SBA: Death as a win condition

[Bobsican]

(approved by @Dalesean027)

So, I've been pointed out to an issue in the SBA page, namely this bit:

Victory Conditions: Death of the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions.

The issue? The wording right now implies that one of the participants dying at all inherently nets a loss on their part, which evidently isn't the case in practice as abilities like Resurrection and Regeneration above Low-Mid can be used to mitigate this, instead it's apparent that the opponent has to remain dead for a certain amount of time for this to indeed net them a loss, so the proposal is to just add a slight change to the current wording to patch this potential loophole:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day (such as by death), are to be assumed as victory conditions.

This change keeps the unwritten status quo while also being more explicit of the standards, but changes to the minimal timeframe a character has to be dead to lose can be discussed here if anyone thinks so, more examples on what can count for an incapacitation like Sleep Manipulation, Sealing, and Power Nullification could also be worth considering to list.

Edit: Here's the current proposal based on discussion:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions.
The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

Staff Agreements: @Antvasima, @DontTalkDT, @FinePoint, @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think this could be fixed by adding the one "Permanent" before death.

 

[Bobsican]

Requiring permanent death would open the loophole of characters with non-combat applicable revivals, as I doubt that there's by default intent for characters like Ganondorf to not lose by dying even though they'd be unable to do anything for a significant amount of time. The latter bit of the current paragraph in the SBA page could imply that this'd still net a loss as they'd then be unable to do anything significant for the specified timeframe, but then that'd be a bit of a contradiction to the premise, so it'd be best to just be more direct on a minimal timeframe for being dead and thus unable to do anything, especially for undead characters and others that are technically already dead.

 

[TheRustyOne]

"Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day (such as by death), are to be assumed as victory conditions."

Why is knocking somebody out for an hour a win condition, but killing them requires over 24 hours?

We'd basically be punishing people for choosing the lethal option in that case.

Killing and KOing should be the same, at least.

 

[Bobsican]

Strictly speaking there's currently no formal standard for how long someone has to be dead beyond the least assumptive take (besides the one of dying leading to an inherent loss) that is low-balling to the higher timeframe laid in the paragraph, revising it so that being dead for at least an hour is required to lose is fine if others mods also think so.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I always hoped that people would recognize proper death as they see it (and IMO that has been working well so far), as dealing with all the different metaphysical ways life and death works in fiction gets pretty asinine the moment you have to properly define what qualifies as death.
So if we have to get anal about it I would rather avoid it altogether.
Dead people, depending on cosmology, meet at least one of the other loss criteria, often multiple. Leave it to the verse to decide which one. If they meet none, then they are not properly dead, by what we have historically considered the qualifier for that victory condition.


Edit: In other words just make it

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death also qualifies as a victory condition as long as the resulting state of the opponent qualifies for at least one of the priory listed conditions.

Or omit even that much mention of it if you don't care for victory timing issues.

 

[FinePoint]

It's kind of tricky with the difference between KO and 'incapacitate' listed here.

Maybe we could replace KO with something more like 'lose consciousness' which would include death and other similar things?

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's kind of tricky with the difference between KO and 'incapacitate' listed here.

Maybe we could replace KO with something more like 'lose consciousness' which would include death and other similar things?

I don't understand which difference you see between KO and 'lose consciousness' or which trouble you see between KO and 'incapacitate'.

 

[FinePoint]

I don't understand which difference you see between KO and 'lose consciousness' or which trouble you see between KO and 'incapacitate'.

The current rule specifies three win conditions:

"Death"
"Knock out for 1 hour"
"Incapacitate for 24 hours"

The difference I'm talking about is the timeframe.

If we want to combine the first two, I think 'lose consciousness' is a good wording that catches death, knock out, and sleep, but not something like being tied up or trapped somewhere.

So the new win conditions would be:

"Lose consciousness for 1 hour" - dead, asleep, knocked out
"Incapacitate for 24 hours" - tied up, trapped, etc.

