Dying by natural causes mid battle (SBA debate)

[DontTalkDT]

Something I heard frequently is that a character starving or dying of old age mid battle is no victory condition, but instead counts as inconclusive.

That was never really decided upon and the believe might come from the fact that the SBA lists killing the opponent as victory condition.

So we should clarify that.

Proposition: Instead of "Killing the opponent" the victory condition in the SBA should be clarified to read "Death of the opponent".


There are multiple reasons for that:

First, if the opponent dying on its own is inconclusive, because you didn't kill him, that would produce some very stupid way to avoid losses.

E.g. if our dear Thunder McQuee commits suicide and you survive that, you have won. Nobody would think it's inconclusive because you didn't kill him.

Or if a character just trips and falls of a cliff mid battle, dying by accident, that would also not be inconclusive, right?

Or if the Authority just dies due to the wind damaging him, that's no inconclusive either, right?

Likewise it would strange for an old man to avoid a loss from a spontanous heart attack...


A reason more in the direction of starving & dying of old age in particular is that these ways of winning battles are actually relevant.

Immortality Type 1 and Self-Sustenance Type 2 are abilities whichs (almost) sole purpose is to avoid loosing by these means.

There are even characters that abuse that.

Knoche is a good example for that. It is stated to have so much HP that an otherwise equal opponent would starve before he can defeat it.

Kumoko is also using a war of attrition tactic, which she can continue for many many years, due to her god physiology. (Considering that some immortal characters in that verse literally just wait around for their power to increase, instead of actually doing anything productive to reach their goal, the waiting game is strong here)

In any case, point is that some characters have the possibility of natural death as part of their strategies.

In general I just see no reason why we would take away a characters advantage of having a longer timespan. If we can tell with certainty which character dies first after a 70 year stalemate, why count it as inconclusive?


What do you think, everyone?

 

[DontTalkDT]

bump

 

[InfiniteSped]

So, say, if two characters have no way of defeating each other, the one with more longevity just wins after they stand there for a few decades?

 

[Dvorak1902]

Looks good.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, say, if two characters have no way of defeating each other, the one with more longevity just wins after they stand there for a few decades?

I mean, yeah. It basically is like winning by the opponent running out of stamina, just more extreme. Provided of course it is clear who of the two dies first.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I agree with the change.

 

[Overlord775]

I mean, if it comes down to the opponent dying of old age than the battle is a stomp as it shows the loser had no way to win

 

[AKM sama]

Proposition: Instead of "Killing the opponent" the victory condition in the SBA should be clarified to read "Death of the opponent".

I agree with this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I mean, if it comes down to the opponent dying of old age than the battle is a stomp as it shows the loser had no way to wi

Debatable. As I usually say in the "what is a stomp" debates, having no way of winning isn't actually a good way of judging that, as it means that any fight of which you know how it goes will be a stomp regardless of how close it is. So e.g. post-Kaguya Naruto vs Sasuke would be a stomp cause we know the outcome of that fight with certainty, due to having seen the fight.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. This isn't really about adding things to profiles. Also, since stomps aren't added, but inconclusive fights are, there is a relevant difference in that regard as well.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

I agree with this.

 

[Planck69]

I mean, if it comes down to the opponent dying of old age than the battle is a stomp as it shows the loser had no way to win

I mean... Well... Yes, technically. But some characters could possibly just use their longer lifespans to hide from a stronger opponent and the outlast them. So if a situation like that where to somehow happen, it wouldn't be a stomp since they could still be defeated if found.

Though I doubt more than 5 characters like that exist on the wiki.

And this is just me grasping at straws.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Seems like everyone is an agreement with this for now.

Since it isn't a big change I will apply it if there is no opposition in the next few hours.

 

[Overlord775]

Actually no, this is a rather big change, so you should wait for another or two admins to agree before you add it

 

[InfiniteSped]

Eh, idk if winning a 60 year long staring match should be grounds for a victory.

 

[Paul_Frank]

I'm pretty sure if you just outlive your opponent without them or yourself ever actually directly harming eachother for 24 hours that's an incon by incap

 

[DontTalkDT]

Fine, I will wait then.

Eh, idk if winning a 60 year long staring match should be grounds for a victory.

I mean, why not? If you win, you win. It's making use of the opponents weakness. There's no particle difference between this and winning a match after 60 years by any other method. The match just takes long.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm pretty sure if you just outlive your opponent without them or yourself ever actually directly harming eachother for 24 hours that's an incon by incap

No. Incap would be the opponent being put in a state unable to harm each other at all. They are theoretically able to harm each other, just that for one of multiple possible reasons it either doesn't happen or they are not able to kill each other that way.

E.g. if 2 people have low-godly regen and no soul attacks they can just keep cutting each others heads of for 70 years.

Edit: Overread the directly harming each other. Still, that depends on the match. Not being able to harm each other is different from not actually harming each other. Otherwise hiding in an unbreakable forcefield for 24 hours, while yourself being able to shoot at the opponent would be winning by incap even if the opponent actually doesn't die.

 

[Antvasima]

Versus threads are not my area, but you should preferably ask some other administrators and bureaucrats to give input here, yes.

 

[Wokistan]

agree with change

 

[Antoniofer]

How often one character die from natural causes in middle battle anyway? Welp, I believe a character dying due that or its own weakness still counts as victory to its opponent, or if a character has no way to defeate another in an undefinied amount of time, yet that other one still have chances, then it also counts as victory.

 

[Antvasima]

It would seem kind of silly to end up with a "Died of old age" result though, but again, it is not my area.

