-
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.
Dragon Ball Heroes Infinite Speed Revision Part 2
- Thread starter Dragonmasterxyz
- Start date
- Status
- 12,828
- 3,995
Everyone one is so angry and upset and that's making me sad.
- 3,110
- 870
The majority already agree with this. Should the upgrades take place?The Everlasting said:
- 10,394
- 3,348
It does though? Cinematic Timing is when the scene is slowed so the viewer can see. Think when characters are moving at Supersonic speed and we see the bulelt in slow motion. That is Cinematic Timing.
If Infinite Speed characters are subject to it, then the whole background should be 100% frozen.
Or, and this is such a shocking concept, they slow down the characters but keep the backgrounds moving because they want it to be existing.
Seriously, this is an absolute non-argument.
If Infinite Speed characters are subject to it, then the whole background should be 100% frozen.
Or, and this is such a shocking concept, they slow down the characters but keep the backgrounds moving because they want it to be existing.
Seriously, this is an absolute non-argument.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Agree with Ever wholeheartedly.
> Sure, so you agree with me? I have no idea why you keep using Zamasu low-ends which are not Cinematic Timing as an argument?
I don't agree with you. You've made your argument clear. Not sure why you're backtracking now.
> I'm not, but you appear to have misinterpreted my argument.
These vague statements ain't helping anyone. Please elaborate.
> Sure, so you agree with me? I have no idea why you keep using Zamasu low-ends which are not Cinematic Timing as an argument?
I don't agree with you. You've made your argument clear. Not sure why you're backtracking now.
> I'm not, but you appear to have misinterpreted my argument.
These vague statements ain't helping anyone. Please elaborate.
- 32,359
- 20,298
"Three statements. And it isn't an outlier, there is nothing that contradicts it."
It is. The entire rest of the series does, and the legitimacy of the statements has been brought into question repeatedly.
"Can you please stop being a hypocrite."
I'm really not. I'm trying to keep the thread as an honest debate, while you are derailing and being aggressive, and making use of strawmans.
"You've been scolded by three different Staff Members because of your behavior in the past thread"
By who? I wouldn't count what you're doing right now as scolding. Dragon and who else? He criticized posting memes, and I stopped.
"and you continue to try and portray the 31 people who disagree with your assessment in a bad light"
I don't. I just don't agree with them, specially when a lot of the reasons are debunked, and I don't agree with Argumentum Ad Populum.
"as if they're objectively wanking while you are right"
Aren't you doing the same thing? You think you are objectively right, and that I and Assalt are downplaying, even using meaningless terms like "I can't believe you're arguing this!"
It is. The entire rest of the series does, and the legitimacy of the statements has been brought into question repeatedly.
"Can you please stop being a hypocrite."
I'm really not. I'm trying to keep the thread as an honest debate, while you are derailing and being aggressive, and making use of strawmans.
"You've been scolded by three different Staff Members because of your behavior in the past thread"
By who? I wouldn't count what you're doing right now as scolding. Dragon and who else? He criticized posting memes, and I stopped.
"and you continue to try and portray the 31 people who disagree with your assessment in a bad light"
I don't. I just don't agree with them, specially when a lot of the reasons are debunked, and I don't agree with Argumentum Ad Populum.
"as if they're objectively wanking while you are right"
Aren't you doing the same thing? You think you are objectively right, and that I and Assalt are downplaying, even using meaningless terms like "I can't believe you're arguing this!"
- 1,959
- 133
The Demon Realm did exist before the bird that sets time into motion, so there is that.
- 10,394
- 3,348
It's not "Argumentum Ad Populum", it's called "majority rules".
Seriously, 90% of the argent against Infinite speed is the characters not actually moving at demonstrably infinite speed. This is just stupid.
Seriously, 90% of the argent against Infinite speed is the characters not actually moving at demonstrably infinite speed. This is just stupid.
- 32,359
- 20,298
That isn't even true. We can easily get timeframes in manga. In Dragon Ball proper, we can get a timeframe for Piccolo's moon beam based on falling rocks.Akreious said:
- 32,359
- 20,298
If the characters are demonstrably not moving at infinite speed, they shouldn't have infinite speed. How is this bad logic?The Everlasting said:
- 5,654
- 1,143
Can we close this soon? VAST MAJORITY agrees with Upgrades and any arguments that are still going on is only going in a circle. This isn't even a "Majority rules thing" for the sake of majority, it's just that the majority backs up reasoning that actually has support to it when looked at in one perspective. The debunks and arguments back are people who are seeing the feat in another perspective.
