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.
Yeah I just like it. It was a decision made on a whim. At some point on Comicvine I thought "Okay I can't be pfp-less" so I went into my documents folder and that was the one that one that seemed functional.
There's many more than are in this thread, but I am trying to limit how many I handle at once, since even relatively straightforward removals can become complicated if someone really wants to make an argument out of it.
This is for "Low Tier Demon Physiology" so this is the stuff that all demons are being claimed to have.
We have to demonstrate that pretty much all demons can just straight up corrupt people. Scans that their world is corruptive don't suffice.
Law Manip will be handled separately, I'm just...
Okay, so setting aside the guidebook canonicity matter for now, are you fine with these changes:
1) Clarifying the "on every hit" entries to reflect the chances
2) Removing Chaos Manip from the blades
3) Removing Dura Neg and Fire Manip from Light of Dawn, keeping Holy Manip for now
4) Removing...
Slight correction, I got confused somewhere along the line I think due to the Beastheads scan. Resistance to Law Manip isn't being discussed here, it's Resistance to Physics Manip and Gravity Manip.
This is for removing the Supernatural Willpower entry.
This isn't the reasoning that he is using. This isn't about demons having "Resistance to Corruption." This is about demons having the Corruption power themselves on the basis that the DW corrupts things.
This is for removing "Resistance to...
Yes. A certain energy or substance being within a weapon doesn't grant it manipulation of that thing. When we give abilities based on equipment we are saying "by using this equipment, the character gains [X] ability." If I have a sword that is imbued with holy magic, and it has the special...
I didn't miss it, I quoted it in the comment you are responding to. My stance remains unchanged, we know that the Beastheads do not work on Demons. There is no evidence that this is due to supernatural willpower instead of it just not being compatible with them, since it was designed to...
No, we would need an indication that (A) The Beastheads are actively trying to devour demons and (B) The reason that the Beastheads fail is that they have extraordinary will. We dont have enough information to reach that conclusion, it seems more likely that the Beastheads just arent targetting...
I don't know what you mean by "can revert others into herself naturally" but if you're saying the blades can revert things into chaos, we'd need a demonstrative feat.
I'd rather not try to handle the "guidebook canonicity" can of worms here, so I'll just leave that for another thread. I'll...
No. Once Chen and Dante realize the Beastheads eat humans and replenish demons, Chen remarks:
"I should patent this. A process for transforming humans into a basic magical energy."
If the Beastheads just aren't designed to devour demons or transform them into magical energy, they wouldn't need...
Hello. The Demon Physiology page for Devil May Cry includes a lot of rather strange abilities. I'll be going through this page and others in the verse over a period of time to remove the ones that are not appropriately justified. This is for the "Lower Tier Demons" section.
Abilities
Humans...
Simply having something is not the same as manipulating it.
Sure, that is helpful for the GOW2 guide (well, Cory Barlog. At that time Eric Williams was just the combat systems designer), but no such acknowledgements are present in the Chains of Olympus guide, and Cory Barlog didn't even work...
They helped "bring it together." The exact nature of this is entirely unknown. This also isn't a databook, it's a game guide by a different company that makes many game guides for various companies. The writers work for a company called "Off Base Productions" and they only make game guides.
You...
The back of the guide thanks Ready at Dawn for "for making a fantastic game and for all their help in bringing this guide together." Without knowing whether the actual writers were involved or what the nature of their involvement was, this doesn't seem substantive enough to call it secondary...
None of this seems relevant to the removals.
Being a "life giving light" doesn't necessarily make it holy. As for the scan, I see that it is called "Divine Energy" but is that ever substantiated in the games? This game guide is from a different company and would fall under tertiary canon, which...
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Okay, this first one is a bit different as it's not an ability removal.
"On Every Hit"
Several of the abilities in Kratos' Norse and Ragnarok keys stipulate "on every hit" or something similar. For example:
However, the scans are describing a chance based...
Okay. I am prepared to seek their input, but let us make sure that we agree on the substance of the argument. I would formulate it like this:
P1: The Demon World is composed of infinite 4-D structures (2-A)
P2: DontTalk said these 4-D structures must be displaced along a 5-D axis
C1: Therefore...
You need to support that with an argument. Having a "different flow of time" =/= "having a temporal orientation that is directionally distinct from the past and future of the primary temporal axis." A slower or faster flow of time could be a different flow of time, a spatiotemporally separate...
That is far too nebulous to grant QS. We can't vibe-check a realm and say it's infinitely superior.
Setting aside the infinite timelines argument, Chen's knowledge doesn't have anything to do with our "range" statistic.
You need proof that there are axes of time that is oriented in an entirely...
The fact that "cosmos" is explicitly used to contract against "the universe" indicates to me that they shouldn't be regarded as meaning the same thing. I'm not comfortable regarding it as such.
I don't really understand why DB cosmology threads tend to rack up almost two pages every single day. I can't help but think threads like this simply need to be staff discussion threads if any meaningful progress is going to be made.
Unfortunately, I do not really think Fear Manip -- which itself is a subset of Empathic Manip -- warrants this level of granularity. Usually we would just rely on the justification section itself to clarify what the nature of the fear manip is. I also don't really like this replacement image...
The blog wasn't ignored. The reason the vast majority of the upgrades were rejected is that the reasoning for several of them is just not viable at all, not because the blog version wasn't given due weight. Moreover, the blog structures the argument differently, so I wouldn't simply consider it...
If nothing else, I would like for you to answer this question:
Sure, but at some point a thread is simply not viable and it's not practical to try and drag out more staff members to an 8 page thread about Tier 1 cosmology stuff when already very few staff members have any interest in that...
That's unlikely, just FYI. The only part of the proposal that had agreement from staff was one additional temporal axis, but the vote is 2-4 or possibly 1-4.
I'm fine with letting the discussion continue, but this thread won't simply stay open perpetually until you feel all points are satisfied.
No, it says that the default assumption is that "bigger" does not mean Low 1-C, and gives examples of what "bigger" could mean that does not result in Low 1-C. It says, however, if what was said is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A...