• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Definition Of A Stomp - Clarified

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moritzva

Moritzva

The Blood Goddess
Joke Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Messages
8,904
Reaction score
3,457
"A Stomp thread is when one character is immediately able to win against another, whether it is via battlefield removal, incapacitation or killing, with the opponent having no chance to retort with their own abilities or statistics."

This is our official definition of a stomp on a wiki. That's it. Now, this definition is incredibly lacking, and even flat-out false, as it only considers fights where one side instantly kills the other - not only is this not always a stomp, but its just wrong and misleading.

Our current definition of stomps is... barebones, at best, and has left much to the imagination. It doesn't cover half of what an unfair, or 'stomp' match could be. And since this page is it for our standards, the result is we have no standards, leading to arguments back and forth as people use their own personal interpretations, oftentimes to favor a win or to remove a loss from their favorite character.

As MrKingOfNegativity put it- the way things are right now, its unfathomably easy to twist a fair match into looking "unfair" (or vice-versa) because, for all intents and purposes, we don't have any proper guidelines for what the **** is and isn't fair outside of that one shitty definition we have. Or to put it more bluntly; Not listing what shouldn't qualify as a stomp has, apparently, allowed people to define stomps as they please.

So, MrKingOfNegativity and I have drafted the following page.

Suggested Changes

A stomp thread is a VS thread where, for all intents and purposes, one of the characters is unreasonably outmatched by their opponent. Whether it is through a difference in statistics, abilities or even (in very rare cases) skill between the two parties, the these matches are heavily one-sided and provide little to no challenge or danger for the winning character. Unlike a match which is decisive in one character's favor, stomp matches very rarely leave any room for debate, with their outcomes coming across as predictable to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the combatants and their abilities.
~ The suggested page, main definitio​
This is pretty simple. A stomp is when one character is horribly and obviously outmatched by the other. There is nothing 'notable' about facing a person who destroys you in every way, even if you have the tiniest, most miniscule chance of winning. While it is a case-by-case matter, the point is clear; horribly obvious and unfair matches are very likely stomps.

Each combatant's in-character mindset and tactics do not necessarily qualify or disqualify a match from being a stomp, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when determining whether or not a match falls under said category. Generally speaking however, if a character in a match has to perform or use techniques in ways they have never shown to do in order to possibly win, the chances of that match being a stomp are quite high.
~ The suggested page, notes​
As said before, case by case basis, but this brings some clarification to the matter. While in-character mindsets often can be heated discussion in the matter of a stomp, there is a fair difference between an in-character mindset, and something radical that they've never shown to do in-character. While neither are definitively stomps or not stomps, in the latter case, requiring your opponent to do something they've never done in order to possibly, potentially win is a strong indicator that its a stomp.

Conclusion
Stomps are pretty badly defined, and it's quite up to interpretation. This is meant to clarify, with much tougher standards, what is and is not a stomp, so there are less incidents of people bending those badly defined rules to their benefit.

If you have an opinion about what the definition of a stomp should be, voice it down below.

Also, special thanks to MrKingOfNegativity for the help on these revisions.
 
Zark2099 said:
Seems great, but what would a decisive match imply then?
Click to expand...
As noted on the page-


Common Examples of a Decisive/Non-Stomp Match

  • Both characters have several methods of winning, including options that allow them to win instantly. However, one character can reliably use/activate their winning move(s) first.
  • One character has more ways to win than the other, but the other character wins more times than not due to matchup specifics that allow/cause them to use their winning move(s) immediately.
  • Both characters are otherwise evenly matched in terms of stats and abilities, but one has Regenerationn that the other cannot surmount.
  • Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for incapacitation in spite of that.
~ The suggested page​
These are, of course, case-by-case matters that can vary heavily and are up for debate if anyone wishes to tweak them.
 
Zark2099 said:
Seems great, but what would a decisive match imply then?
Click to expand...
Nothing that notable. It just means one of the characters in the match wins in a clear-cut manner, but the matchup itself is not lopsided enough to be considered a stomp.

As for examples of that, they can be found on the draft in the OP.

EDIT: Ninja'd.
 
The third point is really iffy, as it kinda implies a High-Low fighting a guy with guns in a battle to the death is fair somehow
 
1. I don't see how it implies that specific scenario.

2. There will almost definitely be exceptions that fall under these basic specifications, but that's all they'd be; exceptions, not the rule.

3. High-Low can be surmounted by guns. Easily.
 
Yea, a shot to the head kills off a high-low. Also, naturally, it's a case-by-case thing; someone with High-Mid in a gunfight, naturally, will likely be a stomp, while High-Low likely wouldn't.
 
This looks solid to me I'm all for adding on to the definition give some meat to those bare bones.
 
You think I should highlight this?

...

Yeah, I think I should highlight this.
 
Seems important enough, yes.
 
