Alex Mercer vs Cole McGrath (PROTOTYPE VS inFAMOUS)

[DeathNoodles]

You don't get it at all, the only reason of why Alex could perform his Mid-High feat was because he wasn't at the epicenter of the nuke, in other words, he just "endured" far lower levels of energy and heat than what the nuke truly could do, and even if that favorable situation to him he still needed several hours to regenerate and to luckly get some biomass to absorb. So, with Cole's lightning, which is far superior to said nuke, hiting Alex means that he would be unable to do the same that he did that time.

But let's entertain the idea that Alex would indeed regenerate after hours from one of Cole's attacks, what would he do then? Because another fight would result in the same situation, or even worse since Cole's could eventually decide to turn him to energy and absorb him to permanently kill him, or absorb the electrons of him which would do the same as his biomass would be unable to function then, otherwise he could just decide to trap him in a place from which Alex could not escape, or could let him in a situation in which Alex don't get more biomass to absorb and regenerate. Cole can do so many things that just put Alex permanently down while Alex himself can't really do anything against him.

That requires the incapacitation to be passive though.

If Cole stands there and keeps nuking him, then it’s not passive incapacitation anymore, since it requires active effort, so that victory condition doesn’t count.

Also, Cole has never shown to transmute organic people into energy before or manipulated the electrons of an organic target to either prevent them from regenerating or by deconstructing them, so showcase such explicit scans or it isn’t valid.

 

[Phoenks]

That requires the incapacitation to be passive though.

If Cole stands there and keeps nuking him, then it’s not passive incapacitation anymore, since it requires active effort, so that victory condition doesn’t count.

You're mistaken.

If one character is just bullying the other to the point where they have no basis in the fight anymore and can't do anything against it, then they will lose via incapacitation after 24 hours.

I literally quoted it.

There's nothing about "passive" incapacitation. A character being unable to fight back at all for 24 hours is incapacitation, there's no further specifications needed. If you think there is then find the quote from the wiki.

 

[DeathNoodles]

You're mistaken.

If one character is just bullying the other to the point where they have no basis in the fight anymore and can't do anything against it, then they will lose via incapacitation after 24 hours.

I literally quoted it.

There's nothing about "passive" incapacitation. A character being unable to fight back at all for 24 hours is incapacitation, there's no further specifications needed. If you think there is then find the quote from the wiki.

Well, other users and even staff members has once mentioned the incapacitation needs to be passive before.

If that isn’t the case, then it isn’t clarified as no CRTs have ever addressed incapacitation counting if it’s actively done instead of passively done. Because there has been matchups where the regenerating character won against their opponent just by outliving them, even with repeated attempts to nuke them.

 

[Phoenks]

If that isn’t the case, then it isn’t clarified

It is clarified though. I literally quoted the clarification. There's no specifications, thus what I said is assumed until further notice because that's what's on the Victory Conditions in SBA. Find me the quote of the staff saying that btw. Not that it changes anything (because the page itself is what determines it), but I'm curious about the context.

 

[DeathNoodles]

It is clarified though. I literally quoted the clarification. There's no specifications, thus what I said is assumed until further notice because that's what's on the Victory Conditions in SBA. Find me the quote of the staff saying that btw. Not that it changes anything (because the page itself is what determines it), but I'm curious about the context.

Give me a moment, because I’ll need to surf through the threads somewhere.

 

[DeathNoodles]

It is clarified though. I literally quoted the clarification. There's no specifications, thus what I said is assumed until further notice because that's what's on the Victory Conditions in SBA. Find me the quote of the staff saying that btw. Not that it changes anything (because the page itself is what determines it), but I'm curious about the context.

Found it.

Apparently, there are conflicting statements, but a couple of staff members don't agree that actively AP nuking someone each time counts as incapacitation, but they all unanimously agreed that doing it passively count as a win condition. So punting someone to constantly? There are more staff members disagreeing with that method than there are ones that agreed.

A character Haxing the other character to keep them trapped or unable to fight indefinitely (thus keeping the other character incapacitated indefinitely)? They agreed.

And here's the thing, the page itself does not describe this scenario, as it is general enough that the statement "putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day" could mean doing so passively, and Cole actively doing this is kind of strange because he would need to repeatedly stay from a distance and nuking Mercer from a range each time to even keep him in such a state... But the "state in which he can not harm the other fighter" would also mean that Mercer could pop back up from the incapacitation (or appearing as a puddle), and it could still count as a "state in which he could harm the other fighter" because touch Absorption is a possibility for Mercer even in a puddle state, so incapacitation counter might get reset by that point.

So Mercer coming back as a healed body (or even as a puddle)? He is no longer in a "state in which he can not harm the other fighter", because Mercer can harm the "other fighter" even as a puddle if they were to make contact with him... So he is no longer in a "incapacitated" state anymore because the possibility of him being able to harm the other person exists even in that state (it says "can not harm the other fighter", implying the state has to be "impossible" to harm the other fighter to count as incapacitation, it didn't say "unlikely to harm the other fighter" to imply that the likelihood of harming the other fighter isn't high enough to prevent the state from counting as "incapacitation").

See right there? That SBA for the incapacitation statement is subjective enough to allow even that to disqualify the "incapacitation" as a win condition.

Also, there has never been a CRT created to address this incapacitation win condition, so we're now stuck with this subjective as heck statement in the SBA.

Either way, there seems to be more staff members disagreeing with actively AP-nuking (or pinning) as a win condition than there are ones that do, with the rest being neutral.

 

[Phoenks]

Damn, that thread is ancient.

Anyway, it was never concluded so its irrelevant.

But the administrator Wokistan shares my point of view.

