Matches With Restricted "Possibly" Abilities

[WeeklyBattles]

Yeah im also for defaulting to the likely/possibly tiers

 

[Agnaa]

The votes now stand at 9-4-2.

Not everyone was ultra-clear, so here's my best try at summarizing people's opinions from the thread

Allow all abilities by default: 9 (Warren Valion, AKM sama, GyroNutz, Ogbunabali, Moritzva, Elizhaa, Mr. Bambu, Wokistan, WeeklyBattles)

Allow only likely abilities by default: 4 (DontTalkDT*, The Imp-Ress, Qawsedf234*, Sir Ovens)

Allow neither likely nor possibly abilities by default: 2 (Dargoo Faust**, Antoniofer)

Don't Care: 1 (The Wright Way)

*DT would prefer to only include possibly, but that would mean constant bargaining over whether something could be listed as "likely" instead, so he thinks it may be better to allow all abilities. Qawsed agreed with DT's suggestion.

**Dargoo also believes that, beyond not being assumed under SBA, matches with such abilities or ratings should not be added to profiles at all.

 

[Bobsican]

Yes, they can be restricted. In fact, the SBA technically doesn't actually specify whether or not they are used at all, although I'm fine with assuming they are, I guess.

I think if it's just a few simply list the ones that are restricted. If they are too many for that just write "with various abilities restricted" and call it a day.

I do share the same thought that SBA still allowed abilities to be restricted.

Similar to what others said, something like this could work: SBA, with "insert abilities" restricted.

I am fine with this approach.

"Likely" and "Possibly" shouldn't mean a character "hypothetically" has a power. There's evidence for the power, but there's also a degree of doubt about it. If people misuse those ratings to push for abilities that a character shouldn't really have, then that's where the problem is.

I agree with AKM largely; they should be assumed by default but can also be restricted by the OP.

Possibly abilities should be restrictable, yes.

EDIT: And, yes, they should be on by default. But if they are restricted the match should, by all means, be considered valid.

Okay, it seems that restricting stats/powers rated under "Possibly" or "Likely" has been accepted by more than enought staff, now this is still left to do on this regard:

Ahh, I think I see the rule to change:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted.

This should be reworded to say that abilities can only be restricted if they're indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly", any ideas on how to include that? Maybe add onto the last sentence:

or if the ability being restricted is indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Yeah im 100% against allowing those restrictions, that just seems like a cheap way to garner wins for smurfs against characters with higher tier immortalities/resistances

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm against using them as a whole so obviously I'm fine with letting users restrict powers a character isn't even likely to have.

 

[Bobsican]

Yeah im 100% against allowing those restrictions, that just seems like a cheap way to garner wins for smurfs against characters with higher tier immortalities/resistances

Well, they are just a possibility, not something that necessarily has to be assumed to be the case as fact, hence why they should be restrictable if the OP wants.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

As i brought up in the other thread that just leaves open opportunities for matchups where a character who gets immortality from an 'Unknown, possibly/likely X Tier' can be argued as their immortality just being unknown and thus getting stomped by characters they shouldnt

Allowing tiers to be restricted opens up a whole new can of worms regarding smurfs and type 8/9 immortality users

 

[Bobsican]

Well, that would be on a case by case basis, if such an ability or tier is so solid, you may as well make a CRT so it isn't indexed with "Possibly" or "Likely".

 

[Agnaa]

Characters should be able to stomp them, since their tier is Unknown.

Tiers are already allowed to be restricted iirc. This is specifically about abilities.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Tiers arnt allowed to be restricted, its actually stated to be the opposite in the standard battle assumptions rules

 

[Bobsican]

Where? Last time I checked it doesn't mention anything regarding the restriction of tiers on match-ups being valid should they have a "Possibly" or "Likely" rating alongside them, even if that is already the case informally from what I remember.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Standard Battle Assumptions

The following are the assumptions to be made for battles in versus threads, if no alternative assumptions are specified by the thread creator. Assumptions alternative to these ones can be freely used, are equally legitimate, and threads using different assumptions can be added to profiles just...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Character version: The strongest canon version of a character is used, that we have listed. The strongest version being defined as the one with the highest tier; if there are multiple versions with the same tier, then the most recent version.

Nowhere does it say here or on the Versus Thread Rules that restricting higher tiers from characters not in the thread itself is the standard or even allowed

 

[Bobsican]

That's only by default per SBA, which isn't obligatory to follow to have match-ups allowed for indexing so long they don't break the Versus Thread Rules.

 

[Agnaa]

I have seen dozens of matches added to profiles that don't use the character's highest tier. Highest tier's just the default.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Agnaa The current issue is there is an ongoing thread of Yogiri vs SCP-682 where 682's immortality is being restricted to 2-A because 343 is only possibly Low 1-C

 

[WeeklyBattles]

That's only by default per SBA, which isn't obligatory to follow to have match-ups allowed for indexing so long they don't break the Versus Thread Rules.

Where is it stated in the rules that youre allowed to restrict the tier from which someone derives type 8 immortality?

 

[Agnaa]

Since Yogiri's only 2-A that seems fair.

It would seem pretty spiteful if, for example, Yogiri's ID was Low 1-C, and 682's immortality was being nerfed to guarantee an unfair win.

It isn't stated by the rules but I guess that's what this thread is for, so far people seemed universally okay with restricting possibly/likely abilities tho.

