• 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.

Blazblue CRT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firephoenixearl said:
The CRT points that have been accepted can go through to the profiles, leaving the part that was rejected.

In addition to removing Low 1-C from the profiles entirely given that people agreed with my explanation for why the boundary is not Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
That seems fine. Is some experienced member who knows what they are doing willing to handle it?
 
@Antvasima Hey ant, news flash, I'm still debating here. If we want this to end, how about we get someone who actually greenlit the Low 1-C Blazblue in the first place to comment? Like Idk..... Ultima? He's the dude who gave the verse the greenlit for Low 1-C, how about we ask for his input if we want this to end?
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Antvasima Hey ant, news flash, I'm still debating here. If we want this to end, how about we get someone who actually greenlit the Low 1-C Blazblue in the first place to comment? Like Idk..... Ultima? He's the dude who gave the verse the greenlit for Low 1-C, how about we ask for his input if we want this to end?
Click to expand...
Ultima never greenlit the Low 1-C. He just gave more explanation on the Low 1-C requirements which we were previously using. He said "those aren't necessarily debunking Low 1-C" rather than saying "Low 1-C is correct".

Also i forgot to mention that Ultima also disagreed with the Transduality and Higher Dimensional Manipulation.
 
Okay. We can probably apply what Earl and Eficiente accepted then.
 
I would not mind having Ultima's input though. This can wait a day or 2, idc. Though applying the rest that were accepted in the meantime will do.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Yes he did, He literally was the dude who approved of Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
Oh you mean on the original thread.
Theglassman12 said:
And he never disagreed with higher dimensional manipulation,
Click to expand...
"Then again, I don't think we've ever given people Higher-Dimensional Manipulation solely because they can manipulate spacetime"
^
Not a disagreement. Ofc it's not.
Theglassman12 said:
And asked for elaboration on transduality, never once said he flat out disagreed with it.
Click to expand...
He disagreed with it then said:

"I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt until you provide further information on that"

Someone saying "the scans you provided don't give any of that" then giving you the benefit of the doubt isn't "he didn't disagreed", he just gave you a chance to redeem yourself. And he never answered back either.
 
my arguments are literally because they manipulated a being that becomes the entire multiverse, that's literally my main argument for higher dimensional manipulation and he also said in the next line that the ability shouldn't exist.

Why are you even using Ultima for backing when you flat out admit he hasn't commented since? You're pulling a double standard by using Ultima's comment when he hasn't commented in a long time, but tell me I can't use staff input because they haven't commented in a long time.
 
@Firephoenixearl That's literally how they track people in the first place, and the ward senses people that uses seithr so seithr sensing is not unnecessary here.

I literally told you this entire thread that sorcery and magic have a lot of similarities, they didn't pop out in the slightest if you payed attention to what I was arguing in the entire thread.

Terumi's ghost form, if you look in his profile, is literally him when he's unobserved. Everyone else not being observed fades away.

You never once elaborated how outside the multiverse contradicts transcending the multiverse when your argument is just "it can mean outside" when the definition of transcend is to go beyond the limits or range of or surpass something. And yes it's headcanon because in no other time does the boundary remotely get called a parallel universe, and just a plane of reality not a part of their reality.

Your argument on Chairs and people sitting on chairs doesn’t remotely work when we have the characters literally refer to worlds and possibilities as the same thing numerous times. As you've put it, I explained this in my post but for some reason you just decided to look past it.

That’s not how worlds and possibilities work, I’ve explained this numerous times but you keep thinking this analogy works when that’s never how it works.

I did, and it still doesn’t work, the fact that Eficiente and Ant and DDM actually agrees with your entire post when you haven’t have any of your scans working, and they didn't remotely check the scans themselves baffles me at this point. Try fixing them or just upload the pictures and then I can actually see what you’re trying to argue.

What you bolded doesn’t even remotely prove that they’re the same thing, the fact that it’s either or, doesn’t remotely prove that dimensions means universe in any form of fiction.

Except it does when it contains the things that are interchangeable with worlds, which there are infinite numbers of.

That doesn’t remotely debunk my comment dude. You aren’t paying attention to what you’re saying and as a result you’re contradicting yourself. Pay attention to what you’re typing.

