Changing the Standard Battle Assumptions

[SamanPatou]

This has been bothering me and other people for awhile, but it's rather simple and hopefully not controversial.

Standard Battle Assumptions

Characters shouldn't be considered willing to kill by default, as this very notion is a contradiction:
State of mind: In character, but willing to kill. The characters will employ their usual battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to kill the opponent even if they usually won't.

The way a character behaves in battle, especially when facing certain opponents instead of others is extremely important to properly evaluate a match up and is part of their personality and charme. Some characters may not even be used or able to employ their abilities to kill, others don't have experience in death matches etc...
I.e. forcing everyone to being willing to kill not only creates troubles in the analysis, but often causes them to act ooc despite the SBA allegedly aim to preserve their actual strategy and personality.

That said, being willing to kill should be an optional assumption, just like Bloodlust, and not the default one.


Bonus: Same goes for the characters being willing to give up or not, this is also a factor that is heavily influenced by one's personality, willpower and tenacity, on top of being a perfectly valid victory condition even in real life.

 

[Armorchompy]

I strongly agree, in a simulation of a fight we definitely shouldn't be applying random personality changes and considering them the "default" mindset for a battle.

 

[Antvasima]

To me this seems uncontroversial to apply as well.

Do either of you know which staff members that are interested in versus threads, and as such should be called here?

 

[SamanPatou]

@The_Impress @Starter_Pack @Amelia_Lonelyheart @UchihaSlayer96 @Tllmbrg @First_Witch @TheRustyOne

 

[First_Witch]

Do either of you know which staff members that are interested in versus threads, and as such should be called here?

@First_Witch

The way i currently see it, its a argument between authenticity vs convenience. Yes, the more authentic the battle the better, but people will probably default the killmindset in most of the matches either way, like they do with Speed equal. It is really just more convenient to not have to mind the morals of a character when you just want to see characters beating the shit out of each other. I'm fine with making this optional, so long we don't outlaw it entirely.

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean it's still allowed judging by Saman's post, just not the default.

 

[SamanPatou]

Former staff + I trust your opinion

I'm fine with making this optional, so long we don't outlaw it entirely.

Yes, it would become optional, just like we do for Bloodlust.
Often people already analyze matches in this way, since it's both easier, more enjoyable and better when it comes to represent the character.

 

[Peppersalt43]

The one gripe I have with this one change is the older matches that involve characters who are mostly pacifists or ones who prefer to try and talk down differences because it messes up their starting move, thus making the match completely different.

I'm not talking about newer matches, I'm talking about older ones made before this change

 

[Armorchompy]

I think that makes sense, maybe the current "SBA" system should be renamed "Old SBA", with the new one being New SBA, and noting that most profiles will refer to old SBA as just SBA, by virtue of the fact that it used to be the default?

 

[Tllmbrg]

You will never escape this hell

 

[SamanPatou]

I think that makes sense, maybe the current "SBA" system should be renamed "Old SBA", with the new one being New SBA, and noting that most profiles will refer to old SBA as just SBA, by virtue of the fact that it used to be the default?

Seems a little convoluted to me, maybe we can put it as a note?

The one gripe I have with this one change is the older matches that involve characters who are mostly pacifists or ones who prefer to try and talk down differences because it messes up their starting move, thus making the match completely different.

Either one of the previous options, or we just let them be removed if people notice this makes the match completely different, which I'm sure isn't the case for most matches, as some still are analyzed without the "willing to kill" idea in mind, and many include character who would be willingly to commit murder.

Also, if anyone's wondering, I gave Peppersalt permission to comment here.

 

[Armorchompy]

Seems a little convoluted to me, maybe we can put it as a note?

sure

 

[First_Witch]

You will never escape this hell

Truly my personal purgatory

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I fully agree with this.

It never made any sense to me to have Victory by Death be the most default win condition.
It completely betrays the integrity characters such as Batman, who would never kill under any circumstances.
I also think that Surrender becoming a viable win condition is a fantastic idea. It's definitely viable irl, and I believe many fictional characters would be willing to go that route.

 

[Confluctor]

Agreed with its removal

 

[DontTalkDT]

The problem with this idea is that it opens the question to: What is the character even fighting for?
Most characters can be pushed to kill if just given enough of an incentive to do so.
Similarly, giving up is impossible to evaluate, because you would first need to say what stops them from giving up immediately due to just having no interest into fighting some random dude they don't know.

