DMC Downgrade #2: Hax Edition

[Firephoenixearl]

Excuse me?
My guess is that you probably worded whatever you was trying to say poorly, but I don't know in what context this could possibly be true. Unless we're talking about some fiction bullshit.

No. It's just how real life works. You can apply heat to something without it's temperature changing, it happens during melting or boiling points.

Example if you had ice at 0°C, then no matter how much heat you apply, until the melting process has finished it's temperature remains the same. The same thing is true if you used boiling point for water or the opposite process.

Heat is energy, and that energy is applied to the molecules of the object. Temperature only increases when kinetic energy increases. Meaning when the potential energy increases, the temperature doesn't change however it is still gaining heat, the heat is just being used to convert X state of matter into Y state of matter.

 

[DMUA]

You do know that you can apply heat to something without its temperature changing right? Heat is energy, temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy of the particles that make up matter. However when the kinetic energy doesn't change, but instead the potential energy does, we have a case where giving heat doesn't increase the temperature. Not knowing the difference between heat and temperature shows lack of fundamental understanding of physics.

That mostly refers to shifts in matter when a boiling point is reached. Otherwise it's not really possible to raise potential energy without cranking up the temperature.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That mostly refers to shifts in matter when a boiling point is reached. Otherwise it's not really possible to raise potential energy without cranking up the temperature.

Yeah no wonder. It's the points where potential energy increases instead of kinetic energy (which is what temperature shows). So as long as potential energy is the only one being increased, temperature won't change. So either 1 or the other.

I don't see what this post is supposed to be. You're not really stating something i haven't already.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

That is not really a safe argument as that is just your speculation. And no if 2 ppl are fighting it doesn't mean "they can tank each-other's attacks" it can easily mean that they have ways around each-other's attacks. As long as they have ways to counter it, it'll always be the option on the table cus it doesn't require speculation. We can easily say "Dante has barriers to deal with Mundus' particle beams even if he manages to get clipped once", cus it requires no speculation as it is using information we already have about the character. We cannot say "Mundus has particle beams so Dante must have resistance to it" as easily however cus that requires speculation as you're adding a resistance to something based on nothing.

In other words when we have other safer options on the table there needs to be a much better case for "Dante resists the particle beam". When we have several safe arguments like "He can avoid it completely as the beam is really slow", "As long as his whole body doesn't get clipped by it he will be fine due to regen" and "He can easily put up barriers to deal with it", there is no reason to go for the resistance as it would turn into "Mundus literally cannot affect Dante with those yet he still uses those in a fight".


The soul resistance (even to transmutation or whatever) has a potency of 1 though. Why would anyone argue Dante has Universal Soul Resistance to any kind of soul manip?

You should probably make a case for all of them first then apply all of the specific types to the profile.

Your arguement is correct that two equivalent opponents aren't required to tank all of each others attacks cause they can get around each other's attacks......but ideally they only apply in battles that are more skill based rather than battles that are faught in heated passion which I chose to believe was kind of battle Mundus and Dante faught.....but since its a slightly subjective opinion and mine isn't more correct than yours or vice versa, so even though I stand by it.....I will concede this point completely in your favour.
As far as reisting the beam hax(which is still being debated) we already know someone who took full brunt of the attack in that very same cutscene........Trish.
Lets analyze this......
Mundus impales Dante with needles and fires off beam at him( which I believe would have definitely heavily injured or even killed Dante if not because of its hax then definitely because of it relatively higher AP)......Trish escapes her shakles and intercepts the attack in place of Dante. ( I am baffled why this isn't considered a impressive speed feat for Trish....when there aren't even any anti-feats to challenge it.....hell there aren't even speed feats besides her lightning travel......but I digress.....it will be rude of me to prod still fresh wounds of last CRT....I'll want to discuss this another time).

Insert Pic here ( how do you upload image from your device???)


