- 167,699
- 76,292
@Planck69 @Everything12 @DarkGrath @JustSomeWeirdo @FinePoint @Propellus @Theglassman12
Are any of you willing to help out here please?
Are any of you willing to help out here please?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess, yeahThis thread is absolutely cooked, we're not making any progress at all (in other words, stuck!)
While It isn't completely unreasonable to think this might be an outlier, there's one canon detail that goes against it, that is, the broken 4th wall, it is important to note that this isn't our usual 4th wall breaking, here the 4th wall is physically broken into pieces, which fits the criteria for reality equalisation. so yeah, it is most likely reality equalisation.To me Low 1-C seems to either be an outlier or to be a case of the architect using reality equalisation. My apologies.
So Low 1-C only applies to Shadow & Architect then...No problem. I do not think that the regular characters should be upgraded to Low 1-C though.
Yeah I do think it'll be too much for regular characters to get to Low 1-C. But I guess you're okay with the characters of that event getting to Low 1-C with RENo problem. I do not think that the regular characters should be upgraded to Low 1-C though.
It's a little reaching, make it to Poss should help i guess???Yeah I do think it'll be too much for regular characters to get to Low 1-C. But I guess you're okay with the characters of that event getting to Low 1-C with RE
It is already in Poss. Puppeteer has his own reasons to get to Low 1-CIt's a little reaching, make it to Poss should help i guess???
Right.It is already in Poss. Puppeteer has his own reasons to get to Low 1-C
Sorry i don't get it, is this a good thing or bad thing? Are you talking about Ultima's Thread?I looked up my old post and think this thread might have been made before our R>F policies were updated. And if I am remembering correctly, the old reasons for a Low 1-C upgrade could turn into a 1-A upgrade. But I have not memorized full details and think looking over for double checking might be worth looking at.
A separate key doesn't seem necessary for this, since only the AP differs for shadow in this event (not abilities or hax or any other important characteristic), so just a comma would be enough? (like at the start of the thread)Honestly I'd rather give the characters relevant to the Event story a separate key or something where they are rated at Low 1-C, which should only include Shadow. And have the key named "Meet the Maker" since that is the name of the event.
I get that, almost every character will get that tier due to this, but I also wanna point out that the RE basically has no limit, as architect invades the world of sf2 as a whole. But I'm okay with this, yeah.Tenebris getting a similar key is out of pocket since he doesn't have any relevancy to that event save for Architect using his powers against Shadow. But then Architect uses the other Eternals' powers too so shouldn't they get a similar key? But then Architect is expected to also be able to use the powers and abilities of Titan, the Shadow Demons, Ancient etc. so shouldn't they get a similar key? See where I'm getting?
It was updated? Checked it just now and it's the same here, can you check again and confirm it?I looked up my old post and think this thread might have been made before our R>F policies were updated. And if I am remembering correctly, the old reasons for a Low 1-C upgrade could turn into a 1-A upgrade. But I have not memorized full details and think looking over for double checking might be worth looking at.
Ah yes my apologies. I was looking at it through the lenses of merging Underworld to what is considered to be the canon continuity of the verse. So merging the two Shadow profiles together. But that's a story for another time.A separate key doesn't seem necessary for this, since only the AP differs for shadow in this event (not abilities or hax or any other important characteristic), so just a comma would be enough? (like at the start of the thread)
I agree, it’ll be a little confusing for people who aren’t super familiar with underworld.Whereas putting whatever lower-dimensional tier in the same instance / key with a Low 1-C tier makes it too confusing for anybody looking through the profile.
So this thread won't get any further elaboration then i think, we already heard Ant's input and it's an agreements... you can change the profile then, i guess (but just to make sure, ask Ant first)I agree, it’ll be a little confusing for people who aren’t super familiar with underworld.
My only concern is that some people may confuse it to architect’s event being completely non canon to underworld (I’ve met hundreds of them so far, in both yt and discord) and this’ll only boost the issue, so If you can make a note about it in shadow’s profile, I’m good with having a separate key.
That's not really how it works, though. Keys are not so extreme that they separate canon from the non-canon in a profile. Whenever there are two (or more) notable versions of a character, but each from a different continuity, then multiple profiles are made for each of those versions. That's exactly what Shadow has going for him right now. (Although it's about time for Underworld to finally be merged with the main canon continuity. Years have passed and more on the nose evidence for their legitimacy in the canon continuity has surfaced in time. But that is an astronomic change to the profiles and a big CRT would be needed for it)My only concern is that some people may confuse it to architect’s event being completely non canon to underworld (I’ve met hundreds of them so far, in both yt and discord) and this’ll only boost the issue, so If you can make a note about it in shadow’s profile, I’m good with having a separate key.
What's the reason for that?Disagree Low 1-C
I see, So is it too early to put architect at 1-A? Or should we proceed?There was an entire thread about it and it was accepted, but I suppose not every single page was updated accordingly. But I thought it was mentioned in the tiering system and/or attack potency page at least. Unless those weren't updated yet either.
Can I please have your input on the 1-A upgrade? (Since I just found out that R>F Transcendence is actually 1-A)No problem. I do not think that the regular characters should be upgraded to Low 1-C though.
The upgrade is already done. The thread can be closed now, we got enough votes already.can you just applies the upgrade?
You can change the profile now.The upgrade is already done. The thread can be closed now, we got enough votes already.
Finished changing them yesterday.You can change the profile now.
Wait, isn't Ant agreed to the God Tier being Low 1-C? Not other regula characters?This is nowhere near an accepted revision. Ant disagreed with this CRT and DDM hasn't directly given input towards this thread. Also, tier 1 changes are rather considered controversial and multiple staff approvals will be required. Please don't apply unapproved revisions ever again.
Wait, isn't Ant agreed to the God Tier being Low 1-C? Not other regula characters?
If this isn't a disagreement then I don't know what is.To me Low 1-C seems to either be an outlier or to be a case of the architect using reality equalisation. My apologies.
Some details get overlooked at certain intervals and Ant questioned all the edits that were made onto the pages. Anyway, I have already given my word; applying unaccepted revisions goes against our guidelines and is considered vandalism, hope you remember if you're interested in further contributing to this community.Also, if he does disagree... Ant would Undo the profile revision yesterday (As he literally saw the changes has been made)
OP have already responded to that, and Ant agrees to his point.If this isn't a disagreement then I don't know what is.
No problem. I do not think that the regular characters should be upgraded to Low 1-C though.
DDM already give an input before, and it is an agreement.DDM hasn't directly given input towards this thread.
I vaguely recall it being a bit too soon to discuss the various profiles/verses that are 1-A and above.
IDK about this one, but DDM agrees for it being 2-BAnt questioned the edits that were made from the 2-B revisions.
Why don't you give an input? You do know that this thread is stuck, right?Anyway, I have already given my word; applying unaccepted revisions goes against our guidelines and is considered vandalism, hope you remember if you're interested in further contributing to this community.
I don't think that counts as an agreement since he didn't say he did. @Antvasima can you clarify your stance?OP have already responded to that, and Ant agrees to his point.
He was rather talking about the changes with the R>F system itself, not specifically for this revision.DDM already give an input before, and it is an agreement.
It just that he questions about R>F changes that is now treated as 1-A, but also suggest not applying that in this thread right now
And Bambu objectified.IDK about this one, but DDM agrees for it being 2-B
I will once I get to it. Though, Content Mods don't have any voting density so I wouldn't count as an approved evaluation.Why don't you give an input? You do know that this thread is stuck, right?
Ant was okay with the upgrade, that’s the reason why I proceeded.If this isn't a disagreement then I don't know what is.