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.
Scroll-fests are better for some things (mass-adding entries to multiple lists, casual browsing with no goal in mind), but worse for others (searching for one specific thing when you don't know the "find on page" feature exists on every device).
We don't actually.
You could also look at the...
I can't really add much that wouldn't just be repeating things I said already. And accordingly, I still disagree with you. But a few minor things.
That's not new, it was made in 2015.
You're not meant to scroll through it, you're meant to ctrl+f for verses or users.
It's not really meant for...
We don't mandate our staff members finish all projects within one month.
If you want to ask someone else to add it, you're free to do so.
Otherwise, Crab will get to it when he has time.
fwiw, that seems outside the scope of this thread; Crab wants to add examples to pages which have few...
This part is just going in circles. I don't believe more than 0.01% of users actually care to think this way, and we shouldn't put in a bunch of work to sterilize the website to their sensibilities.
I've never seen people view debating more as a competition simply because of S/O/N.
I mean that...
iirc one wouldn't need to prove it, but it would need to not have noteworthy contradictions.
Only if they're ultimately the same being.
It wouldn't.
It can.
Yeah but it's too speculative/contradictory for us to actually include in our system.
@BreezeHM @Epsilon_R @Enryu_The_Red_Tower And all other members.
Do not apply formatting changes like this before they have been accepted. The removal of Supporters/Opponents/Neutral on random pages has not been accepted.
Ah yeah, if - for an example where Character A uses 40% of their power to create an infinite universe, and they bless Character B with 1% of their power - everyone agrees that Character B wouldn't get High 3-A unless they've shown other feats on that level, then I don't think there's actually...
That could work, I just think having a sentence pointing to the knowledgeable members page might be an easier way of getting a similar result.
Hell, I wonder if that could automatically be applied by bots on every page, we might be able to change the start of every supporters/opponents/neutral...
eh idk, the dedicated page lets verses without verse pages get listed, so it'd be a shame for that page to get deleted entirely.
Plus, I'd say it does a little bit of filtering. If someone knows enough about our standards to be knowledgeable, they'd hopefully know that such a page exists.
And...
It's a fun bit of community-building, a conversation-starter, something people can chuckle at, it gives flavour to the site.
Fools can find any reason to dismiss people's opinions, adding this one doesn't change anything meaningful.
I've never seen it do that.
I've never seen it do that...
Going through the context, this was responding to a post which said "are my gifs just being ignored?" and "this is where the misinformation begins". Essentially, they'd both been doing very low-intensity shit-flinging back and forth, of which Fuji's post was more significant of an escalation...
That's not how hax that nullifies immortality works.
Your above justification has absolutely nothing to do with those points.
That's not hinting at immortality negation. "This works" =/= "This works because of X". Evidence of an outcome is not necessarily evidence of a cause. "Character A can...
I'd like to spotlight what you're implying here.
You're arguing that Kratos has a form of immortality negation against skeletons, which:
Only applies after a certain amount of blows.
Can happen after multiple different techniques, involving arbitrary combinations of seemingly ordinary blows...
It demonstrably isn't, because there's nothing indicating that it's actually an ability letting him nullify it, and there's things indicating that it isn't (since prior attacks without accumulated damage from the same source didn't cause their reconstruction to fail). It's just an anti-feat...
Not as many as I expected, but still a fair few.
Those both make this seem even less viable. Those attacks don't necessarily permakill, they only do so after enough hits, which implies that it's just overpowering their ability to reassemble rather than nullifying that ability.
From that title, "All executions, grab animations", and the other clips, it makes it seem like grapples like that are just instakills on a lot of enemies. And so sure, it's "evolved", but more in the sense that it's consistently a stronger sequence that can take down a variety of enemies which...
Not responding to everything, but Glassman asked me to bring some Type 7 Negation stuff here. If this sounds like it applies more broadly then it does. If it doesn't then it doesn't.
The skeleton stuff in Sparta seems widely agreed to not be legit; the tackle only kills them when their health...
I see no reasonable definition of "game mechanics" by which "a cutscene showing a character dying to an event after a countdown" is considered game mechanics because there shouldn't have been a countdown. The important part for scaling is the specifically scripted fail state, not the gameplay...
I'm not fully sure now that multiple characters can qualify for a tier. I suspected they'd be treated as having equal AP (although potentially unique hax), but idk what would happen if a series showed a High 1-A+ having higher AP than another one.
Halp @Ultima_Reality
I think that was reading wayy too much into StretchSebe's post. Perhaps you'd think justifiably so given the history between them, but reading it while putting context side it is a pretty neutral post. It's just saying "Armor's planning a downgrade, might wanna gather evidence for the current...
It wouldn't get Low 1-C.
Lowballing it like that is one of the things Ultima explicitly took issue with during these revisions. All qualifying examples of BDE Type 2 would be Low 1-A at minimum.
I don't understand why any of y'all are making this a big deal.
Sandboxes aren't private, obviously. And no-one should need permission to share them. People obviously shouldn't take them as something final, but if they do, it's on them for wasting their time by jumping the gun.
Also, revisions...
Your counter-example isn't actually that related to what we were talking about. We're talking about the invocation of the term "platonic concept" (or more likely, "platonic form"). I understand the point with "mathematical platonism", but I don't think it's relevant.
It means about as much as...
It's a bit weird, but that's what happens when the definition has nothing to do with the size of the cosmology, and solely comes from qualities of the character.
They'd be at whatever tier they'd land at without those monad statements.
Being a monad can bump a character from an otherwise 3-A cosmology to tier 0, so having such statements be contradicted could leave them at 3-A, or lower.
Yeah, but Ultima doesn't think we should assume that they have strange explanations by default. That's why "above dimensions" without any additional context would be Low 1-A, and it would only need a little more context to be 1-A.
Potential contradictions aside, it could. Just as how "They're...
If they demonstrably use it incorrectly then it wouldn't qualify.
But if they just name drop it without explicitly describing the properties we care about, I believe we'd still give it 1-A.
No, he's explicitly said otherwise about BDE and Type IV multiverses. I see 0 reason to believe he'd act...
Yes.
As in the lower tier characters stuff? That was as soon as Ultima broadened the definition from just "Characters that embody all possible worlds" to "Characters that embody all possible worlds, or who can affect arbitrarily many possible worlds". There was never any decision, discussion...