Genshin Impact Black Hole Problem

[Woomica]

Bro, you and Gianny were revising Genshin over the past months and y'all put goddamn game mechanic elements onto the pages. An evident invalid issue misconception that shouldn't be considered and can easily be avoided just became official information, so judging by the information y'all guys chose to put into the articles, this revision is most likely inevitably going to pass. I have no choice but to agree with this CRT because game mechanics information have been implemented on Genshin's profile pages.

Okay so why does shogun which exist from 2021 have final calamity that can get countered by beating some shitty flower in game?
Actually almost every single ability we have listed in character profiles is used here, should we just straight up remove all of them or no?
How we deal against something in game doesnt make it non existent in lore otherwise shogun wouldnt have like 50% of abilities since those are shown in her boss fight lol, and same should work here
Now i wont try to argue in favour of blackhle since i already agreed to remove it and we got whole admin vote here

 

[Voidnether]

Okay so why does shogun which exist from 2021 have final calamity that can get countered by beating some shitty flower in game?
Actually almost every single ability we have listed in character profiles is used here, should we just straight up remove all of them or no?
How we deal against something in game doesnt make it non existent in lore otherwise shogun wouldnt have like 50% of abilities since those are shown in her boss fight lol, and same should work here
Now i wont try to argue in favour of blackhle since i already agreed to remove it and we got whole admin vote here

Just make a CRT that makes game mechanic in genshin as canon I guess, idk

 

[JohnHendrix212]

Feel like we should distinguish game mechanics, from the actual thing, just because during gameplay it isn realistic in terms of interaction it doesn’t dismiss its lore.

Those descriptions further destroy the idea that these things are supposed to be real black holes, rather than help cement it.

These things can be "obtained" via physical contact, as written in the description. They even add in a detail that says it's heavier than its size would entail. Meaning, while it is heavy, it can still be picked up. Just not as easily as its size would tell. The second one even has it being tangled in your sword. It's clear that they're not supposed to be "real" cosmic blackholes. They're probably magical in nature. Most of those text are blatant flowery language.

 

[VoidGoji]

Gameplay mechanic being "canon" is used for a lot of verses

 

[Puppet43]

You could literally see here that I have no pneuma or ousia characters yet I'm still able to destroy the blackhole physically

Thats a game mechanic buddy, in canon both Traveler and Neuvi had like massive Arkhe Manip

 

[Voidnether]

Thats a game mechanic buddy, in canon both Traveler and Neuvi had like massive Arkhe Manip

I literally said it was game mechanics blackhole

 

[Puppet43]

I literally said it was game mechanics blackhole

Against or in favor of Black hole?

 

[Voidnether]

Against or in favor of Black hole?

Doesn't matter, this thread is gonna be accepted anyways. Both of the calculations used, I'm against it but there's other ways to calculate it. In which it's what I bolded earlier (GarrixianXD's replies)

 

[Aernasilver]

 

[GarrixianXD]

Okay, looking upon the All Devouring Narwhal's profile, it did say the black hole was cut by the arkhe, though it obviously had game mechanics descriptions to it, so my reasoning still stands. My stance hasn't changed overall.

 

[Aernasilver]

So to summarize:

The Black Holes can be physically destroyed, physically held and thrown, physically obtained and can be entangled on the blade.

And you still disagree?

 

[GarrixianXD]

So to summarize:

The Black Holes can be physically destroyed, physically held and thrown, physically obtained and can be entangled on the blade.

And you still disagree?

Read my previous comments, thank you.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've read through the thread. I want to reiterate that I don't really like Genshin and don't really want to be called to work on it- I'm not putting it on the blacklist or anything, but I state this here to discourage my participation from being taken as a "this is Bambu's verse!" thing, since I've been called to Genshin Impact a shitload more since evaluating one (1) thread for you people.

With that out of the way. The OP is correct that this strongly urges against us considering them to be legitimate black holes in a legitimate sense. They funnily possess numerous explicit features shared with black holes, and indeed I agree that it is the intent of the game to at least be obviously related to black holes, but they do not function close enough to the real deal to be considered the real deal in terms of our wiki, I reckon. I would regard the situation as being extremely borderline.

 

[Saqphire]

1) Narwhal's black hole can be physically destroyed which is impossible stating from this page. And yes its physically because The Traveler uses their sword all the time.

As others have stated, Neuvillette gave Aether/Lumine specific Arkhe protection (aka hax) to allow them to destroy it with physical attacks, so this argument is null. Furthermore, even without this argument this can easily be dismissed as non-canon game mechanics since the black hole wasn't able to be physically attacked in lore/in cutscenes, and otherwise the bullet example in the game mechanic page would apply to alot of verses

More general examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are essentially shown to be bullet proof. As mentioned above, it is not possible to chip away at durability like this in real life (If something can shrug off a bullet once, it can usually continue to do when hit by continuous number of them over an inconsistent interval against arbitrary areas).

2) Inside the Narhwhal's body there is a black hole held by a Dark Shadow which is stated above impossible and once again you can physically destroy it and also the rocks are suspended in the air instead of being sucked in if it was a real black hole.

