Mario Galaxy games Mario should be a different key from normal Mario

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

A friend asked me to share this.



He also wanted me to point out how Mario can also jump on the enemies and bosses which are consistently more deadly than the spin punch granted by Luma. Mario also defeats bosses that terrorize multiple lumas regularly, so it wouldn't make sense for Mario to be leagues below a regular Luma naturally or for that one regular Luma to be above all those other Lumas. And Rosalina does the spin punch thing in Super Mario 3D World and has the same output as everyone else.

And I'm the rude person? lmao.
Also what? There are? I was including things like stunning too, given we use stunning or winding foes as means of scaling, doesn't always have to be a case of caving a foe's skull in with his normal attacks. By that same means, Bowser isn't harmed at all by the cosmic spin, it doesn't actually hurt him, but it does stun him.
And sometimes there are enemies that can tank the spin, but get killed by jumps and ground pounds, and sometimes stun with a jump but are knocked away by the spin.

I know what I said, and not even a dozen bosses across both games can be harmed with normal attacks?
Lad, there are 48 bosses, a solid chunk can be affected by both the spin and normal attacks, or various other means even like basic koopa shells or other such items, let alone just his basic attacks. The majority of bosses don't treat any one thing as magnitudes above the other.

I’ll respond to everything else later but let me just tackle this first.

Are all 48 bosses powered by Grand Stars? No. They aren’t. Only 12 of them are. That is where the Galaxy level scaling amp comes from, and none of those bosses are damaged by regular jumps. It’s either the spin attack, redirecting the bosses’ own attacks back at them, or ground pound.

And regardless it still wouldn’t matter because of my main point being that the Luma empowers Mario him defeating these enemies through regular methods wouldn’t affect anything anyways.

Second, Lumas can contain Galaxy levels of power, but they also showcase no combat ability across the entire series. They’re basically little power sources with little way to fend for themselves, hence why they’re easily captured.

 

[Chariot190]

Are all 48 bosses powered by Grand Stars? No. They aren’t. Only 12 of them are. That is where the Galaxy level scaling amp comes from, and none of those bosses are damaged by regular jumps. It’s either the spin attack, redirecting the bosses’ own attacks back at them, or ground pound.

And? We're not arguing where the galaxy-level amp comes from, we're arguing if the dude is amped to begin with. And guess what? power Star bosses, normal bosses, grand star bosses, etc all fail to corroborate that claim.
And ground pound, an attack that scales to Mario's usual statistics, case closed.
Like I don't disagree some of the scaling is ****** and needs to be changed, but do I agree with why it needs to be fixed? Obviously not.

And regardless it still wouldn’t matter because of my main point being that the Luma empowers Mario him defeating these enemies through regular methods wouldn’t affect anything anyways.

Your main point is made up. Unironically headcanon, conjecture, presumptuous, etc. The crux of your argument is based entirely on something you think should be the case, not something that is confirmed to be the case, if anything deconfirmed.

Second, Lumas can contain Galaxy levels of power, but they also showcase no combat ability across the entire series. They’re basically little power sources with little way to fend for themselves, hence why they’re easily captured.

Some Luma's do, not all, and that's at the end of their lifespan. This is half the issue with your arguments, you take something that's common and apply it to be ALL the time, actual statistical fallacy, a 90% chance still means 10% of the time it won't occur, same principle.
And so? You know we don't scale things like that right? We need a statement saying that all power is being used or given to those it empowers. To such an extent that even if we have two characters using the same artifact and drawing power from it, they're not assumed to be using all of it unless stated, this is why Kirby got ****** a few years back.
Not that it matters because you still have yet to prove the Luma is amping Mario to begin with.

Stop wasting time and post a statement saying GML physically stat-boosted Mario, or at the very ******* bare minimum a statement saying that "power of the stars" ALWAYS includes a stat boost regardless of what's granting it. Either one would cease the argument immediately, literally, all you have to do is post one scan for either.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Chariot.

Kirb's last point had nothing to do with GML amping Mario. It was in response to DDM's point of galaxy-level lumas being captured or terrorized by bosses that Mario defeats. Please at least try to understand the arguments you are debunking before debunking them.

 

[Chariot190]

Yeah? I got that? And I'm saying it doesn't matter.
The point DDM posted still retains to the amping and power of the stars amping argument, that is the context in which that post was made, why it's being said and the context of the conversation.
Kirb said "well theyre just batteries and dont have combat potential" as a way to discredit the claim DDM made, and then I replied with how ultimately, that doesn't matter, not only is that a half-truth and not all Luma's contain that galactic power to begin with, in terms of our argument regarding amping, which is why Kirb mentioned Luma's having galaxy power and being able to become power stars in the first place, as means to create a connection between power stars that amp and the Luma's in question, which is why DDM's post in-turn replied with that.
I pointed out how even if that was the case, we don't actually scale things like that on a wiki-wide scale anyway, and even gave an example.

I suggest you at least try to understand the arguments before chiming in, you're making yourself look bad while trying to be a smartass, act better.

 

[Chariot190]

Oh, and the last line had nothing to do with that, it's just me saying post proof, in general. Like we all get what you think, nobody beyond you 3 at this point is buying it, actual evidence please, not just circumstantial.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Here is DDM's post:

Mario also defeats bosses that terrorize multiple lumas regularly, so it wouldn't make sense for Mario to be leagues below a regular Luma naturally or for that one regular Luma to be above all those other Lumas.

