• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?
 
I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?
I think it can depend on context. If the verse is consistently tier 7 but has a couple tier 5 or 4 feats that aren’t really contradictory/seen as outliers, and the characters don’t struggle to perform tier 7 feats or have a massive amount of outliers, then the tier 7 feats would just be support for the characters being able to perform higher levels of power.
Not an admin but this is my thoughts on something like this.
 
Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.
 
All right, so here's the scoop

Tiering ain't about consistency, it's about consistency in-context. You can have 500 Tier 9 feats but if 95% of those feats are casual and you have some strewn about Tier 6 feats, chances are you should be rated at Tier 6, not Tier 9.

HOWEVER, we also cannot ignore lower feats if they are non-casual or especially in regards to Durability, listen people, Mario has his consistency in tiers 9 and 8, but we need to take a good look at the context of Mario as a franchise to figure out where we should put these characters...

But instead, we're screaming and crying about other verses, whining about which Tier we're gonna use, and arguing over stupid shit.

Here's my little devil's whisper "At least 9-A, likely 8-A, possibly (highest tier 7 feat) at most 6-C"

We have four entire tiers to work with, use em people!
In context all of these feats (even the cosmic ones) have never been done with strain. Everything in Mario has been super casual except when he fought Grand Star amped Bowser as we have a statement of such in Galaxy 2.

The people who say they've "looked" at the blog in the OP truly believing most of that is "non-casual" and "super dangerous" for the characters is beyond me personally but somehow that's the majority opinion here.
 
What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?
There's no set formula, the answer would change based on the context and based on which staff member is being asked.

something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.
Yeah this is not feasible. Given this approach literally every verse would be wanked to high heaven by the supporters drumming up a big enough FRA train.

I'm all but done here. Good night.
Take care.
 
To Smashor and Deagon: it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, there is no good answer.
In context all of these feats (even the cosmic ones) have never been done with strain. Everything in Mario has been super casual except when he fought Grand Star amped Bowser as we have a statement of such in Galaxy 2.

The people who say they've "looked" at the blog in the OP truly believing most of that is "non-casual" and "super dangerous" for the characters is beyond me personally but somehow that's the majority opinion here.
Bowser died to like, a Tier 8 crushing like 3 times in Bowser's Inside Story. Or at least was knocked out from it. So uh, no, not every feat is casual-
 
I look away for five seconds. Alright, let me just look at these anti-feats real quick one-by-one.

Mario Party:
Ultimately the Mario cast still survives all this, and the main reason they get hurt is either Game Mechanics so that the minigame can happen or for the sake of comedy. Mario Party is an event that the entire cast agrees to do and is completely fine with, it would make no sense if they were actually in any mortal danger or constantly were receiving immense amounts of pain; not to mention in the various story modes characters rarely seem to be hurt after a minigame even if it's somehow painful. As for the examples given...

Bowser is barely affected by this explosion, Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capability, and again Bowser barely flinches in the face of these bombs I'd hardly call this an anti-feat just because his video game health bar went down. The sign here was something they did not see coming and they didn't brace themselves for it which means that ultimately the sign just had to overpower their weight and it otherwise left them briefly stunned and unharmed, Wario is only briefly stunned by this explosion and is ultimately unharmed despite losing coins, and Banzai Bills are weapons specifically made by Bowser and his minions to combat Mario it only makes sense they could harm him. And in this instance, again, because Peach had no footing this means that the meteor would only need to overpower her weight, which due to her being in space was zero. So yeah, these are pretty weak anti-feats, and I seriously doubt the ones that weren't listed are much better.


Bowser and Lava:
Bowser and Falling:
Other:
This is a total of 5 valid anti-feats from 3 different games.

Needless to say, I disagree with the AP nerf.
Fuc-2_CagAAwbo-


You cooked.

Disagree for Smashor's reasons.
 
I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?
As I said before, I think the metric should be the tier where the number of anti-feats capping their power below that tier is equal to the number of feats placing their power at or above that tier.

I've also seen suggestions along the lines of, choosing the tier where the number of feats on/around that tier, minus the number of anti-feats capping their power below that tier, is highest. But I'm not as big of a fan of that.

imo either would be better than just sticking with the highest tier that has >1 feat, in the face of dozens of anti-feats
Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.
It is based on those things you idealize; those sorts of users get promoted way faster. And there's many users who have done a lot of busywork, but haven't been promoted due to issues with behaviour and reasoning.

Plus, that sorta busywork usually gets people promoted to Content Moderator, which doesn't have as wide-ranging evaluation rights.
Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.
The way I see it, staff are meant to keep things consistent across different series with different fanbases. The decisions are arbitrary, but we're meant to apply the same arbitrary standard to as many series as possible. Which does require a group of people who know those standards, can agree on them for the site as whole, and enforce the application of those on particular verses.
It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.
I don't think the situation's that dire. One of the things we try to select for in staff members is not just the ability to convince others, but to be convinced; to not obstinately stick to the views they came into something with.

