The Definition Of A Stomp - Clarified

[Elizhaa]

^^ I agree as well.

Besides these, I would the proposals are fine.

 

[Moritzva]

Well, have we seen enough to come to a conclusion?

 

[Lorenzo.r.2nd]

well, i agree, but as said above, whether its a stomp or not really is a case by case thing.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I still feel like we should discuss that point.

2 characters being about equal with only one character having a win condition. Isn't fair. Because it's not "a challenging fight" if one character literally cannot lose.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There is admittedly too much variation of what's considered a stomp. Obviously, if two things are put together; that there is a clear cut victor and the winner literally over kills the loser, then it's a stomp. But it's some of the things in between is where there's more debate. Example could include a one-sided battle with no winner; which involves are high tiered, speed, or haxed character blitzing the other but said opponent has Regenerationn/Immortality they can't bypass.

Decisive win =/= stomp by default, such as if character A literally outclasses character B in every way, but not overwhelmingly so in any specific category. If it's literally impossible for character B to win, I agree it shouldn't be added. But stuff like, the recessive character could win if they got like super lucky, then it could still be added.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

>When there is a clear cut victor it's a stomp

>Only one character having means to end the fight isn't a clear cut victor

I mean seriously? It maybe taking a lot of time to argue doesn't mean it's ok cus "it's about fair". Otherwise it's like putting a character with passive mind hax vs a character with resistance to it. Then you argue for 200 posts on the potency only to realize that the person with mind hax has more potency than the other's resistance. Then going on to call it "just decisive not a stomp because it was pretty balanced", balanced or not, one character literally ended the fight with 0 chances of losing. That's not fair.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I never said that, I simply said having a clear cut victor that overkills the other makes it a stomp. Having a clear cut victor doesn't make something a stomp, and overkilling doesn't make it a stomp either if both have the ability to do it. But the two put together with the second character having a 0 chance of winning is a cut and paste stomp.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Oh so your take is:

Stomp means overkilling someone.

whereas

0 chances of winning = decisive cus it's not always overkill.

I guess that it does make sense. I just look at "Stomp" and "Decisive" based on "how fair is this for the other person". So i consider 0 chances of winning a stomp because, it's not fair to put someone against another person that he literally cannot win against. While you don't judge it on fair.

Although it's just my opinion, i'd say keep my take on it (on how fair), otherwise it will create spite matches that are not stomps. People can literally take random unhaxed 4-B's and throw them at Majin Buu to just randomly spite or feed wins and add the matches because "winning via regenerative traits is fair if it's otherwise an equal fight".

I hope you see where im getting at. It leaves a LOT of room for abusing.

 

[Epsilon_R]

There's a character A that can only attack by using wind fights a character B who become stronger every time they get hit by wind. The only way for character A to win is by attacking without using wind (a punch for example), which he never shown to be able to do that.

Does that qualify as a stomp?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That probably could be a stomp unless character A happens to be much stronger, or if there's a platform they can knock character B into.

 

[Moritzva]

I really like the point of "leaving no room for debate" as a slight indicator of stomphood.

Overall, the new definition proposed would solve a lot of problems. It doesn't give hard rules, per se, but it gives much stronger guidelines; guidelines we didn't have before.

That way, stomps can be based off of the actual rules and definition, rather than one's personal definition of a stomp.

 

[AKM sama]

I'm in agreement with the OP.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That's my point @Mori

Does a match where only 1 character can even end the fight leave room for debate?

Tbh i don't see how you can even argue in that kind of match, but eh. I've stated my points several times by now.

 

[AshenCrow777]

In a stomp match can't we just remove SBA because it will always end up like that, how willing is character B to use his ultimate attack on character A that might guarantee him a win.

But if we remove SBA on a possible stomp it actually will give us something to debate about.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Ashen

Well "remove SBA".

SBA is "standard battle assumptions". Standard, not a rule. So if nothing is stated, those rules apply, you can always change a fight by making the characters bloodlusted, give them knowledge or prep time, your choice.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Although it's just my opinion, i'd say keep my take on it (on how fair), otherwise it will create spite matches that are not stomps. People can literally take random unhaxed 4-B's and throw them at Majin Buu to just randomly spite or feed wins and add the matches because "winning via regenerative traits is fair if it's otherwise an equal fight".

I hope you see where im getting at. It leaves a LOT of room for abusing.

By that point, the matches stop being "notable" (because they're effectively the same matchup over and over again), and wouldn't be something we should add on general principle.

Which is another layer of this whole thing that nobody ever wants to point out; we shouldn't be adding every single match to profiles, notable or not, just because they're not stomp matches. That defeats the point of having the "Notable Victories/Losses" sections to begin with.

 

[Agnaa]

I thought the idea was just that stomp matches aren't notable, and that's why they're not added?

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Stomp matches aren't notable, yes. But that doesn't mean every other match is notable just because they're not one-sided enough to be considered a stomp.

 

[Agnaa]

Then how do we decide what's notable?