Now as we can clearly see Trish resisted the hax part of the beam( whatever you guys decide by the end the thread) but got killed or shall we say got knocked out only due to AP of the said attack.
So naturally even Dante can resist the hax due to his obvious superior biology and constitution compared to Trish.......even if he could get hurt by the AP.
As far as "dodging the attack because the beam is slow" is concerned.....In my opinion speed of beam isn't fixed or shall I say standard FTL speed if you understand what I mean......since it directly scales to speed of Mundus or Dante himself( same way we scale E&I bullet speeds to Dante's own speed)......so Dante is definitely capable of dodging it but is also susceptible to getting hit since the battle is so cut to cut.
As far as getting Dante's "body parts clipped and regen-ing " is concerned I think arguement I made using Trish covers this up.
As far as barrier is concerned.........eeeehhhh I think I'll be giving a very unpopular opinion.....
Aura in DMC works helluva similar to Ki aura in DB verse........let me explain....If a DB character hasn't got his aura up they can get hit by even normal attacks and haxes can also kinda affect them though this is rare . Well Dante rarely uses his aura and thus he is very susceptible puncture wounds( Capcom treats Dante like Wonder Woman hehehe) but Aura makes up for it. RoyalGaurd can be considered to have its origins in aura which employs omnidirectional barriers and also basic aura guard on his arms and we all know how haxxed RG is. Even if Dante could get his biology affected by hax of the beam his aura will resist it and hold his body together. That is my opinion.

"Mundus literally cannot affect Dante with those yet he still uses those in a fight". Like I explained even if the hax itself is resisted the attack still has high AP.....it is still a very powerful move in his entire arsenal.....lets look at his other attacks....red needles, white needles, meteors, lightning, rock platforms.......you see how lame these attacks are relative to the beam......theres no way Mundus is going to deny himself this move. Besides this is a kind of offensive "physical" hax attack where contact with the target is required so its usefulness is retained even if hax is resisted unlike say time hax which is not offensive or physical in nature so it becomes useless if target resists it.
Let me give you another e.g ...take Vergil's Judgement Cut attack from Yamato....its a spatial cut.....which is HARD countered by RG, and Dante's biology resists it, any wound caused upon it's successful hit will be insta regen-ed despite the regen neg.......sooooo why does Vergil use it???? Well because it is still a legitimate attack to cause damage to Dante and whittle his stamina and health down, it still causes hefty damage when compared to other attacks in Vergil's arsenal.
Besides at this point in time both Dante and Mundus resist ALL of each other's hax...time hax, Soul hax, darkness hax etc etc.......all the fighting boils down to whittling down each other's health via blunt force and puncture trauma and making your opponent cave in before you do.....there is no skill or martial prowess required here, so "getting around each other's attacks" is only going to delay the inevitable that each one is trying damndest to hit each other and they will be successful more often than not. Mundus even manages to knock out Dante out of his Sparda DT using METEORS which are inferior to beam. So its no stretch to conclude that Dante got hit by the beam a few times. No hax is going to bring them down only physical attacks will.
Like I said this is equivalent of two chimpanzes swinging arms at each other in a barbaric brawl and whoever caves in first loses. Only difference is that projectiles are used instead of fists.

The universal soul manip comes from "Demon world nexus" or "Heart of Underworld" having the potential to turn all souls contained in human universe into demons in one fell swoop. Sadly since there is no alien planet in DMC verse we only see all of Earth Population get affected especially in DMC2 novel( even elder Devils like Griffon etc were unable to approach Throne room of Mundus and these guys already supposed to have soul resistance) . But due to potency , range and nature of Demon world energy we know it can soul hax entire human population even if every litre of volume in human universe was jam packed with humans. Theres also I think that Demon world manipulating all souls of Demon realm.

And I swear I could have seen a statement somewhere claiming that Demon World YANKS out the souls of humans and THEN transmutate them. I'll have to search for this though.

Any DMC expert pls feel free to correct my arguements for soul manip.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Yeah no wonder. It's the points where potential energy increases instead of kinetic energy (which is what temperature shows). So as long as potential energy is the only one being increased, temperature won't change. So either 1 or the other.

I don't see what this post is supposed to be. You're not really stating something i haven't already.

Unless you want to claim that Dante is always at Boiling or Melting point thus only his PE will increase and not his KE..........

 

[Mister6ame6]

Not exactly the only statement is this one that after reaching the crust of the Demon World a human female was transformed into a demon

And also going to coment here, like others already said that if Earl disagree with how we treat feats that happens in gameplay he should make a CTR for that, because even if there not a ''standard for video game verses'' this still affect alot, if not all video game verses in the wiki, because at this point you are not fighting DMC anymore, you are fighting against a unofficial standard that alow DMC and others video game verses to have they gameplay feats counted as canon and for that reason you need to make a CTR for that, otherwise, this argument should stop here if you don't want to make a CTR to discuss gameplay feats being non canon for video game verses

 

[LordGinSama]

Also I looked into further context behind Dante's Deconstruction and after reviewing the exert it came from, it needs to be removed.

