• 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.

AP Gap Needed to Oneshot

Status
Not open for further replies.
AP isn't the only thing that determines a stomp thread, nor does having a large AP advantage in cases of ability-based fights.

Putting a line is just arbitrary and wouldn't solve anything other than make people focus far too much on AP than it's worth. Stomp threads happen because people don't read profiles carefully; making more complicated rules doesn't change that.

And what Sera said. We have a standard already.
 
I agree with Kaltias.

That being said, what would your average one-shot gap need to be? I suggested 10x before with an example.

Also one shots in general are contingent on size, location strike and destructive capacity. Even with this guideline there will need to be some discretion used when determining it.
 
ProfessorLord said:
We're already long past that mindset Dargoo, it's been circlejerked 7 times now.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty insulting argument, tbh.

Glad to see you use the Ad Nauseum fallacy, though.
 
Dargoo, no one in this thread is saying that AP is the only factor. It's a factor. And it can turn a thread into a stomp by itself, if the right circumstances are met. Heck look at One Punch Man, it's the entire plot.

And no. We don't have standards. "It varies and each case is different" is the opposite of the definition of "standard"
 
Kaltias said:
Dargoo, no one in this thread is saying that AP is the only factor. It's a factor. And it can turn a thread into a stomp by itself, if the right circumstances are met. Heck look at One Punch Man, it's the entire plot.
And no. We don't have standards. "It varies and each case is different" is the opposite of the definition of "standard"
Click to expand...
And I'm saying adding a rule about AP gaps will create more problems than good. People who make stomp matches don't even usually look at the AP to begin with. Now we'll just have far too many people narrow-focus on the idea instead of talking about skills, abilities, intelligence, etc.

One-Shot

We have standards. They don't have to be set in stone and unflexible, something which is the very antithesis of most of fiction.
 
Exactly. Speed equalized with one character with an AP advantage considered to be a one shot. However the underdog of the fight is the much better fighter, is far more intelligent, more resourceful, and is much more efficient in the use of their abilities. Who's to say they have zero winning chance just because the strict idea of "if they get hit once...they die". It ignores all other aspects of a character. Speed equalized is tolerable...this however is not.
 
And so what? If they think that killing the opponent with a glare is more useful than X ability, that's their opinion.

"The gap needed to qualify varies from verse to verse, which makes a one-shot from a VS Battles standpoint very hard to determine. What can be certain is that if Fighter A is in a different tier than Fighter B (ex: Fighter A is Planet level and Fighter B is Moon level), then most likely, Fighter A can one-shot the opponent."

^ This is not a standard. This is "I don't know"
 
This sint even consistent within fictions though. Irl you can be slightly weaker than someone and still end a fight in few to one solid strikes to an area such as the neck, meanwhile in some fictions people can tank attacks thousands of times stronger than their own output and withstand fighting that drags on for hours of constant attacks at a time. This doesn't even take into account weapons, armor, Skill, physiology, etc. I'm not so sure a definitive standard can be used.
 
You have also to take into account weird scenarios:

Sometimes there are some characters that are pure fodder, but when in large groups, they can fight someone far stronger.
 
Not to mention the "if they are in a different tier it is likely a one shot" isn't even accurate.
 
That doesn't work as an argument Kaltias, because many can argue that a 10x difference isn't a one-shot, and it'd be their opinion.
 
Also what to make of how 90% of fights in fiction have the fighters tank far, far more blows than any real person would and remain fighting? Irl fights are over pretty fast. Someone gets an advantage and capitalizes, and it doesn't take that much damage to get to a place of absolute dominance. Most fictions don't follow this, and yet we don't say that that's Pi's.
 
Whatever number you pick would be arbitrary and have little meaning either way. There's no way you can select a multiplier that would be 'consistent across fiction' and real life would be a poor candidate in this case as it varies even more here. You're also using the absolute most extreme examples here as opposed to the many vague scenarios presented by this question.

The rules are fine as they are.
 
Compare Goku taking countless attacks comparable to him in dragon Ball or something over the course of a fight to how in Destiny, a regular primary can 3-2 shot.
 
@Sera

That's exactly why we need a standard though. So there is something to refer to.

