Super Galaxy Bros: Return of the Grand Stars

[Chariot190]

What did I do wrong?

Spreading misinfo, stating objectively wrong things that we in fact do not do, and then continuing to do so after being told by 3 different people multiple times that isn't true.

All I'm saying is if there are other verses that don't need explicit proof of 100% energy usage,

Every verse you mentioned literally does, in fact, need that.
If a character doesn't, they don't scale, see Zelda in TOTK who has the Full Triforce, yet isn't 3-A, the literal dozens of Links who have a tier 5 artifact yet ranges from like 8-C to 6-B or anything in-between, or bosses who have artifacts that peak magnitudes above where they scale, and a whole bunch of other things. Hell you mentioned Link right? We don't even have a 3-A Link, hell the only Link who does have the Full Triforce briefly, that being Skyward, is High 6-B, the only profile who is 3-A, is Ganon, and that's because he has a bunch of proof he does scale with said 3-A feat being his to begin with.

And Sonic? Is an awful example as we actually got rules for it on scaling people to the Chaos Emeralds. It's why things like Perfect Chaos, Bio, original Black Doom, Super Sonic pre generations or frontiers, etc, isn't tier 1.

Every example, every verse, you brought up as "precedence", is false, it simply isn't true. Like what are you doing? Did you even check the profiles or verses before saying as much?

wouldn't it make sense to hold the Super Mario Bros to the same standard?

We are, which is why you need to prove it. Just like they have to prove it.

If what I'm saying is flawed, would you please show me instances of CRTs where your rules applied to other franchises like Sonic or Zelda? I'm not trying to anger you or spread misinformation; I'm just wondering.

My rules? Dude this is wiki's rules. You need proof no matter the case, for ANYTHING, it could be as simple as knowing how to swim, you need evidence.
And everything you keep bringing up as some sort of "well they do it", is wrong.
Like why are you even saying this shit? It isn't even true, we don't do that for any of them, in fact we do the exact opposite, there's no "we made a crt to make it a rule", because we never did it to begin with, and the few times that DID happen, things were downgraded like Kirby with the bug dude (I think his name was Taranza?) scaling to the crystal mirror for being amped by it, but no proof he was amped to its full power so he was downgraded.
And this goes for other verses too, as said see Metroid Prime 2, Emperor Ing got downgraded by millions of times because of it for the exact reason Power Stars function.

Just read the profiles? Notice how BOTW Zelda is only 7-B, despite having the 3-A Triforce in her body and even used it to obliterate Calamity Ganon. By your logic, she'd be 3-A because she has it and used it in an attack that's way above her standard magic, yet she isn't scaled to 3-A for it.

Well, in my previous CRT for the Power Stars, I stated in the OP "one of the most blatant examples of this comes from Mario Party DS, where it's directly told that Mario uses the power of the stars. Here, it's very blatant as it tells us exactly what the purpose of them is, which is to power users. In both versions of Mario 64, Power Stars give power to those who collect them, indicating that just having them gives you power alone."

And in the OP for this thread here I stated "Bowser Jr. HEAVILY implies that the bosses who are refought are juiced up by The Grand Stars (which Power Stars should be similar to) and used them to obtain the form they take now. This should mean that the Grand Stars function in the same way that Power Stars do whenever users of them collect and draw power from them. For anyone wondering, yes, the Grand Stars are indeed classed as Power Stars within the game."

Is this good or do you still need more proof?

You're misunderstanding. We don't need proof they're amped, they are, nobody is denying that, if anyone did they'd be full of it.
The problem is twofold tho.

1. Stars have a limited amount of power, using that power will drain them till there's none left, thus using all of a Star's power would in turn instantly drain it (100% of a star's power would drain it instantly, 50% would in two attacks, etc), or using a meaningful amount of power will quickly render it inert. They're basically batteries.

2. While Koops and others do get amped, such as the bosses, their stars don't become inert afterward, thus telling us by proxy, that while they were using it, they weren't using so much power that it would drain it, ie, whatever amount they were amped by is unknown but nowhere near its full peak (because if it was, it would have ran out sooner than later).

Which leads us to the main problem, how much power was he amped by and using to empower himself at any given time, and is the amount he was amped by equal or greater than the 4-A stuff? Mind you, normally this wouldn't be as big a deal, but the fact they have limited power and using to much of it will leave it powerless makes it so they can't be using to much of it at once no matter the case, so figuring out exactly how much is being used is absolutely required. The alternative is to prove the 4-A feat is done with next to no power and that Koops uses more power than the Star took to do said feat. Either or, how you prove he scales doesn't matter, you just gotta prove he does. As said, if I were you I'd check some jap guides.

 

[JPTheGamer]

@Chariot190 Listen, I'm greatly sorry if I was spreading misinformation; that wasn't my intention and I didn't know I was doing so. However, when I made this thread, I wasn't trying to argue for 100% energy usage or anything like that. The whole point of this thread was to simply bring back the Grand Star key for certain characters like the Mario Bros and Bowser the same way I argued for bringing back the Power Star key for everybody in my previous CRT. Last I checked, we didn't prove or state characters were using all of an artifact's power such as the Power Stars to place them at tiers like High 4-C, and I couldn't find any articles I have not found or came across an article (especially the Universal Energy Systems, Attack Potency, and Powerscaling pages) on the wiki mentioning any guidelines or rules that require characters or anything else needing to use 100% of an energy source in order to be placed at that tier.

