Make Up Your Mind, VS Battle Wiki

[liluzivert]

This thread has been a long time coming.

I think everyone here can agree that the double standards on this site are getting out of hand. It starts becoming less of a "whataboutism" when it becomes a gigantic repeat of the same "x verse has this". It becomes a pattern. So here's what I purpose. There needs to be a choice made on the double standards here. And all verses should follow those standards. I will bring up 2 things that have been common to me recently. If there is any other double standard missing, please list them below.


Dividing Infinity

Recently, there's been a clear problem with higher-dimensional upgrades, where we scale someone to a portion of infinte/higher-dimensional energy, and either we assume that they downscale to it because it's infinite and logically you can't divide infinity, or we think they don't scale to the tier because writers aren't aware of the energy they are dividing.

For example, one of the reasons Bleach was downgraded was due to the Captains and other weaker characters scaling to Reio remnants, because you can't divide an infinite tier.

By Kukui (Not staff, but his reasoning was agreed upon):

The point about “a casual use of it will never be greater than a focused attack” literally and completely doesn’t matter at this point when dealing with Tiers 3 and above. Or more specifically, 3-A, Low 2-C, and tiers above them. Why? Because now, we are dealing with tiers that involve infinite energy where things cannot be quantifiably divided like they could in tiers like 6-A or 5-B. Low 2-C power will always continually be Low 2-C, no matter how much it is divided into smaller amounts. Dividing it in half? It’s Low 2-C. Divided by hundreds? It’s Low 2-C. Divided by billions of times? Sextillion amount of times? Power used at 0.0000000000000001%? It is still Low 2-C, period. The only differing factor here is that these lower amounts of Low 2-C power are unquantifiably lower the more it is divided up. But it’s not going to be so much weaker upon division that it drops out of the tier. This is the basics to how Low 2-C works and why downscaling from Low 2-C is very much a thing on this site to cement characters scaling to the tier, even if just lower to unknown extents.

So in the case of Bleach here, where your side is still adamant on keeping the Weakened Soul King’s sustenance feat Low 2-C, this is the same thing. The Reiatsu would still be Low 2-C levels of power, no matter how much unquantifiably lower the divided pieces of Reiatsu would become. Reio’s gremlin monsters and the remnant of Yhwach’s Reiatsu would still be using Low 2-C power under this premise, they would just simply be much weaker than the total sum of Low 2-C power that Yhwach and Weakened Reio would have at once. So in order to even be in the presence of these Reiatsu pieces without so much as getting vaporized, much less be able to combat and destroy them, you would need to be Low 2-C still in order to do that. It’s as simple as that.

However, one of the reasons Ness from Earthbound didn't scale to the Player's 5D energy was because it was assumed to be an infinitely smaller portion.

By AKM Sama:

Not necessarily. Fiction, most of the time, doesn't follow the hard and fast rule that a fraction of infinity must be infinity, so we have be be flexible at times to accommodate logical scenarios. Like, Bulma isn't Low 2-C simply because she survived a slap from Beerus. Also, you can extract or use a finite portion from a power source that contains infinite power, like Android 18.

Either way, a decision has to be made here. You can't turn around and say one verse can't divide infinity, but then assume another verse can.


Higher-Dimensional Destruction via Statement

I was going to bring up the recent Mario CRT as an example, but frankly, this seems so common on the site it's ridiculous, and it has affected many verses such as Kirby, Bleach, and many more when attempting an upgrade.

You've seen this happen with many Tier 2 and up characters. Some bad guy is going to destroy "x", and it's stated by a reliable source that it will happen, but we don't see it happen in the story, and the methods used are vague, as well as the fact that we don't know whether or not it was overtime. The examples of this being accepted on the site are honestly too many to count, so for that reason I won't be going into them as they should probably be known by most here. So either:

- Make a rule that requires visual evidence for what's being destroyed and what method they use, as well as a rule for stuff that can be assumed to be overtime

or

- Use Occam's Razor, and just say that the character can destroy said place physically because it's the least assumptive answer, and assuming more would cause further problems.


I just want a decision made. The sheer inconsistency of the site is one of the main reasons people are starting to dislike it. And one way or another, something needs to change here.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

If I’m not mistaken aren’t these context-dependent case-by-case scenarios?

 

[liluzivert]

If I’m not mistaken aren’t these context-dependent case-by-case scenarios?

Yes, but often times the context is very similar, which is why it gets pointed out constantly. And the site also tiers characters the same way. At the very least, everything should be looked over.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

Why are you making this a staff thread if you aren't staff?

 

[Wokistan]

At least leave my name in the comment you're gonna quote smh.

Anyways I think my statement (the latter) explains itself pretty well. It's not really an equivalence. Someone having "a part" of a thing isn't really the same as "this guy is exactly 1/32 his strength." The latter is a much more rigid thing.