Because of that, there's a good chance at convincing staff with good arguments if you're non-staff. I was able to do that a shitton during the ~5 years I wasn't staff. I got accepted calcs rejected, I changed the tides of site-wide revisions. Even if there are some stubborn staff members, there's dozens with evaluation rights around, able to overrule if their attention's brought to a thread.

But hey, I get the frustration to some extent. I've seen some real bad shit get stonewalled and forced through, and I've had to take a lotta breaks from the stress of that sorta thing. I wish you the best, you've generally been a Cool Dude.
 
Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.
I've been experiencing a lot of this lately too. It's at least validating to see someone with more history than me opening up about it.

It's a shame. It doesn't have to be this way. Maybe it's fallacious for me to be looking at other battleboard wikis like they're greener pastures, as they probably have their own problems. Maybe I shouldn't comment on it given I already upset multiple mods in this thread, and have far less history, only joining within the year...

But I got legit got shadow banned from calculation evaluations for a straight month by a belligerent mod not liking what I was doing. I bring up the obvious to another member of administration and get the most obviously fake response, finding calculations of mine only getting evaluated when a literal period of 30 days had passed since that one that got a mod upset. More recently, I've had the experience of two mods getting angry with me for disagreeing and arguing for what I do, based on the information I have, and experience with topics I do. I was asked to help in one of these threads, and was met with aggression...

It's especially bad to see that decisions for scaling/tiering aren't made democratically, by the people who actually care about, and are willing to spend time supporting and arguing for fictions and verses. Instead, it is done by impassionate bureaucrats, who personally, have admit to cherry-picking what arguments/points they'll sincerely read/consider, engaged in a fallacy listed on the wiki because some name I don't know was involved (like you say, petty grudges and politics), and I got strawmanned twice in the same thread (let alone in others) by moderators who openly indicate they to want to misinterpret what I clearly say, or disengage with it entirely.

Man, I try to be optimistic about things, and not get too jaded, but this thread has been telling. I hope well for you too, Smashor. You don't deserve such poor treatment.
 
Maybe it's fallacious for me to be looking at other battleboard wikis like they're greener pastures, as they probably have their own problems.
All of the other battleboard wikis are more or less off-shoots of this one by people who had different perspectives on scaling. It may very well be the case that those wikis are more suited to your personal battleboarding philosophy.

But I got legit got shadow banned from calculation evaluations for a straight month by a belligerent mod not liking what I was doing. I bring up the obvious to another member of administration and get the most obviously fake response, finding calculations of mine only getting evaluated when a literal period of 30 days had passed since that one that got a mod upset.
I am not sure such a thing is possible? I might be wrong, but I don't know that there is any mechanism to shadowban calc evaluations.

It's especially bad to see that decisions for scaling/tiering aren't made democratically, by the people who actually care about, and are willing to spend time supporting and arguing for fictions and verses.
As I told Smashor, pure democracy would be chaos given that the largest segment of any thread is made up of users who support the verse. The only feasible bulwark against bandwagoning every verse to unreasonable upgrades is the fact that this site is not a direct democracy and shouldn't be.

The way that other non-indexing communities solve this is the fact that their threads revolve solely around matchups, not profiles, which means supporters of the opponent's verse are there to call them on nonsense.
 
Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.
Skip paragraphs and jump to In conclusion if you think this is a too long, didn't read skill issue that I'm having.

About this, I also don't like everything about the policy of only staff votes count. Like any form of human resources. A number of people can dedicate only so much work for a hobby, and balance only so much of that time between other staff responsibilities and real life. No one can be expected to know about every franchise in the jungle either.

But personal opinions aside, we must understand and admit past the blue names don't matter jokes that a modicum of management is necessary before anything will fall into anarchy. This is true not only to power scaling, but to all aspects of life.

All of us here have things which we want to change. Whether it's about statistics, a character, franchise or a power. Whether order for that process to happen comes in the form of staff or the system that these forums rate is a topic of much discussion. But without that order things can fall apart in much worse ways. There isn't a perfect place anywhere, we compromise. But I dealt with so much more frustration in places without regulation. Where anyone can stake claims as they please without being held to standards.

In conclusion: I said all this. But for what this thread is worth it can't be blamed for any of the problems that you may have with staff votes, it's been open to the public and a lot of normal users agreed or are being an active part of the discussion. I think that it's unfair with the work and discussion had here, to imply that a case of staff influence is reason for the downgrade.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure such a thing is possible? I might be wrong, but I don't know that there is any mechanism to shadowban calc evaluations.
There's no good way to do it, and I've never heard of it being done before (and I'd have to know, if they truly wanted all CGMs to enforce it).