And here is Kirb's response:

Second, Lumas can contain Galaxy levels of power, but they also showcase no combat ability across the entire series. They’re basically little power sources with little way to fend for themselves, hence why they’re easily captured.

Nowhere do these two posts mention amping. It is specifically about whether or not Mario and the bosses he defeats can be scaled above lumas. You attempting to make it about amping is strawmanning and derailing. Me asking you to not do that does not make me a smartass.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Oh, and the last line had nothing to do with that, it's just me saying post proof, in general. Like we all get what you think, nobody beyond you 3 at this point is buying it, actual evidence please, not just circumstantial.

This is really funny when you remember that only 3 people here explicitly support your side as well, so what does that say about your own arguments?

 

[Chariot190]

You do know what everyone is talking about right?
You do know what DDM's post is reply to right?

Spoiler

We know Luma’s contain power, they’re able to transform into entirely different things (such as Power Stars, for instance, artifacts that literally grant power), Grand Master Luma is treated with reverence by all other Lumas in the series, and Rosalina specifically grants him to Mario in both Galaxy games, knowing he wouldn’t be able to complete his task without him. Mario defeats basically every Grand Star user with the Spin Attack or spin-empowered moves, he can only traverse the galaxy with the Luma’s special abilities.

Bowser is empowered by a Grand Star, yeah. He also explicitly uses the literal exact same terminology, "the power of the stars", that is not only used to refer to what GML grants Mario, but also what other major power sources throughout the series use.

The Grand Star's only feat is creating and sustaining a galaxy, and its stated superiority to Power Stars. Lumas can create galaxies and are scaled to galaxy level because of that fact. Lumas can also transform into Power Stars. Lumas can clearly contain galaxy levels of power if we scale them to that in the first place, and they can literally transform into Power Stars, which grant the power of the stars in the first place. Why is it odd to assume that Lumas work on different principles and can't grant power, when they're stated to be able to grant the same "power of the stars" that Power/Grand Stars can give, and can also give abilities that are powered by the stars, just like the other two can?

Yes, the power granted case by case is different, solely in the amount of power provided by the source & what abilities it grants. Power Stars aren't as powerful as Grand Stars, but they still undeniably amp the user with "the power of the stars" and provide the person using them with new abilities don't they? Different power sources can grant different amounts of power and different abilities, what a stunning revelation.

Also a handful of others, the conversation still boils down to GML amping and the comparability between it and stars that amp, what i said is relevant.

Is what DDM's post is replying to, aka Kirb going on about how Luma's = Power Stars, and how they amp and yadda yadda as the foundation of WHY bosses and Luma's are being talked about.

Nowhere do these two posts mention amping. It is specifically about whether or not Mario and the bosses he defeats can be scaled above lumas. You attempting to make it about amping is strawmanning and derailing. Me asking you to not do that does not make me a smartass.

All you've really done is showcased how you haven't been following the string of the conversation properly. You're foregoing why it's about that, as if we're not nearly 50 posts in regarding this topic, acting as if the whole context is relegated to two paragraphs lmao.

You say I'm attempting, but that would imply it isn't true. The argument is bad, headcanon, disconnected web of nothing, post-proof or cease.
Derailing? It's directly related to the subject at hand lmao, it could unironically be a strawman, which it isn't, yet if it was it'd be on topic all the same, as it's relevant to the OP's proposition lol.

And yes, say something of value or shoo, if your purpose in this conversation has devolved to nitpicking other people's replies because you can't follow a conversation, drop it. You're adding absolutely nothing and, ironic as it might be, derailing the thread.

This is really funny when you remember that only 3 people here explicitly support your side as well, so what does that say about your own arguments?

Of which there's a mod, and last I checked, mods decide what actually goes through.
And nice dodge, where's the proof?
But it seems you're getting far too heated based on your last string of posts, I'd recommend taking a step back, you've gotten far more passive-aggressive, confrontational and even more rude than me, which isn't a good thing as I'm not exactly known for being subtle. Tone it down a notch.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Chariot, Kirb has outright told me that his response to the last of DDM's point was not about amping. You cannot try to argue against it as if it were about amping, because the person writing that response never intended it as such. That's what most people would tend to call strawmanning.

Neither of us can write full responses currently because we have real life responsibilities to attend to. All I'm trying to do in the meantime is make sure certain points aren't misrepresented as something they aren't, and the fact that you're responding to that with a lot of hostility is kind of sad.

Anyways, I was right about Kirb's response, please stop derailing with this shit and stop being an asshole for no goddamn reason.

 

[Chariot190]

Chariot, Kirb has outright told me that his response to the last of DDM's point was not about amping. You cannot try to argue against it as if it were about amping, because the person writing that response never intended it as such. That's what most people would tend to call strawmanning.

Then Kirb is moving the goalposts and failing to properly respond to points. It'd only be a strawman, if, ya know, what I replied with wasn't a previously established facet of the argument at hand and connected to arguments being made.
Tbh you could even call Kirb's own reply a strawman given they kinda missing the point as to what's being argued and going on about completely different shit as if it has any actual bearing.

Neither of us can write full responses currently because we have real life responsibilities to attend to. All I'm trying to do in the meantime is make sure certain points aren't misrepresented as something they aren't, and the fact that you're responding to that with a lot of hostility is kind of sad.

