Low 2-C Clean-up Part 1

[PrinceofPein]

Whew, this is going to be a tough one, going through one character page a while back, i realized the reasons for some low 2c does not really meet the requirement for low2c. As low 2c is a really controversial tier.

And since there are a lot of pages perhaps whole verses that grants low 2c for a feat that does not qualify or in very few cases feats that qualify for higher than low 2c, this thread will be part one in trying to clean up the tier, so we can explain better and give clarifications for why a certain verse or character have low 2C in a way that anyone can understand.
I will try to take things slowly so in each thread there will be some of the characters or verses that dont qualify at all and some that qualify but provides too little info. So this is to help clean up these pages
Although it must be known I don't really know majority of these verses and so I only have basic knowledge so if there is anything I missed please feel free to call me out on it and if possibly with prove so that can be added to the page as the reason why a verse or character will appear here is cause the reason on the page is not enough.


Without boring you ladies and gentlemen any further here it is.

UNCONTROVERSIAL RATINGS
1. BeyBlade
the key rating being this

Ranges from Galaxy level to Universe level+ at full power (Far superior to Storm Pegasus and Lightning L-Drago; Surpassed the power of beys such as Twisted Tempo, who can create a universe with its special move, and Dark Wolf, whose spirit form contains an entire universe inside itself; Galaxy Pegasus also had an entire universe for itself while sealed away)

and this is High 3A cause i see nothing that states that the said
1. creating a universe without further context should be 3A to High 3A
2. containing a whole universe within yourself is still High 3A
but i will like for someone to explain this to me cause i could not find the feat so i can check it out
"Galaxy Pegasus also had an entire universe for itself while sealed away"

anyway moving on




CONTROVERSIAL RATINGS
1. League of Legends
there is a breach of info, we have this character Abyssia his rating says he is low 2c with via being able to summon Jhin, which is fine but going to Jhin page, his justifications is

Attack Potency: Small Town level+ (Can fight on-par with Garen, and similarly powerful champions) | Universe level+ (should be comparable to beings like Dark Cosmic Lux and Dark Star Thresh)

which is fine but there is no link to these two characters he is comparable to neither is the feat on the page and on the verse page also i can't find the low 2c feat for the beings neither can i find the characters "Dark Cosmic Lux" and "Dark Star Thresh"
so if possible someone can point me in the direction of the two characters so we can check out the feat or point me in the direction of the low 2c feat directly so the rating can become something like "Universe level+ (should be comparable to beings like Dark Cosmic Lux and Dark Star Thresh who can do this(the feat)).

2. Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Continuity)
well after a lot of scaling chain or redirection and many things like destruction of the zone of silence, the entire low 2c feat boils down to this character feat
Ixis (Universe level+ (Can trade blows with Sonic the Hedgehog. Stated in-universe and by WoG to have created the Zone of Silence which contains numerous planets and stars along with nebulae)
Aside from the fact that the main thing here is that he created zone of silence, which contains numerous silence and planets and stars along with nebulae, this is not even 3A at most 3C, so the feat should be removed from the page as it is not a low2c feat to begin with
and yes we have the other justification that says "Can trade blows with Sonic the Hedgehog" but this is also Sonic's justification

Universe level+ (Able to fight on par and contend with Ixis Naugus, who created the entirety of the Zone of Silence. Comparable to Omega, who can harm Feist, who reshaped the Zone of Silence into a Special Zone and has full control over it. Casually superior to most of the Freedom Fighters. Survived a blast from Al and Cal, and is able to fight Scourge, who stated he was superior to them) | Universe level+ (Superior to Knuckles, as he was "beating Knuckles to pulp fiction" and overwhelming him. Fought evenly with Bunnie, made her resort to using her shields to defend herself from his strikes, and eventually overwhelmed her. The idea of Mecha Sonic was originally deemed to dangerous to risk)

and i know its a lot of scaling chain but looking at all these characters pages not one of them has a valid low2c feat
we have things like casually control their own zone or destroy zone, but so far the one zonee that the size was stated on the page does not even qualify for low2c, or things like superior to sonic, superior to Al and Cal and the rest but this is just circular scaling.

