Alright, we've got to talk about stomps again

[WeeklyBattles]

How so? How is defining what is and isnt a stomp and then refining that over time counterproductive?

 

[Wokistan]

Let discussion mods and staff make calls when necessary, that's what half of our job is.

I see we're validating Bambu here

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We already define what is and isn't a stomp, and it's worked fine as it is, as it gives staff much more leeway to make calls on the spot depending on circumstances.

That, and while this is subjective, making matchups even harder to do due to whatever arbitrary rules we decide on just kills the fun of the threads, to be honest.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Dargoo No actually we dont as each person on this wiki has a different opinion of what is and isnt a stomp, hence why this issue arose in the first place

Then make the matches harder to make. We're an indexing wiki first.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Using the "we're an indexing wiki" argument is useless on a thread that doesn't even affect our indexing, unless you want to open up a can of worms about VS Threads on pages in general.

"A Stomp thread is when one character is immediately able to win against another, whether it is via battlefield removal, incapacitation or killing, with the opponent having no chance to retort with their own abilities or statistics."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think we're just overthinking it, which is honestly more of a problem.

Adding more rules would just make the scope of "Stomp Threads" even more broad and make enforcing rules a mess.

 

[DMUA]

At the very least, the "Immediate" part should be removed considering that you don't need to instawin to completely shut down everything someone can do.

But the latter part... yeah, honestly, we should refrain from adding that and just keep it unspoken like with passive stomps.

 

[Kaltias]

Tbh it should be changed a bit imo. It should be more "when a character lacks a win condition".

It honestly doesn't matter if It takes a second or a week, if you can't win, it's a stomp no matter how long it takes

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm fine with altering the definition, I'm mostly against expanding it.

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

I would go as far to say that the definition should be more like:

"A match is considered a stomp if one character can immediately win with little to no effort or if character lacks a reliable method to achieve victory."

Or something along those lines.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I second what Dargoo said a million times. Making rules for everything is not a way out.

 

[Schnee_One]

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

^Felt I should ask since I didn't get an answer

 

[Rune_Katashima]

I think the current rule is fine so long as we add one thing. We don't need to remove the "immediate" part, as it's still definitely true. Just not only. Only thing that we should add is if a character has no win condition. None at all. Whether they're in-character or not.

 

[Kaltias]

@Gar

Case 2 is a stomp.

Case 1 isn't

 

[Agnaa]

I haven't read the thread, but I've been told the seemingly accepted changes by Risci in this thread. And I've got some questions about stomps now.

Are all of Izuko Gae's fights stomps? She wins them via a sword that one-shots supernatural beings, before the opponent can whittle her down.

Are all of Shinobu Oshino's fights stomps? She wins via the same sword but she also has a loss against Kenshiro via Muso Tensei making him untouchable.

Is SCP-2747 vs Monarch of Pointland a stomp? They both sit around for 10 years unable to affect each other (2747's fiction to MoP, MoP can't edit 2747's fiction by being 0-D) until 2747 spontaneously ascends dimensions and nukes MoP.

Is Kumagawa's wi against Medaka a stomp? Kumagawa kills at a thought, and Medaka doesn't have her OP passives on or go for a kill since she's in character.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Can Izuku be killed by the enemies with them just dodging or such? If yes, it isn't a stomp.

See above for Shinoubu (Though, aku isn't due to the enemy clone crewation and all that)

2747 definitly is

Not getting into medaka.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes but it's speed equal or Izuko's faster so they shouldn't just be able to constantly dodge.

Same for Shinobu, why isn't Aku? It takes time for him to clone create, by which time he'd be slashed, Shinobu would 100% win.

Why aren't you getting into Medaka? Would you get into other Kumagawa fights where Kumagawa wins by blitzing with infinite speed?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

That depends on the enemy really, someone skilled enough can defeat someone without being hit baly a blade.

Because he can drop her into the future, and by the time she's back there could be a clone. And it's not like he can't just back off till the clone is made.

Because I don't know what they would do in-character enough.

 

[Andytrenom]

I think the conclusions so far are, "Being unable to end a match instantly won't disqualify a match from being a stomp" and "Win con being highly OOC won't make a match a stomp".

I think it was generally agreed that the rules shouldn't change too much and the staff should be allowed to decide stomps based on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Schnee_One]

Why aren't you getting into Medaka? Would you get into other Kumagawa fights where Kumagawa wins by blitzing with infinite speed?

Most Misogi fights are like this honestly

 

[Imaginym]

"Win con being highly OOC won't make a match a stomp".

Which side's win con? Losing side's win con (As they might not win without going OOC), or the winning side, who's using an OOC, & thus, very unlikely strategy?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If your reasoning for winning is OOC it'sss not proper reasoning.

Unless we have a situation where they are forced to use the OOC thing, and are in a situation where they likely would (Like an endless stalemate eventuall ygetting alucard to just TK).

What he meant was the losers win con being ooc tough.

 

[DMUA]

I think this was basically concluded, but just in case, bump