 

[Antoniofer]

That would be valid if the opponent have Age Manipulation. Is not like "its needed 90 years to defeat the opponent, so the character dies of old age", no character with common sense would be all-time attacking the opponent during 90 years, the conclusion would be more like "it would take several years to defeat the character, so the opponent have more chances to win".

 

[Wokistan]

Happens with some time manip dudes, or just people willing to play the long game. Oryx, the Taken King is perfectly willing to wage war and chase a thing around for literal billions of years, Khonsu (Worm) abuses causing people to die of old age, and there are others but I am busy rn so

Another one I could just think of was Kozilek, who caused someone to experience billions of years as a form of torture. That would just kill a non immortal and still be a win

 

[Paul_Frank]

I just want to point out that your opponent dying of old age or natural causes that aren't due to you inducing them is kinda not what would be considered a notable victory

 

[Wokistan]

Tenacity is still a virtue though

 

[Antoniofer]

The boundary is thin between tenacity and stubborness; I could believe that a character that is sempiternal and with limitless stamina and endurance would do that (in whose case, it no long would die of old age), but a mortal wouldn't due such a thing unless is extremely stupid and ignorant (in whose case, it would die in a short time).

 

[Overlord775]

Isn't not really Tenacity by that point, just being immortal

 

[DontTalkDT]

I just want to point out that your opponent dying of old age or natural causes that aren't due to you inducing them is kinda not what would be considered a notable victory

I mean, whether it's notable isn't really the question here. Just whether it's a victory.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am personally more leaning towards that a battle that would take thousands of years to conclude, and would be a stalemate until then, should count as inconclusive.

 

[Imaginym]

A victory is a victory. The goal would seem to be to kill, incapacitate, or get rid of (location-wise) your opponent.

Just because it takes someone a long time to achieve it doesn't mean they didn't achieve it; If their opponent is in a willing-to-kill state and has the rest of their lifetime to win, and fails to win, that's a victory for the one who didn't die.

I mean, if Albert spends 100 years trying to kill Barry, almost, or indeed continuously, & Barry evades or thwarts all his attempts, then Albert dies of old age, that's some kind of victory, be it via skill, endurance, abilities, intelligence, etc.

We try to make accurate profiles, and adhere to the profiles in Vs Debates. I think it seems silly to ignore a character's vulnerability in terms of "Who Would Win" situations just because it takes a long time to exploit or because it isn't impressive as a straight-up fight.

And there is a difference between being UNABLE to harm the opponent and UNWILLING. Of course, by SBA, combatants would be willing, but I think there's room for combatants to think to abstain from harming an opponent temporarily for a greater goal.

Why try to stab someone for a day when you aren't even sure it'll kill them, or you can spend the day avoiding their attacks until you've gained enough power you could obliterate them with a thought?

Even in 'Who Would Win" or combat situations, there can be benefits to prolonged abstinence from combat.

 

[Flashlight237]

The way I see it, I don't think this would work too well. This forum is primarily for 1v1 debates. Would a boxing match, sword duel, or gun duel last 60 years? Obviously not. Most fictional 1v1 battles don't last that long either. If battles were to last ages in fiction, it's because its a battle between gods, ancients trying to seal off an all-powerful evil, or just a regular old war.

In other words, when you really think about it, unless if its a war (which are never 1v1) or if the longevity is absolutely necessary, pretty sure both combatants are just going to f**k off long, long before any amount of years pass.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In other words, when you really think about it, unless if its a war (which are never 1v1) or if the longevity is absolutely necessary, pretty sure both combatants are just going to f**k off long, long before any amount of years pass.

I mean, for one thing I wish to point out that many fictional characters should not be held to human standards. What are 70 years to someone that might continously work towards a goal for billions of years? What are a thousand years to an entity that exists for longer than the universe itself?

And in that regards, why should we not give these characters with ridiculous patience and stamina a win, if they accomplish what their goal was in the end? Why hold them to human standards?


That aside, by SBA characters can not give up, unless the opponent makes them by special means. That means the combatants leaving, because he doesn't want to battle anymore, is no factor.


These kinds of battles, if they happen in fiction, usually are also not without a winner. A villian that wants to destroy humankind and a hero that wants to save them can be locked into combat for 70 years. If neither want to give up their goal, and as long as one of them dies before the other, they will be able to accomplish what they were fighting for.


It also seems rather unfair to me that one can prevent loosing a match by dying faster than the opponent can kill you.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that DontTalkDT makes sense with his last post, but we still need more staff input. You should ask some bureaucrats and administrators.

 

[Moritzva]

What ******' threads actually ended in "Well the man gets a heart attack and dies, incon"?

 

[Damage3245]

I also think that DontTalkDT makes sense. I think it's fine to accept that some battles can end by one fighter just outlasting their opponent.

 

[Imaginym]

What ******' threads actually ended in "Well the man gets a heart attack and dies, incon"?

While I'd like to know that myself, I hope you don't mean this as an argument against dying to natural causes being a lose condition.

I mean, being rare/a corner case isn't a basis for being inaccurate.

Just because someone gets struck by lightning while they can see the full ring/circle of a rainbow, doesn't mean they should explode into jelly beans and starbursts.

 

[Andytrenom]

I think this is fine

 

[Moritzva]

I think this is a good idea, no doubt- but who the **** would use dying of a heart attack or natural conditions as an inconclusive vote? How does that even happen in a fight?

 

[Antoniofer]

It could happen due the character's own weakness (has a disease or its too old).

 

[Moritzva]

It could happen due the character's own weakness (has a disease or its too old).

I believe voting for inconclusive via dying to your own weaknesses is

Dumb.

Regardless, I agree wholeheartedly.