so if possible someone can clear this up or point to a low 2c feat that i have missed that these characters scale to but not on the page. either way this needs to be fixed

3. SMITE
please can someone point in the actual low2c feat as the entire thing on the pages are just circular scaling Odin has a scaling for being comparable to zeus, on getting to zeus page his own reason is also being comparable to Odin and this is not a low 2C feat:

Attack Potency: Universe level+ (Her light shines across the entire universe,

illuminating a universe is not low2c,
so while there maybe more feats please if it can be pointed out
also what is the Primordial chaos?

4. Megami Tensei/Persona
this is what the low 2c feat centers around,

Universe level+ (Created his Palace and sustains the universe-sized space-time it exists in)

How do we treat sustaining a universe?
basically the entire feat comes from a character been able to sustain a palace, which is as big as a universe
well here is the link to what a palace is
so a palace is simply how the creator views the actual universe, so depending on how we treat sustaining a universe it can be low 2c or just High 3A.
So please if anyone can explain better what this feat is



well this brings us to the end of part one, let the violence begin

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

LoL Low 2C is based a statements about destroying the universe in an undefined timeframe. The reason they are Low 2C since even space-time was being affected as well.

SMITe is based scaling around these guys. There is also Shiva but he is far above the others

 

[Confluctor]

Pretty sure Beyblade is going through a downgrade already. We just need replacement feats.

I don't see the problem with the main LoL feats. Certain scaling can be sketchy, but pretty someone is planning on fixing them very soon.

Smite god's has that rating due to lore

 

[Shmooply]

IIRC, you can't make a single CRT that's about multiple verses, for obvious reasons.

 

[PrinceofPein]

LoL Low 2C is based a statements about destroying the universe in an undefined timeframe. The reason they are Low 2C since even space-time was being affected as well.

Destroying a universe within a timeframe is not low 2C, doubt it will be 3A but it can vary depending on context

SMITe is based scaling around these guys. There is also Shiva but he is far above the others

Oh thanks for this, this should be added to the page then, as clicking more than 5 guys scaling to each other in circular links won’t lead to any of this guys in the scaling

Pretty sure Beyblade is going through a downgrade already. We just need replacement feats.

Oh thanks

I don't see the problem with the main LoL feats. Certain scaling can be sketchy, but pretty someone is planning on fixing them very soon.

The main problem is that we have comparable to x and y as a justification and nothing else
But x and y don’t have a profile or their feat linked to the said profile scaling to c and y.

Smite god's has that rating due to lore

Thanks for the reply

IIRC, you can't make a single CRT that's about multiple verses, for obvious reasons.

Well in this case I can

 

[JJSliderman]

Beyblade downgrade is just for 4-A and 3-C, a separate thread about the Low 2-C stuff might be in order though. I think at the very least Low 2-C might be okay though, since one of the Beys with a universe creation feat also controls time within said space.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Personally, this thread appears to be quite unorganized tbh. And there are quite a few things that seem more like cherry picks rather than actual criticisms. I already have addressed some people being to knit picky with what qualifies as Low 2-C as opposed to simply 3-A or High 3-A.

But Archie Sonic actually has multiple Low 2-C durability feats that @ElixirBlue among others elaborated in the past. And Persona/SMT does make use of universal power sources of magic system scaling to physical attacks with stabilization feats more so being very casual iirc. But I'd need SMT experts to varify.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Ah, at last. Combat.

Will respond too, along with MT supporters.

 

[KLOL506]

Destroying a universe within a timeframe is not low 2C, doubt it will be 3A but it can vary depending on context

I'm sorry, what?

How is destroying/significantly affecting an entire timeline/spacetime continuum within a defined timeframe not Low 2-C? You are literally affecting all points of time via such a feat, an infinite number of points in time if you cause significant changes to it or destroy it completely.

 

[EFÍTÉ]

so a palace is simply how the creator views the actual universe, so depending on how we treat sustaining a universe it can be low 2c or just High 3A.

