Devil May Cry Downgrade #1: Speed Edition

[Tony_di_bugalu]

I'm obviously with KoS (rip) so I'm against point 2, 3 and 4

 

[Sevil Natas]

alright if thats the case can we close this already?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Not really.

 

[Mister6ame6]

This thread is done, someone should close this already.

 

[AKM sama]

With regards to real lightning or not, until Dargoo nukes the standards of >8-C lightning = real lightning, the current lightning feats would remain.

There is no such standard in place.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I have debated Earl for an excess of one and a half hours on Discord.

Earl's stance is that the Damned Rook being blocked by Dante using Royal Guard is him just standing there because in order for the Royal Guard to be performed, the player has to block just a few frames before the attack lands, therefore qualifying as aim-dodging/bullet timing. He also says that in this video he does not see Dante blocking just before the laser hits.

My stance is that Dante performs a Royal Guard on the laser and it would count towards reaction speed because contextually, you can only perform a Royal Guard just before an attack hits you, which would count as reaction speed on the part of the character. In addition, the video is bad for context because the player is deliberately trying demonstrate the Royal Guard without running and is always locked onto the Damned Rook. As such, what I see would be in line with what Earl does, but contextually, I disagree with him.

Furthermore, we had a very long discussion of the status quo, that being that reactionary dodges/blocks in video games should all count towards reaction speed. Some examples would include Bayonetta's Witch Time, Sekiro's perfect guard, 2B's perfect dodge, Ashen One's dodge roll, and Knack's sidestep. This lead to Earl arguing that since that there are no standards in place saying that the above is true, his argument that Dante's Royal Guard isn't reactionary speed is valid. I countered and said, the status quo has granted all these other verses the same non-official standard and DMC is no different. I then continued and said, because there is no standard in place, me using the status quo is not invalid. I also understand that Earl's stance is also not made invalid due to this status quo. However, because there is no standard, we are at an impasse with no right or wrong answer.

I then said, because of the above dilemma, we should have a standard in place to prove one side or the other right. To which he disagreed and said that he was right because nobody can disprove his stance.

I hope I have clarified this whole argument.

Also, I will add that I openly do not like Earl's methods and arguments but I still respect him as a person. Personal bias aside, I maintain my stance purely because I believe Earl is wrong. Do with that what you will.

 

[Dienomite22]

I no longer agree with point 3

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

> In addition, the video is bad for context because the player is deliberately trying demonstrate the Royal Guard without running and is always locked onto the Damned Rook.

Regarding this, I explicitly did it for the feat it (and to prove it can be done) but it could very well happen while you play normally even if you aren't meaning to directly try and RG only that one attack.

Besides, like I explained in the description of the video, my controller is old af (since I was playing in the OG ps2 game) and I needed to lock on to prevent my controller from actively moving Dante out of the way before anything could happen.

Leaving that aside the point stands, Dante can react to the dammed rook laser.

 

[EFÍTÉ]

Vote list

Agree: (8 total, 4 staff) Earl, Matthew, Ogbunali, Dienomite (agrees on 3), DarkDragonMedeus, Ionsite, (Idk about Potato, Bobscian, HellBeast,

Disagree: (21 votes on total, 5 staff votes ) Dienomite,@Sevil Natas, Efite, (Not sure about Dante_Demon_Killa, he just disagreed on 2, no input on 3 and 4), KnightofSunlight, TissRedgrave, Dark Grath, Rebuble, TFSCell, Galens, Glassman, Sadistic_Sleuth, @Sparda_20000000, @Sir_Ovens ( 2 and 3, i not sure about Point 4), @CrimsonStarFallen, @GyroNutz, @Maverick_Zero_X ( 2 and 3), @Mister6ame6, @KLOL506, @fandom_00potato, @Mr._Bambu, @Oliver_de_jesus, @Tony_di_bugalu (point 3), @Obi2cool4kenobi

 

[The_Wright_Way]

I mean... Disagree kinda outnumbers agree by a huge landslide right now. I think we might have our answer.

Anyways, after seeing Sir Ovens post, mark me down for disagree.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That is not required but that is what they do every time? How is the point moot? They are visibly not reacting to anything in any of the feats.

And the whole "it is not required for the feat to be done" is pure headcanon/opinion as no one has actually shown to react to those, it was all aimdodging/blocking.

They are, though? You really haven't offered a legitimate counterargument to the perfect block mechanic outside of your own headcanon of "well it's aimdodging"- it doesn't have to be. Sure, you can do that in game, but it literally isn't required to perform the feat. 's a pointless argument that leads nowhere, though I suppose this is to be expected at this point.

Votes seem to be massively in favor of rejecting the CRT, if it becomes obvious that this is the way the CRT is heading I'll be closing this soon.

