• 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.

Bleach God Tier Revisions Part 2 (Who scales to Yhwach only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with the wording to a degree.

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly what I'm getting from this is that they're technically locked in their current state without new material.

One that's essentially mean that something like say a recalc of feat that could get higher than what they have would be locked out via this wording
 
ehhh

there was the first in January. Then there was the downgrade thread. The most recent one happened because the novel came out in English.

Doesnt help that the final portion kinda went no where. Still hasnt been fully addressed but that is neither here or there
 
Honestly, I'm fine either way, I just think there is a valid point in not having these Universe level Bleach discussions without new evidence. However, if it seems too restrictive, I'm fine that way too.
 
Too restrictive would be "No revisions period." This is just putting a stopper on the topic until we get some new information or new calcs.

The staff don't want to be dragged back to another God Tiers CRT in a month or less.
 
New statements/feats mainly, from guidebooks or anything of the sort. That would qualify as new information.
 
staff only pls

Also, we don't know when the anime will air, nor when it will finish. Two years is excessive
 
Whether or not we want to stop CRT's on this same topic, it looks bad in general to have a ban on a topic for something like this, that's just how I see it

But I am not necessarily opposed to a note or guideline on how this topic has been discussed over and over
 
I understand how that can have a bad look, but there have been jokes flying around about "the monthly Universal Bleach CRT" and stuff like that, which is pretty telling. Of course, a simple guideline can work too.
 
Is there's any suggestions on how to reword my proposal, I'm listening. Personally I don't think what I've posted is unreasonable.
 
Is there's any suggestions on how to reword my proposal, I'm listening. Personally I don't think what I've posted is unreasonable.
It's mostly good, but instead of just saying it is prohibited, we should use something "There should be no more further discussion on the topic as it has been discussed over many times now and the conclusion that has been reached is that it too uncertain to use"
 
well its more so I feel the way it is written assumes we tackled all current content. Not everything in the novels have been tackled per se, there are several untranslated databook pages, etc.

not saying they all are in relation to this specific topic

I think topic prohibition until new info comes out after one thread post third novel is made is weird.

Surely not every argument was presented in the thread only days after the novel's release.
 
The current Planet level ratings for the God Tiers (Yhwach, Ichigo and Aizen) have been decided on after an examination of the feats and statements in the manga and the latest light novels after they were officially released. There should be no more further discussion on the topic as it has been discussed over many times now and the conclusion has been decided that much higher ratings such as Universal are too speculative and require too many assumptions at this time to be accurate, using the current information that we have.

So something like this? @DemonGodMitchAubin
 
i would be fine with it if it is in reference to topics that cant be used. Like stabilization arguments for example, unless new evidence is brought up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top