Power Stars Low 2-C Upgrade

[Foxthefox1000]

DDM already agreed to a "possibly Low 2-C" while DRB flat-out disagrees because "we can't assume 'World' means a universe or that they are the same size just because they call the main universe and these paintings worlds the same general term"

However, Illuzivert and many others have brought up how in order to encompass the main universe, the Power Stars would have to make these worlds 4-D and/or expand infinitely. Regardless of if it would "happen over time" or not, that's still an upgrade. The Void, The Rift, and other feats where something expands to eventually effect all of reality are still given those tiers because the power that set it off/sustains it would have to have such power to start it/do so. Also, can you even make a finite object or concept infinite with any amount of time anyways? Seems counterintuitive.

And if we're really gonna argue it's simply just size manip then that's a feat of infinite speed for the Power Star(s).

Others like Gyro disagree with the descriptiors like bottomless and infinite underworlds because they liken that to the notion of a bottomless pit and therefore game mechanics or something.

However, I disagree with this because unlike other examples of bottomless pits in gaming, these ones were:

1.) Specifcally created by Bowser and not just pits in an overworld with no explanation

2.) They describe the dimensions of the world they inhabit. A dimension Bowser created was stated to have no bottom. A dimension he created was said to have infinite underworlds. Two examples describing the dimensions of these dimensions and both are written off like some game mechanic.

Why can't these be taken literally?
Especially when Bowser specifically created these worlds and "has no bottom" and "infinite" are descriptors of these worlds? Why treat these similarly as well when different words and phrasing are used? Hell, we even have a direct pit being referred to as bottomless fron earlier in the thread trying to be used as an example against these, but why not use that phrasing for the others as well? It's because unlike the pit, the examples we have refer to the dimensions of the world as a whole.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So I'll try to say it again.

Bowser created the painting worlds in 64, the Japanese translations are the same as English, so we're done with all of that.

The term "world" in 64 has stated to be "all of reality", "real world". And they will use the term "world" for Bowser's paintings in both the same context and sentence, they'll also refer to it as "another world" in comparison to Mario's. The paintings have also been described as an "infinite underworld" and "bottomless" on two different occasions.

So in short. Their definition of "world" in this game means universe (all of reality, real world), and Bowser's paintings are also referred to as another world. They're described as bottomless/infinite underworlds.

DDM already agreed to a "possibly Low 2-C" while DRB flat-out disagrees because "we can't assume 'World' means a universe or that they are the same size just because they call the main universe and these paintings worlds the same general term"

However, Illuzivert and many others have brought up how in order to encompass the main universe, the Power Stars would have to make these worlds 4-D and/or expand infinitely. Regardless of if it would "happen over time" or not, that's still an upgrade. The Void, The Rift, and other feats where something expands to eventually effect all of reality are still given those tiers because the power that set it off/sustains it would have to have such power to start it/do so. Also, can you even make a finite object or concept infinite with any amount of time anyways? Seems counterintuitive.

And if we're really gonna argue it's simply just size manip then that's a feat of infinite speed for the Power Star(s).

Others like Gyro disagree with the descriptiors like bottomless and infinite underworlds because they liken that to the notion of a bottomless pit and therefore game mechanics or something.

However, I disagree with this because unlike other examples of bottomless pits in gaming, these ones were:

1.) Specifcally created by Bowser and not just pits in an overworld with no explanation

2.) They describe the dimensions of the world they inhabit. A dimension Bowser created was stated to have no bottom. A dimension he created was said to have infinite underworlds. Two examples describing the dimensions of these dimensions and both are written off like some game mechanic.

Why can't these be taken literally?
Especially when Bowser specifically created these worlds and "has no bottom" and "infinite" are descriptors of these worlds? Why treat these similarly as well when different words and phrasing are used? Hell, we even have a direct pit being referred to as bottomless fron earlier in the thread trying to be used as an example against these, but why not use that phrasing for the others as well? It's because unlike the pit, the examples we have refer to the dimensions of the world as a whole.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Dino_Ranger_Black @GyroNutz

What do you think about the above?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know earlier I said possibly Low 2-C is fine. And there are conflicting translations, but I do overall think LuckyEmile explained the wordings best yeah. I suppose I'm back to saying possibly Low 2-C is okay. Though for different reasons than Gyro; he didn't like the Infinite size references but was okay with them being called worlds/dimensions that can eventually expand and dominate the real world iirc that's what he loosely said.

Dino said he wishes not to continue any further in his last post; though he still strongly disagrees with Tier 2 Power Stars yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It seems to have been more or less accepted then, but we would have to work out which other characters that should scale to which feats, given that making virtually all Mario Bros character Low 2-C seems very exaggerated.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Okay. It seems to have been more or less accepted then, but we would have to work out which other characters that should scale to which feats, given that making virtually all Mario Bros character Low 2-C seems very exaggerated.

I can make another thread that will discuss the scaling for the verse as a whole, but that will be done after this and another thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Please remember to notify me, Dino, Medeus, and Gyro about it.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

So what is there left to do here? Get more staff?

 

[DatOneWeeb]

So what is there left to do here? Get more staff?

I think we have enough support by now, as said by Ant. Personally I would wait for the final thread then the scaling discussion before we start applying it to the profiles.

 

[Starsprite53]

 

[y3p_owo]

So what's the other thread going to be about?

 

[Lou_change]

Who outside of star children scale but can someone tell if they are making this.

 

[Antvasima]

So what's the other thread going to be about?

It seems like we will decide which characters that should scale to what.

I think we have enough support by now, as said by Ant. Personally I would wait for the final thread then the scaling discussion before we start applying it to the profiles.

Yes. Agreed.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

So what's the other thread going to be about?

First it will be discussing three last feats, and after that, then I can organize a thread discussing scaling for characters, bosses, fodders, items, etc etc.

 

[y3p_owo]

K

 

[Lou_change]

Which three feats

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Which three feats

Shadow Queen, Bowser, and Olly.

Yes. Agreed.

So can we say this thread is concluded so I can move on to the next?

 

[Antvasima]

So can we say this thread is concluded so I can move on to the next?

I think so, yes.

You can start the new thread and link to it here. After that, I or somebody else can close this one.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

You can start the new thread and link to it here. After that, I or somebody else can close this one.

Here it is.

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks. I will close this then.