So? Then just wait? If you want to go do shit irl like the rest of us, you can do so, nobody has you at gunpoint telling you to reply lmao.
And quite frankly I don't care, my point remains the same whether or not theirs doesn't, I'd just consider that failing to argue to actually tackle the point the opposition is getting at.
Hostility? Have you ever been on the internet before? Or rather, have you looked in the mirror lately? You're being the most hostile person in this thread, stop being a hypocrite for five seconds and think before you speak.

Anyways, I was right about Kirb's response, please stop derailing with this shit and stop being an asshole for no goddamn reason.

Derailing? You realize this whole conversation has been goaded on by you in particular right?
And an asshole? You're the worst person here by far, your posts reek of passive aggressiveness and you're clearly riled up, or is it because I think your arguments are horrendous that it somehow makes me an asshole? Don't make bad arguments then, nothing more to say on that front. I'm not here to coddle you, as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm not insulting you in particular, merely your arguments, you're just gonna have to deal with it.

 

[Chariot190]

Post scan btw

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

Chariot's arguments make more coherent sense, and to me. seems to have what's objectively the truth value here. The others arguing otherwise are trying to argue that power must mean strength or physical stats, when that's not how things work in fiction. We don't use our own interpretation/definition, but WHAT the context of the verse itself is specifying or saying.
The OP and those that hold the same stance as the OP, seem to use a lot of false equivalency fallacy, which Chariot himself provides valid reasoning as to why their very arguments contain false equivalency. Another fallacy would be the statistical fallacy being applied on the OP and the ones arguing on the side of the OP.. That seems to be called out for a valid reasoning too. There's other more fallacies pointed out throughout the thread against the OP that are valid on its own. So based on what I can see, Chariot seems to have a stance that leans towards the side of objective truth more, 100%. The OP and those on the side of OP seems to be relying on a lot of logical errors as pointed out by the opposer (Chariot)

Tldr: I agree with Chariot as he provides MUCH more valid and reasonable arguments. Hard disagree with the changes proposed by the OP and those on the side of OP.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

@Kirbonic_Pikmin @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara Could you two just post empirical evidence (scans) that ACTUALLY holds up with your interpretation regarding physical amps, without committing false equivalency fallacy or statistical fallacy in the process? You two, so far, haven't done that yet, which makes the thread go in a circle. (which it is rn) Not posting the empirical evidence, just kinda compromises the dialectics of the debate between you two and Chariot.

Another thing I'd like to point out is to be careful to not make an cognitive bias argument. (if you're aware of that, that is. If not, then here)

Cognitive and Unconscious Bias: What It Is and How to Overcome It

Learn what cognitive bias is. Understand some of the most common types of cognitive bias, plus why you should eliminate them and how to overcome them.

www.betterup.com

It even gives tips out on how to eliminate any sort of cognitive bias. Which can make reaching the truth in the discussion of dialectics/of this debate more smoother.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

you know, ive made a lot of mistakes in life but at least i will never hand out ******* psychological diagnoses over a ******* mario power level debate. jesus ******* christ dude

anyways im gathering that empirical evidence right as we speak so maybe hold your horses on playing psychologist, yeah?

 

[Potemkat]

@Kirbonic_Pikmin @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara Could you two just post empirical evidence (scans) that ACTUALLY holds up with your interpretation regarding physical amps, without committing false equivalency fallacy or statistical fallacy in the process? You two, so far, haven't done that yet, which makes the thread go in a circle. (which it is rn) Not posting the empirical evidence, just kinda compromises the dialectics of the debate between you two and Chariot.

Another thing I'd like to point out is to be careful to not make an cognitive bias argument. (if you're aware of that, that is. If not, then here)

Cognitive and Unconscious Bias: What It Is and How to Overcome It

Learn what cognitive bias is. Understand some of the most common types of cognitive bias, plus why you should eliminate them and how to overcome them.

www.betterup.com

It even gives tips out on how to eliminate any sort of cognitive bias. Which can make reaching the truth in the discussion of dialectics/of this debate more smoother.

i don't think saying to someone they need psychological diagnosis or help is very nice...

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

you know, ive made a lot of mistakes in life but at least i will never hand out ******* psychological diagnoses over a ******* mario power level debate. jesus ******* christ dude

anyways im gathering that empirical evidence right as we speak so maybe hold your horses on playing psychologist, yeah?

Uh what. Like huh?? Do you even know what cognitive bias is in a debate?? Like I don't mean that you have a mental issue or some shit bro. Wtf.

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment.[1] Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[2][3][4]

where are you getting "diagnosis" from this?? and psychologist? Like wut. I think you GREATLY misunderstand my intentions mate.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

i don't think saying to someone they need psychological diagnosis or help is very nice...

I don't think THAT'S what cognitive bias is brother. At least NOT in the way you or fuji thinks.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

are you even aware that cognitive bias has many types? chariot even called you out on one, twice or so. I'm literally saying the same thing, so idk why you're so upset when I posted a site that actively helps you out in making a more solid argument in a debate, and cognitive bias is something everybody could have, namely Confirmation bias for example:

• Confirmation bias: This is favoring information that conforms to your existing beliefs and discounting evidence that does not conform.

