- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #481
they do
the map is not getting rid of, at least not in the manga, it is just unusable for our calc purposes
-
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 universe crt
- Thread starter omegabronic
- Start date
- Status
- 1,367
- 1,040
Really? Most calcs I see use their stated sizes in the databooks, haven't seen anyone pixel scale the map
I'd be surprised people actually directly used the map itself to calc, it being not up to scale has been known for years
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #483
DBS - Universe 7's destruction
vsbattles.fandom.com
this is why this thread exists
- 32,811
- 38,013
Already told people this. Baseline 3-A ain't happening due to the edge stuff.
- 29,935
- 25,093
The result still being above baseline 3-A is totally fine, as long as we're no longer using the map as it's currently being used.
- 10,012
- 3,424
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,815
- 2,031
that's not why it'd be 3x baseline 3-A, it's because the origin point of the explosion is close to the edge.
- 9,863
- 10,614
I know, I am specifically talking about size of Universe 7 rather than feat.
denisnic55
He/Him- 84
- 71
Wouldn't this be an AP buff and a huge nerf to speed if this gets accepted?
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #491
no, ap debuff and speed debuff
- 4,503
- 2,221
That's literally what he said
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #493
it was edited, this was not what it was there the moment i wrote the message
Stefano4444
He/Him- 6,086
- 5,182
Sure, just ignore all the official and established guidebooks that has more or less consistently show the same cosmology for decades, even the new recent info, just because the DBS Anime supposedly "debunked" everything that was establish before, even thought the cosmology was show in the DBS Manga (the one where Toriyama had more direct involvement if i'm not wrong) at the time where DBS Anime was still going on.
I can't really fathom how you can be unable to see how ridiculous this is, most verses here use or rely on secondary canon material for justify their cosmology, physical stats or abilities/powers, demand that Dragon Ball should instead be forbidden to do the same its just bonkers to say the least.
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #495
This does not address point 2 of the op, the point 1 is purely support for the anime, but either way, every time it was shown was in secondary cannon, if the main cannon shows a different thing, then we consider the main cannon, unless you want to make secondary cannon>>>>>>>main cannon, which defeats the whole purpose of it being secondary
This is a gigantic strawman, when did i said that dragon ball can't use secondary cannon? I am purely talking about an information in secondary cannon that contradicts what was shown in the main cannon, even without point 1 of the op, point 2 is more than enough to show that, that map was contradictory since dbz, if you disagree with point 1 okay, but that doesn't much of anything
- 10,407
- 5,241
Also I think, the map is later used in DBS's newer guide, proving that it is once again canon about the work. We already have disagreements about withdrawing the map, just need AKM to arrive.
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #497
And we have agreements as well, plus that changes nothing about point 2 so....
- 10,407
- 5,241
We've already refuted your point 2, so don't quote any more, thanks.
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #499
This is not an argument
- 4,613
- 2,947
No, we're just waiting for the calculations.
You don't convince anyone new saying that kind of thing, especially when the CRT has more "Agrees".
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,815
- 2,031
A Certain Knowledgeable gentleman likely won't agree with these revisions, he is our only hope here
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #502
This basically done tbh, and one staff doesn't outvote 4 no matter the position, plus he doesn't want to participate in db thread anymore, so not much relevant
- 3,342
- 4,387
I wanted to know is the macrocosm map is it still good to be able to be used for how the macrocosm looks like, but just not for calcing The size of the realms like the kaioshin realm orbitting the macrocosm
- 3,342
- 4,387
Bump Ik the Calc won’t be used anymore but is the kaioshin realm stated to be 1/10th of the macrocosm and orbiting is that also removed or just the Calc need some clarification from staff
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #505
this was acknowledged already, the op proposed to not use this in the anime, and so it will not since enough staff agreed on it, for the manga, i will make another thread for it later since no one seemed to want to talk about it in the time i asked
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #506
i ask for this to be temporally closed as there is an infinite universe crt going on right now, that could make the calculations null for obvious reasons, so i believe that waiting for that one to conclude before waiting for the calcs of this one is the best option
- 29,935
- 25,093
Okay, closing at the OP's request.
- 24,247
- 24,998
I was told to reopen this thread
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,815
- 2,031
What for?
- 24,247
- 24,998
OP wanted to add a note for the verse page.
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #511
originally we were waiting for the recalc, but since the universe was accepted as infinite in another crt, this should put on the verse page as the structure of the universe for the dbs anime was accepted to be the one acurate since the macrocosm map has too much inconsistencies in size, so i suggest this note to be put:
"note: for the structure of the macrocosm we considerer the consistent visual showed in the dbs anime to be how they really look like, since the map presented in the daizenshuu has several inconsistencies in comparison to the main cannon material, like the size of the snake way and king kai's planet being completely different from how they are depicted in the anime and manga"
"note: for the structure of the macrocosm we considerer the consistent visual showed in the dbs anime to be how they really look like, since the map presented in the daizenshuu has several inconsistencies in comparison to the main cannon material, like the size of the snake way and king kai's planet being completely different from how they are depicted in the anime and manga"
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #512
do any of you have anything to add on the note proposed or is it good to be applied?
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,815
- 2,031
This doesn't look like a good addition AT ALL:
If u7 is accepted as 2-C... then the visuals you're using aren't indicative...
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #514
it being 2-C means nothing really, there is no way to "visualize" a tier 2 structure
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,815
- 2,031
Then you'd be agreeing inherently that they're representations.
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #516
no, the one is super is just the universe looked from afar, that much is clear, it is how the universes look, the other one could also be if it didn't had such massive contradictions to the sizes in the main series
- 3,342
- 4,387
it was just agreed to remove the Calc using the macrocosm map not eliminating it entirely as it doesn’t show things like the kaioshin realm outside of it revolving which is shown in other primary canons and the guides and the author himself
- 10,407
- 5,241
it was exactly that
- 10,012
- 3,424
- Thread starter
- #519
People agreed with the Op in general, the ones that specified i noted in the said op, no staff ever argued the things you are saying
- Status
Similar threads
