Stomp Matchup CRT.

[Sir_Ovens]

Yes, but my point is still valid because it's not a stomp exclusively because of regeneration then.

Edit: Was replying to Nelliels

 

[Arkenis]

Basically we argue that the high regen has a limit like most do eg Ulquiorra, Naruto, Shinra

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Again, my point is that if you can't kill a character because of regen, that already falls under our stomp rules as having no victory condition. If you want to be this specific, you'd have to list down every other invalid match up condition as well.

I'd rather we just leave it up to common sense that if a character is unable to kill the opponent and has no other way of putting them down, it's a stomp and should count as an invalid match.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Agreed with Ovens

 

[Arkenis]

Really don't think a kill needs to be a win con. characters can have other forms of beating them through exhausting their stamina, or sealing, or bfr, other means of wins that down required death.

 

[FantaRin_The_First]

Am not a mod but in regards to a knock-out victory... Doesn't a character need to be knocked out for an hour? Honestly, isn't that a bit too long since one can argue that a character would wake up in a few minutes due to stamina feats/pain tolerance feats? So a knock-out win con is extremely unreliable in most cases compared to killing, sealing, BFR, and so on?

If my words had any value, I would suggest adding a win con in which the first person who knocks out their opponents win. Probably needs a lot of work to make it something viable but it could help characters deal with characters with strong immortality, regeneration, or both w/o the hax to deal with 'em.

 

[Elizhaa]

Agreed with Ovens

Same.

 

[Bobsican]

Am not a mod but in regards to a knock-out victory... Doesn't a character need to be knocked out for an hour? Honestly, isn't that a bit too long since one can argue that a character would wake up in a few minutes due to stamina feats/pain tolerance feats? So a knock-out win con is extremely unreliable in most cases compared to killing, sealing, BFR, and so on?

If my words had any value, I would suggest adding a win con in which the first person who knocks out their opponents win. Probably needs a lot of work to make it something viable but it could help characters deal with characters with strong immortality, regeneration, or both w/o the hax to deal with 'em.

At the same time it'd also make such abilities virtually irrelevant out of most characters technically being knocked out before such powers trigger, even if in seconds, so it'd be inappropiate as it wouldn't display appropiately the full skillset of both combatants.

 

[FantaRin_The_First]

Hm. You could make it optional? Like, say that unless the OP specifically says that knock-out is a viable win-con and gives the specifics of how long knock-out should be? IDK, we're a text-based verse forum so we can't really appropriately display the full skillsets of combatants, but, there should be some middle ground for this,

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Hm. You could make it optional? Like, say that unless the OP specifically says that knock-out is a viable win-con and gives the specifics of how long knock-out should be? IDK, we're a text-based verse forum so we can't really appropriately display the full skillsets of combatants, but, there should be some middle ground for this,

"Assumptions alternative to these ones can be freely used, are equally legitimate, and threads using different assumptions can be added to profiles just like these ones can. Generally, it is preferable that the thread creator specify the assumptions he wants to use in the thread and adjust them in such a way that as fair a fight as possible can take place." (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Standard_Battle_Assumptions)

It's perfectly possible to specify different assumptions in the OP of a Versus Thread. The Standard Battle Assumption are merely the standard that is used if you don't specify anything.

 

[FantaRin_The_First]

Wait, really. Can I, for example, make a match in where knocking a person out is a win-con and have it added? I think I tried to do so before but was told exactly what Bobsican said,

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Wait, really. Can I, for example, make a match in where knocking a person out is a win-con and have it added? I think I tried to do so before but was told exactly what Bobsican said,

I'm not an expert regarding this matter and I can't say that I know much about the context of the situation but as far as I'm aware it's prossible to specify things like location, whether or not the fight is won by killing or knocking out the other person, the starting distance, whether abilities or weapons that significantly increase a character's power are restricted and optional equipment.

 

[Arkenis]

Pretty sure the sba page says wins can be gotten from incap

Wait, really. Can I, for example, make a match in where knocking a person out is a win-con and have it added? I think I tried to do so before but was told exactly what Bobsican said,

 

[Bobsican]

Wait, really. Can I, for example, make a match in where knocking a person out is a win-con and have it added? I think I tried to do so before but was told exactly what Bobsican said,

Well, as my concern said:

At the same time it'd also make such abilities virtually irrelevant out of most characters technically being knocked out before such powers trigger, even if in seconds, so it'd be inappropiate as it wouldn't display appropiately the full skillset of both combatants.

That'd fall within the following Versus Thread Rule, and so changing what falls as a wincon in this manner wouldn't be allowed, at least for the match to be valid to be added to profiles.

• 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, and is one the character can consciously restrict themselves from using. 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, or if the ability being restricted is indexed after a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

So are the overall staff conclusions here that a specific rule for this would be redundant?

