Matches Where Neither Side Can Reach Their Win Condition, and Should They Be Counted As Inconclusive.

[Everything12]

So I've encountered several debates in the past when both sides have no win conditions, because of reasons such as Immortality, Physiology, or lack of Range. It seems to be that the conclusion reached by users that such debates are counted as Inconclusive and thus can be added to Profiles if they reach a sufficient amount of votes.

Yet should such matches be counted as such? My understanding is that Inconclusive is where both sides have win conditions and have an almost equal chance reached said win condition first, thus making it near impossible for a clear winner to be decided. Meanwhile, these matches have it so that if one side has no win condition but does have something like Non-Existent Physiology to prevent the other side from reaching their win condition it's counted as inconclusive because there can't be a winner.

I don't think this should be the case, Inconclusive should be reserved for only matches with a 50/50 chance of a side winning or losing, not a 0% chance of anyone winning. I feel this should be treated more like a stomp in that one side has no actual win condition, the other side being unable to reach their win condition because of a singular factor should not change this and the match should be counted as invalid.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Talked (briefly) about this over Discord with Every. I agree. Stomp might not be the right word but these matches contribute nothing except establish two stonewalls can indeed sit in the vicinity of each other and do nothing.

 

[KingTempest]

Following, but yeah I agree with incon not being a valid justification.

 

[Antvasima]

I have no real opinion about this. It is not my area.

 

[AKM sama]

I don't think this should be the case, Inconclusive should be reserved for only matches with a 50/50 chance of a side winning or losing, not a 0% chance of anyone winning. I feel this should be treated more like a stomp in that one side has no actual win condition, the other side being unable to reach their win condition because of a singular factor should not change this and the match should be counted as invalid.

I think we already do this for a JoJo character who had no real wincon but matches were getting inconclusive because he had a hax where both characters would die. I am not against this idea, but I don't have any strong opinions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

By the general rule of the matches having to be notable to be added often they probably should not be added.
At other times establishing that two stonewalls can indeed not defeat each other can be notable. Especially when compared to haxless matches where a character just wins via stat advantage...

I said it in a debate on stomps before, but I think whether a match is notable has, in my opinion, more to do with how it is debated than what the end result of the debate is. If you have a complex 100 post debate to, in the end, establish that the characters can't kill each other that's way more notable than your average vs-thread. If the debate is just "x has mid-godly regen, y has mid-godly regen, neither can overcome it" and ends without any counterarguments being made it's not notable.

So yeah, IMO it's case-by-case.

 

[Elizhaa]

Immortality, Physiology, or lack of Range could be win conditions like outliving the opponents; outliving was accepted around two years ago from a CRT. Though, I am not sure most of the threads were removed.
I will clarify my views; if both characters can't affect each other or win, but one eventually dies from lack of sustenance or old age in those matches, I agree the match would be a stomp.

If both sides can't win and neither will die, I think the match can be inconclusive.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk makes sense to me above.

 

[Everything12]

The difference is that outliving an opponent has one side live while the other dies, which is how all non-incap win conditions are. Meanwhile, neither side can achieve any sort of victory if one side has no win condition and the other lacks the Ability to utilise their win condition on the other. No side lives, or dies, or are incapacitated, they just end up in a stalemate with no side being able to achieve anything.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The OP is basically saying there is a difference between a match ending in a draw and a match that can never truly be concluded. Inconclusive by definition just means the match goes on for eternity and can never truly reach an outcome or a stalemate is a common term for that. But there are matches where it's possible to reach a conclusion, but there's no objective telling which way it's going to play out, which is honestly different than "Inconclusive". It would still be a stalemate or deadlock as far as community is concerned, but both characters eventually passing out still technically counts as a conclusion.

 

[Everything12]

So where do we go from here?

 

[Gohanblanco217]

The difference is that outliving an opponent has one side live while the other dies, which is how all non-incap win conditions are. Meanwhile, neither side can achieve any sort of victory if one side has no win condition and the other lacks the Ability to utilise their win condition on the other. No side lives, or dies, or are incapacitated, they just end up in a stalemate with no side being able to achieve anything.

By that Logic GER Incon matches should be removed because GER can't harm his opponent and at the same time his opponent has no win conditions

 

[Everything12]

Yes, and?

 

[Antvasima]

By the general rule of the matches having to be notable to be added often they probably should not be added.
At other times establishing that two stonewalls can indeed not defeat each other can be notable. Especially when compared to haxless matches where a character just wins via stat advantage...

I said it in a debate on stomps before, but I think whether a match is notable has, in my opinion, more to do with how it is debated than what the end result of the debate is. If you have a complex 100 post debate to, in the end, establish that the characters can't kill each other that's way more notable than your average vs-thread. If the debate is just "x has mid-godly regen, y has mid-godly regen, neither can overcome it" and ends without any counterarguments being made it's not notable.

So yeah, IMO it's case-by-case.

Perhaps somebody can write a draft rule based on DontTalk's evaluation above?

 

[BoastJr]

Sounds like Naofumi vs Mash etc.
Two Walls who cant really hurt each other

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps somebody can write a draft rule based on DontTalk's evaluation above?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Assuming we wish to keep it limited to inconclusive stuff, how about

Inconclusive matches, in which the opposing parties are incapable of defeating each other, should only added to profiles if they had a notable debate. A notable debate, in this case, is one where the end result wasn't immediately obvious to all parties, but at minimum a few posts of back and forth arguing were necessary to conclude the outcome.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that could work.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Blahblah9755]

I think basing it solely on the length of discussion could be an issue. This could lead to a match’s notability being determined by whether we have members who are knowledgeable on both characters, or even how early in the debate these members show up, which I don’t think should be a deciding factor.

