Soni- I mean! Mario Bros AP Revision/Upgrade! (M&L Brothership Spoilers)

[Eden_Warlock99]

Why wouldn't we just go with the lowest interpretation? Instead of just, completely ignoring the feat?

 

[Chariot190]

Hiding the outlier yadda. Like yeah it could be 6-A (or even 6-B), or it could be 5-B, 5-A, 5-C, High 5-A, low 4-C, hell I mean technically speaking it could probably even get above star lv depending on speed and the temp shift.

Using it as support for the lowest stuff, is just assuming the feat in question is that level and calling it a ay. What if the statement is actually a 4-C statement? How does that support 6-A?

It only acts as support if you use the lowest possible interpretation, but if we were arguing Mario was 5-B instead, would it be ok to use that statement as support there too because in theory it COULD be a 5-B feat too?

It's just arbitrarily picking an end out of literally trillions and going "it COULD be this so it's support", it's not at all solid.

there's better stuff to cling to anyway, ice feats suck to scale

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Hiding the outlier yadda. Like yeah it could be 6-A (or even 6-B), or it could be 5-B, 5-A, 5-C, High 5-A, low 4-C, hell I mean technically speaking it could probably even get above star lv depending on speed and the temp shift.

Using it as support for the lowest stuff, is just assuming the feat in question is that level and calling it a ay. What if the statement is actually a 4-C statement? How does that support 6-A?

It only acts as support if you use the lowest possible interpretation, but if we were arguing Mario was 5-B instead, would it be ok to use that statement as support there too because in theory it COULD be a 5-B feat too?

It's just arbitrarily picking an end out of literally trillions and going "it COULD be this so it's support", it's not at all solid.

there's better stuff to cling to anyway, ice feats suck to scale

isnt the point is because there's a bunch of unknown variable and such that we use the lowest one..?

 

[Accelerated_Evolution]

Hiding the outlier yadda. Like yeah it could be 6-A (or even 6-B), or it could be 5-B, 5-A, 5-C, High 5-A, low 4-C, hell I mean technically speaking it could probably even get above star lv depending on speed and the temp shift.

Using it as support for the lowest stuff, is just assuming the feat in question is that level and calling it a ay. What if the statement is actually a 4-C statement? How does that support 6-A?

It only acts as support if you use the lowest possible interpretation, but if we were arguing Mario was 5-B instead, would it be ok to use that statement as support there too because in theory it COULD be a 5-B feat too?

It's just arbitrarily picking an end out of literally trillions and going "it COULD be this so it's support", it's not at all solid.

there's better stuff to cling to anyway, ice feats suck to scale

The Wonder Flower feat ins't being used as a support for the High 6-A proposal, though

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

Thing is, we always go with the low-end when feats are vague, this happens in like practically every verse I know? We don't disregard surface wipe statements cause those feats can reach 5-A with KE and as such become an outlier for High 6-A, no?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Thing is, we always go with the low-end when feats are vague, this happens in like practically every verse I know? We don't disregard surface wipe statements cause those feats can reach 5-A with KE and as such become an outlier for High 6-A, no?

I think tossing away something altogether that's clearly a pretty good feat or statement just because "well it could be higher than the low end who knows" is very reductive and generally goes against how things are done on the wiki.

 

[Chariot190]

isnt the point is because there's a bunch of unknown variable and such that we use the lowest one..?

That shit don't work when the gap is like 100000000000x any it can realistically be ANY of those and just going with the lowest possible interpretation and acting like it's legitimate support is just cherry picking a end to suit one's needs. Like you didn't answer the question, if instead of 6-A, we were arguing 5-B, would it suddenly be a supporting feat for 5-B because it could be that level as well?

The lowest possible interpretation isn't support for High 6-A anyway, it's like a hundred times lower so it's just a weird one off standalone "feat" if you assume the lowest possible means.

Thing is, we always go with the low-end when feats are vague, this happens in like practically every verse I know? We don't disregard surface wipe statements cause those feats can reach 5-A with KE and as such become an outlier for High 6-A, no?

We actually do. A surface wipe statement has a general ballpark it's going to be in, after a certain point it's no longer surface wiping.
But that only works even then if we have info like timeframe, singular attack, etc.

If someone just said they could surface wipe without elaborating, we wouldn't do shit because even a supersonic 8-C could raze the planet if given the chance.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

We actually do. A surface wipe statement has a general ballpark it's going to be in, after a certain point it's no longer surface wiping.
But that only works even then if we have info like timeframe, singular attack, etc.

