• 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.

More Star Wars Revisions (JUST JANGO FETT and LIGHTSABER STUFF LEFT TO DISCUSS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you agree it's not relevant, then you haven't provided any proof that Papatine grew stronger at all. Other Force users growing stronger doesn't mean he necessarily grew stronger.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
They don't even have feats back then. When did Palpatine and Yoda and Windu have actual quantifiable feats?
Click to expand...
Well, this doesn't matter. We rank stats as accuarate as possible, if they can't scale to this super big feat but they still scale above the next best thing then that's how things are.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
If you agree it's not relevant, then you haven't provided any proof that Papatine grew stronger at all. Other Force users growing stronger doesn't mean he necessarily grew stronger.
Click to expand...
I didn't show any proof but idk what you mean by the the there. It's the most likely thing to claim when ranking stats in a timeline as such saying that he was always as powerful is what needs proof.
 
The other is the headcanon, no anti-feats need to be shown for something that wasn't there to be claimed that it wasn't there. I could think of stuff Yoda and Mace failed to do, but I don't need to.
 
You're the one saying he grew stronger you should prove it.

According to your logic we should make separate keys for Palpatine every day of the series because there's no prove he didn't grow stronger every day.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
You're the one saying he grew stronger you should prove it.
According to your logic we should make separate keys for Palpatine every day of the series because there's no prove he didn't grow stronger every day.
Click to expand...
You know I was wondering what the other people who disagree with me on this think of all the replies everyone give me on the matter; do they think they are reasonable? Because most of the replies I got have a super clear "you need to say this to point out how it's wrong" in it. This one here is an exaggeration of that.
 
Let me fix that for what it really is.

Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Because they are correct. If you want to make a claim that he wasn't as strong before you need evidence, either by actual statements or at least actual contradicting feats.
Click to expand...
There we go, and no.

@Hellbeast1 Take out your disk and clean it. It's scratched or something.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Burden of proof Fallacy. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, aka claiming that he was stronger in this case.
Click to expand...
This is how I see that fallacy here.

Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Burden of proof Fallacy. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, aka claiming that he was always as strong in this case.
Click to expand...
Let's go back to the past, good old Clone Wars, Sidious is there; because you guys says so he's as powerful as a feat he would make years in the future. That's the positive claim that needs proof. Years later, Sidious does his feat, I'm not saying he got stronger as much as I'm saying that he wasn't able to do the same before, I'm not messing with the status quo, you guys are by ranking the Sidious now to the Sidious before. "I'm not saying" is poetic, if that needed to be said (as always I mean that no, it doesn't need to be said).
 
We don't need to prove Sidious didn't grow stronger, our argument is that if you can't prove he did grow stronger we assume he didn't. Using this logic, if a character performs a certain feat, it doesn't scale to the character before he performed that feat because he never performed feats on that level ever.
 
Speaking of Sidious, I heard in a VFX video discussing the Exegol scenes stated there were over 16,000 ships in the galaxy fleet that arrived at Exegol. Would that do anything for him?
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
We don't need to prove Sidious didn't grow stronger, our argument is that if you can't prove he did grow stronger we assume he didn't. Using this logic, if a character performs a certain feat, it doesn't scale to the character before he performed that feat because he never performed feats on that level ever.
Click to expand...
That would be me proving a negative for no reason, nothing puts him at that level before but you and that doesn't need to go away via proof, that should have been added via proof. If there was as much of a big timeframe as it is here then yes, you wouldn't a scale prior character to a feat made by another years in the future when the latter could have made itself more powerful, what will be the next false equivalence? There was no need for neither of them, you do know that your "we should make separate keys for Palpatine every day of the series" does the same, no?
 
The fact is that we do not know Palpatine grew stronger, there is zero evidence of that and it's just you assuming so. You're the one making the positive claim, you should prove it.

Yes, we do scale feats a character made years in the future if they aren't said to grow stronger, indeed.
 
@Ef

For the final time, provide evidence of your claims, stop hiding behind witty remarks or you cam frankly stop wasting everyone's time by dragging out this issue
 
The ship stuff should be fine to apply since it's blatantly against our Multiplier guidelines.

I don't like tallying votes since quantity does not equate to being correct, but I will do so for the Jango stuff.

Agree: Eficiente, LordTracer, TISSG7Redgrave, BruceTheBatman, Lavtop, Lorenzo.r.2nd

Disagree: Hellbeast1

Neutral/Uncertain: Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan, ByAsura, DarkDragonMedeus

More input is probably needed ig.
 
We need a turbolaser and Ion cannon profile foe light medium heavy and super heavy. Imperial class should be at least country level ir should not be inferior to the venator and vary superior something liker the mandator should be country level atack potency and the supremacy her ;line line turbolasers should be much more powerful than the resurgent class and scale to the matadors orbital automatic cannons. starkiller base needs upgrading anf the xyston needs to be large planet level cause it blow up a near earth sized planet in mere second with at least inter planetary range should not be inferior to the death stars maximum ranges and should be much more durbailtry than the matador or the supremacy dreadnoughts. and the super laser siege cannon needs to be at least large island to country level should be even more powerful than most mainline turbolasers and should scale to miniaturized death star tech. The weapon is massive enough to likley make able to take even capital ship grade turbolasers in the large island to country level for at least a while. and the ion pulse cannon form the clone wars needs its own profile and the ship does too if it lacks one. that seems good to me people sorry the post is so long tooke a ahile to read the others before this one and it really did take awhile for me to do that with long posts some of you made please tell me if i am wrong so that i can correct it if i need to
 
Let's save that for later. This thread is about something else entirely.
 
Sorry about that but do you agree with some of my points thier I just though it would be nice to bring some of that stuff up and we can save it for later makes much more sense that way to be fair I am new to this disscuion about whatever you peoples are talking about hope I did not derail the posts to much thanks for being kind thier I really do like that about you
 
And so the betrayer is betrayed

as it should be

(though I mean it could be worse, you could have made an argument and brought no proof of it)
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
>Spino doesn't count your vote

The betrayal... I will change my name to LephyrLordOfBetrayal. ovo
Click to expand...
I knew I was missing someone.

Agree: Eficiente, LordTracer, TISSG7Redgrave, BruceTheBatman, Lavtop, Lorenzo.r.2nd, LephyrTheRevanchist

Disagree: Hellbeast1

Neutral/Uncertain: Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan, ByAsura, DarkDragonMedeus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

StoneKillerz12
Star Wars Cosmology Revision (Part 1 of 4: Legends Cosmology Overview)
4 5 6
Replies
218
Views
14K
HammerStrikes219
HammerStrikes219
Alsotime
  • Locked
Rey Skywalker
Replies
23
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Bernkastelll
Rise of the Guardians downgrade or reword
Replies
4
Views
784
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
DaReaperMan
Darth Vader eats lightsaber
Replies
25
Views
3K
Marvel_Champion_07
Marvel_Champion_07
Danganronpa Speed Revisions
Replies
13
Views
690
Queen_Dasania
Back
Top