That site I posted which helps you ANALYZE your argument more soundly, ain't me acting like a psychologist or me saying you have a diagnosis or something like that. You're grossly misinterpreting my intentions tbh. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963#toc-types-of-cognitive-bias
here is a site that lists out all types, which I even quoted from above rn. (Confirmation Bias)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Just a heads up, most of the body in my post was just someone quoting a friend from someone who wanted to be banned via user request but didn't want to be back.

But anyway, I still agree more with Chariot here.

 

[Chariot190]

none of you knows what cognitive bias means

This explains a lot of the arguments being made ngl.

He isn't saying you need ******* psychiatric help or anything, he's basically just saying your arguments are biased to your own personal judgment and feelings and notions and is saying "hey, read this, it could maybe help you formulate better arguments". I'm quite surprised none of you have heard this type of stuff in this hobby before, it's very commonplace and not at all said with any malicious intent.
If this is news to ya'll youre blessed because you dont have to listen to eclipso and others go on about this shit like 4 hours a day

 

[Potemkat]

i just don't think it's nice to say this. You didn't talk about Mario or mention the name Mario in your comments, and it's the subject of the discussion.

I think what the others is true in Mario, and we see it being true a lot of times. I don't think saying it's an exception this time is logic since it happens two times and the sentence has specific meaning in Mario which we see every time it is being used

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

youre blessed because you dont have to listen to eclipso and others go on about this shit like 4 hours a day

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

He also wanted me to point out how Mario can also jump on the enemies and bosses which are consistently more deadly than the spin punch granted by Luma.

I'll start with this, I guess. The easy solution here is to list every boss and see how many can be harmed by both jumps and spins, just jumps, just spins, or neither, and go from there.

Also, yes, Mario can jump on most bosses just fine, but they don't react or take damage from it. I'm also not counting regular enemies, because they have no business scaling to 3-C in whichever category in the first place; If a goomba can tank a spin attack, we'd treat that as an outlier just as we would for that same goomba damaging Mario. Though I could take the opposite approach and point out how many regular enemies can only be defeated with spins and not jumps, like Ruby Rocks or Giant Goombas :v

Dino Pirahna: Can only be defeated through spin attacking his tail, jumps don't work.
King Kaliente: Can only be defeated through using the spin attack to reflect his attacks back at him, jumps don't work.
Mandibug Stack: Can be defeated through ground pounds, not spin attacks.
Buggaboom: Can be defeated through ground pounds, not spin attacks.
Megaleg: Can only be harmed by redirecting its own attacks back into it.
Tarantox: Can't be harmed normally, only through using slingshots that can only be activated with the star pointer, which is heavily implied to be GML (though never explicitly confirmed).
Topmaniac: Can be jumped on, but this only causes his blades to retract. Spin attacking him is the only way to push him around and eventually damage him.
Bowser (SMG1): Can't be damaged with jumps or spins.
Bouldergeist: Can only be damaged by spin attacking bomb boos back into him, not with jumps.
Major Burrows: Ground pounds can force him above ground, but this doesn't damage him. Spin attacks are the only way to damage him.
Baron Brrr: Can only be extinguished with spin attacks, and can only be harmed with spin attacks afterwards.
Peewee Pirahna: Can only be defeated through spin attacks, not jumps.
King Lakitu: Can only be defeated by redirecting his attacks back at him with Yoshi.
Diggaleg: Can only be damaged by using the drill power-up to break the glass under his legs, which can't be damaged through any other method.
Gobblegut: Can only be damaged with spin attacks, not jumps.
Rollodillo: Can only be damaged through the Rock Mario power-up,
Bowser (SMG2): Can only be harmed by ground pounding the meteors he summons. However, it's important to note that this fight is a massive scaling headache regardless of whether or not spins or jumps can harm him; This is someone who is comparable to Mario being massively amped by a Grand Star, and yet base Mario fights on par with him anyways which is why Mario being amped makes way more ******* sense lol
Sorbetti: Can only be damaged with spin attacks, not jumps.
Glamdozer: Can only be damaged with ground pounds, not spins.
Squizzard: Can't be harmed with jumps or spins, only by shooting fireballs down his throat (which ig would be dura neg since you're attacking his insides?)
Prince Picante: Can't be harmed with jumps, only spin attacks that reflect his projectiles.
Boomsday Machine: Can't be harmed with jumps or spins, only ground pounds on the glass cockpit at the top, which like, no shit glass is more vulnerable than the rest of a giant mecha lol
Whomp King: Can only be harmed with ground pounds, though this isn't an example of regular jumps hurting 3-C amped beings, since this is the same guy Mario already fought in 64.

(didn't include the cannon bosses from SMG1 since they're fodder enemies in SMG2, or Mecha Bowser from that toy galaxy, since calling it an 'enemy' is a little generous)

Also not sure what to make of the bosses you beat with koopa shells (like Kamella and Kingfin), since you do the same basic spin attack motions to draw in and throw the shell, which could imply GML is amping the throw, but idk for sure. I'll just leave those out.

So you have 3 examples of jumps being more effective than spins (that aren't massive outliers, anyways), and 10 instances (11 if we're counting Tarantox, but that's whatever) of bosses that can't be harmed with jumps at all, ONLY spins (and a bunch of other bosses that defy both categories). The fact of the matter is, spin attacks being vastly above Mario's regular attacks outnumbers the opposite assertion by a factor of more than 3; At which point, the instances of jumps being above spins can safely be called outliers.