Sustaining universe being tier 3, 2 or even higher is purely depends on context, the standard makes safe lowball assumption that the universe in question only has space created when no further context is given.

Humans in SMT/Persona views time and space as very important and fundamental on their lifes and unconsciously believes on that, due to that Palaces by default would have space-time.

 

[Sevil Natas]

there is a breach of info, we have this character Abyssia his rating says he is low 2c with via being able to summon Jhin, which is fine but going to Jhin page, his justifications is
which is fine but there is no link to these two characters he is comparable to neither is the feat on the page and on the verse page also i can't find the low 2c feat for the beings neither can i find the characters "Dark Cosmic Lux" and "Dark Star Thresh"
so if possible someone can point me in the direction of the two characters so we can check out the feat or point me in the direction of the low 2c feat directly so the rating can become something like "Universe level+ (should be comparable to beings like Dark Cosmic Lux and Dark Star Thresh who can do this(the feat)).

their profiles are on the verse page with the feats.

people from the dark star and cosmic skin lines are pretty much equal. they all have similar feats. they're all identical in nature. the verse treats them as equals. thus that's why they're comparable.

we have gone through all of this in this thread. read it

Destroying a universe within a timeframe is not low 2C, doubt it will be 3A but it can vary depending on context

this is false. destroying a tier 2 structure within a timeframe is tier 2. otherwise nobody would be tier 2 unless they have explicit proof that they do it instantly in 0 seconds. this is something we've also gone through in the thread that I linked above.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

From my understanding you can’t really apply the typical “overtime so it doesn’t count” rule to Tier 2 since you’re dealing with levels of infinity.

Anyway trying to revise general Low 2-C Verses across the wiki each with their own specific contexts and arguments sounds like a thread that’s gonna get messy and disorganized fast.

 

[KLOL506]

From my understanding you can’t really apply the typical “overtime so it doesn’t count” rule to Tier 2 since you’re dealing with levels of infinity.

Overtime stops applying once you reach High 3-A and the like. Infinity divided by anything is still infinity.

Anyway trying to revise general Low 2-C Verses across the wiki each with their own specific contexts and arguments sounds like a thread that’s gonna get messy and disorganized fast.

Yeah, this really should have been done verse-by-verse, and I think these have already been discussed in their own CRTs.

 

[Zencha9]

1. creating a universe without further context should be 3A to High 3A

this is just not the case creating a universe is Low 2-C by default iirc
so you would need to make a crt to change how it's treated otherwise beyblade stuff is being revised atm

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Although it must be known I don't really know majority of these verses and so I only have basic knowledge so if there is anything I missed please feel free to call me out on it and if possibly with prove so that can be added to the page as the reason why a verse or character will appear here is cause the reason on the page is not enough.

I feel like… making a CRT on a multitude of verses you admit you are ignorant of is a… very… not smart idea.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Dividing an Infinite value by a finite amount of time would still net you an Infinite value; High 3-A or Low 2-C cannot be lowballed with over time. 2-C and 2-B over time could be lowballed to Low 2-C if universes were destroyed one by one, but 2-A and Low 1-C cannot be lowballed via "Overtime status."

 

[thetechmaster36]

Although it must be known I don't really know majority of these verses and so I only have basic knowledge so if there is anything I missed please feel free to call me out on it and if possibly with prove so that can be added to the page as the reason why a verse or character will appear here is cause the reason on the page is not enough.

This is. . .extremely bad practice. If you don't know the verses well, and you feel as though the ratings are shaky, maybe you should. . .you know, ask the supporters for context?

You don't just make arbitrary downgrades just because "oh well it MIGHT be wrong".

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

How do we treat sustaining a universe?
basically the entire feat comes from a character been able to sustain a palace, which is as big as a universe
well here is the link to what a palace is
so a palace is simply how the creator views the actual universe, so depending on how we treat sustaining a universe it can be low 2c or just High 3A.

I think this is a very clear example of what I just said. There are, in-fact, Stabilization Feat requirements, which I wager Megami Tensei passes with flying colors. Rambling aside, I’ll provide an actual response.