DragonMasterxyz literally said everything else is fine for him, higher dimensional manipulation and type 5 was the stuff he was neutral on.

Type 5 was the only one I fully conceded on, immeasurable speed I’m still asking for information cause everyone’s giving contradicting information but infinite speed is still accepted in the long run. And you only made me concede on life and death transduality, the other transduality I’m still arguing, and same for Low 1-C, I’m still arguing that.

So the massive list of abilities/resistances that Xblaze is getting, all the additional resistances that scales to a lot of characters, the regeneration buffs to a good chunk of characters, resistance negation, new Phenomena Intervention powers, and additional abilities that scales to every magic user doesn’t count as important upgrades? Ok then.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Why are you even using Ultima for backing when you flat out admit he hasn't commented since? You're pulling a double standard by using Ultima's comment when he hasn't commented in a long time, but tell me I can't use staff input because they haven't commented in a long time.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Glass said that, I said people who haven’t commented in a while doesn’t be used in the long run.
 
A quick read at Glassman's arguments and it's just a repeat of points either I or other people have already answered. I'll refrain from replying to that and repeating myself again.
 
Milly_Rocking_Bandit said:
Personally, imo, I don’t think just majority or staff should be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...
Staff input should always be the defining factor. We can't let verses be upgraded just because many supporters agree, otherwise we end up with bangwagons who agree with any upgrade without an actual debate. You're right that there currently isn't an actual staff majority to either side and thus applying this now would be wrong, but saying that staff majority shouldn't be a deciding factor is against our guidelines on CRTs
 
Ionliosite said:
Staff input should always be the defining factor. We can't let verses be upgraded just because many supporters agree, otherwise we end up with bangwagons who agree with any upgrade without an actual debate. You're right that there currently isn't an actual staff majority to either side and thus applying this now would be wrong, but saying that staff majority shouldn't be a deciding factor is against our guidelines on CRTs
Click to expand...
I personally disagree, but I don’t want to derail, for now we should wait for Ultima, but I respect your opinion Ion.
 
Ionliosite is correct. It is the only way to avoid complete chaos, and threads that either never get resolved or are forced through by FRA bandwagons as he roughly put it.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Well that is indeed correct and it would be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that another scan specifically states that The boundary is a space outside of the world. Rendering the transcending statements far....less believable than they would usually be.
Click to expand...
My opinion on this argument is pretty much the same thing as Glass said above. Why would The Boundary being described as outside of the world contradict in any way the use of the word "transcendence"? It's a fairly neutral statement, if you ask me. Doesn't support nor oppose any rating in particular.

Firephoenixearl said:
Exactly as the wording states the boundary contains the "possibilities", not the universes.
Although there is a connection between "possibility" and "universe", they are not the same thing. The relation between them is that there is a universe for each possibility, and that a universe represents 1 possibility. Not that a possibility and a universe are the same thing, this whole idea stems from the fact that they can be used interchangeably as terms when it comes to their number, which as i said is the same.

On the other hand, what is a possibility? Well it is just an event, a phenomena it is 1 of the things that can happen in the future, a possible outcome. We can see this when Rachel explains Phenomena Intervention.

So Boundary contains every single "event", "possibility". And we explained how the relation between these 2. So how can an event be in a place. Well that's the easiest part. Events are just information, something that happened that can be stored as easily as data on a computer. And let's just say that a place with infinite information that contains all of the information about a world would obviously contain every event that happened in the form of information. So "every single possibility drifts" is not referring to the universes, possibilities are not universes, they are just related in a way i explained above
Click to expand...

That seems like a meaningless distinction to be done here, especially when one of the scans that you posted yourself seems to treat the "events" which drift within the Boundary as physical, existent locations which people can travel to, instead of just informational constructs that only exist abstractly, as you seem to be arguing.

By the way, you should probably fix those scans. They don't work.