TL;DR: Spin attacks are consistently treated as the only way Mario can harm tougher enemies, which is in fact evidence of spin attacks being above his regular AP. We have always given "higher with (x)" ratings or something similar to characters with techniques that can harm people their regular abilities couldn't touch, so why is Mario the exception?

Mario also defeats bosses that terrorize multiple lumas regularly, so it wouldn't make sense for Mario to be leagues below a regular Luma naturally or for that one regular Luma to be above all those other Lumas. And Rosalina does the spin punch thing in Super Mario 3D World and has the same output as everyone else.

Per what Kirb already said, Lumas don't really fight, the energy they have stored within them isn't used for combat. It'd be like scaling a human to tier 7 because they can "overpower" a small chunk of uranium which could become a nuclear bomb; The potential energy is there, but it isn't really being used or anything.

As for Rosalina in 3D World, this is missing the point. Spin attacks aren't inherently big amps; Only the one granted by GML, since the whole point of this thread is GML boosting Mario's power to a level far above the norm. Since Rosa doesn't have GML in 3D World, she wouldn't really be on the receiving end of that amp.

Anyways, one last thing to note, GML does amp your stats in at least one way, that being speed. Spin attacks underwater make you swim faster, and spin attack ground pounds are notably faster than regular ones. Make of that what you will, but it does mean an amp is there to at least some extent.

 

[Chariot190]

you know, ive made a lot of mistakes in life but at least i will never hand out ******* psychological diagnoses over a ******* mario power level debate. jesus ******* christ dude

anyways im gathering that empirical evidence right as we speak so maybe hold your horses on playing psychologist, yeah?

Gathering? You realize ALL that needs to be said posted is a single statement saying it right? If you have gather a bunch of things, that just tells me you don't actually have one and are going to repeat the previous things. One line of text, is all that's needed, not only that, you have two options here to go about it, you can post a statement saying GML stat amps, or you can post a statement saying that "Power of the Stars" will ALWAYS include a stat amp.

I can not stress this enough, unless they actually say GML is amping Mario, it doesn't really matter how big a web you weave of vaguely related statements or things that may or may not imply a thing. You need to actually post hard confirmation, not mental gymnastics.

Anyways, one last thing to note, GML does amp your stats in at least one way, that being speed. Spin attacks underwater make you swim faster, and spin attack ground pounds are notably faster than regular ones. Make of that what you will, but it does mean an amp is there to at least some extent.

You do know the cosmic spin is stated to defy gravity and break gravitation fields right? That's what the cosmic spin is stated to do, ergo, that's what it does. In which, that very well can help give a quick boost when used due to, well, gravity fuckery.
I wouldn't call that a speed amp, speed might get a negligible boost there, but it isn't due to physically amping Mario's own innate speed.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Gathering? You realize ALL that needs to be said posted is a single statement saying it right? If you have gather a bunch of things, that just tells me you don't actually have one and are going to repeat the previous things. One line of text, is all that's needed, not only that, you have two options here to go about you, can post a statement saying GML stat amps, or you can post a statement saying that "Power of the Stars" will ALWAYS include a stat amp.

I can not stress this enough, unless they actually say GML is amping Mario, it doesn't really matter how big a web you weave of vaguely related statements or things that may or may not imply a thing. You need to actually post hard confirmation, not mental gymnastics.

My guy did you even read the post I just sent?
Not even two seconds and you're already down my throat about what you think my argument might be, because you can't be bothered to take the 2 minutes required to actually read what I wrote. I needed to gather shit because I wanted to make absolutely sure my memory wasn't failing me on a game I last played like 8 years ago, ******* chill.

You do know the cosmic spin is stated to defy gravity and break gravitation fields right? That's what the cosmic spin is stated to do, ergo, that's what it does. In which, that very well can help give a quick boost when used due to, well, gravity fuckery.
I wouldn't call that a speed amp, speed might get a negligible boost there, but it isn't due to physically amping Mario's own innate speed.

Literally what do gravity fields have to do with swimming..............
can we give michael phelps gravity hax

 

[Potemkat]

Gathering? You realize ALL that needs to be said posted is a single statement saying it right? If you have gather a bunch of things, that just tells me you don't actually have one and are going to repeat the previous things. One line of text, is all that's needed, not only that, you have two options here to go about you, can post a statement saying GML stat amps, or you can post a statement saying that "Power of the Stars" will ALWAYS include a stat amp.

I can not stress this enough, unless they actually say GML is amping Mario, it doesn't really matter how big a web you weave of vaguely related statements or things that may or may not imply a thing. You need to actually post hard confirmation, not mental gymnastics.

They say he feels power in him and he beats stronger ennemies he can't beat in normal (like ennemies powered by Grand Star).

You didn't show proof that Mario isn't stronger too, when the game shows he is everytime you need luma. It's a big game, so there's a lot of things in it that show it.

I don't understand why you are so angry at people for needing time for a big game...

You do know the cosmic spin is stated to defy gravity and break gravitation fields right? That's what the cosmic spin is stated to do, ergo, that's what it does. In which, that very well can help give a quick boost when used due to, well, gravity fuckery.
I wouldn't call that a speed amp, speed might get a negligible boost there, but it isn't due to physically amping Mario's own innate speed.

We see it break things Mario can't break in the game too and do more than just gravity. Why do you ignore this?

 

[Chariot190]

My guy did you even read the post I just sent?