So yeah, I disagree with the removal as it prevents matches from happening. If we make a match the characters have to be serious enough to try to win if they are able to. So, while they shouldn't immediately go for killing if that's not their style, if they otherwise can't win they should still do that. And they shouldn't be able to just give up, as the fight is supposed to be important enough for them to try their best.

 

[Abstractions]

What is the character even fighting for?

This doesn't start and stop at "willing to kill" in actuality, as the thought process exists but doesn't currently intrinsically interfere with the morals of the character; they are willing to kill if it comes to it just that they wouldn't the majority of the time and instead go the non-lethal route.

Similarly, giving up is impossible to evaluate, because you would first need to say what stops them from giving up immediately due to just having no interest into fighting some random dude they don't know.

Fighting doesn't have to involve killing to have both parties be interested in it, not everyone is bloodthirsty.

So, while they shouldn't immediately go for killing if that's not their style, if they otherwise can't win they should still do that.

Incapacitation of the opponent is always an option without killing.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This doesn't start and stop at "willing to kill" in actuality, as the thought process exists but doesn't currently intrinsically interfere with the morals of the character; they are willing to kill if it comes to it just that they wouldn't the majority of the time and instead go the non-lethal route.

Just to be clear: The rules says "willing to kill" not "eager to kill" or "doesn't care about whether or not they kill". Just "willing to kill". It doesn't mean that the character becomes a murder hobo that immediately goes for the killing blow, it just means that it is something they are willing to do if it becomes clear that their usual methods don't allow them to win. It is just the way to say that the character won't accept a loss if they could win by changing their tactics.

Fighting doesn't have to involve killing to have both parties be interested in it, not everyone is bloodthirsty.

Anything of lesser extent will just have many characters give up immediately. Enter Saiki Kusuo in a fighting tournament and he will immediately surrender because he thinks it's a stupid waste of time. Not every character is Goku and likes to fight. Many don't.

Point is: You need a "no surrender"-rule or many matches won't be happening. And that is against the spirit of the SBA. You can always change the assumptions when making the thread, but the SBA is supposed to be chosen such that virtually any match between two character can happen within SBA.

Incapacitation of the opponent is always an option without killing.

Except it isn't. You are thinking of boxing matches between humans. Sadly many many many characters in fiction can't realistically be incapacitated. Like, virtually everyone of comparable tier and some minor regeneration won't be incapacitated unless you have special means.

So yeah. A character shouldn't accept to lose when they realize they can't win with their current tactics. They should be in a mindset that allows them to change their tactics if it were to allow them to win, as if the battle had actually important stakes that make them want to win so bad that they can't accept defeat.

 

[SamanPatou]

We can make them willing to fight and to win, but not necessarily to kill.

I can concede of willing to give up if absolutely cornered, but keeping the "willing to kill" means that either way they can go ooc and even pretty fast in certain fights.
And let alone that some characters like Batman and Optimus Prime are absolutely against killing, and to others would do it only against specific opponents and such.

If cornered some characters might even rely on a kill on their own, who knows, but the point of SBA should be to limit alterations to the characters involved.

I think willing to fight and win, and maybe to not give up would be just fine to allow 99.9% if not every match to be made without troubles.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

I agree with SamanPatou FRA.

 

[Jibz]

We can make them willing to fight and to win, but not necessarily to kill.

What would you classify as "win" because to me it just sounds like a rephrased version of incap which is already nigh impossible to pull off in non stomp matches (without special means)

 

[Abstractions]

Just to be clear: The rules says "willing to kill" not "eager to kill" or "doesn't care about whether or not they kill". Just "willing to kill". It doesn't mean that the character becomes a murder hobo that immediately goes for the killing blow, it just means that it is something they are willing to do if it becomes clear that their usual methods don't allow them to win.

There's no need to reiterate what it is, I think we are all fully aware.

It is just the way to say that the character won't accept a loss if they could win by changing their tactics.

The reverse can also be true though, but a fight must occur for this to occur so your premise that this would make fights not happen at all is wrong.

