• 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.
All I really got was that the End could wipe out everything that had ever been created, which really isn’t requiring being conceptual.
 
Unlike the concept stuff I think the End’s statement does support AE, it’s basically the same as Void from Kirby.

Same with the planetoid form being > Solaris, it gives Sonic an extremely hard fight long after ‘06.
 
I agree. Don’t forget supers also get conceptual manipulation for being able to interact with The End.
Question: why concept manip and not NPI? As far as I remember, just interacting with concepts has never granted you concept manip over NPI; I think you need more than just interaction to prove that a character has concept manip
 
Does anyone have in-game contradictions to counter The End’s words?
Contradictions to what? The End's word have to go under an interpretation of an individual to get these abilities. Why do WE have to prove a negative?
It's verbatim - "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", this isn't extraordinary evidence, you're just agreeing because you want the character to have said ability, even though you recognize the evidence for it is poor at best.
Also, Hitchen's Razor, weak evidence can be countered with weak arguments.

Evidence: "The End said X, and can be interpreted as Y"

Counter: "It can also be interpreted as any other thing, or just plain arrogance".


We shouldn't be giving abilities based on an interpretation of a statement of an unreliable source. But we're going to because Staff can walk over "democracy". Ridiculous.
 
But I’m leaning to a “likely” rating for Concept manip instead of a straight rating for it. The End’s words hold value if that’s the narrative the creators want to go in.
 
But we're going to because Staff can walk over "democracy". Ridiculous.
Most people disagree with you, tho. You're outvoted by both normal members and staff.

I still don't see any proof of The End's statments being unrealible as well. It's just people treating my own wording in the page as WoG for some reason.
 
Because the author and creators of “The End” gave The End those words. You’d have to explain why interpreting The End’s words to mean nothing is an option by the story’s narrative.
I never said they don't mean nothing. I said they're weak evidence that require biased interpretation towards a particular meaning - and thus can be countered with a simple: "It also might mean something else, or just arrogance". Which is true.
If the one who made the hypothesis cannot bring any solice to their claim, then it's not even a theory, much less something we should index as a fact on The End's profile - we're quite literally joining canon with headcanon.
 
I never said they don't mean nothing. I said they're weak evidence that require biased interpretation towards a particular meaning - and thus can be countered with a simple: "It also might mean something else, or just arrogance". Which is true.
If the one who made the hypothesis cannot bring any solice to their claim, then it's not even a theory, much less something we should index as a fact on The End's profile - we're quite literally joining canon with headcanon.
Than what are the other interpretations of The End’s words? They have to mean something if the narrative made the final boss say them.
 
Most people disagree with you, tho. You're outvoted by both normal members and staff.
Most people - myself included - who voted for agree didn't even know The End had conceptual manipulation.
I still don't see any proof of The End's statments being unrealible as well. It's just people treating my own wording in the page as WoG for some reason.
His arrogance isn't being noted due to your words, no. You're just being pointed out that - "Hey, to literally agree about it's arrogance, why would you take it's word for it?", it's trying to make a point that you shouldn't be arguing for it being reliable in the first place.

What do you mean there's no evidence? It has been explained. If The End often talks about itself in arrogance, taking it's word for granted is risky, and unreliable without any solice

Furthermore, if it's talking about itself, why would we index that in his lesser form? This would be indexed in it's hypothetical true form, not this moon formation. We often forget Sonic never even interacted with the True The End.
 
"It could be" or "What if" aren't counters and will never be counters. They mean nothing
If it's not counters, how can it be arguments or evidence?
Your point is literally "it means this", when in reality it's "it could mean this".
 
Because the author and creators of “The End” gave The End those words. You’d have to explain why interpreting The End’s words to mean nothing is an option by the story’s narrative.
I just interpreted them as evidence the End could destroy the entire cosmology.
 
Than what are the other interpretations of The End’s words? They have to mean something if the narrative made the final boss say them.
A metaphor for the destruction of all, or simply a claim about how great it sees itself in comparison to rest of reality. It depends on basic methods of destruction to cause harm to the planet, and our dimension. Why would we interpret it as anything more than that based on such words?
 
A metaphor for the destruction of all, or simply a claim about how great it is compared
Why would the narrative use a metaphor or rather, misinformation for a character’s only major appearance? Who they wrote as unsympathetic and genocidal?
 
A metaphor for the destruction of all, or simply a claim about how great it sees itself in comparison to rest of reality. It depends on basic methods of destruction to cause harm to the planet, and our dimension. Why would we interpret it as anything more than that based on such words?
I don’t wanna guess which post to read tho. ;^; What are you referring to?
This one, sorry.
I accidentally sent it before I finished writing it.
 