Another case of game mechanics and/or Dark Shadow having resistance to physics / quantum manip (or even a whole feat of Dark Shadow being FTL, but that's another matter).

3) Skirk's black hole can be physically held and even thrown which is also impossible from the same page.

Same as the Dark Shadow example. And we have people shooting elements out of emblems in the verse, Traveler being able to recover stamina within like 5 seconds from running like a whole kilometre of distance, and people freezing tsunamis in less than a second in cutscene-time, so it's clear the verse, while it may have some basis and inspiration off reality, said reality should be considered as a secondary basis over incredible feats in a fantasy-themed verse, so while said feats are impossible to be done in reality, they shouldn't be discarded because of this. "Goku can destroy the Universe but that's impossible to do irl so he's just peak human" ahh argument.

4) You can obtain the "black hole" and hold it in your bag like its a physical thing. Even in the description say its a substance which is something physical.

We don't count characters having insane lifting strength from having 99999x of a dense material in their inventory (an example of a consistently rejected proposal of that is from Minecraft), so why should we count the Traveler being able to hold black holes in their inventory as anything here, as a feat of lifting strength or an anti-feat? This is just straight up cherry picking and again, an argument from game mechanics.

5) In the The Black Hole Creation page it states: "It should also be noted that, even if the projectile resembles a black hole and shares the same basic function, it does not automatically qualify to be a real black hole. For further information, please see Black Hole Feats in Fiction."

These arguments don't debunk the actual reasonings as to why they were accepted as black holes in the first place, so this is just a non-argument. You even concede to them having overwhelming evidence of being black holes anyway

So even though it is stated that light cannot escape, shows a tidal force, event horizon, and accretion disc and is implied to have a suction, due to the above contradictions the black holes portrayed by Skirk and Narwhal should be removed.

Imo overwhelming evidence of narrative intention should be considered over anti-feats from, if I'm honest, nitpicking from a basis not established in the game, but rather reality, especially when the glaring anti-feats have arguments based off fallacious reasonings in the first place.

So yeah, I hard disagree with dismissing the feats. In fact if the feats doesn't get dismissed they would actually serve as consistency for the celestial body meta given that the verse is now 4-A via UES + creation.

 

[Voidnether]

The problem is solely because it's not a real blackhole, to assume it would provide consistency for Tier 4.. Wouldn't it just be a borderline headcanon to assume since they're Tier 4 so every blackholes are real?

 

[Saqphire]

The problem is solely because it's not a real blackhole, to assume it would provide consistency for Tier 4.. Wouldn't it just be a borderline headcanon to assume since they're Tier 4 so every blackholes are real?

I never said this? I said, if not dismissed as fake black holes, but rather proven as real, they would indirectly provide consistency to a celestial body meta, which means anything from planetary to galaxy level. Last I checked, solar systems have celestial bodies

 

[Voidnether]

I never said this? I said, if not dismissed as fake black holes, but rather proven as real, they would indirectly provide consistency to a celestial body meta, which means anything from planetary to galaxy level. Last I checked, solar systems have celestial bodies

And it doesn't warrant anything higher than Tier 5...

 

[Saqphire]

And it doesn't warrant anything higher than Tier 5...

That’s fine. That doesn’t inherently dismiss my arguments but rather put the previous claims that ”genshin caps at island level” to question

 

[Woomica]

I've read through the thread. I want to reiterate that I don't really like Genshin and don't really want to be called to work on it- I'm not putting it on the blacklist or anything, but I state this here to discourage my participation from being taken as a "this is Bambu's verse!" thing, since I've been called to Genshin Impact a shitload more since evaluating one (1) thread for you people.

With that out of the way. The OP is correct that this strongly urges against us considering them to be legitimate black holes in a legitimate sense. They funnily possess numerous explicit features shared with black holes, and indeed I agree that it is the intent of the game to at least be obviously related to black holes, but they do not function close enough to the real deal to be considered the real deal in terms of our wiki, I reckon. I would regard the situation as being extremely borderline.

do we keep resistances that characters got from this black hole or is that going bye bye?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would vote against resistances gained being kept, yeah. My vote alone isn't enough to determine the outcome, though.

 

[Voidnether]

do we keep resistances that characters got from this black hole or is that going bye bye?

Resistances should be gone, tbh

 

[Woomica]

alright ill wait for another staff input unless DT also agreed to remove resistances and then i can apply the removals

 

[Saqphire]

Bro, you and Gianny were revising Genshin over the past months and y'all put goddamn game mechanic elements onto the pages. An evident invalid issue misconception that shouldn't be considered and can easily be avoided just became official information, so judging by the information y'all guys chose to put into the articles, this revision is most likely inevitably going to pass. I have no choice but to agree with this CRT because game mechanics information have been implemented on Genshin's profile pages.

Ranting aside... Aether could've defeated the Narwhall instead without interacting with the black hole since we've never seen him do it in any of the cutscenes, and a black hole being in a Narwhal's body doesn't imply that Aether destroyed a black hole in a physical sense. Then again, I doubt this discussion will matter further.