Honestly, I always personally saw a stomp as a match that just outright wasn't possible to win, as opposed to one where a win isn't realistically going to happen. I'm probably not like most of the wiki here but I'd be fine with 10/0 decisive if the latter dude has some possible way to win that just isn't going to happen.
 
So for example, say A can't beat B without using his mindhax which he canonically does not use in character even if he is losing. Would that be a stomp?
 
Wokistan said:
Honestly, I always personally saw a stomp as a match that just outright wasn't possible to win, as opposed to one where a win isn't realistically going to happen. I'm probably not like most of the wiki here but I'd be fine with 10/0 decisive if the latter dude has some possible way to win that just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
It really is a case-by-case matter. It's one thing for it to be possible, and it's another thing for it to be utterly implausible and requiring greatly out-of-character actions. There's always a way to win- the only difference is, how impossibly unlikely is that way to win?
 
That's the thing though, I myself am fine with it being really implausible as long as it's a thing that could happen. Like I'd be fine with AnonBlank's example.
 
AnonymousBlank said:
So for example, say A can't beat B without using his mindhax which he canonically does not use in character even if he is losing. Would that be a stomp?
Click to expand...
It depends on the specifics. Gilgamesh doesn't lead with his strongest weapons in-character, and can often lose because of it- if, in a versus debate, a lesser haxxed opponent beats him since he doesn't lead with his best stuff, it likely wouldn't be a stomp.

Granted, there's a difference between a character voluntarily not using an ability they do have, and a character having to use a speculative ability they've never shown/use a pre-existing ability in a way they've never done before.
 
Wokistan said:
Honestly, I always personally saw a stomp as a match that just outright wasn't possible to win, as opposed to one where a win isn't realistically going to happen. I'm probably not like most of the wiki here but I'd be fine with 10/0 decisive if the latter dude has some possible way to win that just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say this is always the case, though.

To bring up an old match I was a part of, Johnny Bravo VS The Mask ended up being a scenario where they both had no way to actually kill each other, but Johnny had a move that allowed him to win in the end. Big-Head technically had no way to win, but the match itself would be a dead-end stalemate if it weren't for Johnny having that winning move. I don't believe something like that would be a "stomp" because it's not what I would call unfair; it's an even match that's decided by one basic factor.

EDIT: And I say this despite the fact that I was (and still am) the only knowledgeable supporter of Comics!Mask left on this site.
 
I agree with this too. Finally the thread we needed. Though the 3rd and 4th points on decisive matches seems either very badly worded or just wrong:

  • "Regenerationn that the other cannot surmount"
If one party cannot get over the Regenerationn how is that fair at all? It's literally the biggest stomp possible by virtue of "one party lacks a win condition".

*Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for incapacitation in spite of that.

So ugh basically only one of the characters can end the fight/has a win condition with the incapacitation method. The other cannot get past the Regenerationn, which means said "other" cannot end the fight.

These 2 examples are more stompy than some of the things said for stomps in that same page:

*the these matches are heavily one-sided and provide little to no challenge or danger for the winning character.

Providing little challenge is a stomp whereas winning a fight against a character who literally cannot do anything to end you isn't? And this:

  • Whether it is through a difference in statistics, abilities or even (in very rare cases) skill between the two parties
Even though very rare cases, skill being a stomp while unsurmountable regen not being one is weird at best. Same for the "if he has to do things in a specific order to win could lead to stomp" rule. I believe that shouldn't be a rule at all unless that specific order is not only OOC but something he can't figure mid fight, making the chances of him ever doing that sequence astronomically low.
 
I can reword the point on Regenerationn- "easily surmount" may be better phrasing. As in, it's not quite impossible, albeit too difficult for you to win more often than you lose.
 
I agree with the op.

The "stomp matches very rarely leave any room for debate, with their outcomes coming across as predictable to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the combatants and their abilities." is really the most important bit in my opinion. At least for the practicle purpose.

How close a match is is less relevant than whether it is debate worthy.
 
Moritzva said:
I can reword the point on Regenerationn- "easily surmount" may be better phrasing. As in, it's not quite impossible, albeit too difficult for you to win more often than you lose.
Click to expand...
That still feels no different from a character being far superior in skill. I don't see how Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson is a stomp for Ali, but Ali vs 10-A Dante (DMC) is fine because ali could pick up an axe along the way.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
I agree with this too. Finally the thread we needed. Though the 3rd and 4th points on decisive matches seems either very badly worded or just wrong:
Click to expand...
Imagine a matchup where the winner's only reason for winning is that he/she has regen that lets them last long enough to do so, and that they're either stalemating their opponent or outright getting their ass handed to them before that. That's what this is referring to.
*Both characters are evenly matched and have regenerative abilities that prevent the other from killing them, but one character has moves that allow for incapacitation in spite of that. So ugh basically only one of the characters can end the fight/has a win condition with the incapacitation method. The other cannot get past the Regenerationn, which means said "other" cannot end the fight.
Refer to the Johnny Bravo VS The Mask thread I just linked/explained.
*the these matches are heavily one-sided and provide little to no challenge or danger for the winning character.
Yes, "challenge", as in "X character is not winning so easily that they might as well not be fighting at all". In both of the above scenarios, the winning character's win is hard fought.
*Whether it is through a difference in statistics, abilities or even (in very rare cases) skill between the two parties Even though very rare cases, skill being a stomp while unsurmountable regen not being one is weird at best.
Donnie Yen's Ip Ma VS a 9-C whose main talent is brawling and not much else. That is an example of a stomp via raw skill, and is much less fair for the loser than the above examples given.
 