Both passive and active incapacitation are literally the same concept of making it so your opponent can't do anything, just done slightly differently, with none even being inherently superior to the other either way (Requiring action doesn't really mean anything here). So I personally don't know why anyone would make a distinction like that.

And, still, as the page stands, it does not make that distinction or further clarify, so until its updated, my point about Cole MacGrath stalling his regeneration for 24 hours would be a win via incapacitation.

Alex has no real chance of ever harming or posing a threat is the thing. Cole has such an AP advantage on top of his paralysis and AoE attacks (Not even mentioning some hax) that it is wishful thinking to say that Alex could ever do anything in response to that.

Fight is a stomp though.

 

[DeathNoodles]

Damn, that thread is ancient.

Anyway, it was never concluded so its irrelevant.

But the administrator Wokistan shares my point of view.

Both passive and active incapacitation are literally the same concept of making it so your opponent can't do anything, just done slightly differently, with none even being inherently superior to the other either way (Requiring action doesn't really mean anything here). So I personally don't know why anyone would make a distinction like that.

And, still, as the page stands, it does not make that distinction or further clarify, so until its updated, my point about Cole MacGrath stalling his regeneration for 24 hours would be a win via incapacitation.

Alex has no real chance of ever harming or posing a threat is the thing. Cole has such an AP advantage on top of his paralysis and AoE attacks (Not even mentioning some hax) that it is wishful thinking to say that Alex could ever do anything in response to that.

Fight is a stomp though.

Only Wokistan though. Two others disagree, and a retired Admin (I think they were an Admin/Discussion Moderator at the time) disagreed as well. So by numbers alone, we have more disagreeing with that definition than there are those that agreed.

But if you agree that this mathup is a stomp via Cole stalling Mercer's regeneration for 24 hours, with the current definition of the page (which is vague enough to allow Mercer to keep coming back by the way, because even as a puddle he is still capable of harming his opponent, so he will no longer count as being "incapacitated"), then that's fair - I was arguing this to be a stomp thread anyways, regardless of which favour of the characters it was.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Pretty sure we agreed in ancient threads that bullying someone into being incapable of fighting back counts as incap.

So yeah, this looks decisive (or a stomp if the sasha thing counts) in favor of Cole. Garg didn't lie to me.

 

[DeathNoodles]

Pretty sure we agreed in ancient threads that bullying someone into being incapable of fighting back counts as incap.

So yeah, this looks decisive (or a stomp if the sasha thing counts) in favor of Cole. Garg didn't lie to me.

Those same ancient threads also have more staff members disagreeing that a character being constantly struck down by their opponent doesn't count as incapacitation than ones that agree though. The number of staff members does not appear to lie here.

Also, that Sasha's tar thing is argued as working at the subatomic level... So yeah, it pretty much becomes a stomp with Mercer's touch Absorption being the only thing he has (which could can get countered hard by constant range nuking).

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

Pretty sure we agreed in ancient threads that bullying someone into being incapable of fighting back counts as incap.

This, and not even really going that far with ancient threads, that's something mentioned a lot in the strongest list where cases of people being able to murder the opponent constantly without said character being able to fight back is common.

But even if we ignored that and went with the logic that it doesn't count (plus that Alex would survive a direct hit), Alex would just get continuously destroyed, or traped inside a place from where he can't escape, or killed by separating him from any biomass, absorb his energy (the ability it's called Bio Leech on Cole's profile), etc.

Although, while writing this I remembered something, this Cole have ice powers, so the previous two possibilities I mentioned of trapping him or negating the option of get new biomass can be very easily accomplished by Cole with just using his ice powers. So either way Cole just stomp or easily incap if that's really needed.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Yeah, after reading everything it seems like its almost impossible for Alex to win here.

 

[Asdtgh]

Gentlemen, I have returned to the grounds of this debate. But what's all this about Sasha having "sub-atomic" disease manipulation via her tar?

 

[SamanPatou]

It stems from the fact that Conduits manipulates the very matter instead of a supernatural version of it and all of them being able to resist the Sphere Ray, which deconstructs normal humans to the atomic level.

Iirc the idea is then that their powers must work even more subtly in order to affect them.
Also, the Ray Sphere causes a plague that zombifies people and which, although radiation-based, is supposed to affect the atoms just like the deconstruction effect, and the Conduits are immune to that too.

 

[Asdtgh]

It stems from the fact that Conduits manipulates the very matter instead of a supernatural version of it and all of them being able to resist the Sphere Ray, which deconstructs normal humans to the atomic level.

Iirc the idea is then that their powers must work even more subtly in order to affect them.
Also, the Ray Sphere causes a plague that zombifies people and which, although radiation-based, is supposed to affect the atoms just like the deconstruction effect, and the Conduits are immune to that too.

Ah I see. So, we're focusing on the whole John quote with him stating that he has to rebuild himself atom by atom. Even though there's the big fat fact that the Raysphere at that time seemed very special to have all that energy be sucked in as a vortex that disintegrated him, rather than dissipating like an explosion with the blast becoming less and less effective where anyone near the blast only gets vaporised and anyone at the edge of the blast is left as a charcoal corpse.

And zombifying people? Are you referring to Post Blast comic chapter 2 page 4 with the green-skinned innocents spewing black liquid out of their mouths, almost like the Reaper troops barfing tar consistently? I don't know, none of the well-known Plague symptoms, like intense pain, cough, etc. follow any form of zombification to me, like they're being mind-controlled or something.

And besides, I was still wondering where it was stated that Sasha's Tar apparently uses the Ray Field Plague as a "medium". To me, it sounds more like she is taking advantage of the victims' poorer health conditions since they had been quarantined with no rules placed upon Empire City, thus leading to a consistent state of depravity, lack of reliable medical care and whatnot. But still, best to have the evidence brought onto the table.