• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Alright, we've got to talk about stomps again

Because said character can win but isn't smart enough to switch how they fight.

If you're incapable of trying a different strategy or simply hold yourself back or let your guard down, that is your fault.

Matches are meant to be desciphered from the respective of what would the characters do, good luck having a debate without it
 
Because a stomp is a match that they can't win, not one that they won't.
 
Deciding if a match is a stomp is often a case-by-case basis.

If it's a case of they "won't" win because the means to do so are severely OOC, then I'd think that's a stomp against them when they AREN'T bloodlusted. I assume that generally, in such a case, it would only not be a stomp if they are bloodlusted.

Quoting https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Bloodlust :

"A bloodlusted character will not be victim to Character Induced Stupidity, and will be much more likely to speed blitz opponents (if doing so is within their powerset)."

In theory, there may be cases where a character won't or can't win even with bloodlust, given the limitations of how it affects characters. But that's theoretical. Also, case by case.

Regardless, the point is, VSBW does HAVE some accomodation for characters to act very OOC for Versus Matches. With that in mind, matches participants WON'T win at all, because of their regular behavior when acting IC/not bloodlusted seem like they could be treated as stomps, IMHO, supposing being OOC/bloodlusted would allow them a reasonable chance to win.

And matches where it's not that they won't win, but CAN'T win, even being OOC/bloodlusted would also be stomps.

(In theory, there's also knowledge/preptime based stomps, where a character can't win because of something they don't know or can't/won't know.)
 
To me, the definition of a stomp is a battle in which the character has no hope of winning or their only chance is so remote, so insignificant, that it can basically be written off as "Yeah, that's not even worth considering."

When looking at threads, we must carefully evaluate what we're looking at. VS Threads are really asking a question: "Who would win? Character A or B?"

Now, if variables in the thread make the question go from that to: "How long does Character A last agasint B?" We really have to ask if that's a stomp or not. We have to evaluate case by case, as others have said.

I'm also going to say this, if character has ways to win but won't use them due to CIS, I don't consider that a stomp unless it's clear that the match has been made soley to exploit that with conditions favoring a particular character.
 
Schnee One said:
No a "Stomp" match is when the opponent wins with extreme ease, hence why stomping another character is considered being exponentially stronger then the other
If a character needs to so much as backhand the other to win and there's no Hax involved, stomp

If a character needs to try their absolute hardest to beat the other, often times regen being the only reason they don't lose to an opponent that's superior to them, then it's not a stomp

But of course I'm the only one who thinks this, so whatever I guess.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, actually. While case by case is needed, if A can't go past B's regen, I don't think the win should automatically go to B. It could very well be Inconclusive
 
I honestly think that at a certain point, whether a match is a stomp or not becomes subjective.
 
@Golden That's not the issue though. We only grant a win to the regen character if they can put down the other. That's something that's been done for a long time now.
 
In fact, now that I think about it, for this topic we should do something similar to what we did for the One-Shot issue: rather than make a definitive rule, we should simply establish some standards.
 
There is no one, fool proof method for declaring a stomp. Like so many other things, it has to looked at and discussed, and we may even make mistakes in deciding such things.

Things like Regenerationn help in a fight but won't stop everything. Just because you can regen doesn't always mean you can't be knocked out, drowned, trapped or otherwise incapicitated.
 
DMB 1 said:
I honestly think that at a certain point, whether a match is a stomp or not becomes subjective.
Click to expand...
Everything on this entire website is subjective

I mean, unless you want to tell me you can objectively prove that Captain America can punch over a skyscraper
 
A stomp to me is if character A badly destroys character B with no effort and B had no way of defending themselves against A's hax/speed/strength advantage.

This is classified as a STOMP

Note: Just because a character still has a way to win doesn't mean it isn't a stomp match.

However if Character A beats character B because B had no way of getting passed A's Regenerationn/Intangibility/Immortality/Non-Corporeal powers it isn't a stomp because he isn't easily destroying him. It's a Mismatch because B can't harm or get past A's abilities.

This is classified as a MISMATCH

Note: No win should be instantly given to character A just because character B can't beat him tho. As character A still has to prove he can beat A.

These are just my thoughts on this thread.
 
Honestly, regardless we will have pros and cons.

On one hand: People can literally make fights geared toward making a character win while putting the opponent at a blatant disadvantage and instead use the term "decisive" in order to bypass the stomps.

On another hand: People will try to find the most BS of loopholes to call a stomp in order for their favorite character to not get losses on their files.

The term decisive is a term I have issues with as to be blunt, people use this term to excuse very horrible matches. But that's beside the point.