If someone just said they could surface wipe without elaborating, we wouldn't do shit because even a supersonic 8-C could raze the planet if given the chance.

Dont think questioning timeframe really works here either since it would have to freeze the sun fast enough in order to not just get melted while it's happening. Singular attack or not dunno

 

[Chariot190]

Dont think questioning timeframe really works here either since it would have to freeze the sun fast enough in order to not just get melted while it's happening. Singular attack or not dunno

You realize that in itself is a huge range right? It could be half a second, or it could literally take like a few dozen million years.
And that isn't even me being hyperbolic, the minimum timeframe would be about that. What needs to be outpaced is the sun's radiative processes and nuclear fusion, the ice flower ig in this context would be cooling it faster than the Sun generates heat and radiates it. The sun's big heat energy of ten fucktrillion joules (idk i forget the exact value, i just copied it off google and did the math), would makes the process long af, leading to a minimum timeframe of around 30-40 million years. But you also need to remember, the cooling continuously offsets the Sun’s heat production and radiation. The freezing outpaces thawing because the heat removal surpasses the Sun's natural energy replenishment through nuclear fusion and radiative loss, it's basically a net-loss thing, if we're talking the BARE minimum needed to simply outpace the sun's ability to thaw itself, while freezing it over, it would literally be something dumb like 40 million years due to the scale of the sun itself. that's the tldr but like, you get me dude.

But that's JUST the minimum based on your own argument.
The very fact the ice is cold enough to freeze millions of degrees hot plasma means thawing that shit out, ain't even a concern really if we're being realistic, I doubt the intent behind the statement was "it'll take like a million years lmao".

Which also brings into question the temperature shift, in order to freeze the core the temp drop would need to be nearly -273c, almost AZ, but if that's how cold the Ice Flower is, the freezing the outer layers of a sun would be piss easy in theory? But freezing the outer layers would also inversely effect the sun's own radiative energy and fusion processes as halfassedly explained above right? So that's a whole other can of worms.

I could go on, you really don't get how ass and or how dumb this feat could be, the actual science behind it is obnoxious af i looked into a bit for metroid

There's no less than 5 variable factors to the statement in question, each one working as a sliding scale, effecting each other, and thus the result.

 

[TartaChocholate]

We don't have tier 7 Plat despite the existence of like 3-4 feats on that scale that could be argued to scale if you squint when they have like 200 feats around 8-C with some of the higher ones taking effort for good reason.

Ah, ya. I legit didn't know that regarding Jojo. And come to think about it, given this answer is coming from you, Zelda also has some pretty measured tiering all things considered. Also, you and Dust also wanted to give it a go with FFVII Remake, but then I butted in being stupid and killed the mood >_>;

 

[DaReaperMan]

Ah, ya. I legit didn't know that regarding Jojo. And come to think about it, given this answer is coming from you, Zelda also has some pretty measured tiering all things considered. Also, you and Dust also wanted to give it a go with FFVII Remake, but then I butted in being stupid and killed the mood >_>;

Oh so you killed the mood huh? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[The_Almighty_Wholesome]

I agree with High 6-A myself, and in my opinion should be valid to use, though it’s not like my peasant tier vote is substantial in the end lmao

 

[Armorchompy]

I brought different evidence up two posts above you than what was brought up before.

And I don't really agree with it. Mario can at best scratch through Bowser's defense with his strongest attack but still never really standing a chance to win before Bowser even utilizes his full power, at which point he's 100% invincible, that's not really evidence for scaling.

Shouldn't you just take the lowest end then?

That's pretty disingenuous when the lowest end just so happens to support what is currently being pushed for and no other interpretation of the feat does. Anyways I honestly don't really see a reason for "freezing a star" to be assumed to just be the surface, that Metroid calc was used for a pretty specific context where that was stated to be the case. Normally if you froze the surface of a star that'd just be melted away in seconds, the insides are pretty hot too.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

That's pretty disingenuous when the lowest end just so happens to support what is currently being pushed for and no other interpretation of the feat does. Anyways I honestly don't really see a reason for "freezing a star" to be assumed to just be the surface, that Metroid calc was used for a pretty specific context where that was stated to be the case. Normally if you froze the surface of a star that'd just be melted away in seconds, the insides are pretty hot too.

I guess freezing the entirety makes more sense. But with how mario is currently treated on the wiki that'd just be an outlier so rip.