Most people - myself included - who voted for agree didn't even know The End had conceptual manipulation.
Not my fault people don't actually read. In fact this entire discussion just proves that even further. People just want self-gratification. This is why there's so many "what ifs" being thrown around. Nobody cares about the actual truth, just powerscaler terms for matches between toys
 
This one, sorry.
I accidentally sent it before I finished writing it.
👍

A metaphor for the destruction of all
After reading Sonic’s mind and seeing the Egg Wizard merging universes, Solaris eating all of space & time and the Time Eater doing to same but not as many universes, The End says those words. How is it a metaphor if it’s saying it in response of other beings doing the similar?

or simply a claim about how great it sees itself in comparison to rest of reality.
The End simply doesn’t view Sonic as a threat. It makes remarks about how it thinks the Ancient were in trapping it but views Sonic and the things he did as lower in comparison to the Ancients.

This perception is not unjustified. The Ancients’ technology allowed them to make Mechs with 1 Emerald to match The End, while Sonic used all 7 to compare.

The End was not wrong to think Sonic was weak compare to what the Ancients accomplished with the Emeralds.
 
Not my fault people don't actually read. In fact this entire discussion just proves that even further. People just want self-gratification. This is why there's so many "what ifs" being thrown around. Nobody cares about the actual truth, just powerscaler terms for matches between toys
Don't try to derail this into some philosophical question on how People wish to interact with truth and what people aim to do when powerscaling, that's not a good argument for the situation at hand and just serves as a distraction.
 
Question: why concept manip and not NPI? As far as I remember, just interacting with concepts has never granted you concept manip over NPI; I think you need more than just interaction to prove that a character has concept manip
It’s NPI with the ability to affect concepts, so that is a form of conceptual manipulation. What doesn’t count is indirect destruction of a type 2 or lower concept by targeting the object it is bound to.
 
It’s NPI with the ability to affect concepts, so that is a form of conceptual manipulation. What doesn’t count is indirect destruction of a type 2 or lower concept by targeting the object it is bound to.
I suppose so, but would this even apply to The End's moon form? It's implied that it has a true form, right?
 
👍


After reading Sonic’s mind and seeing the Egg Wizard merging universes, Solaris eating all of space & time and the Time Eater doing to same but not as many universes, The End says those words. How is it a metaphor if it’s saying it in response of other beings doing the similar?
Because it still works - metaphorically being "all destruction" is still a form of bragging about your power.
The End simply doesn’t view Sonic as a threat. It makes remarks about how it thinks the Ancient were in trapping it but views Sonic and the things he did as lower in comparison to the Ancients.

This perception is not unjustified. The Ancients’ technology allowed them to make Mechs with 1 Emerald to match The End, while Sonic used all 7 to compare.

The End was not wrong to think Sonic was weak compare to what the Ancients accomplished with the Emeralds.
Match is a strong word. But sure.

This is not what I'm trying to argue, The End sees itself as something greater than our world, this is a very valid interpretation of the line "I am all and I am nothing".
The End being the concept of entropy really has no solice.
 
Not my fault people don't actually read. In fact this entire discussion just proves that even further. People just want self-gratification. This is why there's so many "what ifs" being thrown around. Nobody cares about the actual truth, just powerscaler terms for matches between toys
This is again, begging your own argument. For this complaint to work, your interpretation, your particular "what if" needs to be the truth beyond any doubt. It is not. Do you truly think one non-definitive line is enough to prove something is the embodiment of a literal concept? It isn't.
 
The main problem is that everyone here, with their powerscaling bias, thinks that something being "a concept" is more impressive/needs more proof than anything else, when that's not true. The only reason people are so against it is because it's a big, "powerful" hax rather than they actually are disagreeing narratively. If it was an irrelevant ability, everyone wouldn't give a shit. But that's derrailing
 
I can accept they removing concept manipulation (since I didn't even add that) or making it a likely/possibily since in the end this is a powerscaling site. Abstract existence should still be kept since that has nothing to do with concept manipulation
 
The main problem is that everyone here, with their powerscaling bias, thinks that something being "a concept" is more impressive/needs more proof than anything else, when that's not true. The only reason people are so against it is because it's a big, "powerful" hax rather than they actually are disagreeing narratively. If it was an irrelevant ability, everyone wouldn't give a shit. But that's derrailing
Don't rant about how we index stuff around here, you evidence is weak to any hax, and we're not about to index personal interpretation as canonical information - bar none. The End never alluded to being a literal concept, and never showed any instance of it in any way, shape or form - neither on narrative, on lore, or on it's actual battle.
Futhermore, again, why the hell would we even index this in it's incomplete form?
 
Back
Top