• 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.

A Certain Llama Wants In On The Low 1-C club; Pokemon Low 1-C Upgrade for True Form Arceus

Status
Not open for further replies.
i do think the tiering page could receive a small tweak to make it clear that the infinity stuff is not the only way to get it.

regardless, i agree with solid, but i think likely works if the tier 1 requirement keeps being debatable after it, IMO we can just nuke 2-B at this point and have "2-A, likely low 1-C" if we don't go for solid
 
StrymULTRA said:
Executor made a pretty big post here explaining why it should right few hours ago here.

DT just answered about FAQ stuff.

Ultima didn't appear at all, though he seems to agree with these concepts.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Executor_N0 said:
I have no idea how this got into something like this, but, something that I think can help.

First of all, the idea of cosmology that is being used for Arceus is that of a transcendental God that created the world by manifestations of itself. You have this one heart that is everything in a state of "nothing is different, everything is the same" that starts to "think" and results in the manifestation (Not really creation in the most literal sense of the world) of Bunshins of Time, Space and Anti-Matter and later of Knowledge, Willpower and Emotion in order to "enrich" the inner "heart" of those who would be released later, as the world remains a product of cognition.

In this system, everything was a part of the original heart only to be "released" as their individual selves, this includes even things like the Creation Trio as they are literally called "Arceu's Bunshins", they are a part of Arceus in the same way all of creation is. Therefore, there's really no reason to compare any instance of an Arceus avatar compared to that of the "Heart", since the heart is everything, everywhere, and beyond. Things like the Plates are really useless for the Heart when in order to be omnipresent, the Heart already needs to be in the plates as well, they are more of the inner-workings of one of Arceus' bunshins (Such as the one that you get in Legends Arceus, that I mentioned in this tweet). The same is valid for "avatars" fighting against the creation trio or anything like that, nothing like that has any influence on the Heart for logical reasons, they are still manifestations of the heart, it's no different than an omnipresent god that is everyone and everything, but still has the people that are a part of it fighting, they are not the god, only a part of it.

In a way, any plot related to "Arceus" can have no negative effects on the "Heart" for those same logical reasons. This is why in more recent material the Arceus is used more as a god that teaches lessons and tests the morals of the mortals than anything else. Even in "HG/SS" manga the plot, in the end, was said to be really of Arceus testing to see if humans were still trustworthy. In Hoopa Movie's Novelization it's explained that the reason why the creation trio couldn't stop the collapse of Space-time was that a "power of a higher-order" was stopping them from doing so, basically stating that the reason why everything happened the way it did was that the whole point of the conflict was for Arceus to test Hoopa in order to teach Hoopa a lesson. And that became the point of the character even since with Legends Arceus basically being the MC doing tasks in order to prove its worth to Arceus.

In the context of the "Heart", that is basically the most logical answer to anything that "limits" it compared to the avatars or similar things, it makes no sense for those limitations to apply to the "Heart" when the whole point of the "Heart" is that it's omnipresent and the source of everything that exists. Palkia is the Heart, Dialga is the Heart, Giratina is the Heart, the protagonists are the Heart, and everyone is the heart. That is how it works, when we are talking about the Heart, it exists as its own thing and what happens with the bunshins is irrelevant.

Now, going to talk about cosmology. First, my comment on it being Low 1-C was on the idea that since we have the "world" a space (right-left, up-down, all directions plus parallel spaces) and time (past to the future, as put in the kanjis for Sekai and Uchu that Pokémon is actively using) and since the Heart both encompasses both time and space, while still being beyond them, seems like a very common description of superiority/higher-order that fits with the essence of Low 1-C in a more metaphysical sense instead of the whole "infinitely higher" thing that isn't really a necessity, more like a very clear example of it.

The Time-Space Axis seen in the 12th movie really isn't a good representation of this. First of all, basically, any cosmological map that showcases more than just the Outerspace of a universe is just a metaphorical representation, no map that represents something with more than 2 dimensions can be faithfully represented in 2 dimensions (That is why we have many different maps that show the Earth, some with a very distorted appearance in some ways in order to compensate to something else), so there's no way that a 3D machine can represent something that is 4 dimensional or higher in a faithful way, even more, when... it in no way represents the realms of the creation pokémon.