 

[ShakeResounding]

Well, realistically, what made freezing the Sun High 6-A was that it was only a portion (iirc only the surface), so realistically it likely couldn't be that end.

Is there nobody to check the validity of the Low 4-C sun-freeze calc? Might be years old but afaik ArbitraryNumbers used to be either a CGM or administrator. Could be worth evaluating (unless there are glaring errors I'm unaware of).

Anyways, updated the OP with the current tally.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It's pretty crazy something so blatant and inoffensive as this has as much scrutiny as it does.

Yeah let's just ignore feats guys.

 

[Mephistus]

And I don't really agree with it. Mario can at best scratch through Bowser's defense with his strongest attack but still never really standing a chance to win before Bowser even utilizes his full power, at which point he's 100% invincible, that's not really evidence for scaling.

What there says it's a scratch? It's no different than hitting any other enemy and wincing in pain or any different animation than when you hit Bowser before he pulls out the star rod.
You can do the final attack with Mario or a partner to break the barrier entirely and make him flee regardless in the first phase. This, a long with not getting pushed over and fainting in a single hit or somesuch by the star rods attacks / his physical star rod amped strength like in the battle when he kidnaps peach. Bowser fighting Mario prior to fleeing to the power platform IS the full power of the star rod, he amd his partners clearly outmatched him.

 

[Armorchompy]

What there says it's a scratch? It's no different than hitting any other enemy and wincing in pain or any different animation than when you hit Bowser before he pulls out the star rod.
You can do the final attack with Mario or a partner to break the barrier entirely and make him flee regardless in the first phase. This, a long with not getting pushed over and fainting in a single hit or somesuch by the star rods attacks / his physical star rod amped strength like in the battle when he kidnaps peach. Bowser fighting Mario prior to fleeing to the power platform IS the full power of the star rod, he amd his partners clearly outmatched him.

He literally says that he isn't using the Star Rod's power as its fullest outright, and the second he begins to Mario is no longer capable of hurting him. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something but this seems really straightforward.

 

[JJSliderman]

Doesn’t he have to use the power platform to get to that level (which is an amp)

 

[Armorchompy]

To my understanding he's just using the platform in the first phase, or at least not going all out with the Rod. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense for him to be capable of buffing himself even further.

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

I assume the calc is meant for the Star Rod's AP (Mario can tank its attacks pretty sure), not the Invincibility it gives Bowser.

 

[JJSliderman]

To my understanding he's just using the platform in the first phase, or at least not going all out with the Rod. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense for him to be capable of buffing himself even further.

He doesn’t use the platform at first, that’s the phase Mario can overcome the rod without the star beam, then he uses the platform to amp himself so Mario needs Peach Beam to overcome the star rod.

 

[Armorchompy]

I assume the calc is meant for the Star Rod's AP (Mario can tank its attacks pretty sure), not the Invincibility it gives Bowser.

But there's no reason to assume it can buff him to its level of power if we know for a fact that there's a huge gap between how much AP and Durability it can give him. The Star Rod's own feat is completely dissimilar from statistics amplification so it's not like you can say "oh they're both AP so they're equal, Durability just upscales", that's just not something you can assume without further evidence, it's already an assumption to say something like that happens by default but when there's outright proof that it can't just boost his stats equally that's much worse.

He doesn’t use the platform at first, that’s the phase Mario can overcome the rod without the star beam, then he uses the platform to amp himself so Mario needs Peach Beam to overcome the star rod.

He does use the platform.

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

But there's no reason to assume it can buff him to its level of power if we know for a fact that there's a huge gap between how much AP and Durability it can give him. The Star Rod's own feat is completely dissimilar from statistics amplification so it's not like you can say "oh they're both AP so they're equal, Durability just upscales", that's just not something you can assume without further evidence, it's already an assumption to say something like that happens by default but when there's outright proof that it can't just boost his stats equally that's much worse.

I just don't take the invincibility as a durability amp, more like ya know, Invulnerability?

 

[Yasuda_144]

He does use the platform.

You're talking about a completely different fight; the one being referred to is what speedrunners call "Hallway Bowser", which as its name implies takes place in the same hallway the prologue fight did; this is the one where you can damage Bowser even through his Star Rod amp, and the only reason you can't in the second is that the Star Rod itself is also amped by the platform, to the point where the Star Spirits needed to be empowered by the wishes of the Mushroom Kingdom residents just to be able to counteract it.