Besides, the reason I brought in other verses like Sonic or Zelda into this duscussion was due to the fact I didn't see any CRTs for the Sonic or Zelda verse demanding a quote that someone used 100% of their artifact’s energy. For example, Emerl receives feats scaling off Chaos Emeralds and was placed at Low 4‑C, but there was no statement saying Emerl used 100% of Emerald power.

And like Qawsedf states here, you have to have more to it than just being powered by something, you have to have an example or statement where you use it to get a full rating. Or at least that's how I understand it.

 

[Chariot190]

@Chariot190 Listen, I'm greatly sorry if I was spreading misinformation; that wasn't my intention and I didn't know I was doing so.

Just don't talk about verses you don't know? Like why even do that, if you don't know why use them as examples?

However, when I made this thread, I wasn't trying to argue for 100% energy usage or anything like that. The whole point of this thread was to simply bring back the Grand Star key for certain characters like the Mario Bros and Bowser the same way I argued for bringing back the Power Star key for everybody in my previous CRT.

You can, but without proof it'd just be "higher" or "at least", we still need proof to scale them to a specific value.

Last I checked, we didn't have to prove or state characters were using all of an artifact's power such as the Power Stars or Dream Stone to place them at tiers like High 4-C and 2-B,

That is NOT the type of argument you wanna be making, that just means those need to be downgraded
Dream Stone is actually ok, there's a statement in there somewhere mentioning they use the full power but this is what I don't get, what are these arguments?
Instead of proving it, you just go "we do this bad thing elsewhere so we can do it here", are you trying to get other stuff downgraded? Because that's all that's gonna happen dude, two wrongs don't make a right, if these other verses and things don't have sufficient backing to their claims, that means they need to be revised, not that we should do the same.

and I couldn't find any articles I have not found or came across an article (especially the Universal Energy Systems, Attack Potency, and Powerscaling pages) on the wiki mentioning any guidelines or rules that require characters or anything else needing to use 100% of an energy source in order to be placed at that tier.

Literally just how it works? You're legit asking "why do we need to prove a thing", because you do, that's just how it is, whether it's simple, or complex, everything on this wiki needs proof.

Again, it's less 100%, which is straight up wrong anyway here, they can't be using 100%, if they did it'd be drained in one attack because it's a limited power source so no matter the case 100% is off the table, but a matter of proving they used equal to, or greater than, amounts of energy, as the feat in question you're trying to scale off. just prove the 4-A feat takes less power than they'd be using, if it's legit there should be evidence somewhere, so go check instead of bringing up why Link is 3-A for having the Full Triforce even though that literally isn't a thing we have on wiki.

Besides, the reason I brought in other verses like Sonic or Zelda into this duscussion was due to the fact I didn't see any CRTs for the Sonic or Zelda verse demanding a quote that someone used 100% of their artifact’s energy.

You could check one of the past dozen sonic CRT's about tier 1 shit and see how we don't scale Chaos Emeralds to a static value, and in fact treat them as variable, and anyone who uses them scale simply off the feats they do themselves while amped with it, as opposed to scaling to the highest feat ever done with them. You could get that from just looking at a handful of profiles, Emerl, Perfect Chaos, Super Sonic, and more all have different values they scale to.

And Zelda? We had a whole CRT about Ganon being 3-A a few years back, we had to gather evidence for him to scale to the thing, it wasn't just "he has it, he scales". That's also why Skull Kid even in his bad state right now has a tier 5 key, and a tier 4 key, on the SAME profile, because he himself doesn't use the mask's full power, or the dozens of bosses, or the dozens of Links, or Zeldas, or-.
I already said this last post, so the fact I have to say it again is kind of annoying, but there is no "rule", it simply wasn't a thing we ever done to begin with because it's by default wrong and not something we as a wiki do, and when it does happen? Either it gets looked over and proof is found and it's accepted, or no proof is found and it's downgraded like Metroid, Kirby that one time, and so forth.

This doesn't apply to Sonic and Zelda, it applies to the wiki as a whole, you need proof for anything, you need proof you scale to something, vibes don't cut it.

For example, Emerl receives feats scaling off Chaos Emeralds and was placed at Low 4‑C, but there was no statement saying Emerl used 100% of Emerald power.

My brother in christ,

"(Witnessed the Final Egg Blaster firing and was stated to have captured its gigantic power; surpassed his limits, with this power being amplified even further by the 7 Chaos Emeralds)."

He scales to it because he saw it and went "yep im that strong now lmao", the Chaos Emeralds just serve as an extra "higher" buff.

And yeah he didn't use 100% of the Emerald's Power, they're low 1-C. We don't scale him to their max output. In fact he's like multiple infinities below them. To compare, imagine we scale Koops to 11-A while the Grand Star is like low 2-C. That's the type of gap Emerl has between the thing you're saying we scale him to just because.