Low 2-C stabilization feats are a commonality in this verse, so common the very origin of the series started with this:

While it's too dangerous to try and conjecture the state of affairs in the demon world based on our own knowledge of this one, my theory is that the demon world is like a colloidal conglomeration of countless mini-universes, each centered around a powerful demon. Most likely, with Loki's death, the mini-universe in contact with Japan or Tokyo vanished, and Set's mini-universe entered to take its place. Demon summoning is just opening a contact point between the two worlds at the same time.

And these spaces are visually shown to be destroyed after their defeat.

The same rhetoric is once again spewed in Strange Journey, where the Schwarzwelt, a collection of multiple space-times invade the Earth. With reach Sector being created by said ruler.

This is, literally no different than what P5 is presenting. We know full well that, with the scans presented, Palace Rulers create and sustain these places, and they, too, crumble after their defeat, to the point where it’s cited to be deleted, by the MetaNav.

With all of this, I think it’s fair to assume there’s no way MegaTen (more specifically P5’s) is controversial in any way or form, and easily fits Low 2-C.

 

[Shmooply]

@DarkDragonMedeus As me and others have pointed out in this thread, making one CRT for multiple verses is a bad idea, especially when the OP himself has admitted he isn't that knowledgeable on the verses, so this thread should be closed.
yes i know i cant ping people hush

 

[PrinceofPein]

Will respond to all of these later thanks for input
But I think literally everyone here misunderstood the purpose of this thread, it is not a downgrade thread, it is a thread to clarify what’s on the page and well improve on them
Controversial- in this case means verses that the feat on their profile can indeed qualify for low 2C but has too little info on the page or there is circular scaling going on without linking to the actual feat
So this thread is to actually fix that not downgrade the feat or anything
While the uncontroversial one is the one where the feat just does not actually qualify.

And yes I admit I don’t know much about the said verses but each verse there is something I tried to find the said the low2c feat for the verse on the internet after seeing what’s on the profile but couldn’t get a good info from a simple search. So yes I brought the verses here so people knowledgeable on it an actually tell me this is this and explain better on each feat and we will find a way to add it to the pages

If you guys would just actually read what I wrote not that “muah is he trying to downgrade my fav verse” no this is not a downgrade this is improving the wiki pages.

Anyway I will respond to the point later on when I get home as I can actually see some people replying especially milly at least we can find a way to add his reply to the SMT page

 

[PrinceofPein]

Well checking the dictionary now I should have used better words than “controversial” and “uncontroversial” as it does not really pass along what I wanted to do
The verses below(controversial) is where their feat can indeed qualify for low 2C but has too little info and lots circular scaling while the one above(uncontroversial) the feat from the page and search on the internet does not qualify.

So till I find better words bear with me

 

[KLOL506]

This is. . .extremely bad practice. If you don't know the verses well, and you feel as though the ratings are shaky, maybe you should. . .you know, ask the supporters for context?

You don't just make arbitrary downgrades just because "oh well it MIGHT be wrong".

I 100% agree with this. CRTs like this should never be made without heavy prior consultation from supporters and other staff members.

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality So, you gonna defend SMT or what?

 

[AxisPowerRanger]

@Ultima_Reality So, you gonna defend SMT or what?

Milly literally did.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Beyblade downgrade is just for 4-A and 3-C, a separate thread about the Low 2-C stuff might be in order though. I think at the very least Low 2-C might be okay though, since one of the Beys with a universe creation feat also controls time within said space.

i guess that can be added to the page when the CRT is made

Personally, this thread appears to be quite unorganized tbh.

whats disorganized about it?

And there are quite a few things that seem more like cherry picks rather than actual criticisms.

please point out the cherry picks i will like to see them

But Archie Sonic actually has multiple Low 2-C durability feats that @ElixirBlue among others elaborated in the past. And Persona/SMT does make use of universal power sources of magic system scaling to physical attacks with stabilization feats more so being very casual iirc. But I'd need SMT experts to varify.

those multiple low2c feat should be added to the corresponding pages not circular scaling

I'm sorry, what?

