Characters without character. How do we treat them on this site.

[Keeweed]

Probably a weird title, but it’s surprisingly an important topic. Pretty much on this site there are a ton of characters that lack personalities or, well, character. They have no known move set or starting move. Constantly I’ve heard that we have these characters just do completely random stuff and that if the opponent wins against majority of the characters’ options then they win the fight. However I’ve also been told we don’t do that and we should assume these types of characters open with their best.

So I’m making this thread so we can come to a decision on what should be done with these characters; the three options I could find is: Assume their move set is completely random and if the opponent wins against the majority of the characters move set then they win the fight, assume the characters open with their best, and finally completely ban these characters from matches unless bloodlusted.

Personally I prefer the ban because if these characters truly lack character then there isn’t a reason to assume anything they’ll do in a fight. We simply just don’t know what they’ll start with and what they’ll follow up with.

 

[Everything12]

Banning characters without standard tactics ia 100% no go idea, the amount of characters that couldn't be used in Versus, including some very popular one makes it unfeasible.

As for the random one, RPG character with like 50 different Spells and Abilities just makes such an idea impossible as well for obvious reasons.

 

[Keeweed]

But the random idea is the one I’ve seen done for years. And saying they go for their best would be a complete lie. We don’t know what they go with at all, so assuming their best means we might as well bloodlust them.

 

[Everything12]

The random idea isn't any more true either.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Banning characters without standard tactics ia 100% no go idea, the amount of characters that couldn't be used in Versus, including some very popular one makes it unfeasible.

As for the random one, RPG character with like 50 different Spells and Abilities just makes such an idea impossible as well for obvious reasons.

This for me as well.

If a character has no known mindset for what they do, then anything should go.

Arguing chances and likelyhoods of what would be used under these conditions is basically a loophole to circumvent the unknown mindset and argue a character wouldn’t do something without having anything to say for certain that they wouldn’t do it.

 

[Keeweed]

“Anything should go” would be random. That doesn’t mean they would immediately go for their best.

If going completely random isn’t accurate, and going for the their best also isn’t accurate then they should be banned. We just don’t know what they’ll do and thus a versus thread with them is simply not possible.

 

[Keeweed]

To go into more detail. Why would we assume they went with a winning move if their character is unknown. We can’t assume that, as we just simply don’t, we also can’t assume they went with a losing move for the same reason. Thus the fight was pointless. What the ‘character’ did is entirely unknown so the fight has no known beginning, middle, or end. We can’t assume they did anything thus we can’t know how the fight actually went or why it went that way.

So that’s why I think these characters should be banned from versus threads. We just don’t know what actually happen or why.

 

[Everything12]

Yeah we aren't banning them, too many characters, including too many popular ones among them.

 

[Keeweed]

Then literally none of the options work. So do you have an alternative, because we can’t assume they went for their best, worst, or anything in between because that information doesn’t exist.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

“Anything should go” would be random. That doesn’t mean they would immediately go for their best.

That’s the thing. Going all out doesn’t auto mean “their best”. It’s considered “the best” option because it’s the best condition for that specific match under those specific conditions that counters who the character fights. If it happens to be the best counter, then so be it.

On top of that, assuming they wouldn’t go for their best doesn’t even make sense when we can’t assume that. If they have no known character, then who’s to say they wouldn’t go for that option? There’s literally no known history or data on how they think and how they I operate. For all you know, they would be 100% willing to do what you think we shouldn’t assume they’d go for. Without a pre established history of their mindset, arguing the chances of what would be done just doesn’t work without speculation.

 

[Keeweed]

I can instantly flip that on you. Why assume they went for any move that allows them to win if we don’t know what they’ll do. Why would a character with death manipulation open with it if they could go punch their opponent. We don’t know their character so we can’t assume either. Thus the fight has no meaning. Why assume they went for their moves that would generally be considered ‘better’ than others or any specific move at all.

Going “all out” without character doesn’t mean anything. Because we still have zero clue what they are actually doing or why.

 

[DontTalkDT]

At best one could do an argument over what would be a reasonable action given their intelligence. Although, one shouldn't take that too far either. Many genius characters don't lead with their strongest move. (And not every genius is a tactical genius at that)

Generally, if no standard tactic is known, a battle can only be decided if which tactic is used isn't a huge factor of it. If it is then the best a character without standard tactics can get is an inconclusive.
Although, we usually take a feat based approach, so in that context, we would usually not assume that a character fights any better than it demonstrated. So one could also argue for a loss.

 

[JED]

Option 2 seems to be the standard for everyone who argues for these characters, because for some reason the character all of a sudden has some type of weird super precognition that transcends fiction and allows them to see who they are fighting against and causes them to open up with some stupidly specific option that allows them to neg the other character, like the debater is controlling the character themselves.
Sorry for the TED Talk but good god are these characters annoying lol

 

[Ballsdeep69]

Bump

 

[Imaginym]

....because for some reason the character all of a sudden has some type of weird super precognition that transcends fiction and allows them to see who they are fighting against and causes them to open up with some stupidly specific option that allows them to neg the other character, like the debater is controlling the character themselves.....

That is the fault of the Versus Debating users, not the characters; It isn't the fault of the character if Versus Debating users improperly analyze what they could or would do.

It'd be like if people were debating Omni-Man vs Luffy, & when someone argues Omni-Man leads by dunking Luffy in seawater....

....& then debaters blamed Omni-Man (As opposed to the poster who proposed such an opening move.), a character who only exists on paper comics, digital images & videos, for the faulty argument of Omni-Man leading by trying to submerge a Devil Fruit user when he doesn't have that prior knowledge to exploit.

Why are you blaming people who literally don't exist (Characters on profiles) for the faults of Users who are just bad at Versus Thread Debating?

Obviously, neither Omni-Man nor Luffy lack established characterizations & tactics. They're just examples to illustrate how silly it is to blame fictional characters for the faults of debaters.

 

[Ballsdeep69]

It'd be like if people were debating Omni-Man vs Luffy, & when someone argues Omni-Man leads by dunking Luffy in seawater....

actually he would throw him into space.

 

[Imaginym]

actually he would throw him into space.

Kinda my point exactly; He'd be more likely to throw Luffy into space before he tries drowning him in the sea.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I can instantly flip that on you. Why assume they went for any move that allows them to win if we don’t know what they’ll do. Why would a character with death manipulation open with it if they could go punch their opponent. We don’t know their character so we can’t assume either. Thus the fight has no meaning.

The fight having meaning or not isn’t exactly our problem because a fight having “meaning” or being good is strictly for entertainment purposes, not an analysis on their abilities and what would happen.

 

[Keeweed]

I meant we wouldn’t know what happened thus we can’t get an accurate conclusion. You can’t say a character won or loss if everything they did in the fight is entirely unknown.