I mean, why not just make a CRT removing said game mechanic-related feats from the verse? Hell, if we consider game mechanics as canon we'd open a whole can of worms such as that one calc of Jean dodging lightning in-game, Traveler not being able to destroy a tree, some grass, kill some fodder level NPCs in-game (but they can fight and harm people like Raiden) etc etc, it'd be a whole fiesta of inconsistencies all-around which the game mechanic page expliclitly reminds us why we shouldn't use them, and using game mechanics for certain feats and dismissing other feats due to game mechanics is cherry picking.

Fact of the matter is, none of the anti-feats for the black holes due to game mechanics happen in the cutscenes/in lore as you've already entailed, and Skirk's anti-feat of holding a black hole doesn't necessarily debunk it being a black hole, there's the possibility of upscaling Skirk to have resistances and scaling because of it as I said in my response

 

[Woomica]

just saying, if we remove every in game stuff shown yall can say bye to 90% of genshin abilities and characters way of fighting

 

[Saqphire]

just saying, if we remove every in game stuff shown yall can say bye to 90% of genshin abilities and characters way of fighting

This is kind of a slippery slope fallacy. Pretty much every ability in the game has descriptions detailing what they can do to us the players, mechanics in the game shouldn't discard the statements in themselves, those statements should be considered more valid than inconsistent in-game mechanics due to said statements being narrative intention so I believe those should be more favored in using

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Mechanics do not dissuade us from using statements, the latter tends to take priority. I don't think this thread is an instance of only valuing game mechanics, though- much of the arguments in the OP hail from rendered cutscenes (like people holding the "black hole"). Furthermore, this just lends itself to supporting the mechanical fact that you can cut and attack the object physically.

I tend to agree with the idea of a slippery slope, and this one does exist, but I think this specific issue isn't a part of that.

 

[Saqphire]

Mechanics do not dissuade us from using statements, the latter tends to take priority. I don't think this thread is an instance of only valuing game mechanics, though- much of the arguments in the OP hail from rendered cutscenes (like people holding the "black hole"). Furthermore, this just lends itself to supporting the mechanical fact that you can cut and attack the object physically.

I tend to agree with the idea of a slippery slope, and this one does exist, but I think this specific issue isn't a part of that.

I take it as you'd be agreeing with not using game mechanics to debunk the feats then? Because the issues presented from the cutscenes have already been attacked by both Garrixian and I; with him saying the "physical attacking the black hole argument" is invalid because that notion was never in them in the first place, and the description detailing as such was with Arkhe hax to allow them to do it, and me saying Skirk holding one =/= it isn't real (saying so is a false dilemma aswell as non-sequitur), it can just upscale her and everyone who scales to her with resistance hax and other stuff. We have people like Garou surviving an accepted black hole and Dante in Black Clover having accepted Black Hole Creation and he literally holds it in the manga

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I agree with it in premise, I disagree that you have successfully argued this to be an instance of pure game mechanics.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Mechanics do not dissuade us from using statements, the latter tends to take priority. I don't think this thread is an instance of only valuing game mechanics, though- much of the arguments in the OP hail from rendered cutscenes (like people holding the "black hole"). Furthermore, this just lends itself to supporting the mechanical fact that you can cut and attack the object physically.

DT was the first to address the black hole being destroyed, which serves as a hooking detail for the participants here. In Genshin, you can even cut electricity using a sword in-game, so it wouldn't be plausible for its mechanics to be taken into account, since you can pretty much cut through everything in Genshin's game mechanics -- it would work the same way despite the material. I only addressed the black hole being destroyed in the boss battle in-game, and as I stated about the mechanics, that detail is rather moot.

However, I'll say that there was a scan that showed the black hole seemed to be entangled upon a sword, which indeed does disqualify it as being a real black hole of any kind. Should be alright if this is indeed the case.

 

[Woomica]

However, I'll say that there was a scan that showed the black hole seemed to be entangled upon a sword, which indeed does disqualify it as being a real black hole of any kind. Should be alright if this is indeed the case.

https://genshin-impact.fandom.com/wiki/Lightless_Silk_String
you mean this? this doesnt look like blackhole

 

[Saqphire]

I agree with it in premise, I disagree that you have successfully argued this to be an instance of pure game mechanics.

So what's the goalpost for you then, what do I have to say to convince you of this ? As I would've thought that what both I and Garrixian said would be sufficient to say that each of the "anti-feats" would be solely in-game or non-sequitur argumentation

However, I'll say that there was a scan that showed the black hole seemed to be entangled upon a sword, which indeed does disqualify it as being a real black hole of any kind. Should be alright if this is indeed the case.

That silk string wouldn't be a black hole, but the sphere would, which would be supported by both the artifact and the black hole itself both being named the same (eye of maelstrom) and nothing says or even implies that the sphere was the one that would be "entangling a sword", the traveler being able to craft the silk string from the eye of the maelstrom would be game mechanics

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So what's the goalpost for you then, what do I have to say to convince you of this ? As I would've thought that what both I and Garrixian said would be sufficient to say that each of the "anti-feats" would be solely in-game or non-sequitur argumentation

...Undo the anti-feats existence, I guess. I think you're mistakenly conflating "in-game" with "game mechanics" when that's not really how it works.