The only place where something like that could be communicated is the calc group member group DM, which is rarely posted in, and is just full of stuff like "How do you calculate this?" "We should add this new calc-related rule" "Be careful when evaluating calcs like this".

Really, something like that (shadowbanning someone from evaluations because of a personal grudge) would just come off as obscenely petty, and I'd whistleblow about it immediately. We've done some calc bans before, but they're extensively talked about publicly, and the user involved is notified.
 
The downgrades in this thread are blatantly holding Mario to a different standard to how over 90% of the wiki is held, regardless of what the Wiki's standards officially are. If every verse was held to this same standard, Planet level basically wouldn't exist.
It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.
Accusing a side of bad faith by claiming they are targeting Mario out of bias and ignoring issues found in other verses while complaining about the site being politics and grudges is a little bit cringe me thinks.

Nobody who has supported this thread has claimed they wouldn't be willing to downgrade any other verse if the evidence for the downgrade was strong enough, no matter how many times you claim we don't hold other verses to the standard we are holding Mario to in this thread it will not make it true. Just because Mario is being downgraded does not mean the people proposing the downgrade think other verses are perfect.

I really do not mean to be rude here but I am getting rather tired of the constant whining about how the downgrades are unfair and everyone is biased against Mario. It is not an argument, it does not counter any points, it's just petty mud flinging to paint the people who support the downgrade in a negative light.

I do not mean to be rude here but posting your leaving announcement at this time and place comes off as a distraction tactic to garner sympathy from people and derail into an airing of grievances about how the Wiki has wronged you, which seems to have paid off in part, at least. I would prefer all posts going forward to actually relate to the topic at hand instead of petty finger pointing please and thank you.
 
Anyway I read the blog and tier 9 or low tier 8 seems to be far more consistent, there are only very few tier 7 feats, some of them come from Mario being thrown to the moon and Luigi falling from space and while feats like this can reach tier 7 due to KE except the damage to the environment doesn't seems to be anywhere near tier 7 like at all....for starters Mario Moon feat seems to contradict the KE page since we can clearly see that the moon received almost no damage from the fall (see 7:23)


And Luigi falling from space barely did any damage to the ground as well....so I doubt those feats can even be considered tier 8 much less tier 7

Still this
 
Skip paragraphs and jump to In conclusion if you think this is a too long, didn't read skill issue that I'm having.

About this, I also don't like everything about the policy of only staff votes count. Like any form of human resources. A number of people can dedicate only so much work for a hobby, and balance only so much of that time between other staff responsibilities and real life. No one can be expected to know about every franchise in the jungle either.

But personal opinions aside, we must understand and admit past the blue names don't matter jokes that a modicum of management is necessary before anything will fall into anarchy. This is true not only to power scaling, but to all aspects of life.

All of us here have things which we want to change. Whether it's about statistics, a character, franchise or a power. Whether order for that process to happen comes in the form of staff or the system that these forums rate is a topic of much discussion. But without that order things can fall apart in much worse ways. There isn't a perfect place anywhere, we compromise. But I dealt with so much more frustration in places without regulation. Where anyone can stake claims as they please without being held to standards.

In conclusion: I said all this. But for what this thread is worth it can't be blamed for any of the problems that you may have with staff votes, it's been open to the public and a lot of normal users agreed or are being an active part of the discussion. I think that it's unfair with the work and discussion had here, to imply that a case of staff influence is reason for the downgrade.
So it only should be 100% one or the other way?
 
Accusing a side of bad faith by claiming they are targeting Mario out of bias and ignoring issues found in other verses while complaining about the site being politics and grudges is a little bit cringe me thinks.

Nobody who has supported this thread has claimed they wouldn't be willing to downgrade any other verse if the evidence for the downgrade was strong enough, no matter how many times you claim we don't hold other verses to the standard we are holding Mario to in this thread it will not make it true. Just because Mario is being downgraded does not mean the people proposing the downgrade think other verses are perfect.

I really do not mean to be rude here but I am getting rather tired of the constant whining about how the downgrades are unfair and everyone is biased against Mario. It is not an argument, it does not counter any points, it's just petty mud flinging to paint the people who support the downgrade in a negative light.

I do not mean to be rude here but posting your leaving announcement at this time and place comes off as a distraction tactic to garner sympathy from people and derail into an airing of grievances about how the Wiki has wronged you, which seems to have paid off in part, at least. I would prefer all posts going forward to actually relate to the topic at hand instead of petty finger pointing please and thank you.
I'm sorry, considering a whole bloody discord server was created before to downgrade mario, i really can't blame anyone for thinking something is up here in terms of bias
 
So it only should be 100% one or the other way?
Personal experience, I don't feel like the order here is suffocating. You know what they say, different people, different reactions. Regardless,the thread has acknowledged that leave and I suggest that we lay this topic to rest. It does nothing to advance the relevant proposal and it has now become plain counter-productive (derailing) to prolong it.
 