- 32,359
- 20,298
@Kep
I'm not backtracking. But you are apparently agreeing with me. Your definition of Cinematic Timing is the same as mine. Which is why I ask you bothered bringing up things which aren't Cinematic Timing for Zamasu.
And see above? You got super annoyed at my Hit comment, which hadn't anything to do with Cinematic Timing.
I'm not backtracking. But you are apparently agreeing with me. Your definition of Cinematic Timing is the same as mine. Which is why I ask you bothered bringing up things which aren't Cinematic Timing for Zamasu.
And see above? You got super annoyed at my Hit comment, which hadn't anything to do with Cinematic Timing.
- 10,394
- 3,348
If the characters are demonstrably not moving at infinite speed, they shouldn't have infinite speed. How is this bad logic?
Because:
A. Cinematic Time exists.
B. This is a standard we are making up. Fiction does not consider moving in a void infinite speed, or even a speed feat to begin with. To require fiction to use our standards for this is ridiculous.
Because:
A. Cinematic Time exists.
B. This is a standard we are making up. Fiction does not consider moving in a void infinite speed, or even a speed feat to begin with. To require fiction to use our standards for this is ridiculous.
- 10,352
- 11,904
And the scans of such is... Where?Akreious said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
> I'm really not. I'm trying to keep the thread as an honest debate, while you are derailing and being aggressive, and making use of strawmans.
I'm not doing either of these. You simply like to pick on bluntness and complain about it, when you do the exact same thing but three times worse. If you're being needlessly aggressive, don't backtrack when your tone is retaliated.
Seriously, just act like an admin for once.
> By who? I wouldn't count what you're doing right now as scolding. Dragon and who else? He criticized posting memes, and I stopped.
Dragon and Dark.
> I don't. I just don't agree with them, specially when a lot of the reasons are debunked, and I don't agree with Argumentum Ad Populum.
> Always calling the argument "wanked"
> Saying the pro-DB debaters are biased
Alright.
It's called "the vast majority disagree". The exact same thing you use to get threads where most people agree with you concluded.
None have been debunked. Yours, if anything, have.
> Aren't you doing the same thing? You think you are objectively right, and that I and Assalt are downplaying, even using meaningless terms like "I can't believe you're arguing this!"
I never said I was objectively right, didn't say you were downplaying either.
I'm not doing either of these. You simply like to pick on bluntness and complain about it, when you do the exact same thing but three times worse. If you're being needlessly aggressive, don't backtrack when your tone is retaliated.
Seriously, just act like an admin for once.
> By who? I wouldn't count what you're doing right now as scolding. Dragon and who else? He criticized posting memes, and I stopped.
Dragon and Dark.
> I don't. I just don't agree with them, specially when a lot of the reasons are debunked, and I don't agree with Argumentum Ad Populum.
> Always calling the argument "wanked"
> Saying the pro-DB debaters are biased
Alright.
It's called "the vast majority disagree". The exact same thing you use to get threads where most people agree with you concluded.
None have been debunked. Yours, if anything, have.
> Aren't you doing the same thing? You think you are objectively right, and that I and Assalt are downplaying, even using meaningless terms like "I can't believe you're arguing this!"
I never said I was objectively right, didn't say you were downplaying either.
- 33,408
- 8,430
- Thread starter
- #338
Akreious wrote
Let me reiterate this. I GUESS DIGIMON SHOULDN'T HAVE INFINITE SPEED THEN.
Do I literally have to post all those scans again?
Let me reiterate this. I GUESS DIGIMON SHOULDN'T HAVE INFINITE SPEED THEN.
Do I literally have to post all those scans again?
- 40,470
- 12,953
Guys, we're all better than this. As someone who has acted like this before, I can tell it's not worth it. We'll just get mad at each other, spite each other, and lose credibility and trust in future threads. It's simply Dragon Ball. And not even canon Dragon Ball.
- 167,862
- 76,484
@CrimsonStarFallen
I am also not at all happy about that the staff do not seem to get along here. I think that Rapid's constant provocations have greatly contributed to the increasingly angry tone.
Anyway, I think that Assaltwaffle and Matthew seem to make a better argument here, regardless that they do not have the popular support of all of the Dragon Ball fans.