Stop talking about other verses, you're digging yourself a hole here and I have no idea why. Stop focusing on things you know nothing about and spend that time instead actually gathering evidence for the actual thread topic.

 

[JPTheGamer]

I'll tell you what, why don't I save you and everyone the troubling headaches and make a deal?

You can, but without proof it'd just be "higher" or "at least", we still need proof to scale them to a specific value.

If this is all I can get out of this for users of the Grand Star, how about we just go with that? Like, maybe we can use the calc that was made as supporting evidence for the Grand Star's AP and give Grand Star users something like "even higher with a Grand Star" for their Power Star key. Or maybe we can give them an Unknown rating for their Grand Star key.

That sound good to you, fam?

 

[Chariot190]

I'll tell you what, why don't I save you and everyone the troubling headaches and make a deal?

If this is all I can get out of this for users of the Grand Star, how about we just go with that? Like, maybe we can use the calc that was made as supporting evidence for the Grand Star's AP and give Grand Star users something like "Higher with a Grand Star" for their Power Star key?

Sound good?

Just find a statement bro, like why are we even doing this? Just go look for stuff, could be an hour, could be days, nobody is in a rush.

 

[JPTheGamer]

Just find a statement bro, like why are we even doing this? Just go look for stuff, could be an hour, could be days, nobody is in a rush.

Would a visual example also do?

 

[Chariot190]

Would a visual example also do?

Would have to be a clear cut one if it's just visuals with no context or elaboration

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay, so you're saying this thread isn't about any character using 100% of a Grand Star's energy, but you still want the characters amped by them to be 4-A? I'm confused.

This was a valid concern early one, but I believe I basically found some evidence users using large portions of the energy

 

[Dust_Collector]

This was a valid concern early one, but I believe I basically found some evidence users using large portions of the energy

How does this show users using large portions of the energy of a Grand Star? It's just the same thing I posted earlier that talks about the Grand Stars having finite energy and can be drained and die from Bowsers machine in that level.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

How does this show users using large portions of the energy of a Grand Star? It's just the same thing I posted earlier that talks about the Grand Stars having finite energy and can be drained and die from Bowsers machine in that level.

The 4-A calculation wasn't showing any signs of extracting energy to exhaustion, but the Gateway Galaxy from the first level was. And doubtful that such a thing was using up anymore than Megalegs or Galaxy Reactor or anything of the sort, or Bowser straight up eating a Grand Star to grow big throughout Galaxy 2.

 

[OrangeFR]

IDK why mfs are hung up on 4-A being 100% of the Grand Star’s energy, Grand Stars are currently rated at 3-C by the wiki. Would that not be their 100% energy output? I feel like at least 4-A would work given even if they were using a small percentage of 71.977289 zettafoe, (the grand star key uses this calc because the galaxy reactor creates a galaxy [crazy, I know]) say 1%, it would be 719.77289 exafoe, which is 4-A. We could just do this method (or something like it if i made a mistake somewhere or this isn’t useable for whatever reason), and then try to figure out a percentage of the Grand Star’s true power the characters use (or probably give a range or smth IDK).

 

[Dust_Collector]

The 4-A calculation wasn't showing any signs of extracting energy to exhaustion, but the Gateway Galaxy from the first level was.

Yeah but like I mentioned earlier, the current 4-A calc is based on the world 6 black hole being made by a Grand Star which, unfortunately, doesn't have anything significant backing it up at the moment. It's not out of the question but we'd need confirmation from an official guidebook or something since the game itself just never even slightly links the black hole to anything Bowser does it's just... there. Not to mention if the Grand Star made that black hole we have no idea how much energy was used since it would've been off screen, could've taken like 0.001% of it's energy, could've taken a third of it.

And doubtful that such a thing was using up anymore than Megalegs or Galaxy Reactor or anything of the sort, or Bowser straight up eating a Grand Star to grow big throughout Galaxy 2.

Why is it doubtful? Creating a massive black hole that dwarves galaxies seems like it could likely need more energy than... making Bowser become the size of a building. Unless you're referring to the machine draining the Grand Star in the Gateway Galaxy in which case we have no idea how long it's been doing it for or for what purpose. Can't really make a connection between thata and how much energy Megaleg or Bowser uses for their attacks.

 

[Chariot190]

That scene is LITERALLY the issue. If that scene didn't exist ngl, there'd be way less of a problem just saying "yeah probably is using it all why wouldn't he be?".
But if Power Stars are limited power sources, it means they literally can't be using notable portions of energy, as if they did, they'd run out fast, and they never run out, ergo they aren't using any relevant amount of power from it.

As such, you need to prove that the characters in question, who are very explicitly not using significant portions of energy or power from these items, is simultaneously using more energy than the presumed feat. The feat not instantly draining the power star doesn't mean they scale above it, because it's not a matter of if it drains, but how much does it drain.

Are they being amped by it? Yes.
How much is the question and if when the answer could be just a bit to ten fucktillion times, we have a very real problem when you need to figure out that the energy used just so happens to be above the highest feat those things even have to begin with.