 

[EFÍTÉ]

Vote list update

Agree: (8 total, 4 staff) Earl, Matthew, Ogbunali, Dienomite (agrees on 3), DarkDragonMedeus, Ionsite, (Idk about Potato, Bobscian, HellBeast,

Disagree: (22 votes on total, 6 staff votes ) Dienomite,@Sevil Natas, Efite, (Not sure about Dante_Demon_Killa, he just disagreed on 2, no input on 3 and 4), KnightofSunlight, TissRedgrave, Dark Grath, Rebuble, TFSCell, Galens, Glassman, Sadistic_Sleuth, @Sparda_20000000, @Sir_Ovens ( 2 and 3, i not sure about Point 4), @CrimsonStarFallen, @GyroNutz, @Maverick_Zero_X ( 2 and 3), @Mister6ame6, @KLOL506, @fandom_00potato, @Mr._Bambu, @Oliver_de_jesus, @Tony_di_bugalu (point 3), @Obi2cool4kenobi, The_Wright_Way

 

[Firephoenixearl]

They are, though? You really haven't offered a legitimate counterargument to the perfect block mechanic outside of your own headcanon of "well it's aimdodging"- it doesn't have to be. Sure, you can do that in game, but it literally isn't required to perform the feat. 's a pointless argument that leads nowhere, though I suppose this is to be expected at this point.

Votes seem to be massively in favor of rejecting the CRT, if it becomes obvious that this is the way the CRT is heading I'll be closing this soon.

>It isn't required to perform the feat.
Is anyone willing to prove this though? Cus all im seeing is cases of aimdodging/blocking, is anyone actually willing to prove their point by showing me a case of "here is a case of it not being aimblocking".

You say i have the headcanon when you're the one without the feat here. I can show you the scans that clearly show it is, you're not doing the same thing.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

They are, though? You really haven't offered a legitimate counterargument to the perfect block mechanic outside of your own headcanon of "well it's aimdodging"- it doesn't have to be. Sure, you can do that in game, but it literally isn't required to perform the feat. 's a pointless argument that leads nowhere, though I suppose this is to be expected at this point.

Votes seem to be massively in favor of rejecting the CRT, if it becomes obvious that this is the way the CRT is heading I'll be closing this soon.

Ye, I think it's better to close this. Both sides have laid out their arguments (here and off-site), and it's not like there's anything new coming up any time soon.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

In case this gets closed while I'm sleeping... again.

I'd like to have the arguments why 2, 3 and 4 were not accepted as the last post before it's closed.

 

[Schnee_One]

I just read through the massive argument on both discord and on here and after enjoying it a metric ton, I also disagree

 

[Sevil Natas]

unrelated topic but does this site have a discord server? if so where can i join? i'm a bit new here

 

[Lightning_XXI]

We have one for DMC, unsure about VS in general

 

[Sevil Natas]

huh okay. where do i get an invite?

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Too much animosity, nobody does it better than the enemy.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There is no such standard in place.

There is, it's just obscure and only comes up when someone is reaching hard for the speed rating:

Discuss Everything About VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

"Death Battle" and more great discussions about VS Battles Wiki

vsbattles.fandom.com

Thread where it was accepted.

Additionally, for calculations that involve lightning speed, one has to consider that the speed of real electricity can change due to a variety of factors, but for practical purposes, concerning attacks that are electricity-based, if they display power comparable to that of natural lightning, they should be considered to move at a comparable speed. It is required to show that the electricity carries an energy of at least 1.6 billion Joules or a voltage of at least 100 million Volts in order to qualify.

Lightning Feats

Many fictional characters make use of attacks or equipment that produces lightning or electricity. As such it useful to know how to quantify lightning feats. Most electricity in fiction is not real lightning. Often it is supernatural in nature, and is possibly not even electricity. Therefore...

vsbattles.fandom.com

It should be removed, though, since the part of lightning we use for "lightning speed" (the stepped leader) isn't an electrical current but the formation of a hot plasma conductor between the cloud and ground for the the current to flow through after it hits the ground (the return stroke). Basically DontTalk's arguments don't apply to lightning feats as they are most often done and the standard here operates on a very massive misunderstanding of how lightning strikes occur. They apply to characters who can move as fast as an electrical current.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"You say i have the headcanon when you're the one without the feat here. I can show you the scans that clearly show it is, you're not doing the same thing."

The feat has been posted and proven at least a dozen times in this thread alone. From what I can gather, it's been done countless more times outside of this thread. Videos, explanations, the whole lot. Rarely do I see a feat be explained in so simple terms and yet in such an in depth way and still get called false by the opposition. You are making a claim here (e.g., "the feat is aim dodging and saying it isn't is headcanon"). Alright, prove it. Coz you haven't yet. You've provided no reason to actually side with you on this debate other than contributing noise.