Not when I typed that no, because I typed my shit out first and the page didn't refresh till afterward. When I typed that, your post did not exist at the time.

Not even two seconds and you're already down my throat about what you think my argument might be, because you can't be bothered to take the 2 minutes required to actually read what I wrote.

That's just you being presumptuous, ironic as that might be.

. I needed to gather shit because I wanted to make absolutely sure my memory wasn't failing me on a game I last played like 8 years ago, ******* chill.

you didnt even post the single thing you actually needed to post, and even listed off things that contradict your claim

TL;DR: Spin attacks are consistently treated as the only way Mario can harm tougher enemies, which is in fact evidence of spin attacks being above his regular AP. We have always given "higher with (x)" ratings or something similar to characters with techniques that can harm people their regular abilities couldn't touch, so why is Mario the exception?

You literally listed off multiple examples where that isn't the case.
Blatant cherry picking, the existence of these contradictions and lack of a statement is just a statistical fallacy and confirmation bias.
You're merely ignoring what doesn't fit your narrative.

Literally what do gravity fields have to do with swimming..............

Say sike? The reason why people move slower in water is due to pressure, which is caused by the water's mass coupled with g-force right? Now imagine if, briefly, you can completely break free and defy gravity and unaffected be unaffected by it for just a moment.

 

[Chariot190]

They say he feels power in him and he beats stronger ennemies he can't beat in normal (like ennemies powered by Grand Star).

Yes, and the power in question is a cosmic spin that is stated to be the power to break free from gravity (this is the power he's feeling in that scene btw, the power to defy gravity, not power as in he can punch a billion times harder). Along with the ability to use launch and pull stars, the power to survive in deep space, etc.
He gets power and the like, but the thing you're not understanding is that we're told what the power in question is, and it isn't physical mate.

And this is a nonargument, the strongest mf in Galaxy is Bowser of all things, who is unamped, which also contradicts the fact Mario is amped, as if he was amped, than it'd scale to normal Bowser.
Mario constantly fights enemies empowered by Power Stars as well. And he even uses normal attacks to harm Grand Star dudes. Hell it's obvious amped Bowser in 2 is stronger than him as well, so it's not like they're 1:1, and an argument could easily be made that while weaker, he's still in the same ballpark instead of he's amped (I don't agree with it, but it'd have just as much basis as your argument).

You'd be better off just arguing Mario fighting an amped Bowser in 2 is an outlier on his part, not arguing that he's secretly boosted despite it never being said while ignoring all the contradictions.

You didn't show proof that Mario isn't stronger too,

I don't need to? The burden of proof isn't on me. Various material lists off exactly what Mario gets, multiple times, no stat boost is ever included, we know what power of the stars entails can vary drastically, so we have no reason to assume any shared facets unless proven otherwise,
Btw the proof is we are told what he gains, stat amp not included.

I don't understand why you are so angry at people for needing time for a big game...

I'm not angry, if I was you'd know it. Though, not really? I skimmed through a all galaxy 1+2 boss video a few hours ago, only took like five minutes. And that's not counting the fact I don't care about all this superfluous info that doesn't matter, I want a statement.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

You literally listed off multiple examples where that isn't the case.
Blatant cherry picking, the existence of these contradictions and lack of a statement is just a statistical fallacy and confirmation bias.
You're merely ignoring what doesn't fit your narrative.

Dude. If you wanna flaunt your english major (******* lmao), the least you could do is read.

So you have 3 examples of jumps being more effective than spins (that aren't massive outliers, anyways), and 10 instances (11 if we're counting Tarantox, but that's whatever) of bosses that can't be harmed with jumps at all, ONLY spins (and a bunch of other bosses that defy both categories). The fact of the matter is, spin attacks being vastly above Mario's regular attacks outnumbers the opposite assertion by a factor of more than 3; At which point, the instances of jumps being above spins can safely be called outliers.

I admit there are contradictions. My point is not that there are no contradictions. My point is that the showings that support my interpretation are far more consistent than those contradictions. I would much rather have 3 anti-feats for my points than 10 anti-feats.

Say sike? The reason why people move slower in water is due to pressure, which is caused by the water's mass coupled with g-force right? Now imagine if, briefly, you can completely break free and defy gravity and unaffected be unaffected by it for just a moment.

Actually, never mind all that, because I legitimately can't find the source for the spin attack defying gravity or breaking gravitational fields, not in the games themselves or the manuals (it's not even on the wanked CSAP profiles, and they have a lot of scans if nothing else). So I'm not really inclined to take this as an argument until I can at least verify it exists lol

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I don't need to? The burden of proof isn't on me. Various material lists off exactly what Mario gets, multiple times, no stat boost is ever included, we know what power of the stars entails can vary drastically, so we have no reason to assume any shared facets unless proven otherwise,
Btw the proof is we are told what he gains, stat amp not included.


I'm not angry, if I was you'd know it. Though, not really? I skimmed through a all galaxy 1+2 boss video a few hours ago, only took like five minutes. And that's not counting the fact I don't care about all this superfluous info that doesn't matter, I want a statement.

Alright so this is reason enough to not bother arguing endlessly. Statements are not the end all be all. Mario's spin attack can harm enemies his jump cannot. This is shown almost a dozen times across both games. This means his spin attack is superior to his regular attack. This is basic deductive reasoning, and it's more or less how we treat every ability on this wiki. If character A hits character B with a regular attack and it does nothing, then uses a separate technique that severely damages character B, would you reject it because "there isn't a statement"? I would ******* hope not.