And again, it's a "be careful when you reach that gap". Not "Thread closed on sight"
 
Real life wise, a good punch from Mike Tyson would kill your average guy on contact according to most articles.
 
Yet you can't prove said standard. It would be borderline an opinion that just "looks alright".

Even in real life humans can take attacks far above their pay grade and survive for various reasons. Look at each match case by case, adding more rules on the pile won't save anyone any trouble.
 
@Sera

The "underdog" isn't really an "underdog" if they're better at literally everything except strength. I'm not sure why many of you keep latching onto the idea that this is going to somehow make every other thing completely moot, but it isn't. just like it is doing so now, and we already have the rules set in place. Again, this is just a minor clarification.

@Dargoo

Also, don't we have moderation for people who don't read the rules at all? It's not like it matter how many rules there are for the people who aren't going to read them at all. Their lack of interest doesn't really invalidate this minor clarification.
 
And if you think a glare is better than specific abilities, then it's your job to provide a reason why and not just say "lol he stomps with a glare. The premise is the same.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
And if you think a glare is better than specific abilities, then it's your job to provide a reason why and not just say "lol he stomps with a glare. The premise is the same.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly what I would do.

I would say "he has enough AP to one shot and it's more likely to lead to his victory because [reasoning goes here]".

What the standard does is telling you "Hey, X can one shot. Keep it in mind while you analyze the battle".

Not "Stomp no matter what"
 
I also think that it seems best to keep our regulations the way that they are and not create too many restrictions that turn something that is intended to be fun into a production line.
 
Our regulations right now are "it's entirely arbitrary and up to you"

For every intent and purpose, the rules don't exist
 
Again, using the absolute extremes to make your point.

My point is that at that scale the numbers will be vague and arbitrary. We have tiers for gaps that big and stuff like + modifiers. In cases where the gap is dozens it's obvious.

But I'm not going to slap a stomp label on matches with 5x or 10x gaps. Matches are far more complicated than that. And I know you'll respond with "I'm not saying we should do this for every match", which is exactly my point, Case-by-case.
 
Kaltias said:
Our regulations right now are "it's entirely arbitrary and up to you"

For every intent and purpose, the rules don't exist
Click to expand...
They do, they just don't have numbers slapped on them for no reason.

Look at each case individually, and every aspect of it.

The rules you're proposing won't do anything but make enforcement more tedious and make reports more common.

And as Ant and Matt pointed out, you'd really just be killing the fun in those threads without reason.
 
Why would it make reports more common?

I feel you're acting like implementing this guideline is going to overrun the website. It's just clarifying something everyone with common sense knows, that x10 AP gaps are one shots.

Also please stop the whole fiction varies aruument. No 8-B can take hundreds of 8-A punches without dying. If they can, then they have hax or weren't 8-B in the first place.
 
And we have a set standard. It doesn't have to be a number.

You're describing what we do already. Adding more number crunching just complicates enforcement, regulation, and fun.

The issue you're describing is massively inflated and doesn't happen nearly as much as you think it does. Hax causes far more stomps than AP.
 
ProfessorLord said:
Why would it make reports more common?

I feel you're acting like implementing this guideline is going to overrun the website. It's just clarifying something everyone with common sense knows, that x10 AP gaps are one shots
Click to expand...
Simple logic. People will just report any 10x gap threads they see.

And what's your reasoning behind x10 being the marker? There's absolutely no evidence to your case other than what you opinionated it to be.

It won't end the website, but it will make it more dull and tedious with certainty.

This issue is one born of overcomplication and needlessness. There is no reason to change our already existing standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Inferno3054
Recent changes to Ayanokouji's profile
Replies
25
Views
1K
MorrisHatesYou
MorrisHatesYou
FinePoint
  • Locked
Organizing The Site Rules, Part 3 - Discussion & Versus Thread Rules
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Deceived3596
  • Locked
Verse-Specific Rule Removal (And Small Bleach Rule Change)
2 3
Replies
97
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
noninho
  • Article
I made a Tigger thread...and i might add that?
Replies
3
Views
905
noninho
noninho
Dark_Soul20189
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
23
Views
969
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top