Anything of lesser extent will just have many characters give up immediately. Enter Saiki Kusuo in a fighting tournament and he will immediately surrender because he thinks it's a stupid waste of time.

I'm not sure you're actually addressing what I said there because you're still operating within the mindset that there's only something to gain from killing, which is still incorrect.

Except it isn't. You are thinking of boxing matches between humans.

Pretty much every Spider-Man match where someone can't compete with webbing?

Like, virtually everyone of comparable tier

Lifting Strength gaps, environment leading to incapacitation (something being purposefully put onto a target to prevent them from moving), BFR, Sleep Manipulation, Mind Manipulation, etc.

some minor regeneration

Mid regeneration is not minor regeneration.

A character shouldn't accept to lose when they realize they can't win with their current tactics. They should be in a mindset that allows them to change their tactics if it were to allow them to win, as if the battle had actually important stakes that make them want to win so bad that they can't accept defeat.

Nothing in not defaulting to "willing to kill" means not being able to change tactics or not wanting to accept defeat, you're also still acknowledging the fact that fights can occur under this new SBA, you're just hyper-fixated on the murder aspect.

 

[SamanPatou]

Why would it be impossible?
An incap can be a simple KO, let alone quite a lot of other things.

If a character in unKOable the opponent must then find a way to incap them in other ways, and maybe kill them if they would do it in character, otherwise they either lose or else, that's how fights go and powers work, mismatches and stalemates exist even without forcing someone to kill the other.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I'm alright with changing willing to kill, to something like willing to win.

However this wiki has a pretty weird rule when it comes to winning via alternate means. Why does a character have to be knocked out for an hour to count as a win?

What is the logic behind that rule?

 

[DontTalkDT]

We can make them willing to fight and to win, but not necessarily to kill.

I can concede of willing to give up if absolutely cornered, but keeping the "willing to kill" means that either way they can go ooc and even pretty fast in certain fights.
And let alone that some characters like Batman and Optimus Prime are absolutely against killing, and to others would do it only against specific opponents and such.

If cornered some characters might even rely on a kill on their own, who knows, but the point of SBA should be to limit alterations to the characters involved.

I think willing to fight and win, and maybe to not give up would be just fine to allow 99.9% if not every match to be made without troubles.

I'm pretty sure there are stories were Batman is driven to kill actually.
Not allowing the characters to kill if they can't win otherwise means they have to accept defeat at a certain point even if they could win.
Characters that aren't willing to kill in stories often have options other than to win the straight combat and hence avoid it. They don't have those options in our matches. Meanwhile, the amount of characters who would rather die and have anyone they ever knew die with them or life in eternal torment than kill is very small.
At which point does a character that only kills under extreme circumstances (or isn't shown to ever kill) kill in SBA? How important is the match? What are the consequences of losing? If you want to abandon the spirit that a character will do whatever they can if the alternative is losing for sure, then you will need to answer those questions in a fashion that is satisfactory for almost all characters on the wiki.

The most I would agree to is a reformulation like this, that emphasizes that characters won't immediately kill people if they usually do other things first.

The characters will employ their usual in-character battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to change their tactics beyond their regular scope if they recognize that the only realistic alternative is losing. That means, for example, that characters regularly unwilling to kill will attempt to take their opponent out without killing as usual, but should it become evident that they will eventually lose for sure should they not kill they will employ that strategy.
Furthermore characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm alright with changing willing to kill, to something like willing to win.

However this wiki has a pretty weird rule when it comes to winning via alternate means. Why does a character have to be knocked out for an hour to count as a win?

What is the logic behind that rule?

We are making lethal battles, not sport tournaments. If you knock someone out for 10 seconds and he comes back, you have gained nothing. Imagine a villain tries to wipe out your planet and you only manage to keep him down for 10 seconds.
To have a "final" win against a character, the character must be incapacitated for a reasonably long time. Otherwise you have just bought a little time. 1 hour is already relatively low, but you can imagine that you could knock down a character again and again if you can knock him out for one hour each time.

Why would it be impossible?
An incap can be a simple KO, let alone quite a lot of other things.

If a character in unKOable the opponent must then find a way to incap them in other ways, and maybe kill them if they would do it in character, otherwise they either lose or else, that's how fights go and powers work, mismatches and stalemates exist even without forcing someone to kill the other.