 

[Bobsican]

There's a fourth one involving BFRing for at least one week, but there's no real overlap between it and other potential options as it's rather different and specific, and in any case, to push the topic forward, here's a new proposal that should align better with the current consensus:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), making the opponent lose consciousness for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The current rule specifies three win conditions:

"Death"
"Knock out for 1 hour"
"Incapacitate for 24 hours"

The difference I'm talking about is the timeframe.

If we want to combine the first two, I think 'lose consciousness' is a good wording that catches death, knock out, and sleep, but not something like being tied up or trapped somewhere.

So the new win conditions would be:

"Lose consciousness for 1 hour" - dead, asleep, knocked out
"Incapacitate for 24 hours" - tied up, trapped, etc.

In many fictions you don't lose consciousness if you die, but might become a spirit instead or respawn fully aware in some kind of afterlife. Hence one can not generally categorize death as part of losing consciousness.
Nor it's generally incapacitation (they might be able to fight, but just in the afterlife) or BFR (they might be a spirit on the battlefield which is unable to do anything).
A proper death is at least one of the three things, but not necessarily any specific one of them.

There's a fourth one involving BFRing for at least one week, but there's no real overlap between it and other potential options as it's rather different and specific, and in any case, to push the topic forward, here's a new proposal that should align better with the current consensus:

Victory timing issue: Imagine A kills B with a really exhausting technique. B respawns in the afterlife, fully sentient and able to fight, just restricted from returning to the world of the living (Think Dragon Ball characters). B therefore only loses by BFR after one week. As the technique is so exhausting, A faints after its use, losing consciousness for over 1 hour.
B wins the fight, as they achieve their victory condition first due to A fainting.

That seems like an undesirable outcome.

 

[FinePoint]

In many fictions you don't lose consciousness if you die, but might become a spirit instead or respawn fully aware in some kind of afterlife. Hence one can not generally categorize death as part of losing consciousness.
Nor it's generally incapacitation (they might be able to fight, but just in the afterlife) or BFR (they might be a spirit on the battlefield which is unable to do anything).
A proper death is at least one of the three things, but not necessarily any specific one of them.

Well as it stands that same situation is still an issue, or perhaps even worse, since you could argue they died and lost even if they return from the afterlife immediately.

If they become a spirit with no influence or go somewhere else that they can't return from, that would satisfy the being unable to do harm for twenty four hours clause anyway, so I find that solves your concern.

I feel it's implied we mean they can no longer harm their opponent specifically, so even if they can still 'fight' in Heaven I don't think that counts.

 

[Saqphire]

Got perms from @FinePoint to comment here

My question is why are the timeframes for the win conditions inconsistently applied? Why would BFR'ing for a week be considered as valid of a win con as knocking someone out for an hour or incapacitating them for a day when all three actions essentially do the same thing; make your opponent incapable of fighting you for an extended period of time.

If anything, the timeframe should be consistent across the board as BFR'ing someone in fiction for longer than the "normal" time-period of fighting is already considered as the fight being over at that point; just look at One Piece with Luffy flinging Buggy off the island, Luffy didn't think "Oh man, I gotta wait a whole week before I determine the fight to be over" or even Dragon Ball where Gas was out of commission for 20 minutes, and that timeframe was enough for people to not be in fighting mode and tell a whole backstory.

As for the premise of the thread itself, I agree that death alone is not sufficient of a win con when we have people who can resurrect within a short timeframe.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

Perhaps it'd also be worth noting that matches that are settled to always result on both participants being subject to the same losing condition + timeframe at the same time (Self-Destruction being a common example) resulting into an Inconclusive outcome? I recall that apparently both participants do still need a way to win without only resorting to that in this kind of scenario for it to not be an stomp, however (case in point the reason a ton of matchups involving Thunder McQueen got removed at some point), so that should be noted down while at it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Got perms from @FinePoint to comment here

My question is why are the timeframes for the win conditions inconsistently applied? Why would BFR'ing for a week be considered as valid of a win con as knocking someone out for an hour or incapacitating them for a day when all three actions essentially do the same thing; make your opponent incapable of fighting you for an extended period of time.

