• 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.

Mario AP Downgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxthefox1000 said:
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.

But that's me. I know this wiki sees it differently
Click to expand...
I can actually see this, as I believe much, if not outright most of fiction is more representative than literal. The issue is, aside from wiki standards, the possibility of the planet's small sizes being literal is not small considering Mario's universe and how it works. Unless there is some more evidence I am not aware of, of course!
 
Sizes vary constantly in Mario. Even within Galaxy (the first one) the Earth isn't depicted too huge but in games like Odyssey it's depicted as more accurate.

This implies to me everything was sized down in Galaxy. We see from the backgrounds of the World in Galaxy 2 that these are intended to be real cosmological objects, but we can't obviously play through an accurate sized one
 




These show off the backgrounds in Galaxy.

The tweets are from the second game. The first is from the first game. That seems to be the horizon of a planet that spans the entire screen. Pretty accurate depiction I'd say.

If they can show accurate depictions in skyboxes I think that's the intention for the cosmology. A planet should at least be that big in reality but isn't for gameplay
 
Ok so- I read everything that was posted while I slept, I'm not sure exactly what to reply to. I struggle to find much to disagree when basically all the arguments were whataboutisms, but it is what it is. If there's something I missed that I should reply to, please make me aware of it.

But no the planets in Galaxy are visibly, blatantly tiny as hell, and no kind of more circumstantial, roundabout evidence is going to change that. At best you're going to prove that there are planets that exist that are normal-sized, but that's obviously the assumption already, given that the one most of the series takes place on exists. Even if you want to draw a distinction between normal-sized planets and tiny planetoids, there isn't much implying the thing he's standing on to be the former.

Believe it or not, even if it were 5-B, the feat would actually fit my proposted ratings- Bowser tanks it from the surface on the planet, which would mean inverse square law would greatly lower the amount of energy he's exposed to: (3.1693021 x 10^33) / (4π((6371000)^2)) = 6.2135324 x 10^18 Joules, High 7-A. You'd likely have to multiply the feat by a bit to account for the fact that he's pretty massive and is therefore exposed to more, but it'd be 6-C at best.

EliminatorVenom said:
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.
Click to expand...
The issue I found with tier 8 is that any rating has several viable feats above it. I'd feel weird capping the franchise at 8-A when I have two or three good Low 7-C calcs, and then a couple of 7-C ones, and so on. The verse has a very consistent "ladder" of calcs all the way to 7-B, at which point I admit that from 7-B to 6-C, it's quite the jump, so that bit is partially more questionable. But I would like the rating to be 7-B, at minimum. Regardless I personally would like to keep the "Mario should be lower than 6-C" conversation in the future- I have no personal interest in downgrading them further, but if others do, I would prefer for that to wait given that it's still in line with my current argument, and would be a continuation for it. As for multiple ratings, I would rather not, given that these ratings are going to applied to what, 60+ profiles? If we gotta we gotta, but I would prefer not.

Should I consider you to Agree, or be Neutral?
 
Last edited:
Ah, since some people brought up the 3-C ratings should remain as an amp- I am neutral towards that. If you can prove that they don't scale to the base cast then they stop being an outlier, and then, they're fine. I do find it pretty weird that after over a year of adamantly maintaining that they do scale to the base cast, people would turn around and claim that they don't... but it is what it is.
CrackerVolley said:
I agree with Chomper's disagreement
Click to expand...
(I genuinely don't know what you're voting here)
 
Last edited:
Mario falls beyond infinitely again, jokes aside. I find Armor's reasoning and for outlier's to be reasonable, I agree w/ it. And besides, we're still gonna have Galaxy level Mario with power stars, so we practically didn't lose anything
 
Er, not really, right now that it's scaled to everyone the 3-C rating is an outlier. If a thread were made to change that and keep it as an amp-only rating, then- provided the argument was good- the rating would be fine.
 
No, not fodder enemies. Everyone in the main cast, as well as bosses, yeah. But not things like Goombas.
 
This has an acceptable amount of votes and has passed the grace period. It'd be fine to apply this now.
 