So this ability came from these scans, and after reading into it there's some very, very questionable stuff going on. For starter's, whenever Gilver is first shot there is no statements regarding the round doing it to him. Dante used an explosive round which ****** Gilver up left and right and then it kills him. However going by this scan here Gilver's body wasn't vaporized / Deconstructed by Dante's bullets. Nowhere is it stated that Dante's Bullets are the reason why Gilver died the way he did, ignoring how that's how Demons normally die.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Unless you want to claim that Dante is always at Boiling or Melting point thus only his PE will increase and not his KE..........

Never said that, i was just debunking some "how can you heat sth without changing it's temperature?", "heat only causes things to vibrate" and "temperature is the measurement of the heat you give an object" statements. Trying to explain DMUA, Glassman and Rebbuble how heat works.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Never said that, i was just debunking some "how can you heat sth without changing it's temperature?", "heat only causes things to vibrate" and "temperature is the measurement of the heat you give an object" statements. Trying to explain DMUA, Glassman and Rebbuble how heat works.

Okay.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Now as we can clearly see Trish resisted the hax part of the beam( whatever you guys decide by the end the thread) but got killed or shall we say got knocked out only due to AP of the said attack.

How? She got impaled straight through. She clearly did not resist the hax.

And no, something is either Hax or AP. Hax by nature ignores durability so it either interacts with durability and is AP or it doesn't interact with durability (bypasses it) and is Hax. You can't have both. Particle Beams ignore durability cus they affect atoms, so there is no more AP past that.

As far as "dodging the attack because the beam is slow" is concerned.....In my opinion speed of beam isn't fixed or shall I say standard FTL speed if you understand what I mean......since it directly scales to speed of Mundus or Dante himself

No, cus it's a particle beam. Its by nature not SoL, let alone above FTL. And if you wanna consider Trish's speed feat in that scene (which personally i do), you can't assume that to be FTL. Dante's bullets are another issue entirely. You can say "FTL bullets" cus whatever, but saying FTL for things that have specific speed like Light, Electricity, Particle beams is not the same.

As far as barrier is concerned.........eeeehhhh I think I'll be giving a very unpopular opinion.....

As you said it's an opinion, not a fact, so i won't bother too much with this argument.

.take Vergil's Judgement Cut attack from Yamato....its a spatial cut.....which is HARD countered by RG

You mean RG as in Royal Guard or Regeneration? Cus the 1st one has never happened in any sort of cutscenes.

any wound caused upon it's successful hit will be insta regen-ed despite the regen neg.......sooooo why does Vergil use it????

Cus it's a weapon. A sword isn't hax.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

How? She got impaled straight through. She clearly did not resist the hax.

And no, something is either Hax or AP. Hax by nature ignores durability so it either interacts with durability and is AP or it doesn't interact with durability (bypasses it) and is Hax. You can't have both. Particle Beams ignore durability cus they affect atoms, so there is no more AP past that.

The beam has fairly big area of cross section and Trish only got hit on her right side so parts of the beam that weren't obstructed went on behind her. Besides you can see orange ignition sparks on surface of her body where she got hit. This is more readily visible on PC HD collection where due to graphical glitch all light effects are invisible thus even beam is invisible so the effects of the beam hitting are more clearly seen.

Nanana this logic is wrong, AP and Hax of physical attacks CAN go hand in hand.
Take Omega Beam from Darkseid which is haxxed has hell but characters who can resist its effect still get hurt by it because of its AP.
Same goes for Destruction energy in DB verse.
Yamato's spatial attacks which ignore conventional durability are resisted by Dante and he still gets hurt when he gets hit because the blade swings have AP.

Here even if hax of particle beam is resisted its AP will still cause hurt because beams have particles which have momentum and thus will have physical effect on body.

I would like to know the opinion of DMC boyos on this thread.
Are we going to treat the beam as purely hax or AP&Hax???

No, cus it's a particle beam. Its by nature not SoL, let alone above FTL. And if you wanna consider Trish's speed feat in that scene (which personally i do), you can't assume that to be FTL. Dante's bullets are another issue entirely. You can say "FTL bullets" cus whatever, but saying FTL for things that have specific speed like Light, Electricity, Particle beams is not the same.

Projectiles based on natural phenomenon like lightning, sound, wind , and light etc have a standard speed , but they will only apply to characters whose own speeds are lower than the said attacks or/and if these attacks are not created out of one's own energy but via some object( similar to normal human using normal gun).