For instance, if two characters in a match both have low-godly regeneration, character A has soul manipulation, and character B has resistance to soul manipulation, if the debate is between people who are each knowledgeable on one of the characters, this could result in a several response debate discussing potency and mechanics of each character’s abilities, to eventually decide neither can kill. If someone knowledgeable on both characters is there from the beginning then all this information could be given in the first post, and the debate wouldn’t be any less complex and well argued, nor any more obvious to the average user/knowledgeable member of one of the characters.

I’d propose instead making it so there needs to be discussion of traits beyond stats and the listed powers and abilities. This could include things like standard tactics, ability mechanics and potency, weaknesses, verse equalization, potential methods to circumvent resistances, potential learning or growth they could achieve in the timeframe of the fight, whether they could escape long enough for prep based abilities to come into play, and more. As a rule, it would be something along the lines of:

[Starting with the same first sentence]

A notable debate, in this case, is one where the result isn’t immediately obvious from the statistics and listed powers and abilities of the two characters, requiring further elaboration on the characters’ abilities, traits, and decision making.

 

[Everything12]

Sounds better for the reasons you said, yours makes it a bit more clear what makes a thread notable besides the subjective and easy to twist description of a bit of back and forth

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think basing it solely on the length of discussion could be an issue. This could lead to a match’s notability being determined by whether we have members who are knowledgeable on both characters, or even how early in the debate these members show up, which I don’t think should be a deciding factor.

For instance, if two characters in a match both have low-godly regeneration, character A has soul manipulation, and character B has resistance to soul manipulation, if the debate is between people who are each knowledgeable on one of the characters, this could result in a several response debate discussing potency and mechanics of each character’s abilities, to eventually decide neither can kill. If someone knowledgeable on both characters is there from the beginning then all this information could be given in the first post, and the debate wouldn’t be any less complex and well argued, nor any more obvious to the average user/knowledgeable member of one of the characters.

I’d propose instead making it so there needs to be discussion of traits beyond stats and the listed powers and abilities. This could include things like standard tactics, ability mechanics and potency, weaknesses, verse equalization, potential methods to circumvent resistances, potential learning or growth they could achieve in the timeframe of the fight, whether they could escape long enough for prep based abilities to come into play, and more. As a rule, it would be something along the lines of:

While I agree with the sentiment, the formulation of "obvious from the statistics and listed powers" is problematic in my opinion. What is obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to anyone else and vice versa. That opens room for much hard to decide debate.

Perhaps putting it like in your previous paragraph would be better:

Inconclusive matches, in which the opposing parties are incapable of defeating each other, should only added to profiles if they had a notable debate. A debate is considered notable, in this context, if it features debate over an aspect not directly listed on profile. Examples of such are standard tactics (if not listed), ability mechanics and (unlisted) potency, interaction between abilities, weaknesses, verse equalization, potential methods to circumvent resistances and immortalities, potential learning or growth they could achieve in the timeframe of the fight, whether they could escape long enough for prep based abilities to come into play etc.

 

[Blahblah9755]

Yeah, that’s valid. That proposal looks better.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we apply DontTalk's latest suggestion then?

 

[Everything12]

... A debate is considered notable, in this context, if it features a lengthy debate...

If the above description has this added on just for assurance then yeah it's good for me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That should probably be added then.

 

[Purgy]

Apologies for intruding on a staff thread, but I'm wondering if this was ever actually applied, and if so, where is it listed?

 

[Antvasima]

Apologies for intruding on a staff thread, but I'm wondering if this was ever actually applied, and if so, where is it listed?

@DontTalkDT @Everything12

 

[Everything12]

I believe we we're in the middle of figuring out the wording before progressing, but we were close to finishing that up and I was waiting on DontTalkDT to comment on my proposed additions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If the above description has this added on just for assurance then yeah it's good for me.

I suppose it's ok.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody willing to apply the accepted changes here then?

 

[Everything12]

Unfortunately my device does not work well with the Wiki's editor.

 

[Psychomaster35]

To my opinion, it honestly depends about the scenario. Say if both do thought based hsx and eradicate each other first, it's still possible but very rare that one can think faster, but more times than not its inconclusive. But if they can't even hurt or kill esch other at all by any means because of resurrection, incorporeality or any other immortality then it would be an impossible inconclusive match which means its impossible for either side to win

 

[Antvasima]

Unfortunately my device does not work well with the Wiki's editor.

Have you tried to change your standard settings to the classic source editor?

 

[Everything12]

I think I've got it working.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good. Which page should I unlock for you to edit?

 

[Everything12]

It would be this one correct?

Versus Thread Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is mainly a site that attempts to index the statistics of characters across many different fictional franchises. However, as the site name implies, we also allow our members to pit fictional characters against each other in hypothetical matchups for entertainment purposes...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Everything12]

Actual that page already has this line

• If both sides have equivalent posts with constructive arguments, the thread shall be deemed inconclusive.

As the only mention of Inconclusive besides taking about Tier 0, so I guess it's technically already a rule, still it would be good to add this part to further clarify.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will unlock the page then. Tell me here when you are done.

 

[Everything12]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

Does this look good enough to the rest of you?

Versus Thread Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is mainly a site that attempts to index the statistics of characters across many different fictional franchises. However, as the site name implies, we also allow our members to pit fictional characters against each other in hypothetical matchups for entertainment purposes...

vsbattles.fandom.com