I am also not at all happy about that the staff do not seem to get along here. I think that Rapid's constant provocations have greatly contributed to the increasingly angry tone.
Anyway, I think that Assaltwaffle and Matthew seem to make a better argument here, regardless that they do not have the popular support of all of the Dragon Ball fans.
- 32,359
- 20,298
@Ever.
A. But Cinematic Timing for Infinite Speed would require a frozen background, by sheer basic logic.
B. This is part of the reason the standards will be reworked.
A. But Cinematic Timing for Infinite Speed would require a frozen background, by sheer basic logic.
B. This is part of the reason the standards will be reworked.
- 1,959
- 133
Downgrading the speeds of characters because "muh fiction does not depicts them a certain way" is overly strict and mostly comes from people overthinking things, and this would eventually restrict Infinite speeds to characters that display extremely specific showings of velocity that aren't found in many fictional verses.
- 10,394
- 3,348
A. But why though?Matthew Schroeder said:
B. They don't need to be. They're fine as is.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I agree with Ant too.
- 15,332
- 7,563
> If the characters are demonstrably not moving at infinite speed, they shouldn't have infinite speed. How is this bad logic?
Let get me this straight.
Considering your argument that the characters who are infinitely fast need to be portrayed as 100% frozen.
Every single character who is Relativistic, FTL, MFTL, MHS and HHS needs to be downgraded, because they aren't slowed down to nanoseconds or microseconds on screen?
Infinite Speed and Finite Speeds have zero difference when dealing with Cinematic Time. In fact, both Immeasurable and Infinite characters suffer from it far more than anyone else.
You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate.
Let get me this straight.
Considering your argument that the characters who are infinitely fast need to be portrayed as 100% frozen.
Every single character who is Relativistic, FTL, MFTL, MHS and HHS needs to be downgraded, because they aren't slowed down to nanoseconds or microseconds on screen?
Infinite Speed and Finite Speeds have zero difference when dealing with Cinematic Time. In fact, both Immeasurable and Infinite characters suffer from it far more than anyone else.
You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate.
- 4,175
- 1,428
I agree with Cal. We aren't acting much better than Rapid at this point.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Akreious said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
I also agree with Cal, by the way. It's what I said in the start.
- 32,359
- 20,298
@Kep
"Every single character who is Relativistic, FTL, MFTL, MHS and HHS needs to be downgraded, because they aren't slowed down to nanoseconds or microseconds on screen?"
False equivalency. In this case they being slowed down is fine, which is what happens anyway specially in written media.
"Infinite Speed and Finite Speeds have zero difference when dealing with Cinematic Time."
Except, they do. With finite speed there can be movement, even with a slowed scene. With infinite there logically shouldn't.
"In fact, both Immeasurable and Infinite characters suffer from it far more than anyone else"
I disagree. At Immeasurable what we see ceases to have meaning as the fight becomes an abstraction.
"You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate."
I never said this, and I did elaborate.
"Every single character who is Relativistic, FTL, MFTL, MHS and HHS needs to be downgraded, because they aren't slowed down to nanoseconds or microseconds on screen?"
False equivalency. In this case they being slowed down is fine, which is what happens anyway specially in written media.
"Infinite Speed and Finite Speeds have zero difference when dealing with Cinematic Time."
Except, they do. With finite speed there can be movement, even with a slowed scene. With infinite there logically shouldn't.
"In fact, both Immeasurable and Infinite characters suffer from it far more than anyone else"
I disagree. At Immeasurable what we see ceases to have meaning as the fight becomes an abstraction.
"You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate."
I never said this, and I did elaborate.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Okay, then. So you're basically saying that nothing we see on screen can be reliable? The animator doesn't matter. We use Death of the Author here. What's depicted is what'd depicted.
And no, this doesn't contradict my earlier point about the timeless void not being treated like a timeless void. That is just a analysis of what is shown / depicted on screen, not an argument about intent.
And no, this doesn't contradict my earlier point about the timeless void not being treated like a timeless void. That is just a analysis of what is shown / depicted on screen, not an argument about intent.
- 8,438
- 3,294
@Akreious
You don't need to be a scientist to know that the difference between "fast" and infinity is infinite. Like this isn't a hard principle to grasp, at all, and you don't need to be good at math or calculations to know the difference between going quickly and moving with infinite speed.