Edit: Why are you making one thread for two separate topics

 

[liluzivert]

Why are you making this a staff thread if you aren't staff?

Whoops. I guess it's time to ask for permission then. But I do think this is extremely important anyway. I'm not gonna support any side, I just want a decision to be made. Or at least the rules of the site to be clearer.

 

[Wokistan]

Anyways as for the latter I support not using really vague feats

 

[liluzivert]

Anyways I think my statement (the latter) explains itself pretty well. It's not really an equivalence. Someone having "a part" of a thing isn't really the same as "this guy is exactly 1/32 his strength." The latter is a much more rigid thing.

Yeah that was a bad example, I should have used this one by AKM:

Not necessarily. Fiction, most of the time, doesn't follow the hard and fast rule that a fraction of infinity must be infinity, so we have be be flexible at times to accommodate logical scenarios. Like, Bulma isn't Low 2-C simply because she survived a slap from Beerus. Also, you can extract or use a finite portion from a power source that contains infinite power, like Android 18.

Edit: I replaced it.

 

[Wokistan]

Like, Bulma isn't Low 2-C simply because she survived a slap from Beerus

This would both be very much an outlier and we also don't assume that something has to exert itself as hard as it can all at once.

Also, you can extract or use a finite portion from a power source that contains infinite power, like Android 18.

This also just isn't wrong. I'm sure one of the math nerds can find a better analogy for this but for now we can just say that line segments are a thing.

So yeah, I would disagree with the bleachposter above saying that it's impossible to use a finite amount of power if you have the capacity for an infinite amount, but I also don't know anything about bleach so I have no idea what the context of that is. I'm not sure why you would expect 100% of the site to all collectively agree on what argument is "correct" though, given it is a debate site. Trying to standardize things that are inherently very context specific is probably a fruitless endeavour.

Edit: With the second post being changed from my statement to AKM's, I now need to explain a bit more than "I agree with myself for the reasons in my comment." As such, I'll just repost mine so you can see my reasoning behind this stance in a bit more detail.

Spoiler

I take issue with scaling ness to Low 1-C for just having a piece of a low 1-C thing. Why? Well, nothing says the piece itself is Low 1-C.

Here's an example. Let's say I have a cube. Nice, 3D object. Then I take a cross section of the cube, which is 2D. Is that cross section not still a piece of the cube? It's certainly a component part of the cube and was taken from the cube. Fits pretty much any definition of piece I know of. And yet, it wouldn't have the same "potency" as the whole thing.

As for some examples in other verses, let's bring up everyone's favorite 1-A every single 40k psyker. Every living thing in 40k is a very small part of the Warp in some way, and Psykers are fueled by the Warp for their powers. They're a piece of a 1-A structure, so why aren't they all 1-A? Simple. People are aware that not every piece of a 1-A structure is 1-A by necessity, and they have no 1-A feats.

I'm not sure why we should treat Earthbound any differently on that front.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Higher-Dimensional Destruction via Statement

snip

I agree their is some double standards, if Enuma Elish gets Low 1-C from a statement that it can destroy a Low 1-C construct (Or if the profile justification simply sucks then I apologize), then other verses such as Mario or Bleach or Earthbound or anything else should have similar statement feats get Tier 2/1 ratings.

 

[The_Impress]

Dividing Infinity

This is a valid point, for the record I find Kukui's interpretation more agreeable

Higher-Dimensional Destruction via Statement

Isn't this literally context dependent, hell I don't believe it shouldn't be that, either option you're presenting for us to conform to, isn't considering context of the feat or noting the favourable likelihood

The sheer inconsistency of the site is one of the main reasons people are starting to dislike it.

You can leave this site and are free to join any other site, but unless the circle is small enough, or y'know, I straight up don't see how you'd get a different experience on any other site, Vs. Debating as a whole isn't really... an objective field, it's mostly arbitrary and judged by what the majority thinks is best. I think sooner the users know this the better their view :V

But yeah you can just make the thread like a normal person and not make it a "VSBW BAD VSBW BAD", it just hampers your point by attempting to make the thread more than what it is and aggravating people on the way

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions

What do you think that we should do here? Do we need to write some kind of regulation text?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I think that Wokistan and Impress make sense above. Thank you for helping out.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm about to go to bed and I have work tomorrow and the day after, but Impress basically said some fairly good points. While I do agree with some of the OP's concerns, I do notice there are verses that have Tier 1 upgrades for much vaguer reasons and some of the Tier 1 experts admittedly contradict themselves a lot. Though, it's often because they may have so much on their plate that it can overwhelm and confuse them all the time. I'm honestly not sure if this thread really came up at a very good time. I will say Kukui has made some strong explanations above regarding some Tier 2 division policies.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I don't think there's much to be done. It seems the OP is confused by what division of infinity is and what taking a finite amount of out of it would be.