We should treat this like how we treat OP's and voting. It's an unwritten rule that people follow. But I still vehemently agree with Saikou on his stance towards regen.
 
So, a Versus Thread can also be ended on the grounds of not only being a "stomp" or a "decisive victory", but a "mismatch", too?

Of those 3 terms, only "Stomp" has a page defining it. Should we make pages to give more info on what a mismatch or decisive victory are? (I assume we'll probably update the Stomp page itself, too, at the end of this revision.)

Admittedly, making pages defining those terms could lead to users trying to abuse the definitions for matchup results, but IMHO, it sounds like people already try to use those terms to skew matchup results. If they get abused while without definition, would defining them really worsen the issue?

Also, wouldn't what DMB 1 said be worth considering? Rather than making a definitive rule, establish some standards?
 
Did I not give the implication I was proposing a standard rather then a rule?

If I didn't

Well now you know
 
My apologies. Wasn't trying to suggest that you weren't. Just bringing up something I felt may've been good, but, negilgent fool that I am, I missed your posts. Sorry.
 
DMUA said:
Did I not give the implication I was proposing a standard rather then a rule?
Click to expand...
You can't really set a standard on something subjective.

It will also cause the circlejerk of people calling matches "stomps" behind the pretense of "following standards".
 
I feel like this should be asked

What do we do about matches where the opponent loses before they can act?

Example: Luke Skywalker mindhaxes his opponents with a thought before they can act against them.

A lot of times this can be from the opponent not being bloodlusted and thus their leading move won't win over certain others

Other times the opponent can't do anything before losing at the start with a thought

This isn't just thought based matches either. But general matches where the opponent gets destroyed before they can act or before their abilities can be useful
 
Honestly not sure, on one hand it can be considered like a western duel where the opponent not getting the chance to attack doesn't make the victory unfair.

On the other hand if you have absolutely no chance of getting your ability up before the opponent then it kinda does fit the definition of a stomp. "Being defeated effortlessly without having any chance to respond".
 
The issue with your western duel analogy is that its a show of skill to pull you're gun faster

In hax matches though, most of the time its as if the opponent already has their weapon drawn.
 
I am not sure if it's "most of the time" not all hax is done via a simple thought.
 
Assuming both combatants can end the fight equally as easily were their attacks to connect, I don't think one combatant being able to use their attack faster makes it a stomp.
 
Agreed

But what about the cases where they can't? IE a handwave over touching the ground and summoning
 
I agree with Saikou on the regen thing, as well as with C2 on his reasoning. I typically view a stomp as one character having no win condition.

To address the regen more in depth, let's take Ryuko's High-Mid regen. If a character doesn't have a way to bypass her regen, then it's a stomp as they have no win condition. They would literally be fighting a battle they cannot win (no matter how long it takes), which is a textbook definition of a stomp.
 
RebubleUselet said:
You can't really set a standard on something subjective.
Click to expand...
That is not true. For example, what we currently have for the definition of stomp can be technically called a standard albeit not a rigorous nor clear one.

As for saying that a stomp is when a character can't beat its opponent or have no winnig condition; I think this definition needs more specification. Because technically there is a way for a character who can't bypass High-Mid regen to win against one who has: the character with High-Mid regen decides to not use this ability... Likewise a character that supposedly "AP stomps" can lose in an (absurd) scenario where he misses all his attacks.

What I am trying to say is 'having no winning condition' is not sufficient, some standards for how much PIS or OOC moves are allowed when looking at the 'winning conditions' is necessary too.
 
@Golfgan

Except that crafting such standards leads to problem of creating proverbial goal posts that people will try to meet and even manipulate just to get the result that they want for a particular thread. That's leads to the same kind of issues we had back with the 'Character gets 7 unopposed voteds, they win' rule.

In addition, the things you bring up are the kind of variables that most people talk about in their arguments or weigh in on the logic behind their arguments. I don't see the point of bringing up absurd scenarios when the entire point of a VS thread is trying to find the most likely scenario based what is known about the characters.

I don't see why a standard has to be put in place to accomdate those things when simple logical debating already can do that. Furthermore, the definition is left vauge because we literally have thousands upon thousands of characters with different powers, weaknesses, styles of combat, intelligence level ,etc that we have to evaluate and make judgement calls on when they clash.
 