Because plenty of character can't be simply K.Oed. As said, basically everyone with a little regeneration will immediately recover from it.

What you are describing is the character giving up once they run out of their usual option, without trying to go out of their comfort zone. I.e. you are setting up a scenario in which the character can afford to lose.

 

[TheRustyOne]

We are making lethal battles, not sport tournaments. If you knock someone out for 10 seconds and he comes back, you have gained nothing. Imagine a villain tries to wipe out your planet and you only manage to keep him down for 10 seconds.
To have a "final" win against a character, the character must be incapacitated for a reasonably long time. Otherwise you have just bought a little time. 1 hour is already relatively low, but you can imagine that you could knock down a character again and again if you can knock him out for one hour each time.

Why are we doing that though?

What is the point of making them lethal battles, can you explain that to me? Because DT, this is all fun and games right? Any reason we restrict ourselves like this and not just change it? 10 second knockout can be a win, and if OP disagrees he can just make it something different.

Actually what is the issue here in the first place, OP can always change the victory conditions right?

 

[SamanPatou]

Before I address anything else, I want to make it clear that making the characters willing to kill would still be available as an option, just not the default one.

If we want to make matches more balanced we can already alter or limit locations, equipment, powers (possibly and likely), transformation and such, personality (bloodlust) etc...
Being willing to kill would just become one of these optional adjustments, I've never talked about forbidding it entirely.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Why are we doing that though?

What is the point of making them lethal battles, can you explain that to me? Because DT, this is all fun and games right? Any reason we restrict ourselves like this and not just change it? 10 second knockout can be a win, and if OP disagrees he can just make it something different.

What is the issue here in the first place., OP can always change the victory conditions right?

Because we do all out everything is allowed battles. By default we don't restrict characters to rules of fair play and honor. These are dirty matches in which characters are allowed to win by any way they can, which includes not stopping to fight after a brief knockout.

Yeah, OP can always change the victory conditions, that's right. So if you want to make a sports tournament, you can. It just shouldn't be the default.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Because we do all out everything is allowed battles. By default we don't restrict characters to rules of fair play and honor. These are dirty matches in which characters are allowed to win by any way they can, which includes not stopping to fight after a brief knockout.

But why?

You didn't explain anything you just repeated the same thing. I know what you said before. I'd like know why we treat it like that in the first place, can someone tell me?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Before I address anything else, I want to make it clear that making the characters willing to kill would still be available as an option, just not the default one.

If we want to make matches more balanced we can already alter or limit locations, equipment, powers (possibly and likely), transformation and such, personality (bloodlust) etc...
Being willing to kill would just become one of these optional adjustments, I've never talked about forbidding it entirely.

Sure, but as said, it's unsuited to be the default assumption because it makes things vague and questionable since it isn't clear what the stakes for the characters are. The default assumptions have to be clear and, if possible, equal.

Making matches where the character may quit should be the optional adjustment, as doing so you will have to clarify how important the match is for the characters and that has to be adjusted depending on the characters in question.

 

[DontTalkDT]

But why?

You didn't explain anything you just repeated the same thing. I know what you said before. I'd like know why we treat it like that in the first place, can someone tell me?

Because all characters are allowed to use their capabilities to the full extent and that includes using capabilities like regeneration that allow you to recover very quickly.
A match with a 10 second knock out time is a match in which regeneration is nerfed to an unreasonable extent. The exact boundaries are of course subjective and were set according to community agreement long ago.

Why would you want to change the default for one where the advantages some abilities have are more restricted?

 

[TheRustyOne]

So the issue is that other methods are vague and questionable, while the current one is clear and equal?

Is that what I'm getting from this? Because the old suggestion is still pretty questionable, this just seems like a matter of opinions at this point.

I still disagree with having killing as the default. But as I said, seems like a matter of opinion and it doesn't change much of anything for battles whatsoever.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So the issue is that other methods are vague and questionable, while the current one is clear and equal?

Is that what I'm getting from this? Because the old suggestion is still pretty questionable, this just seems like a matter of opinions at this point.

I still disagree with having killing as the default. But as I said, seems like a matter of opinion and it doesn't change much of anything for battles whatsoever.