How is destroying/significantly affecting an entire timeline/spacetime continuum within a defined timeframe not Low 2-C? You are literally affecting all points of time via such a feat, an infinite number of points in time if you cause significant changes to it or destroy it completely.

yes destroying a universe within a timeframe is not low2c without further context this is not even an argument

their profiles are on the verse page with the feats.

people from the dark star and cosmic skin lines are pretty much equal. they all have similar feats. they're all identical in nature. the verse treats them as equals. thus that's why they're comparable.

we have gone through all of this in this thread. read it

well i am not saying they dont qualify, i am simply saying it should be added to the page, cause currently x page says "scales to y and z" but y and z profiles are not linked.
so the solution will be "x scales to y and z who can do this"
if you can point me in the direction of the feat on the verse page i can draft up the new justification

this is false. destroying a tier 2 structure within a timeframe is tier 2. otherwise nobody would be tier 2 unless they have explicit proof that they do it instantly in 0 seconds. this is something we've also gone through in the thread that I linked above.

i am just replying what he said, he said "they destroy a universe within a timeframe" and without anymore context, that is not low2C and wont even be 3A

I feel like… making a CRT on a multitude of verses you admit you are ignorant of is a… very… not smart idea.

if i know about those verses, i will make a CRT directly to help fix the justifications and circular scaling hence this thread

I think this is a very clear example of what I just said. There are, in-fact, Stabilization Feat requirements, which I wager Megami Tensei passes with flying colors. Rambling aside, I’ll provide an actual response.

actually no, the said feat from the profile and little reading does not say anything about meeting the said 4 requirement for stabilization feat to scale to AP. it only fulfilled the first requirement but the other three are not clear from the profile

And these spaces are visually shown to be destroyed after their defeat.

The same rhetoric is once again spewed in Strange Journey, where the Schwarzwelt, a collection of multiple space-times invade the Earth. With reach Sector being created by said ruler.

This is, literally no different than what P5 is presenting. We know full well that, with the scans presented, Palace Rulers create and sustain these places, and they, too, crumble after their defeat, to the point where it’s cited to be deleted, by the MetaNav.

With all of this, I think it’s fair to assume there’s no way MegaTen (more specifically P5’s) is controversial in any way or form, and easily fits Low 2-C.

well the only question i have is, are they been sustained across all of time or just presently?

and moving on, how can this info you provided be fixed into a justification for palace ruler? i mean a better justification than what is currently on Ren and other page

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

actually no, the said feat from the profile and little reading does not say anything about meeting the said 4 requirement for stabilization feat to scale to AP. it only fulfilled the first requirement but the other three are not clear from the profile

I feel like you actually don’t understand the requirements.

Requirement 1 (what are they stabilizing): They are stabilizing a universe.

Requirement 2 (prove they do it through their strength): They create these Palaces from their own Cognition/Magnetite.

Requirement 3 (prove they scale to stabilization): These structures immediately crumbly upon said rulers defeat.

Requirement 4 (prove it scales to ap): Boils back into 2.

well the only question i have is, are they been sustained across all of time or just presently?

Why does this matter? It’s confirmed a replica of the universe.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Guys, you do realize the main reason why this thread exists is poor indexing, right? Expect for one or two points where Pain just didn't understand the Wiki Standards ("creating a universe is 3-A", for example), most of his criticisms are valid.

This is not a debating Wiki, we are a Powerscaling Indexing Wiki, we should have our reasoning CRYSTAL CLEAR so even someone completely ignorant on the verse can tell why we made that decision in the first place.

"Oh, the scaling is actually due to x"
Why isn't it on the page then?
"The supporter elaborated on why x character is Low 2-C"
Why isn't it on the page then?

On, and on. Archie Sonic's justification for Low 2-C is quite dumb, if there ARE durability feats for him that put him at Low 2-C, those should be on the profile. End of story, this shouldn't be a controversial opinion

 

[thetechmaster36]

I apologize for calling it poor practice in that regard, but I still stand by my point that communication with supporters should be made for clarification and/or clearing up doubts about the ratings rather than, well, not.