TheC2 said:
In addition, the things you bring up are the kind of variables that most people talk about in their arguments or weigh in on the logic behind their arguments. I don't see the point of bringing up absurd scenarios when the entire point of a VS thread is trying to find the most likely scenario based what is known about the characters.
Click to expand...
But are the scenarios I imagined really that much more absurd than the examples the OP gave (Superman vs Godzilla)? or cases others have argued about? Example: on comments above, some are discussing the case of characters who can instant mindhax and in-character always try to. While I agree that not using a regen ability is slightly more absurd than not using an unavoidable mindhax, in both cases the only 'winning condition' the opponent has relies on the character not using an ability he normally uses (regen in the first case and mindhax in the second). As for my second example (someone missing successive attacks) is it this absurd?

On the whole "having standards/guidelines" vs "using solely common sense/logic": I think you get the situation wrong because, right now, we do use standards, it's just that they don't match the ones written on the "Stomp thread" article (which says a stomp only happens if victory is immediate). The facts the current sets of standard are not explicitly written on an article in the wiki doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, it is quite obvious everything on this wiki is based on sets of standards for many things like feat calc etc. (instead of true case by case logic + common sense reasonnings): https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/VS_Battles_Wiki#Help_Sectio
 
In general my rule of thumb to determine a stomp is asking myself if the situation is "how long can this character last before they lose" instead of "how can this character win this match".

About the OOC stuff, it depends. Superman losing because he wouldn't willingly planet bust isn't the same as Yang losing because she isn't willing to use her range.
 
@Golfgan

The scenarios you provided simply talk about a character deciding not to do something in a vacuum vs. the OP's two examples of a character's wincon being something completely OOC outside of being in a bloodlusted state. Your examples do not posses the same kind of context as the OP's, at least none that I could see.

Also, regen for most characters are something that happens automatically as a bodily process and have no control over it. Hence, they don't get to decide when they heal, they just do unless prevented from doing so. As for the mindhax, you're contradicting the example given. You're speaking of characters doing things OOC but the character in question (Luke Skywalker) does use his mindhax in character. Schnee was asking how to we treat such a character, so I don't understand what you were going for with that one, TBH. Maybe, I've got a misconception there.

As for characters missing sucessive attacks, it's absurd if there's no reason for it to happen. Yes, one cannot expect character to be absolutely perfect, but at the same time, a character missing the majority of their attacks isn't a viable argument unless there's a reason. Their opponent is faster, has better mobility, has precog, their attacks are linear and predictable, the opponent is that much more skilled etc. There has to be a basis for something like that, you can't just pull it out of thin air.

Finally, I'm saying that having too many rules, trying to accomadate too many things will just lead us to more problems. I'm not disregarding the use of standards on the site and you seemed to skip the first part of my post where I said this:

"Except that crafting such standards leads to problem of creating proverbial goal posts that people will try to meet and even manipulate just to get the result that they want for a particular thread. That's leads to the same kind of issues we had back with the 'Character gets 7 unopposed voteds, they win' rule."

I'm talking about the consequences of creating rules or prodcedures that will ultimately limit debating potential and possibly doesn't account for the sheer level ambiguity that occurs when you have two characters from widely different fictions clash.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
If the only way a character can possibly win is by doing something severely out of character how is that not a stomp? Matches are supposed to be analyzed from the standpoint of what two characters would do if they're pitted against each other in-character, not an analysis of every single improbable scenario that could possibly happen between two characters.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I am thinking. Finding the one minuscule situation where Yang just happens to stand 200 feet away and range spam for no damn reason is a terrible reason for it not being a stomp.
 
Or just take away anything because otherwise it will be constantly exploited, as Dragon pointed out.
 
It will be exploited no matter what we do.

Putting more rules would just make it get exploited more often, as belive me when I say there are many people who would go at length to pull technicalities so their favorite character doesn't get a loss.

Let discussion mods and staff make calls when necessary, that's what half of our job is.
 
Making rules to prevent the exploitation of rules sounds pretty counterproductive.

Like I said, we have discussion mods for this. I will tell you that you'll put a crazy amount of stress on discussion mods for each and every person who go to hell and back to justify something being a stomp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Walker21232123
Sonic but with a shovel vs an Always Losing Gacha Character (Sonic (We Need to Talk about Tails) vs Marsh (Stomp...?))
Replies
2
Views
415
SSB64
SSB64
EastofEden07
Some questions about Final Wars Godzilla
Replies
8
Views
1K
Nero1215
Nero1215
SSB64
The Only Tier 0 is the Author
Replies
2
Views
1K
Lordhesperus
Lordhesperus
Peter1129
Accelerating up to infinity
Replies
15
Views
1K
Peter1129
Peter1129
Concerns about the new Tier 0
Replies
3
Views
2K
TheUltimateGod4
Back
Top