, checking the thread and reading "A wins because B doesn't hax from the start" pretty much tells you the reason, no?

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Morals and characters are as much part of the character's moveset than skill, intelligence or abilities are. I could also say that it's pointless to put two characters of similar skill and intelligence if one has hax while the other doesn't.

A character being in-character is a default assumption. It's closer to what a true fight would be than a bloodlusted fight would be. We have no reasons to make special mentions of a default assumption.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I mean, checking the thread and reading "A wins because B doesn't hax from the start" pretty much tells you the reason, no?

What Kal said. If the reasonings listed in the very short explanation of the conditions within the main profile of a character isn't satisfactory enough, people should be smart enough to check the threads where the characters were set to fight, where it would be explained that they lost because of their in-character personality traits.

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

A character acting and behaving according to their personality in a fight is our default assumption, I don't really see why we should mention it. It would be like also mentioning that a character wins because they have this particular ability or they're more skilled.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

hmmm. I was split on this honestly, but Kalt and Saikou do make sense. I really just want to see where this goes.

 

[Wokistan]

Just use bloodlust then.

 

[Wokistan]

I agree with the others that character motivations are definitely an important part of (non blank slate) characters and should count as an advantage or disadvantage. For example, the 40k assassins are trained and brought up in a way that renders them wholly devoted to their task of killing (and in the case of an Eversor, even to suicidal extents). Obviously someone like an Eversor Assassin is going to have fewer qualms about opening a fight with as lethal an onslaught as possible than say I don't know Ash from Pokémon. There is nothing wrong with the fact that an assassin is an assassin and as such is going to fight harder and deadlier than a child. If one takes this course of thinking, would other aspects like differentials in skill or strategy also make a match "unfair"?

Matches do not need to be 100% fair in the first place, and the only real matches like these anyways are inconclusives. They should not be grossly skewed to one side or the other, but the fact is, if the match had a victor you cannot say it is 100% fair as one side had advantages, and that is ok. Bloodlust is not the default assumption, instead the default assumption is the character's default.

 

[Akreious]

The problem with the above comments is assuming that it's fair at all.

Two equal characters in an otherwise relatively equal and fair match is completely overshadowed by the fact that character B only uses his hax as final attacks while character A spams that crap 24/7.

In this case, even with relatively fair chances, Character A flat out stomps Character B. IC, Character A would win 100% of the time. It qualifies as a STOMP since Character B has NO chance to win.

If an Assassin fought a brawler and they start without knowing where the other is, the assassin is going to stomp the brawler. 100% of the time. Hide in a tree, Brawler is running around, blade to the neck, dead. Brawler immediately locates and sprints to Assassin, Assassin uses Poison Darts and dead. Brawler runs in the opposite direction to get the assassin confused, only to get confused himself and dead.

There is A LOT of problems with adding this example of a matchup as there is NO scenario where Brawler wins.

 

[Wokistan]

Oh, there's definitely a scenario. Assassin ***** up, Brawler catches on to something, someone acts OOC, etc. The fact that a victory is very unlikely does not make it a stomp, a victory would need to be outright impossible.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

If the match isn't fair then that it's own problem. Unfair advantages happen all the time, but it doesn't mean that we should nullify said advantages as a default thing, which is the main subject of this thread.

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

If the match isn't fair then that it's own problem. Unfair advantages happen all the time, but it doesn't mean that we should nullify said advantages as a default thing, which is the main subject of this thread.

I thought the main subject of the thread was about adding 'In character' to the character's wins and losses on their page.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

If the match isn't fair then that it's own problem. Unfair advantages happen all the time, but it doesn't mean that we should nullify said advantages as a default thing, which is the main subject of this thread.

I thought the main subject of the thread was about adding 'In character' to the character's wins and losses on their page.

Thats a bare minimum that im pushing for if removing moral advantages from the default standard wasnt an option.

 

[Wokistan]

In character is already the default assumption though.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Not treating "in-character" as a default assumption still implies that nullifying the advantage of one's character is considered acceptable enough to be widely applied.