But can the same be said for characters whose speed is above the element they use for e.g Marvel comics Thor using lightning, or Zeus from GOW using lightning, or that lady form Marvel whose name I forgot who once used light to dazzle and cover entire universe to get attention of Galactus.....and I am sure their are plenty of other charaters who use attacks which should normally be of lower speed but whose speeds directly scales to the characters themselves especially if attacks are supernatural in nature.

I am pretty sure particle beam that Mundus uses falls in the 2nd category.

As you said it's an opinion, not a fact, so i won't bother too much with this argument.

I would still like to know your opinion, and also rest of the people.

You mean RG as in Royal Guard or Regeneration? Cus the 1st one

You mean RG as in Royal Guard or Regeneration? Cus the 1st one has never happened in any sort of cutscenes.

Yes Royal Guard and even if it hasn't been showcased in any cutscenes it has been shown in DMC4 Deadly Fortuna light novel where Royal Guard and Royal Revenge is used by Dante against Agnus and DreadNaught is used against Saviour.

Cus it's a weapon. A sword isn't hax.

Yamato is a sword of hax. It is capable of hax and physical attack simultaneously. Sadly/Happily Dante resists its hax but can get hurt by its AP.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Nanana this logic is wrong, AP and Hax of physical attacks CAN go hand in hand.

Logic says no.

Here even if hax of particle beam is resisted its AP will still cause hurt because beams have particles which have momentum and thus will have physical effect on body.

Particle beam's AP IS the durability negation. Particle Beam is literally "AP applied on atoms" without getting into more complex stuff. So saying "you resist the AP on your atoms but you get f-ed by AP" is an illogical and scientifically wrong statement.

I would like to know the opinion of DMC boyos on this thread.
Are we going to treat the beam as purely hax or AP&Hax???

There is nothing to give opinion on. Particle Beam doesn't have "hax and AP" they're the same thing.

I would still like to know your opinion, and also rest of the people.

Whatever mine or the rest of the ppl's opinions are it doesn't change. Nothing can be given from that.

Yes Royal Guard and even if it hasn't been showcased in any cutscenes it has been shown in DMC4 Deadly Fortuna light novel where Royal Guard and Royal Revenge is used by Dante against Agnus and DreadNaught is used against Saviour.

Cases which are not Yamato's spatial cut.

Yamato is a sword of hax. It is capable of hax and physical attack simultaneously. Sadly/Happily Dante resists its hax but can get hurt by its AP.

It's a sword that is capable of using hax. A sword is a sword. It is physical, it is capable of using spatial hax with magic? Yes. Doesn't mean it's not a sword.

 

[EFÍTÉ]

Bump + a question
Is confirmed what Mundus fired on dante is a particle beam ?

 

[Mister6ame6]

Yeap, its comes from DMC1 guidebook

 

[EFÍTÉ]

Hmm right

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Anyway, for anyone who wants the Resistance to Matter Manip to stay get an authority on the ability page (matter manip) here and i'll debate him. Not gonna waste more time debating in circles with everyone.

Let's get to the rest of the points faster. I don't want this thread to last till the next forum move. Y'all said you had an argument for Deconstruction?

 

[Theglassman12]

@Firephoenixearl You clearly have not read the part where I said Dante getting hit a lot is something that happens a lot in the series if you're telling me it's something that doesn't happen in lore. Good job ignoring my point once again.

Very specific heat that needs to be super duper hot, so that already renders your oven example moot since no oven in the real world heats up to the same extent.

Temperature is the measurement of heat, not kinetic energy. The fact that you fail to understand that baffles me to no end, and other people have told you that's completely wrong on so many levels.

So what are you even trying to argue here when you admit particle beams are specific. Them being specific and designed for combat to break apart the atomic structure isn't something any normal energy can do.

No this isn’t just a standard, that's common sense to anyone who's debated here long enough. Make a CRT to remove this idea. If you don't or it doesn't go through then tough shit, that's how we've always done things here in regards to video game canonicity.

The beam from his power, not from an outside source so it's not remotely comparable.

Then call someone so we can settle this debate, clearly neither side is backing off here.

 

[Galens]

I finally managed to take some time to respond on the particle beam topic, as multiple claims have been taken out of context so far, others are false, spreading completely wrong information on the topic.