Firephoenixearl said:
Yes indeed. The boundary is a place outside of the universe, it is separated from the universes through a space where time does not exists called the Edge (very reminiscent of the space in-between universes and directly contradicting it containing the universe if it is separated from them through the space between universes). The boundary only connects the universes, it serves as a connection point
Click to expand...
You are again using fairly neutral statements that neither support nor oppose any of the ratings on the profiles. The Boundary serving as a connection point between universes and The Boundary transcending and/or containing said universes within itself are not mutually exclusive notions, and don't actually contradict each other in any significant way.

Firephoenixearl said:
and It is stated that to go to a different universe you'd have to go "beyond" the boundary (which directly contradicts them being contained inside it. Since if it were it wouldn't be going beyond the boundary to reach another place you'd still be in the boundary).
Click to expand...
Based on some of the things Glass and Hl3 (The former of whom can back me up with more context, if he wants) showed me in my talks with them, "Cauldrons" are basically constructs that connect to the Boundary and allow for things to go from it to the normal universe and vice-versa, yes? If that's the case, this scan just seems to be someone saying that they will use a Cauldron to go the Boundary, and then use the Boundary to travel to another universe. "Beyond there" could very well be referring to the Cauldron itself, in this case. So, again, that doesn't seem to oppose any of the ratings you want to get rid of.

Firephoenixearl said:
Which makes these statements and explanations even more supported by the fact that the boundary is described "parallel universe" (with more proof on parallel being that these 2 are not supposed to intersect at all, let alone be contained) and "another dimension" as opposed to "a higher dimension" (which, from experience in a recent debate including this very topic, really matters when you're trying to argue for it).
Click to expand...
Neither of those descriptors actually matter when you are trying to argue for it, no. That first scan also states that the Boundary is inherently hard to define, and that "a parallel universe" is just the closest and most straightforward association one could make to it. So, I really wouldn't place a scan that explicitly describes itself as not fully accurate above the word of a third-person omniscient narrator, which is how the novel excerpts are written, from what I've seen (Someone can correct me on this, of course.)

"Another dimension" is just a way of saying that the Boundary is another space, which, again, doesn't contradict anything, as a realm that transcends the multiverse would indeed still be a separate space, and thus, it wouldn't at all be inaccurate to call it another dimension here.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
Transcending the multiverse that has infinite universe doesn't quite reach Low 1-C but it could qualify as 2-A. Being outside the multiverse isn't a tier feat, but state of being for Acausality in some cases or great resistance to space time at least. Transcending a dimension that happens to be above and beyond the multiverse or being above the concepts of space time can qualify as Low 1-C.

Transcend means to be superior or above something, but it =/= infinitely superior.
Click to expand...
That comparision doesn't really work here, because if you considered a "transcendence" descriptor as actually indicating some form of superiority in size that is capable of being given the same tier as the space being transcended, then you could as well just give it Low 1-C, since 2-A is in itself a tier indicating a structure whose (4-dimensional) volume is already ∞, and so there is really no such thing as being finitely or countably infinitely bigger than it, as the current standards on affecting multiple infinite multiverses attest to. The difference needs to be uncountable, one way or another. "At least 2-A" would be the absolute least you could choose.
 
Last edited:
Ultima makes some good arguments. I suppose that gives a lot of weight to Theglassman12's case then.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
My opinion on this argument is pretty much the same thing as Glass said above. Why would The Boundary being described as outside of the world contradict in any way the use of the word "transcendence"? It's a fairly neutral statement, if you ask me. Doesn't support nor oppose any rating in particular.
Click to expand...
It does remove all weight from "transcendence" though. Just being "outside" doesn't give a higher dimensional tier. Since there is no more context on the transcendence part, there is pretty much no reason to assume "beyond" when they easily call it "outside". Transcendence can mean both, so at this point we would need proof of "beyond".

Ultima_Reality said:
You are again using fairly neutral statements that neither support nor oppose any of the ratings on the profiles. The Boundary serving as a connection point between universes and The Boundary transcending and/or containing said universes within itself are not mutually exclusive notions, and don't actually contradict each other in any significant way.
Click to expand...
Yes but it is giving another very clear explanation of the "you can go to any universe from it". It doesn't directly say "it's not", but it does say that "it is not an argument for Low 1-C as it can easily be NOT Low 1-C and retain those effects".