 

[Chariot190]

IDK why mfs are hung up on 4-A being 100% of the Grand Star’s energy, Grand Stars are currently rated at 3-C by the wiki. Would that not be their 100% energy output? I feel like at least 4-A would work given even if they were using a small percentage of 71.977289 zettafoe, (the grand star key uses this calc because the galaxy reactor creates a galaxy [crazy, I know]) say 1%, it would be 719.77289 exafoe, which is 4-A. We could just do this method (or something like it if i made a mistake somewhere or this isn’t useable for whatever reason), and then try to figure out a percentage of the Grand Star’s true power the characters use (or probably give a range or smth IDK).

It could be 3-A, 4-A, or even 5-B. It doesn't matter if it's 100% of the energy or what their 100% output even is, what matters is how much of it they use for any given instance in combat, which is very much not 100%.
100% statement would just be a free pass to say they scale.
But even then, they do not use it all, that's undebatable, they literally can't, if they did it'd be drained in one attack.

Which then begs the question, how much? Is it 1%? Obviously can't be they can throw hundreds of attacks and do so for long lengths of time (How long was Koops amped for actually? Days, weeks, etc? Like that's a passive drain right there).
Is it 0.0000000000001%? Like how do we know how much they use? Like you could argue either, like obviously Koops wouldn't want to be using meaningful amount of energy in his attacks as he still needs them juiced up to create his new universe, doing like a few thousand 4-A attacks is gonna add up fast.
We do not know, which is a hurdle because we MUST know or we can't say it's the case. We don't have any evidence to say that the energy they use, is above the energy of the 4-A feat, which mind you is offscreen for all we know it could've drained that bad boy, is comparable to the amps in question.

There's ways around this though, simply prove say, the black hole was created by Koops under his power while amped by it, and not through a machine or something using one, like at that point that'd just be his own feat, as just one example.
There's many ways to actually validate the scaling, but nobody here is actually doing so, it's just vibe scaling or "i think it should", instead of digging through reliable sources for actual evidence, which evidently vibes or "i think" isn't enough and moreover there's active evidence against it being a notable portion regardless so the "i think" doesn't even work.

 

[SeijiSetto]

i kinda stopped following the thread after my last few comments and i've only skimmed what happened since then so forgive my ignorance, but:
has it been proved that a grand star created the 4-A black hole in question
has it been proved that a grand star created it without spending a significant amount of its total, finite energy
has it been proved that characters can explicitly use a comparable or greater amount of energy from the star

those are basically what you need.
"the star did this and was fine after, this statement means the characters are using MORE energy than it took to do that feat" and ggs you get 4-A mario cast

 

[OrangeFR]

It could be 3-A, 4-A, or even 5-B. It doesn't matter if it's 100% of the energy or what their 100% output even is, what matters is how much of it they use for any given instance in combat, which is very much not 100%.
100% statement would just be a free pass to say they scale.
But even then, they do not use it all, that's undebatable, they literally can't, if they did it'd be drained in one attack.

Which then begs the question, how much? Is it 1%? Obviously can't be they can throw hundreds of attacks and do so for long lengths of time (How long was Koops amped for actually? Days, weeks, etc? Like that's a passive drain right there).
Is it 0.0000000000001%? Like how do we know how much they use? Like you could argue either, like obviously Koops wouldn't want to be using meaningful amount of energy in his attacks as he still needs them juiced up to create his new universe, doing like a few thousand 4-A attacks is gonna add up fast.
We do not know, which is a hurdle because we MUST know or we can't say it's the case. We don't have any evidence to say that the energy they use, is above the energy of the 4-A feat, which mind you is offscreen for all we know it could've drained that bad boy, is comparable to the amps in question.

There's ways around this though, simply prove say, the black hole was created by Koops under his power while amped by it, and not through a machine or something using one, like at that point that'd just be his own feat, as just one example.
There's many ways to actually validate the scaling, but nobody here is actually doing so, it's just vibe scaling or "i think it should", instead of digging through reliable sources for actual evidence, which evidently vibes or "i think" isn't enough and moreover there's active evidence against it being a notable portion regardless so the "i think" doesn't even work.

Fair ig. As of now I think our best bet (as long as no feats or statements display them using x amount of energy or x percentage of the total energy of the grand star)we would just have to add a "much higher with Grand Stars (and maybe power stars IDK)" as it seems safe to say that it is implied that the characters become much stronger than their base with them.

 

[Chariot190]

Fair ig. As of now I think our best bet (as long as no feats or statements display them using x amount of energy or x percentage of the total energy of the grand star)we would just have to add a "much higher with Grand Stars (and maybe power stars IDK)" as it seems safe to say that it is implied that the characters become much stronger than their base with them.

But why don't we actually look first?

Like being real? I think they do scale, hell I'm like 90% sure the 4-A is done BY Koops directly while amped, but we just need proof that's the case. Otherwise even if I think yeah he PROBABLY does scale, probably isn't 100%.
Instead of vibe scaling, just going "i think we should", or going "well then let's just ignore it", why not actually spend the time and effort to check over everything first?
Maybe there's nothing and it's ******, but what if there is a line, whether from in game or a reliable guide or something that gives sufficient evidence? In that the latter's case it'd be fine, valid. But someone needs to actually make the attempt to check first instead of just, ya kow, whatever has been happening thus far.