I knew it, I always said this in different ways, but no one seemed to really care enought, acting as if there were "actual" standards now that I think about it.

I totally agree with the OP.
 
But then again im the guy who would say even extremely low chances of winning aren't stomps (unless it's a very special case). Extremely low chance is just decisive, a character can win, the chances of him winning are significantly lower than the other character, making the match decisive.

I'd call stomp on "chances of winning are 0".
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Even though very rare cases, skill being a stomp while unsurmountable regen not being one is weird at best. Same for the "if he has to do things in a specific order to win could lead to stomp" rule. I believe that shouldn't be a rule at all unless that specific order is not only OOC but something he can't figure mid fight, making the chances of him ever doing that sequence astronomically low.
Click to expand...
The definition of this scenario is more in line with putting, say, Composite Human versus an average boxer. Like, there's absolutely no way the boxer can win in that skill match outside of sheer luck, and it's quite obvious that they aren't comparable. That's why it's mentioned as 'rarely'- it's extremely rare that skill, alone, will lead to a stomp.

But I will concede on slightly rewording the regen line.
 
DontTalkDT said:
I agree with the op.
The "stomp matches very rarely leave any room for debate, with their outcomes coming across as predictable to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the combatants and their abilities." is really the most important bit in my opinion. At least for the practicle purpose.

How close a match is is less relevant than whether it is debate worthy.
Click to expand...
For the record, this is correct. This is the most important part, and it should be the main thing taken into consideration whenever determining whether or not a match is a stomp.

If most (or all) of the users in a thread believe the match isn't even a debate, it's almost guaranteed to be unfair. Plain and simple.
 
Seems mostly good.

Moritzva said:
It depends on the specifics. Gilgamesh doesn't lead with his strongest weapons in-character, and can often lose because of it- if, in a versus debate, a lesser haxxed opponent beats him since he doesn't lead with his best stuff, it likely wouldn't be a stomp.

Granted, there's a difference between a character voluntarily not using an ability they do have, and a character having to use a speculative ability they've never shown/use a pre-existing ability in a way they've never done before.
Click to expand...
Since there was recently a disagreement about this...

Medaka Kurokami has a lot of hax. But in character she always lets the opponent have the first move. And even after that, she has only used her haxxy abilities once in the series, against an opponent that just put multiple of her friends into a coma, killed the most powerful character in the series thus far, AND that's immune to every skill (so her abilities didn't work anyway).

This isn't "she never uses the ability", but it's pretty dang close. So with these specifics, if an opponent runs up and insta-incaps Medaka, is it a stomp?
 
@Agnaa That's... a tough one, really. I mean, the answer to 'who wins' seems absurdly decisive with that in mind, honestly. I'm inclined to say it's a stomp, if there is truly absolutely no way in hell Medaka would use it by any remote means, ever, before getting obliterated a million ways sideways. Though, I could see a debate for either side, and I don't know enough about either character to have a definitive answer.
 
I mean, by EoS, Medaka seemed way more trigger happy than at the start (beating the shit out of all her friends and stuff), so she should pull some skills after a bit if she feels like she can't win normally.
 
If the thread is using EoS Medaka, depending on how she acts, decisive could likely be reasonably argued.

I do not know enough about Medaka or Ikki to answer with certainty, though.
 
InfiniteSped said:
I mean, by EoS, Medaka seemed way more trigger happy than at the start (beating the shit out of all her friends and stuff), so she should pull some skills after a bit if she feels like she can't win normally.
Click to expand...
Still, that was an organized fight that they all prepared as a celebration for her leaving the school, and she was only shown using physical attacks, no hax.

There's nothing implying she's more hax-happy.

@Moritzva I'm trying to give you all the context you need. I'm not so worried about Ikki specifically since, for one, Earl says he'd go for the instant incap so I believe that. And two, because if this type of match isn't a stomp then I can come up with a dozen other guaranteed losses for Medaka from a variety of characters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MasqueTLDF
  • Locked
DxD Rule addition: Class Scaling
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
MasqueTLDF
MasqueTLDF
Omegabronic
DBS Timelines reduction application thread
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
XXBenShapiroXx
XXBenShapiroXx
YmTheSuper
Location dependent abilities
Replies
2
Views
332
Homie890
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
717
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Stillwinston
I'm Commander Shepard. And this is a minor Mass Effect CRT.
Replies
7
Views
487
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Back
Top