• 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.
likely is stronger than possibly tho.

Order is always Solid > Likely > Possibly
Oh sorry

then just

“At least 2-B, likely Low 1-C, possibly 2-A,”

or is that not any good either because it goes down from Low 1-C to 2-A

I’m not well versed in formatting tbh
 
Personally I think it’s solid, as his true form exist in a realm (or is that realm, idk) above the already 2-A concepts of Dialga and Palkia. I’ve been here a long time and that’s always been a deciding factor for that tier. Transcending things that already transcend the mortal realm.
 
i don't see how transcending 3 2-A concepts and them being a fraction of your being not low 1-C
 
Yeah there are multiple Low 1-C feats and supporting feats, why would we say there’s potential for Arceus not to be Low 1-C

and again, taking discontent of the Wiki’s standards for Low 1-C out on this CRT/Arceus isn’t a proper argument or reason to limit it to a likely/possibly (though I’m not sure if anybody has tried to argue likely/possibly for this particular reason, just better to nip it in the bud now)
 
Oh sorry

then just

“At least 2-B, likely Low 1-C, possibly 2-A,”

or is that not any good either because it goes down from Low 1-C to 2-A

I’m not well versed in formatting tbh
...it's not like is "X tier, likely Lower Tier" is something that can be done here.

It's how I've written above, nothing else, no offense, given the higher the tier, the higher the requirements.
 
I share the same thought as Yuri, while I agree with possibly Low 1-C rating it's still worth to remind that you still need to prove uncountable infinite superiority for low 1-C, any feat about transcending space-time is Low 1-C because the wiki treats it being equivalent to higher infinities for some weird reasons.
 
Personally, and this is just me, but I don’t like “possibly”. I think we should try to be as objective as possible, not trying to compromise so both sides are satiated. Either Low 1-C or reject.
 
I share the same thought as Yuri, while I agree with possibly Low 1-C rating it's still worth to remind that you still need to prove uncountable infinite superiority for low 1-C, any feat about transcending space-time is Low 1-C because the wiki treats it being equivalent to higher infinities for some weird reasons.
Again, Archie Sonic and the chaos force is one of the perfect examples of not needing to prove infinite superiority to get Low 1-C.
 
Personally, and this is just me, but I don’t like “possibly”. I think we should try to be as objective as possible, not trying to compromise so both sides are satiated. Either Low 1-C or reject.
Well, as long as it is part of the standard we have to consider this option.
 
Again, Archie Sonic and the chaos force is one of the perfect examples of not needing to prove infinite superiority to get Low 1-C.
Archie Sonic is low 1-C because transcending space-time is equivalent to infinite superiority according to standard, not because you don't need to prove it
Tbh this whole thing makes ppl misunderstand the whole point why tier 1 is qualitatively superior to tier 2
When the shakiest Low 1-C is the proof
fact
 
Archie Sonic is low 1-C because transcending space-time is equivalent to infinite superiority according to standard, not because you don't need to prove it
Tbh this whole thing makes ppl misunderstand the whole point why tier 1 is qualitatively superior to tier 2
As Arceus doesn't lmfao.
 
Well, as long as it is part of the standard we have to consider this option.
Tbh, if Archie verse got a full because of the "force beyond space and time which encompasses all of it" thing, Arceus, which has even better statements imo, should full pass according to standards, otherwise is a pretty big double standard.
 
Btw one of the bigger images in the giratina aca type 4 explanation doesn't work. Fix it.
 
Tbh I agree with Confluctor, but I have to answer based on the wiki's standard, hence the "possibly", since it partially fits the site's conditions but still is a big vague in itself.
Please elaborate/explain further.
 
Off topic a bit but it’s mad how fast this blew up it’s averaged a new reply less than every 5 minutes that’s mad for a thread nearly 12 hours old
 
Off topic a bit but it’s mad how fast this blew up it’s averaged a new reply less than every 5 minutes that’s mad for a thread nearly 12 hours old
Also off topic but my "Let me rate your pfp" thread got around 100 replies in approximately 1 hour is currently even higher, so...not much for activity tbh
 
Tldr he disagrees with the current Low 1-C standards, but he buys a possibly given how those are on wiki currently.
I just meant that my opinion on the Low 1-C standard and my input were unrelated actually.
 
Here’s the current vote count btw.
That has to be enough to say this can be applied right? the crux of the argument used in staff disagreement was debunked so at this point I think this is good, though I’m not sure how it works with CRTs this big

discussion can probably slowly begin turning towards whether to be outright or possibly at this stage at the very least though.
 
That has to be enough to say this can be applied right? the crux of the argument used in staff disagreement was debunked so at this point I think this is good, though I’m not sure how it works with CRTs this big

discussion can probably slowly begin turning towards whether to be outright or possibly at this stage at the very least though.

Tho, from what I gathered:

Agree on a full Low 1-C: The_real_cal_howard, Psychomaster35. You can add both me and Arceus0x if you think both me and him are trustworth enough here.

Agree with a "possibly Low 1-C": QuasiYuri, DarkDragonMedeus and Executor_N0 (if you buy this)

Disagree: Confluctor
Here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top