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

Then how do we decide what's notable?

The easiest way, at least to me, would be matches that were close. Basically, matches where there was actual debate with both sides having good arguments with various people giving their support. Matches that end up like 10-7 or go into double digits.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

I wouldn't go as far as limiting it to "Matches that end up like 10-7 or go into double digits", but other than that, the above seems like a good way of judging it. If the match boils down to one person giving reasons and everyone FRAing, or ends in the same result as multiple other matches one of the characters has been in with little discussion on the matter, then that isn't what I would call "notable" by any stretch of the imagination.

Matches that have to have extremely specific parameters in order to be fair also don't strike me as notable, although most of those are never concluded anyway.

 

[Moritzva]

Defining stomps by vote counts is a very risky and meta territory, though. I'm not for adding that to the actual page itself.

 

[Andytrenom]

"If the match boils down to one person giving reasons and everyone FRAing"

Considering this is literally what I hate most about VS threads here, I'm really tempted to say yes to this

But to be fair, sometimes there really isn't much to be said about a match, or someone has summed up a fight as well as it could be, and I really don't know if a match should be recognized as unaddable because of that

 

[Antvasima]

Do you need more input here, or are things going fine already?

I could highlight the update in the announcements thread if you wish.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Archie Sonic's FateHax comes to mind when talking about stomps. Unless the opponent has a temporary incap move.

 

[Moritzva]

Do you need more input here, or are things going fine already?

I could highlight the update in the announcements thread if you wish.

Well, it's a decently large change, though a majority of the thread has been unanimous decision so far.

Speaking of which, is there anything left to specially note on the page?

 

[Flashlight237]

So, if character A starts with a thought based ability, and B doesnt have any thought based ability nor resistances, would it be a stomp since...well, B cant do anything?

Why is it that "thinking" is seen as the end-all-be-all anyway? I mean a lot of the time, thinking is SLOWER than doing something. Like, for instance, I can be asked what 7^4 is and, without a calculator, I can be sitting here working my way through all the math to come to the conclusion that 7^4=2401. Yes, it is significantly faster to punch 7^4 into a calculator than it is to think of the answer to 7^4.

That also applies to battles; if I was inexperienced in combat and I was forced to think of a strategy, I'd be sitting for quite a bit trying to think about how to effectively go for a beeline against the enemy, yet no time would be spent actually going in for a beeline without thought regardless of how badly it would end up.

So yeah, doing is often FASTER than thinking.

 

[Moritzva]

When people say "thought based" they usually don't mean "calculus thought based".

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

So yeah, doing is often FASTER than thinking.

Its not

Lets say that you can instantly kill someone just by thinking, and you are against someone who uses physical attacks

Thinking>>>>>> thinking + moving your fists

So you'll always be faster

 

[Moritzva]

On a mildly unrelated note, I do plan on making a thread regarding preparation time next.

 

[Flashlight237]

Its not

Lets say that you can instantly kill someone just by thinking, and you are against someone who uses physical attacks

Thinking>>>>>> thinking + moving your fists

So you'll always be faster

Bruh, nobody has studied how fast thought itself was. How can one guarantee its actually faster when all we have to work with is a timely process?

 

[Andytrenom]

A thought based ability means you a make a decision, and the target is immediately affected

A non thought based ability means you make a decision, move your body to prepare the attack and then affect the target

Between opponents of similar speed the former will always be faster, and the example used against this is very flawed, because you are comparing the decision to attack something against solving a math problem in your head

 

[ElixirBlue]

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Bruh, nobody has studied how fast thought itself was. How can one guarantee its actually faster when all we have to work with is a timely process?

Thought speed is the fastest. You do need to think to do something. You can't move without your mind sending brain signals.

So your example is flawed cus you're saying "calculating that number up against have something else calculate it for you". There is a difference in the action.

Your example is more like "punch things in your calculator vs thinking about using the calculator". So you saying "acting > thinking" is the same as saying "i calculate numbers before i even think about calculating them" or "i pick up a glass of water before even thinking doing it".

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Bruh, nobody has studied how fast thought itself was. How can one guarantee its actually faster when all we have to work with is a timely process?

I dont think you understand whats being debated here

You do know that people needs to think before making any physical move, right?

However, there are people that only needs to think to kill someone...they dont need to move, and thats why they are always faster than someone who uses physical attacks

 

[ElixirBlue]

Well, there's a difference between conscious thinking and subconscious thinking.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

What does ''any'' of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well, there's a difference between conscious thinking and subconscious thinking.

Conscious or sub conscious, it's not faster. Sub conscious thinking doesn't mean you outspeed someone's thought.

The same idea as for reflexes, they are faster because they do not need the mind to do, it's a single movement thing, however that is because processing the pain of let's say touching something hot, takes time, not because moving takes less time.

 

[Moritzva]

This is getting absurdly off topic. Please stop.

 

[ElixirBlue]

This is getting absurdly off topic. Please stop.

We are talking about stomps. Thought based abilities could or can't cause stomps is the question.