-
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.
NSP Profiles
- Thread starter Unoriginal_Memes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- editing rules site rules
- 18,196
- 19,620
Now that I've looked through all their videos (comprehensive notes here), a few things.
Why does Danny scale to Brian? There's only two times where Danny tanks an attack from Brian, and these could be written off as Brian going easy on him, while every other time (around a dozen feats) have Danny being injured heavily by Brian.
There's around 4 high AP feats (tier 6 and above, although there's nothing in tier 7 or the higher end of tier 8), but 5 low (can't be above tier 9) anti-feats of Danny failing to do things of that caliber (they're not casual feats, they're struggling/failing to do things a tier 9 can easily do). Ignoring all the times that PIS or scaling insanely high has to be applied to random fodder for visuals and song plots to make sense. So why si 4-C the one rating that's being stuck with?
Why does Danny scale to Brian? There's only two times where Danny tanks an attack from Brian, and these could be written off as Brian going easy on him, while every other time (around a dozen feats) have Danny being injured heavily by Brian.
There's around 4 high AP feats (tier 6 and above, although there's nothing in tier 7 or the higher end of tier 8), but 5 low (can't be above tier 9) anti-feats of Danny failing to do things of that caliber (they're not casual feats, they're struggling/failing to do things a tier 9 can easily do). Ignoring all the times that PIS or scaling insanely high has to be applied to random fodder for visuals and song plots to make sense. So why si 4-C the one rating that's being stuck with?
Where does Danny canonically have regen from?WeeklyBattles said:
- 64,025
- 16,076
Yeah, slow age process
WoG states that Danny > Brian
He has regen from the fact that he's consistently regenerated from damage that he takes, like being torn apart, turned into mist, and cut in half
WoG states that Danny > Brian
He has regen from the fact that he's consistently regenerated from damage that he takes, like being torn apart, turned into mist, and cut in half
- 2,616
- 166
Would it be possible it's resurrection? I don't think it's wrong to be regen though but depending on the highest thing that 'seemingly killed him' we could get a really good rating of regen.
- 64,025
- 16,076
He was horizontally bisected by Brian (Even continued talking about how inconvenient it was while he was in two pieces) and was turned into a bloody bist
- 18,196
- 19,620
Slow age process? What do you mean by that?WeeklyBattles said:
That he aged from 0 to 12 in over 2000 years and then aged from 12 to 36 in 24?
WoG should be used to back up feats, not be used in place of contradicting feats.
When are they ever shown to be regenerating from those things though? Are you just assuming that since there's no continuity for their death that it means that they regenerate?
- 2,616
- 166
I think the latter's a low high. Pretty solid regen
- 18,196
- 19,620
- 2,616
- 166
Was figuring it was that. Damn. That's kinda a bummer. Possibly 'this ability' is an option maybe?
- 4,557
- 1,153
I can't find the recording, but I recall them saying that Ninja Brian has snapped every neck throughout all of time and space simultaneously
- 18,196
- 19,620
Bump:
1. Why do we assume Danny regenerated from all these things?
2. What do you mean by slow age process? How does that fix all these contradictions?
3. Why are we using WoG when it contradicts feats, rather than to back up feats? (For scaling Danny to Brian)
4. Why are either of them at 4-C in light of all the other feats I've found?
1. Why do we assume Danny regenerated from all these things?
2. What do you mean by slow age process? How does that fix all these contradictions?
3. Why are we using WoG when it contradicts feats, rather than to back up feats? (For scaling Danny to Brian)
4. Why are either of them at 4-C in light of all the other feats I've found?
- 64,025
- 16,076
1 Because WoG and feats says he did
4 Because lower feats dont contradict higher feats
4 Because lower feats dont contradict higher feats
- 18,196
- 19,620
1. What WoG? And I've never seen those feats, where are they?
4. That 4-C feat itself has serious doubts about it (sunlight continues shining, the sun appears in future videos). Why would we ever take a stellar object-busting feat seriously when we never see the actual effects of it and just see a cartoony sun at head-level get destroyed?
4. That 4-C feat itself has serious doubts about it (sunlight continues shining, the sun appears in future videos). Why would we ever take a stellar object-busting feat seriously when we never see the actual effects of it and just see a cartoony sun at head-level get destroyed?
- 64,025
- 16,076
1. If you went through the music videos you have in fact seen them
4. You do know that sunlight would continue to hit the earth for a bit after the sun itself is destroyed right?
4. You do know that sunlight would continue to hit the earth for a bit after the sun itself is destroyed right?
- 18,196
- 19,620
1. I must be extremely blind since I was looking for it and never saw it.
4. The cartoon sun was shown to be next to their heads which was destroyed. And if the sun itself was destroyed it shouldn't have been able to appear multiple times in later videos (and it shouldn't have gotten destroyed a second time along with every planet in the solar system).
4. The cartoon sun was shown to be next to their heads which was destroyed. And if the sun itself was destroyed it shouldn't have been able to appear multiple times in later videos (and it shouldn't have gotten destroyed a second time along with every planet in the solar system).
- 12,807
- 8,633
The sun destruction feels really familiar to the moon destruction by Master Roshi in Dragon Ball, in which it is little more than a throwaway feat rather than making any actual logical sense doesn't it? And as Agnaa states, Sun returning makes it feel exactly the same as the DB feat, which was deemed an outlier BTW
CinnabarManx421
He/Him- 5,853
- 3,811
Why were the profiles deleted? Or is that just a problem on my end?
Jackythejack
They/Them- 20,935
- 1,825
Deleted because they didn't meet standards I guess
- 12,638
- 414
Said to be wanked, youtube personalities and music "personalities" aka someone like Michael Jackson or characters like that.
CinnabarManx421
He/Him- 5,853
- 3,811
They were working on fixing it above but whatever.
- 64,025
- 16,076
By this logic shouldnt any live action movie or tv character be deleted for being just the personas of the actors portraying them?Mr. Bambu said:
- 12,807
- 8,633
These were actual stage personas for when they perform as well. It's like me making a Panic!AtTheDisco profile taking every youtube music video as canon
- 16,476
- 9,399
CinnabarManx421
He/Him- 5,853
- 3,811
I feel like the profiles should at least have a chance to be cleaned up without having them deleted forever.
- 12,807
- 8,633
It wasn't because of cleanup though, the profiles had questionable canon, and were more than likely to be classified as stage personas rather than actual characters.
Idk, if you provide some legitimate reasons for it not being as such in a CRT, maybe the pages can be restored
Idk, if you provide some legitimate reasons for it not being as such in a CRT, maybe the pages can be restored
- 2,688
- 574
- Thread starter
- #190
"Also, deleting these profiles was the standard in the past for content that might be inappropriate for younger readers."
This point has been refuted already. The profiles were adjusted to be more friendly and it was more comedy than it was inappropriate. There are also several profiles here that can be argued to be highly inappropriate for younger readers
This point has been refuted already. The profiles were adjusted to be more friendly and it was more comedy than it was inappropriate. There are also several profiles here that can be argued to be highly inappropriate for younger readers
- 12,807
- 8,633
Shouldn't this thread be closed?
If people are so insistent on restoring the NSP pages then they should be making a CRT instead. Discussing this on a General Discussion thread is somewhat pointless.
If people are so insistent on restoring the NSP pages then they should be making a CRT instead. Discussing this on a General Discussion thread is somewhat pointless.
Similar threads