You don't need to be a scientist to know that the difference between "fast" and infinity is infinite. Like this isn't a hard principle to grasp, at all, and you don't need to be good at math or calculations to know the difference between going quickly and moving with infinite speed.
- 15,332
- 7,563
> False equivalency. In this case they being slowed down is fine, which is what happens anyway specially in written media.
No, it's not. And you didn't even understand the point. None of the characters who have Relativistic ratings are slowed down accurately. Your argument was that Cinematic Timing for those with Infinite speed would be if they were literally frozen. Therefore, CT for Relativistic characters would need to be them having a fight in 20 nanoseconds. This is your logic, not mine.
> Except, they do. With finite speed there can be movement, even with a slowed scene. With infinite there logically shouldn't.
With finite speeds the writers never slow down a MHS+ character to 5 microseconds. So demanding for time to be frozen for infinitely fast characters makes zero sense.
> I disagree. At Immeasurable what we see ceases to have meaning as the fight becomes an abstraction.
Aand nobody ever portrays it like that.
> "You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate."
Yes you did, even on this post. You're saying CT doesn't apply to Infinitely fast characters.
...When?
No, it's not. And you didn't even understand the point. None of the characters who have Relativistic ratings are slowed down accurately. Your argument was that Cinematic Timing for those with Infinite speed would be if they were literally frozen. Therefore, CT for Relativistic characters would need to be them having a fight in 20 nanoseconds. This is your logic, not mine.
> Except, they do. With finite speed there can be movement, even with a slowed scene. With infinite there logically shouldn't.
With finite speeds the writers never slow down a MHS+ character to 5 microseconds. So demanding for time to be frozen for infinitely fast characters makes zero sense.
> I disagree. At Immeasurable what we see ceases to have meaning as the fight becomes an abstraction.
Aand nobody ever portrays it like that.
> "You're continually saying that CT doesn't apply, but you never elaborate."
Yes you did, even on this post. You're saying CT doesn't apply to Infinitely fast characters.
...When?
- 15,332
- 7,563
Your argument, no matter what path you take or retake, leads into:
1. The deletion of the Cinematic Time page, since it'd be near worthless
2. The downgrade of all characters to subsonic or supersonic, with some exceptions here and there.
And before yelling "Strawmaan!!", elaborate.
1. The deletion of the Cinematic Time page, since it'd be near worthless
2. The downgrade of all characters to subsonic or supersonic, with some exceptions here and there.
And before yelling "Strawmaan!!", elaborate.
- 10,352
- 11,904
I also very much agree with Cal.
- 33,408
- 8,430
- Thread starter
- #359
How about this? Before we make another Infinite Speed thread, how about I go through the old one and post what exactly was discussed and accepted? THIS is why I told us to put detailed examples down, but no one listened. Can we settle away from this thread tonight and I can post tomorrow? Please?
- 32,359
- 20,298
"No, it's not. And you didn't even understand the point. None of the characters who have Relativistic ratings are slowed down accurately. Your argument was that Cinematic Timing for those with Infinite speed would be if they were literally frozen. Therefore, CT for Relativistic characters would need to be them having a fight in 20 nanoseconds."
Sure, there can be inaccuracies, but nothing so discrepant as there being movement when there should be none.
Also, "none of the characters" is inaccurate. Characters from books are accurate.
"With finite speeds the writers never slow down a MHS+ character to 5 microseconds."
Except... When we get microsecond statements for an attack / dodge / movement. Which is the reason behind half the MHS+ ratings.
"Aand nobody ever portrays it like that."
Legit why is this an argument?
"Yes you did, even on this post. You're saying CT doesn't apply to Infinitely fast characters."
I didn't. I am arguing their Cinematic Timing should portray something specific, though.
"...When?"
In this very post and the later which you responded to.
Sure, there can be inaccuracies, but nothing so discrepant as there being movement when there should be none.
Also, "none of the characters" is inaccurate. Characters from books are accurate.
"With finite speeds the writers never slow down a MHS+ character to 5 microseconds."
Except... When we get microsecond statements for an attack / dodge / movement. Which is the reason behind half the MHS+ ratings.
"Aand nobody ever portrays it like that."
Legit why is this an argument?
"Yes you did, even on this post. You're saying CT doesn't apply to Infinitely fast characters."
I didn't. I am arguing their Cinematic Timing should portray something specific, though.
"...When?"
In this very post and the later which you responded to.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