Armorchompy said:
The proposed Attack Potency tier for Mario characters that currently scale to 3-C (as well as Wario/DK/Paper Mario characters) is 6-C, with characters amplified by power-ups such as Giant Bowser reaching up to Low 6-B.
Click to expand...
This is what the proposal has and what the votes currently agree to. I don't see much benefit in dragging it out given we are already at 5 pages
 
I think if lesser revisions to the tier are made (such as revising 6-C to be an outlier too and dropping the rating to tier 7/8, or introducing a new higher tier 6 calculation) I would prefer that to be in another thread, it's historically really hard to get much attention to threads that have gone on this long, and there is more than enough consensus for it.

I would still like to keep it open for one more day at least though.
 
It's a fair concern. They'll be upset no matter what, but it's up to you. It likely won't change the outcome as I think the facts are clear it's just a matter of if you believe outliers exist or if antifeats matter.
 
MaidRips said:
I never got my answer for where WarioWare stands but that's for another thread, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I didn't see it. Er, relative scaling doesn't change so I don't think characters like Ashley are affected by this thread.
 
Deagonx said:
It's a fair concern. They'll be upset no matter what, but it's up to you. It likely won't change the outcome as I think the facts are clear it's just a matter of if you believe outliers exist or if antifeats matter.
Click to expand...
hmm @Agnaa what are your thoughts
 
Read the OP, blog, and rolled through the comments, I agree with the thread. There are too many normalized excuses on how to view things that rely on failing to see how what happens in 1 verse isn't the same as what happens in another verse due to a number of factors. Also it's bad faith from my part but since seeing the OP I was expecting a comment disagreeing with everything in a manner that would be easy to disagree back at it, yet that there would be lots of people using that to disagree with the thread w/o seeing not 1 of the errors to be pointed out with that comment. Since that happens every time with threads like this.
 
Agnaa said:
If you really wanna take it out on staff members like me, you can help finish these blogs aiming to downgrade a verse only I care about from tier 7 to tier 9, and to nix creation scaling in it.
Click to expand...
Why would you downgrade fricking ItRtG? Disagree.
Deagonx said:
This is exactly the direction the wiki should be going in. All of the what-about arguments demonstrate this beautifully: We have tons of profiles that are tiered based on extreme outlier feats with no regard to the limitations and abilities of the characters being indexed. It's simply a contest between fandoms to see who can get their character the highest. The end result is that many of our profiles would be unrecognizable to any fan of the series, which is a failure on our part, not a success.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Many verses could be lowered way too much and make way more sense. I do agree with people saying other verses need to be toned down, but not as a reaction but that's because that's the right thing to do. Except ITRTG LEAVE IT.
Deagonx said:
Given this approach literally every verse would be wanked to high heaven by the supporters drumming up a big enough FRA train.
Click to expand...
That's regrettably the problem and can be seen with vs battles some times. Crt are way too vital for that.

Overall I agree with the thread.
 
Only just got the free time to check the site and saw I was tagged... I'm not reading 5 pages of this (I just skimmed through it and looked at the larger posts). Given the votes, my input is not required here but to explain my stance, I get the OP. Mario has been around for a long time, feats inconsistencies, scaling chain are on the little hecktic side like many game verse due to all the installments and so on. I don't know the verse enough to provide a counter argument to the OP, some the supports/knowledgeable members have already given their thoughts but honestly no matter how we scale them there will be an issue. I'm fine with the OP, but I understand the point made regarding the rating issues others brought up.
 
I think planet level is the highest possible tier within reason, with Bowser's magic turning the world in a book (Yoshi's Story) and Wario beating a genie that created a planet (Super Mario Land 3)
 
MusicRelaxing said:
Fair, took a glance at the Goomba's and they're MFTL+, also iirc some people argued for galaxy level Goombas. Which is... weird in of itself.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, someone indeed made a case for 3-C Goombas here.
Eficiente said:
Read the OP, blog, and rolled through the comments, I agree with the thread. There are too many normalized excuses on how to view things that rely on failing to see how what happens in 1 verse isn't the same as what happens in another verse due to a number of factors.
Click to expand...
Speaking to my soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MicDaniel
Mario, Accelerated Development/Preparation and Zone Speed Statistics amplification.
Replies
24
Views
975
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
ZespeonGalaxy
  • Locked
Tier 6 Mario Revision
2
Replies
73
Views
6K
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
Speedblitzer50
  • Locked
Bowser gets supernatural luck
Replies
25
Views
1K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Robot972
Origami King Buffs
2 3
Replies
91
Views
4K
Lou_change
Lou_change
DimeUhDozen
Mario Speed Stuff
Replies
15
Views
2K
IDK3465
IDK3465
Back
Top