 

[IDK3465]

I’ve been skimming through and poking my head into this thread for a good while, and I feel I should finally go over my thoughts:

I do agree that Grand Stars themselves should scale to the black hole, no objections there, it’s pretty decently implied that all of world 6 was created by the galaxy reactor and by extension, the Grand Stars.

As for what I think the characters using Grand Stars scale to, honestly, the best option in my opinion is possibly at most 4-A. I think that this much better incapsulates how we don’t know how much of the Grand Star’s energy was used in either creating the black hole or used in amping the characters directly, while still acknowledging that they could easily be on-par with one another, even if the characters are likely quite a bit weaker. That’s just my take though, I’d also be fine with it just straight up not scaling whatsoever if that’s what gets decided upon.

 

[OrangeFR]

But why don't we actually look first?

Like being real? I think they do scale, hell I'm like 90% sure the 4-A is done BY Koops directly while amped, but we just need proof that's the case. Otherwise even if I think yeah he PROBABLY does scale, probably isn't 100%.
Instead of vibe scaling, just going "i think we should", or going "well then let's just ignore it", why not actually spend the time and effort to check over everything first?
Maybe there's nothing and it's ******, but what if there is a line, whether from in game or a reliable guide or something that gives sufficient evidence? In that the latter's case it'd be fine, valid. But someone needs to actually make the attempt to check first instead of just, ya kow, whatever has been happening thus far.

I was offering a worst case scenario if that wasn't clear. MB.

 

[OrangeFR]

I’ve been skimming through and poking my head into this thread for a good while, and I feel I should finally go over my thoughts:

I do agree that Grand Stars themselves should scale to the black hole, no objections there, it’s pretty decently implied that all of world 6 was created by the galaxy reactor and by extension, the Grand Stars.

As for what I think the characters using Grand Stars scale to, honestly, the best option in my opinion is possibly at most 4-A. I think that this much better incapsulates how we don’t know how much of the Grand Star’s energy was used in either creating the black hole or used in amping the characters directly, while still acknowledging that they could easily be on-par with one another, even if the characters are likely quite a bit weaker. That’s just my take though, I’d also be fine with it just straight up not scaling whatsoever if that’s what gets decided upon.

Wait what's the scan confirming the Grand Stars made the 4-A Black Hole again?

 

[IDK3465]

Wait what's the scan confirming the Grand Stars made the 4-A Black Hole again?

I think it was just “Bowser’s making a galactic empire, with it being implied that all of world 6 is that empire” or whatever, all I remember is that I agreed with the reasoning. Honestly, you guys have been arguing about if it scales to the cast so much I think we all lost track of where the 4-A feat actually came from and why it matters to the Grand Stars lol

 

[OrangeFR]

I think it was just “Bowser’s making a galactic empire, with it being implied that all of world 6 is that empire” or whatever. Honestly, you guys have been arguing about if it scales to the cast so much I think we all lost track of where the 4-A feat actually came from and why it matters to the Grand Stars lol

I agree with that making sense then. @Chariot190, you were talking about needing to get proof for 4-A, do you think this makes it valid? (I trust your judgment more than mine).

 

[IDK3465]

I agree with that making sense then. @Chariot190, you were talking about needing to get proof for 4-A, do you think this makes it valid? (I trust your judgment more than mine).

regular members can’t ping

 

[OrangeFR]

regular members can’t ping

What? I thought it was only that regular members couldn't ping staff, and Chariot is retired no? I think I've seen regular members ping other regular members.

 

[Chariot190]

I agree with that making sense then. @Chariot190, you were talking about needing to get proof for 4-A, do you think this makes it valid? (I trust your judgment more than mine).

I'm like 90% sure it's credited to his ass in the game somewhere so I'm not to concerned about that part, but ig we still need proof.

 

[JPTheGamer]

Bro just post a statement or line it ain't hard. You legit just need 1. I'm not repeating myself again to say that exact same things, nobody says it has to be full power, but that would suffice, but you do need to prove he's using power equal or greater than the 4-A slop. Full or all power-type statements basically a free pass is all. Either way, prove it.

Just find a statement bro, like why are we even doing this? Just go look for stuff, could be an hour, could be days, nobody is in a rush.

That scene is LITERALLY the issue. If that scene didn't exist ngl, there'd be way less of a problem just saying "yeah probably is using it all why wouldn't he be?".
But if Power Stars are limited power sources, it means they literally can't be using notable portions of energy, as if they did, they'd run out fast, and they never run out, ergo they aren't using any relevant amount of power from it.

As such, you need to prove that the characters in question, who are very explicitly not using significant portions of energy or power from these items, is simultaneously using more energy than the presumed feat. The feat not instantly draining the power star doesn't mean they scale above it, because it's not a matter of if it drains, but how much does it drain.

