• 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.

Honkai: Star Rail Discussion Thread

IM2 backed up by some CM3.
Idk im2 seems weird for that. It's not like information is changed, elation still exists and taste ofc exists in all its forms. It's just that a whole targeted range of beings can no longer taste through the act of removing their concept's tastebuds, and I do think what they're trying to show fits best with CM2.

It probably depends on the staff icl. There's other similar cases in HSR like the path of permanence changing / being manipulated into various smaller paths.
It does genuinely feel like the writing is yelling towards conceptuality and it's just being shrugged off because 'its energy' despite that being what the story is yelling about. VSBW is awkward like that ig.
 
Idk im2 seems weird for that. It's not like information is changed, elation still exists and taste ofc exists in all its forms. It's just that a whole targeted range of beings can no longer taste through the act of removing their concept's tastebuds, and I do think what they're trying to show fits best with CM2.
Not sure why that wouldn’t fit IM2. What the concepts of a Path determine is the functionality of the Path Energy. That’s really all.

It does genuinely feel like the writing is yelling towards conceptuality and it's just being shrugged off because 'its energy' despite that being what the story is yelling about. VSBW is awkward like that ig.
Nono. I know that’s what it’s trying for. But I also know that it’s in the intention of the writers to harmonize the idea with the quantum mysticism-esque setting of Honkai.

Because again, if Shaoji were taking the ideas incorporated into the series as they are in an isolated fashion, it’d surely scale higher. Unfortunately the way they work are altered to fit the themes of the aforementioned “setting”.
 
No clue why the msg duplicated.
Because again, if Shaoji were taking the ideas incorporated into the series as they are in an isolated fashion, it’d surely scale higher. Unfortunately the way they work are altered to fit the themes of the aforementioned “setting”.
Fun side-tangent because I do feel like Shaoji and the writers have made a good framework for CM and explaining it to an audience less-powerscaly, it's just that it doesn't completely fit in with what VSBW wants with energy being CM.
 
Does being energy disqualify something from having CM?
Imo, path itself should be type 2 concept, but draw energy from path produce isn't the same thing with manipulating concept (like pathsrider) as much like aeon do

To me it kinda like
Path = concept type 2
Using energy from path ≠ CM2
But changed the path itself the way like aha do voracity = CM2
 
Imo, path itself should be type 2 concept, but draw energy from path produce isn't the same thing with manipulating concept (like pathsrider) as much like aeon do

To me it kinda like
Path = concept type 2
Using energy from path ≠ CM2
But changed the path itself the way like aha do voracity = CM2
There’s an issue with this in that the Path itself is the energy.

IMG-5841.jpg


Not that it matters much because your claim would make the function of the Paths double. So there’s the concept itself which affects all particulars, but there’s also the energy that does the same thing. Which would just be highly unparsimonous.
 
I know. I’m not sure how that changes anything though.
the line itself states a concept was removed, thats the positive evidence for CM2. if you think that's actually describing an energy-level functionality change dressed in conceptual language, thats your reading, and id want to see what in the text supports reading it that way rather than at face value
 
the line itself states a concept was removed, thats the positive evidence for CM2. if you think that's actually describing an energy-level functionality change dressed in conceptual language, thats your reading, and id want to see what in the text supports reading it that way rather than at face value
Yea this doesn’t address the second paragraph of my message.
 
it didn't really make much sense to be fair
Yes it does. Because the CM2 then relies on additional assumptions and headcanons that have no founding holistically. Because again, it means that Paths affect the universe in a twofold manner, which is not parsimonious at all when it can be explained by one function.

it kinda does, but this is lowkey getting us nowhere and so we all should kiss
Read the above message.
 
Yes it does. Because the CM2 then relies on additional assumptions and headcanons that have no founding holistically. Because again, it means that Paths affect the universe in a twofold manner, which is not parsimonious at all when it can be explained by one function.
no genuinely what are you saying? what is the other way they are affecting it
 
Back
Top