If anything, the timeframe should be consistent across the board as BFR'ing someone in fiction for longer than the "normal" time-period of fighting is already considered as the fight being over at that point; just look at One Piece with Luffy flinging Buggy off the island, Luffy didn't think "Oh man, I gotta wait a whole week before I determine the fight to be over" or even Dragon Ball where Gas was out of commission for 20 minutes, and that timeframe was enough for people to not be in fighting mode and tell a whole backstory.

That seems off-topic.

Well as it stands that same situation is still an issue, or perhaps even worse, since you could argue they died and lost even if they return from the afterlife immediately.

If they become a spirit with no influence or go somewhere else that they can't return from, that would satisfy the being unable to do harm for twenty four hours clause anyway, so I find that solves your concern.

I feel it's implied we mean they can no longer harm their opponent specifically, so even if they can still 'fight' in Heaven I don't think that counts.

I don't think we don't generally consider being in a distant place as qualifying for the "unable to do harm"-criteria. Otherwise, BFR would be a nearly unneeded wincon, as basically every case of BFR is actually incap.
We would, for instance, also not consider it incap if someone could dodge another character's attacks for a day.
It's generally understood to be along the lines of... well, being incapacitated. Hence the name.

Bump.

Perhaps it'd also be worth noting that matches that are settled to always result on both participants being subject to the same losing condition + timeframe at the same time (Self-Destruction being a common example) resulting into an Inconclusive outcome? I recall that apparently both participants do still need a way to win without only resorting to that in this kind of scenario for it to not be an stomp, however (case in point the reason a ton of matchups involving Thunder McQueen got removed at some point), so that should be noted down while at it.

Not sure how that relates to the SBA?

---

Overall, my suggestion is:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priory listed conditions.
The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

That, for the most part, clarifies what proper death means and deals with the victory timing issue I outlined before.

 

[Bobsican]

What I brought up is related so that there's less of a gray area in victory conditions outlined by SBA in the sort of circumstances where a "tie" or a stomp could happen, but the last sentence you added at the end mostly fixes that, so it may be ideal to add the following (highlighted in bold):

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions.
The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match. If all participants reliably reach their victory condition at the same time it is deemed Inconclusive, bar in cases where at least one side can't reach a victory condition without resorting to this, in which case it's a Stomp Thread and can't be indexed to profiles.

That said, if you think that this semantic would be better addressed as a thread of its own let me know, but beyond that there's no concerns in my part with the current proposal, thanks for your time.

 

[DontTalkDT]

What I brought up is related so that there's less of a gray area in victory conditions outlined by SBA in the sort of circumstances where a "tie" or a stomp could happen, but the last sentence you added at the end mostly fixes that, so it may be ideal to add the following (highlighted in bold):



That said, if you think that this semantic would be better addressed as a thread of its own let me know, but beyond that there's no concerns in my part with the current proposal, thanks for your time.

I believe when something is or is not a stomp thread should be explained on the Stomp Thread page and is not a matter of the SBA. Remember, everything the SBA says is strictly optional, so a regulation regarding stomp threads would then technically be optional as well, if it's on the page.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, I'll keep that for another thread then.

In that case, this'd be the current proposal (I fixed a typo that was in the original):

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions. The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

 

[FinePoint]

That seems off-topic.

It's tangentially on topic in that if we found a wording that encompasses all defeat conditions we could also then theoretically apply the same time-frame across the board.

I don't think we don't generally consider being in a distant place as qualifying for the "unable to do harm"-criteria. Otherwise, BFR would be a nearly unneeded wincon, as basically every case of BFR is actually incap.
We would, for instance, also not consider it incap if someone could dodge another character's attacks for a day.
It's generally understood to be along the lines of... well, being incapacitated. Hence the name.