Asking for clarification:

This is only a base cast downgrade?

Would being a higher tier with Power Stars still be acceptable?
 
I've been accused of bias against every verse I have ever participated in a downgrade for. It's an empty accusation cast by people who cannot understand that not everyone sees things the same way they do, or has the same scaling philosophy.
i can see why
i think they noticed that you agree with 99% downgrade threads and disagree with 99% upgrade threads
 
Asking for clarification:

This is only a base cast downgrade?

Would being a higher tier with Power Stars still be acceptable?
I would be chill with that for the actual named characters, if it was a fodder in the first place, then uh, no.
I've been accused of bias against every verse I have ever participated in a downgrade for. It's an empty accusation cast by people who cannot understand that not everyone sees things the same way they do, or has the same scaling philosophy.
Eh, you're a fan of low stats, so that's probably partially why
 
If the Base Cast has to be downgraded, but the higher tiers can stay due to the consistency of Power Stars/Grand Stars themselves and it's just a separate key on the profile I think that's a fine compromise for everyone involved.
 
I'm sorry, considering a whole bloody discord server was created before to downgrade mario, i really can't blame anyone for thinking something is up here in terms of bias
fwiw, I'm only here because I saw Armor occasionally posting about working on this revision in some other vsbw-adjacent Discords, and I saw him offhandedly mention it in one of them a day or so ago, so I was curious about how it was going.

I wasn't asked to come here, involved in the planning, etc.

@Da_Lunge_Fish An old Comicvine post of Deagon's about Marvel and DC is wholly irrelevant to this thread.
 
Tbh I think Smashor's comprehensive analysis of the anti-feat collection has me even more convinced of being against the downgrade, even beyond the fundamental issues I have with the thread's proposals. To me it's starting to seem like most of the anti-feats don't really hold up when looked at in context
 
Sorry for the long time to respond, Armor. I was a bit busy with uni and I genuinely just forgot to check around here :p

With that being said, it's been a doozy reading everything. This thread got very big and with some very ugly discussions, but I get the general point everyone was trying to make, and the indignation some have expressed here. I may have missed something, but in any case, just to make it easy for anyone in the future who is skimming past the threads and whatever, I will bold the parts of my commentary that TL;DR what I will write. Hope that helps.

On the issue at hand and the discussion held by Armor, I am in agreement with a downgrade, although I am of opinion that, with the evidence provided and discussion had here, particularly with Smashor's and Armor's arguments, that tier 8 is the most consistent one, probably around the 8-A range from eyeballing, but I also like DaReaperMan's suggestion of making a tier consisting of "at least X value, likely Y value, possibly Z value", or something like that. It feels apt for the kind of series that Mario is. I believe further threads will be necessary to tackle the issues pointed out earlier about a possible Mario Galaxy key and DDM's statements. Personally, I believe that at least tier 4, if not 3 for a Mario Galaxy and Grand Star-scaling tier are feasible.

On my personal opinion on the anti-feats and the discussion that was had on that topic, the first thing I must point out is that while it is an important discussion, the topic of validity of anti-feats should be tackled on a separate thread, so my opinion on this paragraph may be ignored on the context of this thread. I fully and deeply understand the indignation at the current policy and the need to debate it, but this discussion has only derailed and, rereading it, visibly distressed many members from both staff and the wider community on this thread, which is understandable, given how important Mario is as a verse. That being said, I'll say this: While personally the standards may be fine, this thread has shown the need to perhaps increase the given explanation and perhaps even have a dedicated page or blog post to it. Verses like Mario are, however, inherently difficult to consistently tier, and there is a point to be made on its actual possibility, in a not too dissimilar a vein from something like Bugs Bunny. It reminds me of a previous suggestion a long time ago about separating Mario on the arbitrary scale of different eras and groups of games - I know that it most likely isn't feasible and not the purpose of this thread, but I do like it, conceptually at least. On a more personal note, I have a personal method of evaluating characters that is very different from the wiki's standards, so everything I write here is on the context of the currently used standards, not on my own preferences.

Oh, by the way @Agnaa - do you require assistance in checking out your blogs about ItRtG? It is outside my knowledge, but I can at least check the feats and logic out.
 
Oh, by the way @Agnaa - do you require assistance in checking out your blogs about ItRtG? It is outside my knowledge, but I can at least check the feats and logic out.
Naw. The only assistance I really needs is with documenting and calculating the rest of the feats, which seems too far outside your wheelhouse.
 
Personally I don't like those size arguments because the intent is clearly for them to be planets and stars and galaxies but they chose to depict them in a manner befitting Mario rather than go anime with it like Asura. We know the series can depict accurate celestial bodies it's just rarer.

But that's me. I know this wiki sees it differently
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top