Think of it like this.

If you have an infinitely long road and you take a single step, did you cross an infinite distance? Not really, no.

And if you have an infinitely long road and you cross 1/2 of it in a few seconds, you'd still be crossing an infinite distance.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think anything needs done tbh. Case by case basis is always how we've handled things, at least for as long as I've been here. People can dislike that as much as they like, it doesn't mean we're wrong.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

Also, Impress is correct in that expecting everything to be perfect either here in in some other community is very unrealistic. The only alternatives would be to just insert whatever statistics that you feel like while running a new community like a tyrant, or allow others to insert whatever statistics they feel like without any quality control, and receive a very limited number of visitors as a result.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I got a problem though, Emperor Joker has "possibly Low 1-C" because he has 1% of a Low 1-C's power, wouldn't that not warrant anything and thus, needs to be downgraded???

Ness got downgraded due to this reason, so shouldn't Emperor Joker be downgraded as well???

 

[Ogbunabali]

Emperor Joker has 99% of Mxy's power, not 1%. He was supposed to have 1%, but tricked him to instead get 99%.

 

[Wokistan]

Also, I think that Wokistan and Impress make sense above. Thank you for helping out.

Ant, Zark and I don't entirely agree though. She supports the kukui stance, and I don't and instead support my own.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies. To clarify, I thought that your overall take on this made sense, and agreed with Impress regarding unrealistic demands and expectations.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I don't think there's much to be done. It seems the OP is confused by what division of infinity is and what taking a finite amount of out of it would be.

Think of it like this.

If you have an infinitely long road and you take a single step, did you cross an infinite distance? Not really, no.

And if you have an infinitely long road and you cross 1/2 of it in a few seconds, you'd still be crossing an infinite distance.

I still got a problem though, a single step is not a fraction, it's just a single step. So yes, it wouldn't be infinity. Using your road analogy:

A fraction such as 1/100 directly dividing by infinity, 1% of infinity is different from just taking a few steps or even a thousand steps. If I went on 1/100 of the road, it would be infinite distance

 

[Ogbunabali]

I still got a problem though, a single step is not a fraction, it's just a single step. So yes, it wouldn't be infinity. Using your road analogy:

A fraction such as 1/100 directly dividing by infinity, 1% of infinity is different from just taking a few steps or even a thousand steps. If I went on 1/100 of the road, it would be infinite distance

There is a difference between a mathematic fraction, which is what you just used, and using it as a noun to describe an unspecified small portion of something that doesn't have to reliant on division when used.

In the AKM quote, he was clearly using the word "fraction" in its literary form to describe something small instead of referencing mathematics.

 

[Planck69]

I still got a problem though, a single step is not a fraction, it's just a single step. So yes, it wouldn't be infinity. Using your road analogy:

A fraction such as 1/100 directly dividing by infinity, 1% of infinity is different from just taking a few steps or even a thousand steps. If I went on 1/100 of the road, it would be infinite distance

I mean, this isn't really wrong. If a specific fraction is stated then unless very contradicted, a certain mentioned percentage of a Low 1-C's power is still Low 1-C.

This isn't like a character saying, "You only have a sliver of my power!" and nothing else.

 

[N_Kardashev]

Yeah that was a bad example, I should have used this one by AKM:

Edit: I replaced it.

I mean, Seiya is 2-C for making a scratch on Apollo's cheek

 

[Antvasima]

I mean, Seiya is 2-C for making a scratch on Apollo's cheek

That seems exaggerated, but you should create a separate content revisions thread about it.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[DivineAura44]

That seems exaggerated, but you should create a separate content revisions thread about it.

I'm pretty sure that's all he did.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm pretty sure that's all he did.

Can you link to the thread please?

 

[DivineAura44]

It says fighting with Apollo, but the only thing I see him do is scratch his cheek .I'll see if I can get the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It is better to handle in a Saint Seiya revisions thread though.

 

[Eficiente]

Higher-Dimensional Destruction via Statement

it has affected many verses such as Kirby

That's not the case, if you mean Void Termina destroying "everything"/"all tomorrows"/"bringing an end to everything" then that's not the reason why that's not 2-C, it's all of this, the feat isn't just vague, the context we have legit makes it impossible for it to be at that level.

If other verses use vague statements like it to be 3-A and above then that's on them.

 

[AKM sama]

This thread should probably be closed. The issues have been addressed.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally do not mind if we close it.

What do other staff members here think?

 

[Bobsican]

Just to be sure, what was the conclusion then? As from what I've checked arguments were done from both sides, then it just got quiet.

 

[AKM sama]

The conclusion was that some of the stuff OP brought up was misinterpretation (which is cleared by other staff members) and rest is analyzed on a case by case basis.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I think it might be best if it was closed and other issues were taken care of slowly but surely.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will close this thread then.