I do agree that there should be explicit explanations on pages whose ratings are not well-explained.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Guys, you do realize the main reason why this thread exists is poor indexing, right? Expect for one or two points where Pain just didn't understand the Wiki Standards ("creating a universe is 3-A", for example), most of his criticisms are valid.

They really aren’t. Trying to do this mass-sweep of verses you think don’t fit the standard, not acknowledging the fact that each verse has a complex cosmology and or just blatantly lacking knowledge of it in general, and the standards of the site itself is nothing but bad practice.

This thread could’ve entirely been avoided if each verse was specifically targeted, instead of an arbitrary blanket.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

They really aren’t. Trying to do this mass-sweep of verses you think don’t fit the standard, not acknowledging the fact that each verse has a complex cosmology and or just blatantly lacking knowledge of it in general, and the standards of the site itself is nothing but bad practice.

The justification DO NOT reflect Low 2-C, and should be fixed accordingly. That's the take here, if the verse has some "specific-as-****" cosmology, it SHOULD be clarified in ANY way on the Wiki, either through the character profile, or the verse page.

The criticisms are valid (except when they aren't) because the descriptions on the character's profile SUCKS. You missed the ENTIRE point of this, the justification on the profile HAS to be valid, and inform anyone who reads it why the rating is what it is.

 

[Jibz]

They really aren’t. Trying to do this mass-sweep of verses you think don’t fit the standard, not acknowledging the fact that each verse has a complex cosmology and or just blatantly lacking knowledge of it in general, and the standards of the site itself is nothing but bad practice.

This thread could’ve entirely been avoided if each verse was specifically targeted, instead of an arbitrary blanket.

, i realized the reasons for low 2c does not really meet the requirement for low2c.

it's almost like they're asking for better clarification on tiers that were given, that weren't on the page to begin with.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

The justification DO NOT reflect Low 2-C, and should be fixed accordingly. That's the take here, if the verse has some "specific-as-****" cosmology, it SHOULD be clarified in ANY way on the Wiki, either through the character profile, or the verse page.

The criticisms are valid (except when they aren't) because the descriptions on the character's profile SUCKS. You missed the ENTIRE point of this, the justification on the profile HAS to be valid, and inform anyone who reads it why the rating is what it is.

Okay, let’s look at what I missed:

How do we treat sustaining a universe?
basically the entire feat comes from a character been able to sustain a palace, which is as big as a universe
well here is the link to what a palace is
so a palace is simply how the creator views the actual universe, so depending on how we treat sustaining a universe it can be low 2c or just High 3A.

His problem lies not in our justification, but a question in how to handle such a feat — in which the wiki has a clear about of requirements from. It’s not about “fixing”, you literally should just read about the things you plan to tackle, which is exactly why people have an issue with how this thread is conducted.

it's almost like they're asking for better clarification on tiers that were given, that weren't on the page to begin with.

Wow, it’s almost like he should’ve, you know, read about each and every instance? Instead of calling it controversial?

 

[Jibz]

Wow, it’s almost like he should’ve, you know, read about each and every instance? Instead of calling it controversial?

They looked at the pages, thought the clarification was lacking / wasn't there / was hard to find. Decided to make a post to fix that issue,

This is like genuinely the most nonissue i could think of.

"Oh no somebody made a post asking for better clarification on verses, so they wouldn't have to ask supporters just to understand why".

Keep complaining about shit that don't matter ig?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Okay, let’s look at what I missed:


His problem lies not in our justification, but a question in how to handle such a feat — in which the wiki has a clear about of requirements from.

Damn, it's almost like I didn't call out his mistake for not understanding the standards of the Wiki--
OOPS.

Expect for one or two points where Pain just didn't understand the Wiki Standards ("creating a universe is 3-A", for example

The criticisms are valid (except when they aren't)

So yes, tackling the palace justification is a mistake on his end. I am NOT supporting this, and made that clear, so I'd appreciate if you didn't strawman me anymore, and actually tackled what I brought up.

"Hey guys, maybe we shouldn't have terrible justifications for controversial tiers, y'know?", that's it.