 

[Bobsican]

Looks like it, but I think what DT suggests wouldn't hurt to do, as it'd just be an extra sentence or two to avoid misconceptions like what we're dealing with currently.

I guess it should be clarified that "regeneration that the other cannot easily surmount" means possible to surmount, just not easily.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is that fine with the rest of you as well, and if so, is somebody willing to write a draft text please?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As for a draft, I would just change the "Both characters are otherwise evenly matched in terms of stats and abilities, but one has regeneration that the other cannot easily surmount."-sentence to

Both characters are otherwise evenly matched in terms of statistics and abilities, but one has regeneration that the other can possibly, but not easily, surmount.

 

[Antvasima]

To me that seems fine to apply. Is somebody here willing to handle it please?

 

[Elizhaa]

To me that seems fine to apply. Is somebody here willing to handle it please?

Sure. It is done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. I appreciate it.

Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative and defensive abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for them to gain the upper hand.

Wait, if only one of the two characters has a way of bypassing Regeneration, then wouldn't that still be a scenario where one of the two sides has no way of winning?

What are you talking about? This scenario is if one person has regeneration that the other can't beat physically. Not if both have a regeneration neither can beat physically.

But going off your question, yes, that would a stomp/mismatch.

Doesn't the sentence say that both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative abilities? It doesn't specify anything about only one character having Regeneration.

The scenario I mentioned was based off the thread XSOULOFSINDERX posted. Look below...

My scenario is about one person having regeneration, not both. As this example is used for.

My response is about the part you've quoted from the Stomp Thread page.

Hmm I guess I got confused. That rule is wrong I'll admit that but the example put forth doesn't fit the context which is why I got confused.

I'd say that there is still this.

 

[Antvasima]

@Elizhaa @Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Sir_Ovens @Confluctor @Armorchompy

What do you think about the above post?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

It needs to be removed or changed entirely, currently it says this under.

Common Examples of a Decisive/Non-Stomp Match​

• Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative and defensive abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for them to gain the upper hand.

This is not a Decisive/Non-Stomp match, it is the literally definition of an unfair/stomp match as the OP pointed out. It's basically saying two equal characters in statistics and regeneration that prevent them from killing each other but one has hax, like mind manipulation for example is a fair match... which isn't the case because one character has a legit win condition while the other doesn't which is the definition of a stomp.

It should be removed or changed to something like...

* One character having a level of regeneration that prevents them from being killed, but the other has an ability that would allow them to win despite the formers level of regeneration, such as mind manipulation, soul manipulation, ect...

Or something along those lines. As of right now though, that rule makes no sense.

 

[Elizhaa]

LordGriffin1000's suggestion seems it would be fine.

 

[Confluctor]

Same ^

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that he seems to make sense, but it is probably best to wait for a bit more staff input before the suggested change is applied.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Bump.

 

[FantaRin_The_First]

Excuse me, I have something to say for this thread after a few experiences with this particular problem... What about stomps in speed equal due to speed amps? I know there are rules in-place for it, but I figure bringing it up in a stomp match crt after being apart of matches that were stomp due to speed amps was a good idea.

 

[Antvasima]

It needs to be removed or changed entirely, currently it says this under.

Common Examples of a Decisive/Non-Stomp Match​

• Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative and defensive abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for them to gain the upper hand.

This is not a Decisive/Non-Stomp match, it is the literally definition of an unfair/stomp match as the OP pointed out. It's basically saying two equal characters in statistics and regeneration that prevent them from killing each other but one has hax, like mind manipulation for example is a fair match... which isn't the case because one character has a legit win condition while the other doesn't which is the definition of a stomp.

It should be removed or changed to something like...

* One character having a level of regeneration that prevents them from being killed, but the other has an ability that would allow them to win despite the formers level of regeneration, such as mind manipulation, soul manipulation, etc...

Or something along those lines. As of right now though, that rule makes no sense.

@Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Sir_Ovens @Armorchompy

What do you think about this?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Excuse me, I have something to say for this thread after a few experiences with this particular problem... What about stomps in speed equal due to speed amps? I know there are rules in-place for it, but I figure bringing it up in a stomp match crt after being apart of matches that were stomp due to speed amps was a good idea.

If the speed amp results in a blitz and allows said character to blitz, while the other character has no counter then it's a stomp and honestly shouldn't be added.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

@Colonel_Krukov @DarkDragonMedeus @Sir_Ovens @Armorchompy

What do you think about this?

Looks okay

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

LordGriffon makes sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluations.

So do we have a sufficient amount of staff agreements to apply this change, or should we ask DontTalk for a confirmation first?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I think it's enough support, though I have no issue with waiting.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluations.

So do we have a sufficient amount of staff agreements to apply this change, or should we ask DontTalk for a confirmation first?

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sounds ok.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation.

Feel free to apply the new wording for the rule then, @LordGriffin1000 .

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I applied the changes, this can be closed.