In that machine you have the "Real World" in the base, spheres for Palkia's space, Dialga's Space, Giratina's Reverse World, and Arceus' space... that is not how it should look like.

Palkia's space is the between spaces, it's the realm that lies between parallel spaces/parallel dimensions as said in the 10th movie. You could even say that Palkia in the 4th spatial exists between the three-dimensional axis of right-left, up-down, and back-forth.

Dialga is most likely the between time, the timestream between the moments in time.

Giratina's space is the "other side of the world", it's the backside, outside of time and space that exists to balance time and space within "this side of the world".

And Arceus' space is the one that lies beyond time and space, encompassing all worlds as a single thing since this is what the "Heart" is, everything and nothing at once.

There's just no way that the Time-Space axis represents this, it's a metaphorical representation of space-time in order to be able to pinpoint distortions in the fabric of space-time, not a full demonstration of what the cosmology looks like unless we think it has been retconned to fit with what was stated before and after the movie.

So, the ways that I can see Arceus as Low 1-C are:
1) I think that the statements of superiority beyond time and space as the parallel universes and spatial axis and time, present, and future does fit with what is commonly accepted as Low 1-C
2) If we only talk about encompassing all of time and space, if one would consider Palkia's "between space" as akin to a perpendicular dimension across parallel 3D spaces (As it's explained in Legends and is in the etymology of Uchu/Sekai), then we have a cosmology that is 4D+1D in a non-insignificant sense that I remember as being valid for Low 1-C.
3) The space-time cosmology is a result of cognition manifesting from inside the Heart and does complement the notion of superiority over/being beyond the structure of space-time in point 1).
Click to expand...
What do you think about this, @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT ?
 
Thelastmlg said:
i do think the tiering page could receive a small tweak to make it clear that the infinity stuff is not the only way to get it.

regardless, i agree with solid, but i think likely works if the tier 1 requirement keeps being debatable after it, IMO we can just nuke 2-B at this point and have "2-A, likely low 1-C" if we don't go for solid
Click to expand...
2-B should stay if we get a possibly, we don't have a reason to exclude it at all. Not that it matters, as solid is accepted from majority of staff.
Antvasima said:
Okay.

What do you think about this, @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT ?
Click to expand...
DT isn't even against the notion, he quite of agreed that just qualitative superiority is enough, and explicit infinite stuff isn't required.
 
StrymULTRA said:
DT isn't even against the notion, he quite of agreed that just qualitative superiority is enough, and explicit infinite stuff isn't required.
Click to expand...
Don't take my answer regarding the FAQ as agreement to anything Pokémon-related. I don't think you should take Ultima's statements as such either without him having read this thread.

I will not comment on this issue, though. I think Pokémon has now made it on the list of verses I just consider completely lost, together with Sora no Otoshimono and Touhou.
 
So we’re just rounding out staff agreements and then (hopefully) implementing it, from the looks of it solid?
solid is accepted from majority of staff.
Click to expand...
Based on this assuming it’s accurate
 
Well 80% of staff input is in agreement*, with 75% of said agreement being for outright (60% of overall staff input for outright) so that sounds good enough to apply assuming consensus is there’s been enough staff input

*This and all other stats disregard neutral votes, though I’m not convinced DontTalk’s view isn’t one of indifference rather than neutrality
 
Last edited:
DontTalkDT said:
Don't take my answer regarding the FAQ as agreement to anything Pokémon-related. I don't think you should take Ultima's statements as such either without him having read this thread.

I will not comment on this issue, though. I think Pokémon has now made it on the list of verses I just consider completely lost, together with Sora no Otoshimono and Touhou.
Click to expand...
Okay. I think that we seemed to make some progress with SnO recently though.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
If more people are in agreement for a full rating than anything else, is there really a need for that?
Click to expand...
Well, Maverick, Gyro, Medeus, Yuri, Confluctor, and DontTalk are technically the only listed staff members who currently have regular content revision thread decision-making/evaluation rights, although Executor, Saikou, and Cal are all likely knowledgeable in this area, so I thought that the best solution might be to balance out the consensus.
 