I don't necessarily think we currently do either, but it's not an unreasonable claim.

If you're my opponent, and you teleport me to some distant exoplanet, there's no way for me to hurt you anymore and you can go on about your day.

Fundamentally, if you had tied me up instead, it'd be the same practical result.

The only difference is we say you have 24 hours to untie yourself, but an entire week to get back from wherever you were sent.

In this example that sort of makes sense, but what if the BFR is less extreme? Why is me being unable to fight you because I'm tied up inherently better for winning compared to me being too far away?

Part of what the OP brings up is that we unfairly give more power to knocking someone out than other methods of rendering them harmless, and I'm inclined to agree.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's tangentially on topic in that if we found a wording that encompasses all defeat conditions we could also then theoretically apply the same time-frame across the board.

The thread is about handling how the Death wincon interacts with abilities like resurrection.
The entire timeframe debate, which only pertains the non-death wincons, doesn't aid with that at all.
Edit: Unless you mean to suggest that Death should have a timeframe attached to it that is the same as BFR, that is. That would make it relevant.

 

[FinePoint]

The thread is about handling how the Death wincon interacts with abilities like resurrection.
The entire timeframe debate, which only pertains the non-death wincons, doesn't aid with that at all.
Edit: Unless you mean to suggest that Death should have a timeframe attached to it that is the same as BFR, that is. That would make it relevant.

Yes, that's sort of what I'm suggesting.

If they die and go to Heaven, but come back later that day, it shouldn't count as a loss.

If they die and go to Heaven, and only resurrect a year later, that should count as a loss.

What I'm not entirely sure about is if that timeframe should borrow from BFR (1 week) or incap (1 day).

Maybe there shouldn't be a difference at all.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yes, that's sort of what I'm suggesting.

If they die and go to Heaven, but come back later that day, it shouldn't count as a loss.

If they die and go to Heaven, and only resurrect a year later, that should count as a loss.

What I'm not entirely sure about is if that timeframe should borrow from BFR (1 week) or incap (1 day).

Maybe there shouldn't be a difference at all.

Ah, yeah, ok. We can debate that:
No it absolutely shouldn't.
If one character has to take a 2 hour nap and the other character is f*cking dead, then the character that is still alive should win.
By giving death a timeframe you make it so that the sole survivor of a battle could be at a draw or loss, because the opponent reached some other wincon first. That definitely shouldn't happen.
Hence the bolded part of my proposal:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions. The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

If you have the opponent properly dead you should win that instant, all other wincons be damned. I don't think a properly dead character should be considered to have won against a still living character under any circumstance.

 

[FinePoint]

Hence the bolded part of my proposal:

If you have the opponent properly dead you should win that instant, all other wincons be damned. I don't think a properly dead character should be considered to have won against a still living character under any circumstance.

I mean I think that part actually works fine as a solution to the core problem here, and would support that proposal, even if I separately think the time-frames themselves are flawed.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH I'd think that revising the time-frames may as well be its own CRT as to avoid derailing.

That said, it appears that the last version is being agreed on right now:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions. The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

I'd expect a bit more staff input before the SBA page is edited accordingly.

 

[Antvasima]

What has DontTalk accepted here?

 

[Bobsican]

What has DontTalk accepted here?

DontTalk has accepted the following, as noted here:

Victory Conditions: Removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting them in a state in which they can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions. Death of the opponent also qualifies as an immediate victory, as long as the resulting state of the opponent would, if the fight went on, eventually qualify for at least one of the three priorly listed conditions. The fighter which reaches a victory condition first wins the match.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information. That seems fine to me as well then.

 

[Bobsican]

Can somebody please edit the SBA page accordingly (unlocking it so that I edit accordingly also works)? It seems like there's been sufficient approval and corroboration by now to apply what has been agreed on.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, this has been applied, so this thread can be closed.

 

[Reiner04]

Closing.