Are they being amped by it? Yes.
How much is the question and if when the answer could be just a bit to ten fucktillion times, we have a very real problem when you need to figure out that the energy used just so happens to be above the highest feat those things even have to begin with.

It could be 3-A, 4-A, or even 5-B. It doesn't matter if it's 100% of the energy or what their 100% output even is, what matters is how much of it they use for any given instance in combat, which is very much not 100%.
100% statement would just be a free pass to say they scale.
But even then, they do not use it all, that's undebatable, they literally can't, if they did it'd be drained in one attack.

Which then begs the question, how much? Is it 1%? Obviously can't be they can throw hundreds of attacks and do so for long lengths of time (How long was Koops amped for actually? Days, weeks, etc? Like that's a passive drain right there).
Is it 0.0000000000001%? Like how do we know how much they use? Like you could argue either, like obviously Koops wouldn't want to be using meaningful amount of energy in his attacks as he still needs them juiced up to create his new universe, doing like a few thousand 4-A attacks is gonna add up fast.
We do not know, which is a hurdle because we MUST know or we can't say it's the case. We don't have any evidence to say that the energy they use, is above the energy of the 4-A feat, which mind you is offscreen for all we know it could've drained that bad boy, is comparable to the amps in question.

There's ways around this though, simply prove say, the black hole was created by Koops under his power while amped by it, and not through a machine or something using one, like at that point that'd just be his own feat, as just one example.
There's many ways to actually validate the scaling, but nobody here is actually doing so, it's just vibe scaling or "i think it should", instead of digging through reliable sources for actual evidence, which evidently vibes or "i think" isn't enough and moreover there's active evidence against it being a notable portion regardless so the "i think" doesn't even work.

Okay...

In the beginning of Super Mario Galaxy 2, Bowser says "You're too late, Mario! The power of the stars is already MINE! And look what else I got... GWAHAHAAH!" This implies he has the Grand Star's power at his disposal. After that, he tells us "Maybe I'll have Peach bake ME something for once... I sure could go for a galaxy-sized slice of cake right now!" Here, Bowser states "Bwahahaha! You showed up! Look at you, running around like a flea on a puny planetoid. Know what isn't puny? My massive new power... The power to flatten you like a space pancake!" That line should confirm he is using the star’s power, and "massive" in this case should mean he's using a great deal of the Star's energy. At the end of Galaxy 2, he loses his power(s) the Grand Star gave to him after his defeat at the hands of Mario, implying that he was drawing an amount of power to battle Mario.

In the first Super Mario Galaxy game, Bowser Jr tells Megaleg to "Stomp 'em with the power of your Grand Star". He also states that he won't need his dad's help, implying that Bowser could use his Grand Star power to aid him. From here, it sounds like it's just the power of the Grand Star, not some or a percentage, and "Gather power from the Grand Star you're using", "with power from your Grand Star" or any wording like that would imply it's only using so much.

i kinda stopped following the thread after my last few comments and i've only skimmed what happened since then so forgive my ignorance, but:
has it been proved that a grand star created the 4-A black hole in question
has it been proved that a grand star created it without spending a significant amount of its total, finite energy
has it been proved that characters can explicitly use a comparable or greater amount of energy from the star

those are basically what you need.
"the star did this and was fine after, this statement means the characters are using MORE energy than it took to do that feat" and ggs you get 4-A mario cast

We established that Grand Stars are basically upgraded versions of the Power Stars, which are known for creating black holes. The black hole in Galaxy 2 was caused due to Bowser’s misuse of the Grand Star, and in the first Super Mario Galaxy game, when Mario defeated Bowser and took the Grand Star from him, a black hole formed after the planet he was on exploded.

Will continue to update.

 

[LuckyEmile]

In the first Super Mario Galaxy game, Bowser Jr tells Megaleg to "Stomp 'em with the power of your Grand Star". He also states that he won't need his dad's help, implying that Bowser could use his Grand Star power to aid him.

I don't think that's the implication here, it's more like he's confident in Megaleg's power. But if you were to read it as "The Grand Star is giving Megaleg enough power that there wouldn't be any need for a powerhouse like Bowser to get involved", that probably helps your case...

 

[Chariot190]

Okay...

In the beginning of Super Mario Galaxy 2, Bowser says "You're too late, Mario! The power of the stars is already MINE! And look what else I got... GWAHAHAAH!" This implies he has the Grand Star's power at his disposal. After that, he tells us "Maybe I'll have Peach bake ME something for once... I sure could go for a galaxy-sized slice of cake right now!" Here, Bowser states "Bwahahaha! You showed up! Look at you, running around like a flea on a puny planetoid. Know what isn't puny? My massive new power... The power to flatten you like a space pancake!" That line should confirm he is using the star’s power, and "massive" in this case should mean he's using a great deal of the Star's energy.

This is all useless.
We know he's using them to power himself, that was never the question.
The galaxy sized slice of cake is legitimate hyperbole, he's like 20m, and he's saying that in reference to Peach baking something, not himself.
His massive new power, enough to stomp Mario, doesn't mean he's using 4-A levels of power (it might even be a pun given he's huge now but that doesn't matter, massive amp above his base self doesn't confirm he's 4-A).
To put this into perspective, the 4-A value and Mario's default value, is about 16,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x apart. He could be using even a trillionth of it and dust Mario.
It also can't be a great deal of the star's energy, it's impossible, it'd be drained quickly, and given he's constantly amped, he'd be draining it passively too yet the star isn't drained afterward.
This is why you need to figure out how much he's actually using relative to the feat, as we know these things have a limited amount of juice in them.