Ultima_Reality said:
If that's the case, this scan just seems to be someone saying that they will use a Cauldron to go the Boundary, and then use the Boundary to travel to another universe. "Beyond there" could very well be referring to the Cauldron itself, in this case. So, again, that doesn't seem to oppose any of the ratings you want to get rid of.
Click to expand...
It could with some stretch as the last noun used is "the boundary", so "the boundary, beyond there ......". You would need more proof that the "beyond there" is referring to cauldron as the wording directly implies it's for the boundary (or both). So what's the argument for "it only refers to the cauldron even though it mentioned the boundary too".

Ultima_Reality said:
That first scan also states that the Boundary is inherently hard to define, and that "a parallel universe" is just the closest and most straightforward association one could make to it.
Click to expand...
Yes and as i've said your argument is "the closest definition" is practically speaking the furthest one from the truth? A parallel universe can't be the closest definition if we assume that the boundary is Low 1-C cus it is straight up a "wrong definition".

Ultima_Reality said:
So, I really wouldn't place a scan that explicitly describes itself as not fully accurate above the word of a third-person omniscient narrator, which is how the novel excerpts are written, from what I've seen
Click to expand...
The words that can have many interpretations as i've said and we have more proof that the interpretations being used are actually the non Low 1-C interpretations than they are the Low 1-C ones.

Ultima_Reality said:
"Another dimension" is just a way of saying that the Boundary is another space, which, again, doesn't contradict anything, as a realm that transcends the multiverse would indeed still be a separate space, and thus, it wouldn't at all be inaccurate to call it another dimension here.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be separate if it's contained. It's like saying a house is a separate building from one of the rooms inside it. And DontTalkDT actually used this argument once
Actually the statement says "of another dimension" not "of a higher dimension".
Me: Yeah, but "another" or "higher" shouldn't be a problem considering that the explanation is correct.
DT: If you are trying to claim something regarding it being higher dimensional it is very much a problem, as that absolutely isn't what is stated.

So i am not the only one saying this. Gotta cut on the double standards at some point shouldn't we?
 
I was asked by a friend to give my analysis on what is currently being debated here, but Ultima's analysis is better than any measly coalescence of the English language that I could come up with, so I don't feel the need to do that.

To specify, from what I can see, Ultima and Glass make the most sense here.
 
Ionliosite said:
Staff input should always be the defining factor. We can't let verses be upgraded just because many supporters agree, otherwise we end up with bangwagons who agree with any upgrade without an actual debate. You're right that there currently isn't an actual staff majority to either side and thus applying this now would be wrong, but saying that staff majority shouldn't be a deciding factor is against our guidelines on CRTs
Click to expand...
But u can also run into the problem of what if staff members just disagree with upgrade/downgrades cus they like/dislike a verse even when evidence of the contrary is shown?
 
@Blackcurrant91 that would be the case if not for the fact that Ultima is debunking the arguments for Low 1-C to be removed. Agreeing with him means you’d disagree with whatever it is he’s arguing against. Which you know.... is what Matt’s side is on which doesn’t make sense
 
Thats not how I take the post. Ultima is debunking the arguments against it but not agreeing with it either. He explicitly states that.
 
I was kinda drunk tired and just skimmed thru Ultima's post and saw the "At least 2-A" at the bottom and thought that was his most.
 
I pretty much agree with Ultima Reality; it would be "At least 2-A" at bare minimum. Perhaps At least 2-A, likely Low 1-C is a reasonable compromise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ikhvagracia
Added abilities for Ragna Crimson
Replies
1
Views
537
Réijin1
Réijin1
TheGreatJedi13
(Need 1 more vote)Immeasurable speed and perception Boundary (Granblue Time Dragon)
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
KobsterHope07
BFR and Marksmanship for Futaba and Kyoichiro Yozakura
Replies
3
Views
351
KobsterHope07
KobsterHope07
OFAtomicSamurai
The Eminence in the Shadows CRT
Replies
11
Views
1K
Godsatoshi23
Godsatoshi23
fandom_29dan
  • Locked
little update towards clavis alucard
Replies
1
Views
562
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Back
Top