SBA - Is Central Park considered to be inhabited?

[GyroNutz]

I've had this debate a few times, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't explicitly say either way in SBA. Is there considered to be people in Central Park or any of its surrounding areas? This can greatly impact matches where characters may hold back or be exploited due to morals (e.g. most 'superhero' types) or if a character can use other humans to their advantage (e.g. The Thing (John Carpenter)).

Personally I believe the area should be considered to be uninhabited by default, but all I really want from this thread is something written in stone about this.

 

[Ionliosite]

I agree it should be considered inhabited. Saying Supes loses a match because his opponent will distract him by attacking bystanders seems extremely unfair, and there's many other characters who'll suffer from similar problems.

 

[Wokistan]

That would happen if it is inhabited though

Personally, I think people should be there. People who use their powers on other people like mind controllers or human shields shouldn't be randomly crippled imo. There are also characters I know of that get stronger through killing and would in character go blast civilian populations for more strength. The moralistic stuff serves as a limitation to a character, I don't see why that limitation shouldn't still exist by default.

If you want to depopulate OP can just do that though.

 

[GyroNutz]

The opposite would apply though. If a character relies on other people for their abilities, that's a weakness in what should be a 1 on 1 fight (generalised, I know summons etc exist). From my experience, it's more common for a character to be harmed by an inhabited Central Park than an uninhabited one.

@Ion I take it you're agreeing for uninhabited SBA?

 

[Wokistan]

It wouldn't be in the same sense though. A place like central park isn't barren by default irl, so a normal fight in central park would logically have those people there for that.

I doubt we can say for sure how many people would be specifically helped or harmed by population there, but I'm not that confident that there's more people who are really careful of collateral damage than both people who don't care, people who seek it, people who need it for their powers, and people who will feel bad but get over it all combined.

 

[GyroNutz]

How Central Park is by default irl isn't all that relevant to a vsbattle. Should we also consider the reactions of these humans? Factoring humans into SBA can make it a lot more messy than it's worth.

Humans can affect some of those types of people too. Sadists may go off to torture/kill some humans instead of focusing on the fight, giving their opponent enough of a chance to win. People who feel bad may hesitate to use their full power around innocent humans, again giving an opponent enough of an edge to win. Both are legitimate arguments, but also quite trivial/messy arguments.

 

[Ionliosite]

Yes, I agree with the unhabited SBA. I actually think it should be the other way around, that you need to mention that there are people in Central Park in the OP.

 

[Wokistan]

Why isn't how a setting actually is relevant to the status of that setting? It's not that hard for OP to just be like "no people" or "takes place in an empty flat plane", it's as a default when they didn't specify.

But what's wrong with these things? Why shouldn't these additional dynamics be at play when these are factors relevant to engagements that take place? Character interaction's a really important part of how one fights and who would ultimately win a fight, so I don't see why we should default to removing that.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

But my problem is. What happens if the people get involved in the fight??

This is a problem for weaker characters. What happens if 2 tier 9's fight and the police join the fight skewing it to one side

 

[Ionliosite]

As it's been said, inhabited Central Park harms more characters than it benefits, so I think it should be better to have the place empty by default, and if the OP wants people there, they can just say so on the OP.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Having it empty by SBA is better. Having it be inhabited would make it too unfair for VS matches in the Tier 10-8 range

 

[Dienomite22]

The current standard is Central Park is inhabited and the OP always had the option to change the setting and population. I don't see the point for this being a thread besides asking for clarification because it's a small change either way and can be fixed with a simple edit.

 

[DontTalkDT]

My personal take on this is that it is inhabited. For exactly the same reason plants and animals are there: People with abilities that enable them to control these things should be allowed to use them.

That might not be important for high tier matches but having a crowd of random people beat up your opponents can be relevant for lower tiers.

However, I would argue that

a) By the no outside influence rules nobody present will act in a way that influences the match on their own accord.

b) We should probably disable a characters morals in regards to killing bystanders, extending on the willing to kill rule.

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

^Basically my take/stance

 

[GyroNutz]

Why isn't how a setting actually is relevant to the status of that setting? It's not that hard for OP to just be like "no people" or "takes place in an empty flat plane", it's as a default when they didn't specify.
But what's wrong with these things? Why shouldn't these additional dynamics be at play when these are factors relevant to engagements that take place? Character interaction's a really important part of how one fights and who would ultimately win a fight, so I don't see why we should default to removing that.

Because it's not a constant factor of the setting. And these shouldn't be factors relevant to a 1v1 fight, and I'd argue the fight wouldn't be notable if one fighter was hindered by something out of either fighter's control.

DontTalk makes sense to me