Until your side is proven, which from the evidence I've seen it's contradicted at every turn, I can't with a straight face consider this a debate. It's a stonewall. Plain and simple.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Regarding Dargoo's post, I'm aware this sort of thing may well be revised in the future when more site wide revisions may be undertaken. At the moment this is not my concern nor should it be the concern of the thread- that will be then, this is now. As of current site standards I see no fault with the feat.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Thank you

 

[KLOL506]

Regarding Dargoo's post, I'm aware this sort of thing may well be revised in the future when more site wide revisions may be undertaken. At the moment this is not my concern nor should it be the concern of the thread- that will be then, this is now. As of current site standards I see no fault with the feat.

I don't think lightning was ever used as a support for AP in DMC ever, that's what Dargoo means here, that the 8-C AP for lightning would only apply if the character is moving as fast as the current itself that hits the ground (Plus, that's not what's being discussed here anyway), while the speed part is the one that doesn't hit the ground and is the hot plasma thingy, which, again, is not AP-related, just like this thread, and thus should have nothing to do with this thread at all. Not to mention that none of the DMC profiles I know of have AP based on a lightning bolt's energy yield.

In any case, I'm in full agreement with Bambu here regarding his disagreement with Earl's proposals, Full-stop.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

At the moment this is not my concern nor should it be the concern of the thread- that will be then, this is now. As of current site standards I see no fault with the feat.

I was responding to AKM claiming that there currently isn't a standard when there clearly is both a standard that was accepted years ago and is currently on the page. I'm not trying to apply the lightning revisions on a DmC thread, that'd be silly.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Didn't suspect you were but I figured I'd better be safe about it. Carry on, then, maestro.

 

[Thehunter077]

Agree with 1 and 5 thought.

MFTL DMC is bit reach for me

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Just a heads up, I only said I had problems with the FTL stuff, I don't mind the lightning related calculations.

 

[Hellbeast]

I;'m the same

 

[AKM sama]

I then said, because of the above dilemma, we should have a standard in place to prove one side or the other right.

Would you mind creating a thread in the future so that we can properly define a standard regarding this?

It should be removed, though, since the part of lightning we use for "lightning speed" (the stepped leader) isn't an electrical current but the formation of a hot plasma conductor between the cloud and ground for the the current to flow through after it hits the ground (the return stroke). Basically DontTalk's arguments don't apply to lightning feats as they are most often done and the standard here operates on a very massive misunderstanding of how lightning strikes occur. They apply to characters who can move as fast as an electrical current.

I know that you're also planning to create a thread for this specific purpose and I look forward to it. On top of what you said, using the AP of an attack that could be literally anything, to justify the speed and call it natural lightning is honestly pretty silly. Unlike other properties that are very specific to lightning, like making muscles of affected beings contract, having an (electro)magnetic field, being shown to actually move with a speed similar to lightning, flowing through conducting materials, the character being able to manipulate real electricity or electromagnetism in general, generating ozone or causing electrolysis (all of these are listed on the page already), the AP isn't a property that is specific to lightning alone. Just because AP of an attack coincidentally coincides with that of natural lightning, isn't enough to say it is natural lightning. And I honestly strongly agree with Earl's point #1 in the OP.

Anyway, all that stuff is for another thread and another time. For now at least, this thread seems to be concluded. Point #1 and #5 have already been applied and 2, 3 and 4 seem to have been rejected.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Just because AP of an attack coincidentally coincides with that of natural lightning, isn't enough to say it is natural lightning.

Actually, the rules is worded so that electricity above the AP of lightning also scales in speed. That and you do need to prove that it shares some properties with real electricity, however this typically just means that outside of glaringly unrealistic electricity the rule applies to any electric based attack with a high enough AP.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Would you mind creating a thread in the future so that we can properly define a standard regarding this

I wouldn't mind addressing this issue in the future.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah i also discussed it with oven and we agreed on 1 thing "Since I do not agree that a standard needs to be made oven will make the thread instead and I will be there".

I could still argue against Bambu, and re-show my proof but i feel like it won't lead anywhere since i've already shown my proof at least 30 times. But people still refuse to acknowledge it due to "it could be done otherwise" a statement which was never proven. So honestly i'll just avoid repeating myself a 31st time since people will still think i have no proof for what im saying despite having clear scans in the OP.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Then we are done with this thread.

If the revisions for points 1 and 5 have been carried out, I can close this thread.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah i'm currently done with this too. In the future depending on how things go i will have to re-make this thread for those 3 points. So let's just wait for what AKM has to say and close this.