 

[Jibz]

Damn, it's almost like I didn't call out his mistake for not understanding the standards of the Wiki--
OOPS.



So yes, tackling the palace justification is a mistake on his end. I am NOT supporting this, and made that clear, so I'd appreciate if you didn't strawman me anymore, and actually tackled what I brought up.

"Hey guys, maybe we shouldn't have terrible justifications for controversial tiers, y'know?", that's it.

it's like this is genuinely such a non issue i cant wrap around my head why on earth anyone would feel it necessary let alone care enough to complain about the post besides the rather obvious mistake OP made.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

They looked at the pages, thought the clarification was lacking / wasn't there / was hard to find. Decided to make a post to fix that issue,

This is like genuinely the most nonissue i could think of.

"Oh no somebody made a post asking for better clarification on verses, so they wouldn't have to ask supporters just to understand why".

Keep complaining about shit that don't matter ig?

I don’t know why you went out of your way to quote me, then end off with “keep complaining”… Are you bored, or something?

My problem lies in just… looking at the wiki, as it answers how we handle stabilization, before making a thread. Simple fix.

Damn, it's almost like I didn't call out his mistake for not understanding the standards of the Wiki--
OOPS.



So yes, tackling the palace justification is a mistake on his end. I am NOT supporting this, and made that clear, so I'd appreciate if you didn't strawman me anymore, and actually tackled what I brought up.

"Hey guys, maybe we shouldn't have terrible justifications for controversial tiers, y'know?", that's it.

My guy, you can uppercase as many letters as you like—I’m still not going to agree with you.

Especially since… lol, a majority of the arguments here I’m seeing… don’t think the justifications are awful? It’s just him, lol.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

My guy, you can uppercase as many letters as you like—I’m still not going to agree with you.

Especially since… lol, a majority of the arguments here I’m seeing… don’t think the justifications are awful? It’s just him, lol.

Majority rule doesn't work here. And you've devolved into the "not worth replying to anymore" territory after this rather simpleminded response, so I will not engage further.

"Universe level+ (Can destroy a planet)"

'Hey guys, that's a good justification'
Agree: 30
Disagree: 3

The majority agreeing with something obviously incorrect doesn't make said something correct.
Archie Sonic's justification needs to be accurately fixed asap, same with SMITE, also LoL's**

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Majority rule doesn't work here. And you've devolved into the "not worth replying to anymore" territory after this rather simpleminded response, so I will not engage further.

"Universe level+ (Can destroy a planet)"

'Hey guys, that's a good justification'
Agree: 30
Disagree: 3

The majority agreeing with something obviously incorrect doesn't make said something correct.
Archie Sonic's justification needs to be accurately fixed asap, same with SMITE.

If I’ve devolved, stop responding to me. We can get back to the actual thread, if it’s cool with you.

 

[thetechmaster36]

I feel like all of this confusion could have been avoided if Pain made it a little clearer what they wanted to accomplish with this thread instead of being ambiguous with things like this:

And since there are a lot of pages perhaps whole verses that grants low 2c for a feat that does not qualify or in very few cases feats that qualify for higher than low 2c, this thread will be part one in trying to clean up the tier

and making it appear as though they're trying to change the ratings of the verses that they believed didn't qualify for Low 2-C.

Plus the fact they tackled multiple verses at once and essentially didn't confirm or communicate with the supporters of these verses about these ratings makes it seem like they wanted to make changes to the ratings.

This is all just a big misunderstanding about what the purpose of this thread is.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I feel like all of this confusion could have been avoided if Pain made it a little clearer what they wanted to accomplish with this thread instead of being ambiguous with things like this:

and making it appear as though they're trying to change the ratings of the verses that they believed didn't qualify for Low 2-C.

Plus the fact they tackled multiple verses at once and essentially didn't confirm or communicate with the supporters of these verses about these ratings makes it seem like they wanted to make changes to the ratings.

This is all just a big misunderstanding about what the purpose of this thread is.

Agreed, this was executed poorly. And would be better fit for the Wiki Management thread. CRT implies actual modification on the tiers