First of all I understand the confusion about the scientists mentioned, because if I put a name, the first result due to the search algorithm will undoubtedly be the most known and/or searched result, which was just the result of an error having only looked at the first search results. Since both scientific minds like Anthony Jackson or the books published by Bahman Zohuri that I used in previous publications among others, are not the product of a boxer or a musician but of people specialized in their respective fields and this in no way discredits the work that they presented.
For now, I will leave Mike Griffin's statement almost until the end as it is certainly something very important to consider.
To try to avoid the error that the names produce as it happened before, in this case I will use as a reference the publication of someone better known, which is Philip Nielsen who was involved in the investigation of different direct energy weapons within U.S. Air Force

"First of all, that's not the difference between a normal Practice Beam and a Neutral Particle Beam weapon, but rather the difference between a standard Particle Beam (Which is essentially a glorified electrical arc gun but steroids. ) while the other is the Neutral Particle Beam which is what was theorized to mess with molecules, so once again that's misinformation on your end."

Literally no proper context is provided, what I can infer is that they refer to the difference of what constitutes a charged particle beam (CPB) and a neutral particle beam (NPB) to what I can say is correct, but incorrect information is being given without any evidence by saying that the difference between a CPB and an NPB is that they work differently when thestatements clearly state otherwise, since despite the difference in composition that the particle beams have, they manage to affect the target in the same way.
The clear difference between the particle beams is undoubtedly their composition since a CPB is composed of electrically charged particles and an NPB is composed of neutrally charged particles and it is due to this difference in the compositions that both particle beams can be affected of differently depending on where they are, but the effects they cause towards their targets remain the same (such as kinetic energy, ionizing radiation, etc.) as there are many things that work within the particle beam, after all, what The only thing that works is not just kinetic energy although that is another topic that is not relevant at the moment.

"Firstly, Neutral Particle beams are the ones that ionize, not normal Particle Beams."

Now showing that a CPB and an NPB work the same way with their target, let's move on to the part where they interact with molecules and/or atoms as this is due to ionizing radiation as shown in the comments above. This is where there is also ionization caused by a beam from a particle weapon coming into contact with the atmosphere.
Ionization is present in both a CPB and an NPB, because an NPB is not even ionized as falsely indicated, since this only occurs when it comes into contact with the atmosphere, colliding with the molecules that are in it causing them to particles shoot in different directions, this is where the beam begins to ionize and we already know what happens when we shoot an NPB into the atmosphere (literally the analogy of the pellet shot in a room full of dynamite). While a CPB is already ionized, it will only begin to ionize everything around the beam itself without having the problems that an NPB presents within the atmosphere.

According to DefenseOne, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin recently told a gathering of defense reporters, “We are deferring work on neutral particle beams, indefinitely. It’s just not near-term enough.” Griffin emphasized however that the Pentagon was still forging ahead with research into lasers and microwave weapons, for use by ground forces, air forces, and in space.

Now, moving on to the particle beam acceptance issue, there are a lot of things that have been taken out of context regarding Mike Griffin's statements.
For starters, Griffin made it clear that particle beam work is being deferring, even if it's indefinitely, it doesn't mean it's been abandoned (this is something I'll supplement later). There is a semantic difference between something being deferred and something being abandoned, as there is no statement where Mike Griffin says particle beam work is abandoned, even he himself declares that they are putting it off because it is not a job that can be achieved in the short term, which is different from abandoning it completely.

"The man himself who's most definitely a lot more knowledgeable than any pseudo intellectual on this thread by a long shot, openly admitted that the Particle Beam Weapons affects have yet to ever be proven, and they have no idea on what it actually does."

Here we can see that a completely bogus test is being given by not providing the proper context for what Mike Griffin was talking about at the time.

But Griffin added that the Pentagon is still pursuing directed energy research in lasers and microwave energy, aiming eventually to deploy them on combat aircraft, with ground units, and aboard satellites.
“My own opinion is we need to get systems built and put onto platforms so we can see what they do how they do it,” he said, meaning how the weapons interact with their platform(s) and environment. “We need to understand the lethality of those systems, things like beam control. We need to know how to scale them up in practical ways. If you have 250 kilowatts of, say, laser, and you are operating at best at 50-percent efficiency, you have to figure out what to do with the other kilowatts of heat.

We clearly see that Griffin changes the subject to refer to laser and microwave weapons. And we even see that he use a LAZER weapon as an example and not that of a particle weapon, since even when he refer to the beam, he mean the laser beam itself, which is a terminology that is not only used for particle beams , because it is also used to refer to a beam from a laser weapon.
And this is combined with the final statement of Michael Griffin.