At the end of Galaxy 2, he loses his power(s) the Grand Star gave to him after his defeat at the hands of Mario, implying that he was drawing an amount of power to battle Mario.

I mean, yeah he was? You're missing the issue here.

In the first Super Mario Galaxy game, Bowser Jr tells Megaleg to "Stomp 'em with the power of your Grand Star". He also states that he won't need his dad's help, implying that Bowser could use his Grand Star power to aid him. From here, it sounds like it's just the power of the Grand Star, not some or a percentage, and "Gather power from the Grand Star you're using", "with power from your Grand Star" or any wording like that would imply it's only using so much.

You're ignoring how we know they can't be using it all, if they did it'd be drained in one attack, and the wording doesn't contradict them only using an unknown but not full amount, using the power of the grand star is exactly how any normal person would word it, this doesn't change the fact we know they didn't use it all.


The rest is conjecture, Jr not needing help doesn't mean he's talking about Grand Stars.

We established that Grand Stars are basically upgraded versions of the Power Stars, which are known for creating black holes.

Yeah but they're also literally octillions of times smaller. This is like saying we know a pistol can chip a wall so a shotgun can blow up a planet.
And that's not the point, again, you're missing what's actually being asked here. We don't need proof he's amped at all or that they can do it, but proof they use an equal or greater than amount of power that the feat used.

The black hole in Galaxy 2 was caused due to Bowser’s misuse of the Grand Star,

Post this scan, this might validate it depending how it's worded.

and in the first Super Mario Galaxy game, when Mario defeated Bowser and took the Grand Star from him, a black hole formed after the planet he was on exploded.

Bro that black hole literally killed everyone and everything.

Will continue to update.

You're missing what's actually being asked.
We don't want proof he was amped.
We don't want implied or maybe.
We just need to know that the energy he uses exceeds the energy used for the 4-A feat.

 

[LuckyEmile]

You're ignoring how we know they can't be using it all, if they did it'd be drained in one attack, and the wording doesn't contradict them only using an unknown but not full amount, using the power of the grand star is exactly how any normal person would word it, this doesn't change the fact we know they didn't use it all.

I think Omnificence explained pretty well that this is how any normal person would word it, to be honest, though... He even gave examples to show how this is a natural way of saying it, because you'd have to shift the wording around to make more akin to what you're claiming he's rather saying. Since you didn't give any examples of how you'd think it would a normal person would say it, your rebuttal feels a bit weaker here... Maybe that's a little picky of me to say, but that kind of stood out to me.

I get the raddish machine thing draining the Grand Star seems like a kicker, but don't forget the Grand Star isn't really left a husk here, it recovers very quickly upon being liberated. We do see the the Grand Star is a similar dull hue whilst inside Megaleg's siren, with it being a dark colour when freed before quickly recovering (maybe pause the video the notice that, it is admittedly subtle), so I wouldn't even say Megaleg's use is incomparable here. Polari even mentions concern they might be misusing the Grand Star on discovering the enemy base where Megaleg is fought (not something he generically says every enemy base), which seems to be a callback to Gateway Galaxy, to potentially add to this connection. It shouldn't be some one-and-done deal, not like the raddish machine was threatening to insta-kill it, it was more of a slow death, so I wouldn't necessarily say Megaleg and other Grand Star users could afford only one attack and that's it.

The rest is conjecture, Jr not needing help doesn't mean he's talking about Grand Stars.

I mean, the full quote makes it hard to see him talking about anything else here... He even leaves after, so it's pretty clear all he thinks he needs is Mario getting stomped with the power of the Grand Star...

 

[JPTheGamer]

You're missing what's actually being asked.
We don't want proof he was amped.
We don't want implied or maybe.
We just need to know that the energy he uses exceeds the energy used for the 4-A feat.

Dude, seriously... Why do you keep asking for explicit visual or contextual proof of a character using the exact same amount or more of the energy that was used for the feat in order to be placed at a tier?! Is it really that important? Do you honestly expect a character that's placed at a certain tier like 5-B for example to always display feats like busting a planet with or without an artifact and having statements claiming they can do something along those lines? Just because Mario and Luigi were formally placed at 6-C or 3-C in base [without a Grand Star] doesn't mean there's any evidence or direct statements proving they can destroy an island or galaxy; the AP page says that. The Super Mario Galaxy games and every other part in the meta-series aren't upfront with evidence like that; there's almost no direct statements where they're using a said amount of power equal to or greater than what a feat outputs. Statements aren't ALWAYS required to place characters at a level.

 

[LuckyEmile]

I wouldn't say Omni... didn't do that. Like, if he's put forth means to argue it's using the energy outright, then the Grand Star being above 4-A should therefore means he's met your demands. But I can see how semantics and shaky reasoning might get in the way of that being a clearcut answer...