 

[Bobsican]

Where is it stated in the rules that youre allowed to restrict the tier from which someone derives type 8 immortality?

Where? Last time I checked it doesn't mention anything regarding the restriction of tiers on match-ups being valid should they have a "Possibly" or "Likely" rating alongside them, even if that is already the case informally from what I remember.

I actually am curious as well, it was never formally written from what I remember, was it?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Since Yogiri's only 2-A that seems fair.

It would seem pretty spiteful if, for example, Yogiri's ID was Low 1-C, and 682's immortality was being nerfed to guarantee an unfair win.

It isn't stated by the rules but I guess that's what this thread is for, so far people seemed universally okay with restricting possibly/likely abilities tho.

Apparently it is Low 1-C

 

[Bobsican]

It isn't, ID caps at 2-A currently.

 

[Abstractions]

I agree with the idea that we shouldn't allow likely or possibly abilities by default. Relies on too much conjecture more often than not.

 

[Agnaa]

Well I think that is in bad taste then. Something worthy of a thread closure. But in general, I think possibly/likely abilities and abilities whose potency is under a possibly/likely should be able to be restricted.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Yogiri isnt Low 1-C, that was rejected

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I find it kind of dumb either way because if their ability is listed as possibly, chances are they don't use that in-character even if they have it, which is why the ability is listed as possibly in the first place.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I find it kind of dumb either way because if their ability is listed as possibly, chances are they don't use that in-character even if they have it, which is why the ability is listed as possibly in the first place.

Its the case of th tier the character is physically, like the SCPs that are 2-A, possibly Low 1-C

 

[Agnaa]

And my initial case was from a character who has the same broad power as a few others, but only had one fight with it, so they didn't demonstrate every usage of it. But in an match here, if we gave them those abilities, they'd use them.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

In the case of tiers, I think possible tiers should be the default unless stated otherwise as our standards assume strongest form by default unless otherwise stated. It feels really weird to assume the former but have a random stipulation that goes against it.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ovens Does this mean you're changing your vote from "Allow only likely abilities by default" to "Allow likely and possibly abilities by default"? Or is this distinction specifically and only for character tiers?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Im with Ovens in that regard

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Specifically for character tiers. When we assume strongest, it is the tier that comes to mind first.

Plus, even if you allow possible abilities, the fact that a character "can" use an ability, doesn't mean they will in a fight. It changes nothing in a VS setting unless they're bloodlusted.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, as I've pointed out that isn't really true. There's characters with scarce information that scale to other characters, there's dubious mechanics of abilities and dubious passives that would be affected by including "Possibly"s or not, but alright, I'll add that as a footnote.

 

[Bobsican]

Im with Ovens in that regard

Note that this only applies to the default option per SBA, tiers and abilities can still be restricted so long they are indexed with a "Possibly" or "Likely" by the OP without rendering the match not addable to profiles, as it has been agreed on before, respectively.

 

[AKM sama]

What is the vote count on this?

 

[Wokistan]

"Tiers arnt allowed to be restricted, its actually stated to be the opposite in the standard battle assumptions rules"

Tiers are like, the one thing explicitly allowed to be restricted. You can contradict SBA if you want.

In the Versus Thread Rules:

"It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted."


I still maintain we default to higher end/possibly and that an OP can override this assumption.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think we should do here, given all of the points that have been brought up?

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate your input as well @Promestein .

 

[Bobsican]

At this point we're waiting for input from others, so Bump.

 

[AKM sama]

I think we were just counting the votes here.

 

[Agnaa]

This is my latest vote count; 9-4-3-1

Not everyone was ultra-clear, so here's my best try at summarizing people's opinions from the thread

Allow all abilities by default: 9 (Warren Valion, AKM sama, GyroNutz, Ogbunabali, Moritzva, Elizhaa, Mr. Bambu, Wokistan, WeeklyBattles)

Allow only likely abilities by default: 4 (DontTalkDT*, The Imp-Ress, Qawsedf234*, Sir Ovens***)

Allow neither likely nor possibly abilities by default: 3 (Dargoo Faust**, Antoniofer, Abstractions)

Don't Care: 1 (The Wright Way)

*DT would prefer to only include possibly, but that would mean constant bargaining over whether something could be listed as "likely" instead, so he thinks it may be better to allow all abilities. Qawsed agreed with DT's suggestion.

**Dargoo also believes that, beyond not being assumed under SBA, matches with such abilities or ratings should not be added to profiles at all.

***While Sir Ovens wants "possibly" abilities to be disregarded by default, he wants "possibly" tiers for ability potency (i.e. immortality) to be accepted by default.

We wanted more input because if the 4 and 3 are lumped together, then it may be too close to call (9-7), so more input is desired.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What is the vote count on this?

Allow all abilities by default: 9 (Warren Valion, AKM sama, GyroNutz, Ogbunabali, Moritzva, Elizhaa, Mr. Bambu, Wokistan, WeeklyBattles)

Allow only likely abilities by default: 4 (DontTalkDT*, The Imp-Ress, Qawsedf234*, Sir Ovens)

Allow neither likely nor possibly abilities by default: 3 (Dargoo Faust**, Abstractions, Antoniofer)

Don't Care: 1 (The Wright Way)

----

Seems like it's 9-7 on not allowing possibly powers by default, and 13 - 3 on not allowing possibly or likely powers by default.

So neither/nor seems to have been rejected, while only likely seems to still be heavily contested.