And the fact that you think him gaining abilities disproves anything is... ******* insane. I don't even know how to elaborate on this beyond that, we see him possess stronger attacks when using his spin attack, so it made him stronger, but it also gave him different abilities, so it did two things at once. This is not a novel concept, and just because one has a statement and one has only direct showings doesn't make the latter less valid.

 

[Chariot190]

Agree: Potemkat, Kirbonic, Fujiwara
Disagree: Chariot, Sniper, DDM, Fox, some discord mf,

Dude. If you wanna flaunt your english major (******* lmao), the least you could do is read.

I did, nothing of value was gained. Post statement btw.
Also lmao is right, shit's easy, I'm surprised I even had to break down basic english for anyone here.

I admit there are contradictions. My point is not that there are no contradictions. My point is that the showings that support my interpretation are far more consistent than those contradictions. I would much rather have 3 anti-feats for my points than 10 anti-feats.

Confirmation bias once again. I'm not sure you understand, there's nothing to support because the thing you're arguing is never said.
For this to actually support your argument it'd have to be 100% consistent, the fact there's not one, but MULTIPLE instances of things contradicting your claim, a claim never actually given, stated, nor confirmed in any material, basically has this amount to you just saying something and then going "see look! these don't contradict what I say!", without realizing that's an actual non-argument.

Anti-feats? Lad, none of these are anti-feats, it's just you grasping at straws trying to find instances that make sense alongside the claim you made, but nobody cares if you made the claim, the person who needs to actually make the claim is the game itself. You could argue ANYTHING the way you're doing it, no matter how untrue it is.

Actually, never mind all that, because I legitimately can't find the source for the spin attack defying gravity or breaking gravitational fields, not in the games themselves or the manuals (it's not even on the wanked CSAP profiles, and they have a lot of scans if nothing else). So I'm not really inclined to take this as an argument until I can at least verify it exists lol

This is funny because the OP literally linked it themselves lmao.

 

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

This is funny because the OP literally linked it themselves lmao.

You might wanna double check what source mentions disrupting gravity

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

You might wanna double check what source mentions disrupting gravity

MARIO SUPPORTERS STOP USING THE PRIMA GUIDE CHALLENGE (******* IMPOSSIBLE)

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Confirmation bias once again. I'm not sure you understand, there's nothing to support because the thing you're arguing is never said.
For this to actually support your argument it'd have to be 100% consistent, the fact there's not one, but MULTIPLE instances of things contradicting your claim, a claim never actually given, stated, nor confirmed in any material, basically has this amount to you just saying something and then going "see look! these don't contradict what I say!", without realizing that's an actual non-argument.

Anti-feats? Lad, none of these are anti-feats, it's just you grasping at straws trying to find instances that make sense alongside the claim you made, but nobody cares if you made the claim, the person who needs to actually make the claim is the game itself. You could argue ANYTHING the way you're doing it, no matter how untrue it is.

We have never required a statement for power boosts and the like, what are you talking about. Like, it is really the most basic bitch logic of "A can't harm B --> A uses special technique --> Special technique harms B --> Special technique is stronger than regular techniques". This is a very easy concept to demonstrate through images alone, and does not require words to be considered valid. Stop clinging to the notion of "statements >>> everything else", because while they are obviously important, visual evidence serves just as much of a purpose, and what do you know, the visual evidence is on my side.

Ans you know what's funny? After getting roasted for not using empirical evidence, turns out empirical evidence STILL isn't enough. We can literally see the increase in power the spin attack grants throughout the games, allowing us to harm enemies that are otherwise untouchable to everything else we can do.

 

[Chariot190]

Alright so this is reason enough to not bother arguing endlessly. Statements are not the end all be all.

They aren't, except when the statements go out of their way to explain what GML gives Mario, and in every instance, what you're insisting to happen isn't mentioned at any point.

Mario's spin attack can harm enemies his jump cannot.

And sometimes his jump can hurt enemies his spin cannot. And sometimes he jump can hurt enemies his spin can. And sometimes it's just the spin. There is no "the spin is far, far, more powerful", It can damage some enemies his normal moves cannot, and sometimes the opposite is true. For your argument to have any emrit, it'd have to be 100% spin only all the time on enemies and no contradiction can exist.
It's also very, very, bad for your argument when the dude with the 3-C shit can be harmed by non spin attacks, not even just a boss, but the ACTUAL DUDE with the insane feats can be harmed by attacks that aren't the cosmic spin.

This is shown almost a dozen times across both games.

And the opposite is shown multiple times as well. Statement or bust.

This means his spin attack is superior to his regular attack.

No, it means the spin attack is circumstantial and is better in some situations than his other moves, and sometimes his other moves are better too. There is no "it's betetr because it's a billion times stronger".
>This is basic deductive reasoning,
I'm calling it headcanon, sorry.

and it's more or less how we treat every ability on this wiki.

If we followed wiki standards, 95% of your arguments wouldn't mean anything.

If character A hits character B with a regular attack and it does nothing, then uses a separate technique that severely damages character B, would you reject it because "there isn't a statement"? I would ******* hope not.