“So there are a lot of practical problems with real-world weapons systems,” he said. “We are spending money on it.”

where Michael Griffin refers to directed energy weapons in general, since all of them always present adverse problems such as the loss of energy from the beam for various reasons, especially the "atmosphere" that surrounds the weapon, since we can see a statement to the respect in Nielsen's book where he mentions this loss of energy that even Michael Griffin refers to in laser weapons and that they are trying to solve by looking for a way to empower them as seen in the first paragraphs of the publication.
We can also witness a final statement from Philip Nielsen in his book on building a particle beam weapon.
Which indicates that the hypothesis of how a particle beam weapon works is completely clear, and I repeat, only its CONSTRUCTION is what represents a problem for multiple mishaps, since if a particle beam weapon were created it would be very rudimentary plus the costs and problems that it would cause, so it would be considered unfeasible for its military application. That is why technological advances are still expected and this is something that goes hand in hand with Michael Griffin's statement that tells us that the creation of a particle beam is something that cannot be carried out in the short term by postponing the project of indefinitely. That's why I mentioned in a previous comment that if it were possible to create a portable-sized accelerator, this would be one of the biggest advancements in building the much desired particle beam, as of the 4 directed energy weapons, it is the particle beam the one that shows the best efficiency.

Literally, multiple tests of the effects of a particle beam weapon have already been provided, the difference between CPB and NPB and how they work in the same way with their objective, their interaction with matter, the multiple statements that test the hypothesis, etc. I don't want to sound offensive or condescending (and I apologize if anyone ever felt this way) as this is for informational purposes only. But I'd really appreciate if they could provide clear evidence backed by some scientific association to show that the hypothesis behind a particle beam weapon is completely wrong, as there are multiple essays on this topic backed by scientific minds saying otherwise. Since so far they have only given incorrect statements and the only evidence that was provided does not even support a rebuttal to the particle beam problem as it was completely taken out of context.

 

[LordGinSama]

I'd respond to the argument above but I'm no longer active in CRT's, so do what you wish and good day to you all.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Firephoenixearl You clearly have not read the part where I said Dante getting hit a lot is something that happens a lot in the series if you're telling me it's something that doesn't happen in lore. Good job ignoring my point once again.

It's on you to prove he got hit by the particle beam specifically. Especially when he goes out of his way to put a shield in front of it.

Very specific heat that needs to be super duper hot, so that already renders your oven example moot since no oven in the real world heats up to the same extent.

Not really. Heat still affects it on that level, it needs to be very hot to completely strip matter of electrons, not just affect it. Against you keep making more and more wrong physics claims.

Temperature is the measurement of heat, not kinetic energy. The fact that you fail to understand that baffles me to no end, and other people have told you that's completely wrong on so many levels.

Dude have you even gone through 9th grade physics? Im gonna say this 1 last time "temperature doesn't measure heat", and this im telling you so that you actually learn. Do you genuinely think that if you give any 2 objects the same amount of heat their temperature will be the same?
If no, you have your answer.
If yes, just drop the topic for the rest of your life unless you wanna go study physics all over again.
If me explaining physics baffles you, what baffles me is the fact that so many ppl can say wrong things so confidently.

So what are you even trying to argue here when you admit particle beams are specific. Them being specific and designed for combat to break apart the atomic structure isn't something any normal energy can do.

Yes but they are still energy that affect matter. So back to my point most forms of energy would fit your qualifications and would you look at that? They don't count as matter manip. Honestly im kind of getting tired of your nonsensical arguments who keep go in circles. At this point you are LITERALLY saying "even if other forms of energy fill the criteria unless it's specifically particle beams it doesn't count cus it just doesn't".

I've told you several times, go get a dude who is knowledgeable on Matter Manip to come debate me, you have no idea what you're talking about here, im not here to teach you 9th grade physics from scratch.

No this isn’t just a standard, that's common sense to anyone who's debated here long enough. Make a CRT to remove this idea. If you don't or it doesn't go through then tough shit, that's how we've always done things here in regards to video game canonicity.

Yes and "conceptual X hax is > than X hax" is common knowledge even though DT himself explained why everyone was just spitting out nonsense. Not all "common knowledge" is correct so again, show me a standard. I already showed you why "a lot of ppl do it" isn't an argument.

The beam from his power, not from an outside source so it's not remotely comparable.

I won't even bother with this cus this you implying you cannot get P&A through the use of objects/weapons. Which i don't need to explain why it's wrong

Then call someone so we can settle this debate, clearly neither side is backing off here.

1. It's your job to call him. Just tag someone here.
2. You're the one saying "they qualify", making the positive claim so it's still on your end.
As for who i would have said Dargoo usually but he's left the wiki so now idk, maybe DT? He should be knowledgeable.

