• 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.

"Realms with starry skies" feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
8,931
10,108
If it weren't obvious enough from the name of the title alone, this thread is about, well, 4-A characters who got their tier due to making a dimension that had a starry sky in it. I've met plenty of people who think the chars deserve their tier due to that feat, and have also met others who think that those feats are nonsense or even wanks. This thread will serve as a way for people to discuss the legitimacy of this popular powerscaling phenomenon, as well as giving the staff a way to give their input on it. Don't forget to be respectable to eachother while discussing.
 
I am neutral regarding the issue. It seems reasonable to grant such a tier if we have some kind of further evidence, but otherwise it may be an optical illusion.

Can somebody link to the wiki page listing our current standards?

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
It makes enough sense on paper, it is a bit weird but as long as it isn’t an outlier or anything, I guess it should be fine.
It more feels wrong rather then actually being an inherently false feat.
 
Personally, I think that some kind of evidence or clear and blatant showing are needed to establish what really is a starry sky and what is just shining stuff on the background or in the sky.

For example, these two feats/demonstration are currently considered starry skies and used to give 4-A to many characters, but there are no real evidences of them being actual stars and not glowing things in background, and to me they shouldn't be considered.
(for the second one you have to look at the "sky" behind the big blue walking heart).

Also, some times starry skies are related things like constellations etc... end being tiered as either High 4-C or 4-A, for reasons that I don't understand
 
Last edited:
I agree with Saman's comment. Neutral on his examples though, I think there was evidence for those two but can't remember it.

Coming from a verse with like 50% pocket reality feats used for scaling and 90% PR feats overall, most of the time stars in the background aren't legitimate without further evidence.
 
I mean if it looks like a duck, or in this case a star and the background is clearly space, the most logical conclusion is “they are stars.” Unless it is stated not to be.
I think you are kinda over thinking it with the “night just be other far off glowing things.
 
I also agree with Saman, "glowing things in space" does make me thing of stars logically but for the sake of it giving a tier it should have more than that, since it leads to a really high AP rating.
 
Kinda like how we don't count every attack that looks like a black hole as a black hole, since that'd give inflated tierings.
 
If the stars in the background are clearly shown to be stars and not just glowing balls of light then it seems fine to me, I think it's more of an assumption to say it's an illusion honestly.

The issue is that, they're just a background detail, most of the time, they won't even be mentioned or acknowledged, so you kinda have to just assume they're real stars, because again, almost every single time it won't be stated or referenced.

If there's a reason to believe they're illusions then fine, but if it clearly looks like a star and there's no reason to believe it's an illusion, then it should accepted to be a star.
 
Unless it would be an outlier, the issues related to it just being a strong feat are bunk. Same would apply with Black Holes.
 
I suppose that makes sense, but I dunno if the default, when there's no information, should be that they're not an illusion, especially in the Dracula example.
 
Except we don't treat black holes in that way. In regards to stars in the background, we (for some reason) make it the exception rather than the rule. Black holes, stars (Specifically sun-like attacks not the starry sky stars [although I guess that adds to the arbitrary nature]), pocket dimensions (To universe level I mean, not the validity of their existence), etc...

Especially considering most pocket realities already don't apply to a regular set of physics or reality or appearance in general.
 
Because it might not be that far, if it's an illusion, or just, I dunno, smaller, closer stars, that too is perfectly possible.
 
Because it might not be that far, if it's an illusion, or just, I dunno, smaller, closer stars, that too is perfectly possible.
I mean that assumption would need proof. These are what if’s with little evidence or basis done entirely to think of a weaker option.
If it looks like our space, it is consistent enough, and nothing suggests it’s fake in anyway. It is 4-A, that is the simplest answer with the least assumptions.
 
Well like I brought up most PRs are already not conforming with reality, physics, or even regular appearances.

It'd take less assumptions to assume the starry sky background is like the rest of the PR in its bizarre nature, then the backgrounds being except from the PR's own nature.
 
Well like I brought up most PRs are already not conforming with reality, physics, or even regular appearances.

It'd take less assumptions to assume the starry sky background is like the rest of the PR in its bizarre nature, then the backgrounds being except from the PR's own nature.
What do you mean? Why would a starry sky in a pocket reality be any different than a normal starry sky?
 
I mean, when you see a pocket dimension, why don't you assume it's universal? it doesn't show any ends to it, why would it be any different than a normal universe?
 