I'd actually look across every instance first, look for contradictions, look what statements say, see what's used for what, if things can or can not be used in conjunction and more, before making a decision.
In this case we have multiple statements that suggest otherwise, a lack of solid evidence, the existence of multiple contradictions and hilariously enough, his normal attacks hurting the dude with the huge feats too.

And the fact that you think him gaining abilities disproves anything is... ******* insane.

"Mario gains the power of the stars, which is [these abilities]".
Clarification disproves the baseless notion brother.

I don't even know how to elaborate on this beyond that,
we see him possess stronger attacks when using his spin attack,

The best you could argue is the same ballpark due to, ya know, multiple contradictory instances in light of the absence of an actual statement saying as much?

so it made him stronger, but it also gave him different abilities, so it did two things at once.

Headcanon. We are told what the cosmic spin does, yeah sure it can damage people, but it sure as **** isn't decillions of times above his normal stats, this also ignores the cosmic spin is clarified as gravity manip, not a huge attack boost. And while it can damage enemies his normal attacks can, the opposite is also true, and sometimes both are true, this isn't evidence enough to base a whole argument upon. Also btw presumptions.

This is not a novel concept, and just because one has a statement and one has only direct showings doesn't make the latter less valid.

Direct showings but only if you ignore every contradiction, including the tremendously huge on in the game that sets all this up.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Headcanon. We are told what the cosmic spin does, yeah sure it can damage people, but it sure as **** isn't decillions of times above his normal stats, this also ignores the cosmic spin is clarified as gravity manip, not a huge attack boost. And while it can damage enemies his normal attacks can, the opposite is also true, and sometimes both are true, this isn't evidence enough to base a whole argument upon. Also btw presumptions.

In the ******* Prima Guide, which we do not use here and will never use. Also, who's to say it isn't (x) times greater than his base stats? This is just argument from incredulity, that being "Mario's spin attack can't make him THAT much stronger" with no elaboration beyond that. And yes, I'm aware the opposite is true. But the extent to which it is shown is much, much less than the opposite, which means it is very likely an outlier.

They aren't, except when the statements go out of their way to explain what GML gives Mario, and in every instance, what you're insisting to happen isn't mentioned at any point.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE MENTIONED. IT IS SHOWN. NOT EVERYTHING IS HANDED TO YOU IN A ******* BOOK, SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO USE YOUR EYES TO LOOK AT THINGS.

Like, this is legitimately just stonewalling at this point. We do not need statements, because the amp is demonstrated visually in 10 boss fights across 2 games.

 

[Chariot190]

You might wanna double check what source mentions disrupting gravity

An english source that doesn't contradict anything, which according to you is fine and dandy
Unless you're backpedaling?
have you even bothered to check the raws at all

We have never required a statement for power boosts and the like, what are you talking about. Like, it is really the most basic bitch logic of "A can't harm B --> A uses special technique --> Special technique harms B --> Special technique is stronger than regular techniques". This is a very easy concept to demonstrate through images alone, and does not require words to be considered valid. Stop clinging to the notion of "statements >>> everything else", because while they are obviously important, visual evidence serves just as much of a purpose, and what do you know, the visual evidence is on my side.

Ans you know what's funny? After getting roasted for not using empirical evidence, turns out empirical evidence STILL isn't enough. We can literally see the increase in power the spin attack grants throughout the games, allowing us to harm enemies that are otherwise untouchable to everything else we can do.

Strawman lmao, ironic as you've tried to call me out on that numerous times. It has nothing to with the fact it lacks a statement, but rather the fact we are told what GML gives Mario, multiple times, but in all those instances, despite going out of it's way to tell us what he does, it never mentions a stat boost.
It also clarified multiple times GML gives Mario various abilities and so on, as to the context of Mario "gaining powers".

In this case it's abscene of what you claim in statements that by all intents would list it if it was the case. Couple that with numerous contradictions, especially in the game that establishes all this, and yes, I don't buy into your headcanon.

MARIO SUPPORTERS STOP USING THE PRIMA GUIDE CHALLENGE (******* IMPOSSIBLE)

Not a supporter, I actually don't agree with 3-C Mario, I'm fine with him getting downgrade, I just don't agree with the ass backwards logic for why he should be.
Like if you're gonna downgrade him, at least do it right instead of with headcanon.

"we see tha-", only if you ignore all the things that say otherwise, that isn't empirical evidence, it's cherry picking and circumstantial evidence.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

dude

it is 3 (three) examples of mario's jumps being above his spin attack

vs

10 (ten) examples of his spin attacks being better

do you have ANY ******* idea what an outlier is, chariot

 

[Chariot190]

In the ******* Prima Guide, which we do not use here and will never use. Also, who's to say it isn't (x) times greater than his base stats?

Ah but we can use TCG cards and non-canon english websites right?

This is just argument from incredulity, that being "Mario's spin attack can't make him THAT much stronger" with no elaboration beyond that.

I did elaborate, like five times.
We are shown, time and time again, that it isn't always the case, it's circumstantial, sometimes it's effective, sometimes his normal attacks are more effective, and sometimes both or neither. You're taking some examples and arguing that they support you, but in reality, cherry picking.

And yes, I'm aware the opposite is true. But the extent to which it is shown is much, much less than the opposite, which means it is very likely an outlier.

It has nothing to do with extent, it could be true 99% of the time, without actual solid confirmation otherwise, it's still cherry picking and ignorance of the multiple contradictions.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

This thread been a wild ride to read indeed

I agree with Chariot tho