 

[Mister6ame6]

Basically, i will repost my comment here.

Like others already said if Earl disagree with how we treat feats that happens in gameplay he should make a CTR for that, because even if there not a ''standard for video game verses'' this still affect alot, if not all video game verses in the wiki, because at this point you are not fighting DMC anymore, you are fighting against a unofficial standard that alow DMC and others video game verses to have they gameplay feats counted as canon and for that reason you need to make a CTR for that, otherwise, this argument should stop here if you don't want to make a CTR to discuss gameplay feats being non canon for video game verses.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I love how ppl just throw the term "unofficial standard" so willy nilly. It's always better to use that instead of the term "ppl decided to do this for no reason or backing what so ever" ain't it? It makes it sound more than what it actually is.

And i will repost what i said too "i don't need to do that when y'all never had any backing for doing it". Similar to how ppl had no backing for the "conceptual hax > normal hax" but it was widely used until it was debunked in a vs thread. It was never the case nor was it ever a standard, ppl just decided they wanted to do it for some reason and it spread, DT didn't need to make a thread about it as no standard was changed. Similarly i don't need to do one either.

CRT are "Content revision threads". If the content (the standard) doesn't exist, there is no need for it. And im not saying "any gameplay in any game cannot be used", however in case like DMC where the gameplay can contradict the cutscenes.

 

[Theglassman12]

No that's not how it works, you're pulling a Burden of Proof fallacy here. I've given all the statements and proof that I need to prove that Dante has more often than not tanked attacks from anymore more often than create a barrier, which happens once throughout any of the games.

Not all heat, very specific levels of heat. Try and remember that for once since by your logic anyone loses all of their molecules with any and all exposure to the sun regardless of the temperature.

A simple google search in general proves you wrong. So what's that again about being baffled about others saying things wrong so confidently?

Stop strawmanning me because I never once said that, I said that particle beams are very specific on what it's capable of, something YOU admit, so your argument is moot.

False equivalency, concept hax being better than normal hax isn't remotely comparable to what's considered canon in a video game. If gameplay is not canon to the game, then what even is canon? Especially to every old video game that doesn't have cutscenes to begin with? This is still tackling against the status quo on the wiki, which is anything that happens in gameplay is considered canon since that's where most of gaps between cutscenes are explained, no CRT explaining how or why gameplay in general is not canon means you're not convincing anyone that gameplay as a whole isn't canon.

We already have Galens here explaining how particle beams work, I'd say he's knowledgeable enough on this topic, but I'll call @DontTalkDT to settle this.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

No that's not how it works, you're pulling a Burden of Proof fallacy here. I've given all the statements and proof that I need to prove that Dante has more often than not tanked attacks from anymore more often than create a barrier, which happens once throughout any of the games.

So you're telling me how Dante deals with other attacks takes precedence over how he dealt with that very same attack earlier? Pff sure.

Not all heat, very specific levels of heat. Try and remember that for once since by your logic anyone loses all of their molecules with any and all exposure to the sun regardless of the temperature.

Any level of heat affects your molecules, it needs to be very high to turn it into plasma (yeet the electrons), but any heat affects molecules. Read what i say before making a "counter argument".

A simple google search in general proves you wrong. So what's that again about being baffled about others saying things wrong so confidently?

Please tell me you aren't putting Merriam Webster over physics here. Please tell me you didn't just argue a vocabulary is better in terms of facts than physics. OMG what do i have to deal with here?

Stop strawmanning me because I never once said that, I said that particle beams are very specific on what it's capable of, something YOU admit, so your argument is moot.

And i never once said you did either. I said your argument is turning into "no matter the energy unless it's a particle beam it is not matter manip even though all the others fit the criteria". So idk where you got the strawman from.

False equivalency, concept hax being better than normal hax isn't remotely comparable to what's considered canon in a video game. If gameplay is not canon to the game, then what even is canon? Especially to every old video game that doesn't have cutscenes to begin with? This is still tackling against the status quo on the wiki, which is anything that happens in gameplay is considered canon since that's where most of gaps between cutscenes are explained, no CRT explaining how or why gameplay in general is not canon means you're not convincing anyone that gameplay as a whole isn't canon.

I explained why the DMC case in particular cannot be used as canon as if you wanna consider it all canon then you run into issues that directly contradict the actual canon (cutscenes).