The suggestion really isn't questionable, as in vague. Where is the vagueness in it?
The problem in the new suggestion is that it isn't clear how far the characters are willing to go as the stakes are unknown. In the old one that is very clear: As far as is necessary to win.

 

[SamanPatou]

The default wincon should be whatever the characters would be willing to do in such situation.
Take for example Ryu from Street Fighter, in a normal bout he aims to beat the opponent to surrender/submission, but he is willing to push himself to KO or physical incapacitation in certain difficult battles or when facing characters who aim to severely harm him, and in certain occasions, such as facing extremely evil characters he can straight up go for the kill (see M. Bison).

The default assumption should be that the characters are willing to put up a fight and win, then they behave as they would naturally do in that situation, for example most of the times Superman doesn't kill even when pushed to the limit and tries to find a way to circumvent such need.
In this way we can analyze the characters thoroughly, altering them only if we specifically want to do so.

And our battles are already No Holds Barred matches, we are not going to disqualify character who use dirty tactics or anything else, I don't know why this argument was brought up.

 

[Elizhaa]

The characters will employ their usual in-character battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to change their tactics beyond their regular scope if they recognize that the only realistic alternative is losing. That means, for example, that characters regularly unwilling to kill will attempt to take their opponent out without killing as usual, but should it become evident that they will eventually lose for sure should they not kill they will employ that strategy.
Furthermore characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.

I would be fine with this update.

 

[Armorchompy]

Anything of lesser extent will just have many characters give up immediately. Enter Saiki Kusuo in a fighting tournament and he will immediately surrender because he thinks it's a stupid waste of time. Not every character is Goku and likes to fight. Many don't.

Yeah so write a setup that makes it so they won't do that, or just say they're serious about fighting, you don't need to completely brainwash them to make a fight doable.

Point is: You need a "no surrender"-rule or many matches won't be happening. And that is against the spirit of the SBA. You can always change the assumptions when making the thread, but the SBA is supposed to be chosen such that virtually any match between two character can happen within SBA.

"Standard assumption for a battle is change a character to our liking because otherwise they won't fight"? A battle can be one-sided. If a character doesn't want to fight back and the other attacks until they kill their foe, that's still a battle.

Except it isn't. You are thinking of boxing matches between humans. Sadly many many many characters in fiction can't realistically be incapacitated. Like, virtually everyone of comparable tier and some minor regeneration won't be incapacitated unless you have special means.

Cool, an ability that a character has and should be highlighted in a fight. If Batman is up against someone he cannot incap in any way, he is forced into a loss because his moral code won't allow him to kill.

So yeah. A character shouldn't accept to lose when they realize they can't win with their current tactics.

Your subjective opinion.

 

[Armorchompy]

In the old one that is very clear: As far as is necessary to win.

Also I strongly disagree with this. If you make a character "in-character, but willing to kill", you are literally making up a new character oftentimes.

Using Batman as an example, you're not creating a scenario where his actions can be easily analyzed, you're creating a complete paradox of a scenario where one is taking a character whose entire identity is based around being pragmatic but never to the point of killing, and attempting to completely maintain that personality yet at the same time removing the thing holding it all together. This isn't Batman, it's an OC that resembles Batman in most points, but is also a mindless terminator and a complete hypocrite. When does "willing to kill" happen for this Batman? Is it a matter of convenience? Is it a complete last resort? And how does he do it? Is he incredibly efficient and brutal in killing opponents, or is he respectful and only goes for "honorable" kills? You can't know that, it's literally impossible to know because this isn't an existing character you're debating, but an altered version of him.

 

[Armorchompy]

Bottom line is, the old SBA still exists. If you want to make a character willing to fight where they normally would not be, you can do that, you never even needed SBA for it in the first place. If you don't want to deal with the uncertainty of a character's personality, make them willing to kill, or go all the way and get your mindless automaton with bloodlust.

As for "how far will a character go", any VS thread can decide that. It can be a friendly sparring match, it can be one character approaching the other, uninterested character with an intention to throw hands, it can be a serious fight with the world at stake or just a fight to the death, it's something we already allow so if you disagree with it you'll basically have to go through every profile's "Others" section and removing those that use that kind of specification, can't have double standards going on.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Armorchompy has relayed my thoughts on this better than I could.