• 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.

Jojo/Giorno: Minor discussion rules revision

Artorimachi_Meteoraft

Artorimachi_Meteoraft

25,632
15,947
just a thing that i felt needed to be fixed in the discussion rules page on the wiki


i saw this

Also do not try to upgrade Giorno Giovanna beyond Low 2-C. He was placed where he is due to these reasons.


i think it should be fixed to Do not upgrade giorno beyond high 8-C (because that's his current AP) aka

9-C, 8-C with Gold Experience | At least High 8-C, likely far higher with Gold Experience Requiem


also the links to the placed thing do not seem to work.



P.S. i didn't seem to see any other things that needed to be revised but could you all look at the others and see if they need to be revised. (is that allowed or no) asking others to look through the discussion rules instead of you do it yourself.

it's not that i'm lazy, it's just cause the giorno one was the most obvious one i found.


is there anything wrong with asking others to see with what's wrong with the discussion rules page and revise those things they found wrong instead of me finding which things need to be revised. (cause i really don't want to spend all of my time seeing which parts of the discussion rules are outdated and stuff)

because do i have to go through every single one myself instead of letting others handle/look through the other ones that need to be fixed (i don't know which ones need to be fixed, just the giorno one, and i don't want to look through the other ones)
 
I’m not certain that this option is better. I’m pretty sure they made that rule to stop people trying to upgrade GER to way higher tiers.

This is kinda pointless imo I like how the rule is now and seeing how Jojo supporters are really knowledgeable on the verse there is likely a reason for it being 2-C and not just higher than 8-C
 
joshpiece said:
I’m not certain that this option is better. I’m pretty sure they made that rule to stop people trying to upgrade GER to way higher tiers.

This is kinda pointless imo I like how the rule is now and seeing how Jojo supporters are really knowledgeable on the verse there is likely a reason for it being 2-C and not just higher than 8-C
Click to expand...

that's regarding range.

i don't see 2-C as in his AP or Tier.
 
Yeah, GER just has Tier 2, but nothing suggests that it actually punches that hard, with it even being implied that Diavolo wasn't actually killed by GER (Diavolo not dying is literally the point of the "infinite death" loop is that Diavolo will actually never be killed), though GER is physically superior to GE and King Crimson

Shout-out to how I used to be a JoJo guy on the wiki lmao
 
So what should we do here then?
 
I don't want to keep spamming this part but it's i gave a bunch of questions in the OP that i want answered because they made me worried in my head.

P.S. i didn't seem to see any other things that needed to be revised but could you all look at the others and see if they need to be revised. (is that allowed or no) asking others to look through the discussion rules instead of you do it yourself.

it's not that i'm lazy, it's just cause the giorno one was the most obvious one i found.


is there anything wrong with asking others to see with what's wrong with the discussion rules page and revise those things they found wrong instead of me finding which things need to be revised. (cause i really don't want to spend all of my time seeing which parts of the discussion rules are outdated and stuff)

because do i have to go through every single one myself instead of letting others handle/look through the other ones that need to be fixed (i don't know which ones need to be fixed, just the giorno one, and i don't want to look through the other ones)
 
Pokemonfan807 said:
is there anything wrong with asking others to see with what's wrong with the discussion rules page and revise those things they found wrong instead of me finding which things need to be revised. (cause i really don't want to spend all of my time seeing which parts of the discussion rules are outdated and stuff)

because do i have to go through every single one myself instead of letting others handle/look through the other ones that need to be fixed (i don't know which ones need to be fixed, just the giorno one, and i don't want to look through the other ones)
Click to expand...
Dude you don't have to do anything. If you don't want to do it then just don't. It's THAT simple.
 
I think that the problem is that Giorno is no longer anywhere near Low 2-C.
 
Seems ok. I think it'd be better if the links to the threads that justify giorno not being beyond wherever he scales to were fixed as well, because when clicked upon, all I really see is the "thread not found" screen.
EDIT: Nvm that was also mentioned in the OP
 
I suppose that could be an idea as well.
 
Okay. Thank you for the reply.

If there are no new replies after a bit of waiting time, I think that we can remove it then.
 
I think the confusion OP had is not in upgrading Gio at all beyond his current tier (I mean, if someone wants to upgrade him beyond it, they better have a damn good reason with feats and stuff, but that goes for anything), but the fact that the rule was made back when GER was rated as Low 2-C, and at the time, people wanted to upgrade him higher for various things I think? Thus a discussion rule was put in place to prevent that as there's doesn't exist anything placing GER beyond low 2-C, obviously.

Now if my understanding of this is correct, as this happened shortly before I joined the wiki (I lurked a bit for fun but that was about it, didn't join till a few months after).

He was downgraded to High 3-A from Low 2-C.
And then he was downgraded to just having his physical peak listed for AP and the tiering, because RTZ (The reason he had that tier in the first place; negating/nullifying/reversing time skip), isn't attack potency at all, it's not even environmental destruction, it's basically just causality manip or, in more blatant terms, "no u". It can effect some pretty nice stuff, like Diavolo's aforementioned time erase, which is why it was rated as low 2-C originally, and then down to High 3-A (Basically, due to negating an attack that temporarily deleted time on a universal scale, in which it was then toned down to High 3-A because Diavolo only deletes ten-odd seconds of time, not the whole timeline, and then down to nothing because RTZ ain't AP as mentioned prior, just some useful defensive hax that can be used in odd ways, though the feat itself is still legit, RTZ did indeed reverse a time delete, it just isn't anything to rate, it's literally nothing).

Now that we have the logic and the reason behind it's existence laid out and what's happened since...


tldr: That discussion rule is a long past remnant for when GER was rated far, far higher due to a non-AP ability, now that it isn't rated at all, as it isn't AP or tier defining in the first place, that discussion rule is kinda pointless imo, can't upgrade what doesn't exist basically.
So yeah, remove it, nobody is gonna attempt anything even close to that, it's basically a non-issue and a half-decade old piece of wiki history.
 
Okay. Thank you for the evaluation. I will remove the rule then.
 
I have done so. Should I close this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
751
Deleted member 40688
MasqueTLDF
  • Locked
DxD Rule addition: Class Scaling
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
MasqueTLDF
MasqueTLDF
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Enrico Pucci Immeasurable speed
Replies
10
Views
2K
Bastos
Bastos
ShockingPsychic
Fix the Ink Machine (Bendy Verse Clean-Up Thread)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top