We already have Galens here explaining how particle beams work, I'd say he's knowledgeable enough on this topic, but I'll call @DontTalkDT to settle this.

Not for particle beams, im talking about calling DT over the "is particle beam matter manip?" argument.

 

[Mister6ame6]

Well, if Earl continue ignoring people asking him to make a CTR about gameplay feats, than this argument is finished because, like everyone pointed on this thread. Earl argument goes against the status quo of the wiki and, since nobody is agreeing with him on this thread and are asking him to make a CTR for that many times, either he make the CTR to discuss this or just drop this argument already.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Im not arguing against the status quo. There are games where the gameplay isn't supposed to/doesn't contradict the cutscenes over and over. DMC is just not one of them.

And again there is no standard about this, and as i've said many times as long as there is no standard i don't need to make big CRTs. Im not ignoring you all, im just explaining why your logic doesn't work.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Im not arguing against the status quo. There are games where the gameplay isn't supposed to/doesn't contradict the cutscenes over and over. DMC is just not one of them.

And again there is no standard about this, and as i've said many times as long as there is no standard i don't need to make big CRTs. Im not ignoring you all, im just explaining why your logic doesn't work.

Fell a victim.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

What?

 

[Theglassman12]

I asked Donttalk about the particle beam stuff and he said that it won’t count for durability negation but it will count for matter manipulation, so matter manipulation for Mundus and Matter manipulation resistance for Dante should stay.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, that seems legit

 

[Firephoenixearl]

1. DT wasn't the one who responded was it?
2. That answer seems....weird to say the least. He says "it's a specific form of energy so it wouldn't count" but once you prove that it is a specific form of energy he just says "seems good evidence". And he says "as long as it's not considered to ignore durability", which is extra weird cus matter manip would by default ignore durability. So it feels like we're misinterpreting something here. Im gonna have to ask him myself.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Welp im back after no more than 2 comments later and i was right. It was a misinterpretation. Particle Beams aren't matter manip.

Any further questions?

 

[ShieldsPlus]

Welp im back after no more than 2 comments later and i was right. It was a misinterpretation. Particle Beams aren't matter manip.

Any further questions?

I'd argue that the manipulation of particles themselves so that it can be launched as a beam could be considered as matter manip.

Did my responses make sense btw?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah, your points make sense, thanks for the input. I can do the rest from here.

 

[Theglassman12]

DT was the one who responded, did you bother paying attention to the entire message wall? Cause he clearly responded and said that using particle beams or tanking particle beams should be on the page.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Oh im sorry, i was not familiar with the "show more" on the msg walls.

Also that's even worse, he directly said "just write can resist particle beams and discuss it battles". I have no idea where you got the "he said matter manip is fine". He even answered you earlier with "no just put it as matter manip".

So for Dante even if we assume the feat to be legit, it's just "can tank particle beams" not MM resistance. But we still have issues with the validity of the feat don't we?

 

[Theglassman12]

If you read the reply he gave he literally said it wouldn’t count as durability negation, you do know that him saying matter manipulation is fine just further proves my point right? There is no issues with the validity of the feat since the only thing you’re arguing against about this feat is gameplay being not canon, something you refuse to make any form of CRT to change the standard on. If you’re not gonna do that then this discussion is over on this thread, if you wanna question this crap you can ask DontTalk, and we can move onto the other points on your CRT.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

So for Dante even if we assume the feat to be legit, it's just "can tank particle beams". But we still have issues with the validity of the feat don't we?

So you still want to argue that Dante never tanked it in canon....right??

 

[Mister6ame6]

Earl go make the CTR already or just drop this. We already said this many times for you, or otherwise this topic is finished and we can move to another points in your CTR

 

[Firephoenixearl]

If you read the reply he gave he literally said it wouldn’t count as durability negation, you do know that him saying matter manipulation is fine just further proves my point right? If you’re not gonna do that then this discussion is over on this thread, if you wanna question this crap you can ask DontTalk, and we can move onto the other points on your CRT.

Where did he say "matter manip is fine"? You said:

So I’m assuming you’re ok with the matter manipulation resistance being ok in regards to particle beams?

To which he answered:

I would prefer if it is listed as simply "can resist particle beams" on the profile

So i have no idea where you're getting the "he said resistance to matter manip is fine".

There is no issues with the validity of the feat since the only thing you’re arguing against about this feat is gameplay being not canon, something you refuse to make any form of CRT to change the standard on.

There is no standard. I don't have to make a CRT. Prove me your gameplay that contradicts cutscenes is canon and i'll drop the subject.