Antvasima said:
Perhaps we should use the "Possibly Low 1-C" compromise solution then?
Click to expand...
Not really, the ratio of agree with outright to every other option combined is 3:2, why compromise in a situation where there’s a clear majority?

and since the revisions are going to be applied in one way or another the disagree votes aren’t particularly useful for deciding what way to apply said revisions, so taking them out of the question is a 3:1 ratio for outright : possibly

it’s pretty clear that general staff consensus is in favour of outright being applied
 
If there is not definitive staff consensus, we usually try to find a compromise solution.
 
If we’re talking about compromising between agree and disagree sides, even worse, 4:1 agree : disagree, compromising would be benefiting of the minority opinion only
 
Yeah, compromise is usually designed to not benefit one side over the over, keeping both parties equally disgruntled happy

in this situation a minority would be clear benefactors, which removes the point of compromise entirely
 
Not to reiterate what's already been said, but yeah, this "compromise" would clearly benefit one side (the side that actively wanted the "possibly Low 1-C", and that side is a small minority compared to those agreeing with a flat-out Low 1-C)

Thus, it wouldn't actually be a compromise
 
It is more 6 versus 4 (or 5, given that DontTalk seemed to lean negative based on his above comment about this verse being a lost cause), or 2 versus 3 or 4 if we discount the staff members that do not currently have inherent content revision thread evaluation rights, so it is not a clear-cut case at all, and I am just trying to find a working solution here.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Agree on a full Low 1-C: 6 - @The_real_cal_howard, @Psychomaster35, @Maverick_Zero_X, @GyroNutz, CloverDragon03, @Executor_N0

Agree with a "possibly Low 1-C": 2 - @QuasiYuri, @DarkDragonMedeus

Disagree: 2 - @Confluctor, Saikou_The_Lewd_King

Neutral (?): 1 - DontTalkDT

How many it needs now...?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
It is more 6 versus 4 (or 5, given that DontTalk seemed to lean negative based on his above comment about this verse being a lost cause), or 2 versus 3 or 4 if we discount the staff members that do not currently have inherent content revision thread evaluation rights, so it is not a clear-cut case at all, so I am just trying to find a working solution here.
Click to expand...
QuasiYuri said:
Cal's part is a problem against "possibly" in general. Didn't you defend the fact that such thing shouldn't influence the thread earlier ?
Click to expand...
Yuri agrees with a solid if it needs to be.

If this goes further, I'll just accept a possibly if that's needed.
 
Antvasima said:
It is more 6 versus 4 (or 5, given that DontTalk seemed to lean negative based on his above comment about this verse being a lost cause), or 2 versus 3 or 4 if we discount the staff members that do not currently have inherent content revision thread evaluation rights, so it is not a clear-cut case at all, and I am just trying to find a working solution here.
Click to expand...
To me I just don’t see the sense in picking the red option here, it doesn’t really feel a good compromise

ok sure, you could look at it as 6:4, but that’s outright : everything else

that same logic for possibly : everything else is 2:8 which is NOT a good look in terms of applying it.
 
StrymULTRA said:
I'll just accept a possibly if that's needed.
Click to expand...
I’d take a possibly over the revisions not being applied or anything like that, but I feel strongly that outright is the better option here and that possibly is “compromising” in favour of a clear minority
 
Pikaman said:
To me I just don’t see the sense in picking the red option here, it doesn’t really feel a good compromise

ok sure, you could look at it as 6:4, but that’s outright : everything else

that same logic for possibly : everything else is 2:8 which is NOT a good look in terms of applying it.
Click to expand...
Any way you slice it, making it outright Low 1-C would please the most people out of all the staff that took part in this
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Any way you slice it, making it outright Low 1-C would please the most people out of all the staff that took part in this
Click to expand...
And any logic used to make it look tighter when applied to the proposed alternative makes it look extremely unpopular, probably because as an option it is in the grand scheme of things
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Everything12
Arceus Avatar Tiering Issue Solution?
Replies
30
Views
5K
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Everything12
  • Locked
Arceus Qualitative Upgrade
2
Replies
58
Views
15K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
RigelBR7
Amazo upgrade to Low 1-C, possibly 1-C.
Replies
6
Views
765
Vyfourthaccount
Vyfourthaccount
Everything12
  • Locked
Pokemon Tier 1 Upgrade? (Distortion World range and Arceus)
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
Everything12
Everything12
Ikhvagracia
Low 1-C Mikumoverse
Replies
2
Views
663
Miril
Miril
Back
Top