I mean, when you see a pocket dimension, why don't you assume it's universal? it doesn't show any ends to it, why would it be any different than a normal universe?
We don’t see a full universe, so we don’t assume it is one unless it is stated to be one. I am mostly trying to minimize assumptions here.
That logic could be applied to pretty much anything, so I am not sure why it is here.
 
My main concern is to not call stars and give cosmic ratings to everything that resembles glowing dots in background, because it might perfectly be a graphic effect
 
@Purgy already said why in the quote: a reality in a PR is already significantly altered, hence why we take everything seen with a grain of salt (including the size of the barrier itself), why would starry skies within be an exception?

@00potato and we don't assume they're full universes why? Because we understand PRs don't tend to work within the same rules as the regular universe, hence why everything needs to be proven first, which should include the starry skies.
 
I agree with SamanPatou on that, though with retro video games specifically, there are times where glowing dots are used to depict stars and are stated as such, but whether or not that gets accepted should be case by case.
@Purgy already said why in the quote: a reality in a PR is already significantly altered, hence why we take everything seen with a grain of salt (including the size of the barrier itself), why would starry skies within be an exception?
There are many examples of pocket realities behaving much like an ordinary universe would in both appearance and physics, the issue with what you're doing is that you're trying to generalize a few examples where that isn't the case to everything.

If there's a reason to believe the Starry Sky in that specific pocket reality is an illusion or something else then it obviously shouldn't be accepted, but I don't think we should just generalize this to all pocket realities by default, it should need to be proven that this is the case imo.
 
@Purgy

They are far less common than you're giving credit for- even the most mundane tend to have traits that aren't based on reality. Like having Earth's gravity while being smaller than 5-B for example.

The current standard is generalizing all pocket realities.
 
@Purgy

They are far less common than you're giving credit for- even the most mundane tend to have traits that aren't based on reality. Like having Earth's gravity while being smaller than 5-B for example.

The current standard is generalizing all pocket realities.
I mean, neither of us can really prove which is more common when there are countless pocket realities in fiction, so it's kinda pointless to try.

The current standards are generalizing it yes, but I feel the current standards are more accurate than what you're proposing, both have their flaws, so it really only comes down to whichever you think is more fair and consistent.

I'm curious though, what evidence do you think is necessary for a pocket reality with a starry sky to be treated as legitimate?
 
But it's a significant number of pocket realities that pulls gravity outta nowhere.

IMO any mention of stars would be enough.
 
"But it's a significant number of pocket realities that pulls gravity outta nowhere."

That's the point, most PRs already don't apply to regular physics.

@Purgy

The evidence would just be interstellar distances at that point, or even a remark or two. It's always been better to be conservative than excessively liberal here.
 
Last edited:
@Purgy

The evidence would just be interstellar distances at that point, or even a remark or two. It's always been better to be conservative than excessively liberal here.
That seems fine to me then, I don't think the standards should be too restrictive but nor should they be too lax to where a cluster of glowing things in the sky immediately warrants a 4-A rating.
 
For example, these two feats/demonstration are currently considered starry skies and used to give 4-A to many characters, but there are no real evidences of them being actual stars and not glowing things in background, and to me they shouldn't be considered.
(for the second one you have to look at the "sky" behind the big blue walking heart).
Also, I am just going to say it, but that Castlevania video doesn't look anything even remotely like stars, are they actually 4-A because of this feat?
 
That and Brauner creating "multiple dimensions containing moons, suns and stars just to drain a part of Dracula's Castle power" which does sound more legit but I haven't played PoR
 
There are other 4-A feats iirc, and I believe there's more evidence for those being stars than just that.

Realistically, they shouldn't even be 4-A anyway, the possibly should be removed and they should be Low 2-C, but that's for another thread.
 
That and Brauner creating "multiple dimensions containing moons, suns and stars just to drain a part of Dracula's Castle power" which does sound more legit but I haven't played PoR
The problem is that it isn't linked anywhere and should be evaluated
 
There are other 4-A feats iirc, and I believe there's more evidence for those being stars than just that.

Realistically, they shouldn't even be 4-A anyway, the possibly should be removed and they should be Low 2-C, but that's for another thread.
I also always had issues with the Low 2-C, bevcause it's taken from Judgement, which is an "internal crossover" fighting game and I'm pretty sure it's not canon to any of the timelines of the series, but that's definitely for another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top