I guess one approach you could take, which is Power Stars instead of Grand Stars, but since Grand Stars are just hyped up Power Stars, it should be the same principal. Bowser mentions about having the power of the stars (not incomparable with the Grand Star quotes, I suppose) or is at least using it to give his troops power. I don't think this is treading new ground so the idea should be pretty simple on this being them using the energy for buffs and such. That same style wording is used for a feat, saying Bowser is using the power of the stars to create worlds (and what with mentions of stars, day and night, and a visible sun in the sky in these worlds, it should meet that tier requirement). So, clearly the feat is for the user of the Power Star, not really this standalone feat for Power Stars we don't know the user can use the energy of (since that's exactly what we're told they're doing). Even if you try to argue "the user doesn't scale to the Power Star" here, the logic would then mean "the feat doesn't scale to the Power Star" too anyway, since it's treated as a way the user harnesses its energy. Not sure if I explained that well, but hopefully you can at least understand what I'm trying to say here...

Would be good if Grand Stars had a similar situation I could name off the top of my head, but this at least sets the premise, and if it can be done for Power Stars, it should stand to reason Grand Stars would work that way too (probably better too, due to being more sought after by Bowser when he learns about them).

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Dude, seriously... Why do you keep asking for explicit visual or contextual proof of a character using the exact same amount or more of the energy that was used for the feat in order to be placed at a tier?! Is it really that important? Do you honestly expect a character that's placed at a certain tier like 5-B for example to always display feats like busting a planet with or without an artifact and having statements claiming they can do something along those lines? Just because Mario and Luigi were formally placed at 6-C or 3-C in base [without a Grand Star] doesn't mean there's any evidence or direct statements proving they can destroy an island or galaxy; the AP page says that. The Super Mario Galaxy games and every other part in the meta-series aren't upfront with evidence like that; there's almost no direct statements where they're using a said amount of power equal to or greater than what a feat outputs. Statements aren't ALWAYS required to place characters at a level. That isn't how power-scaling works all the time; it's just another way it works.

Chariot asking for evidence of that is just the correct way to go about things going by site standards. This isn't "You need to destroy a galaxy to be Galaxy level" situation, it's "We need evidence they're using a certain amount of a power source's energy to say they scale to that level of energy".

The sun for example has an High 6-A energy output but not every character or weapon that draws power from the sun is Multi-Continental. Megamind's Death Ray uses the sun as a power source and is like City level.

 

[JPTheGamer]

The sun for example has an High 6-A energy output but not every character or weapon that draws power from the sun is Multi-Continental. Megamind's Death Ray uses the sun as a power source and is like City level.

And Megamind doesn't have a statement in the movie where he's using equal or greater power than that, does he?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The sun for example has an High 6-A energy output but not every character or weapon that draws power from the sun is Multi-Continental. Megamind's Death Ray uses the sun as a power source and is like City level.

I believe another difference is the High 6-A is over the course of a massive AoE. Where as, the actual laser that absorbs the energy is much smaller and thus only actually absorbs a tiny portion of the sun's energy at a time due to how ISL works. In the case of Power Stars and Grand Stars, they're much smaller than the yellow sun combined with containing so much energy. Especially when characters physically eat a Power Star or Grand Star (Not saying that's evidence, since eating a battery isn't an AP feat in itself, just that the comparisons are far off overall)

Also, I suppose this should be a question for the OP. Did the 4-A Black Hole feat have a notable timeframe? Because, if we know the Joules/s value, that should at least scale to any casual user of a Grand Star.

 

[Luckyfun]

Let's just give a varies tier. Up to 4A when fully powered. What do you guys think？

 

[OrangeFR]

Let's just give a varies tier. Up to 4A when fully powered. What do you guys think？

4-A isn’t the full power of the Grand Star tho, it’s 3-C.

 

[Omegabronic]

I think we're talking past each other a bit, so let me clarify the core issue — it's not just whether Bowser or anyone else used 100% of a Grand Star’s power, but whether their feats logically scale to a significant portion of that energy while empowered, which is a consistent standard across the wiki in similar contexts.

Why do we need to prove so? Again, the VS Battles Wiki doesn’t require a character to explicitly use 100% of an artifact’s power to scale — only that their actions are demonstrably fueled by that power and that the effects align with a meaningful portion of its output. Otherwise, by that logic, Sonic wouldn’t scale to the full Chaos Emeralds unless he was confirmed to be at 100%, which we don’t always get either.

The point is the feats still reflect a massive energy source. Even if the feats fall short of full-on 4-A in isolation, they’re clearly far above Bowser’s usual capabilities, and they happen only while he's powered by a Grand Star.

If anything, the Grand Star’s energy allows for a wide potential range of feats, and not all of them must express the full 4-A output. Partial scaling is valid if the character’s output logically derives from the same power source. This is how we treat characters using Chaos Emeralds or the Triforce when not explicitly shown.

Okay, but that’s not what we're arguing. We're not saying “Bowser felt cosmic”; rather, he performs greater feats than his base, and we know exactly what’s empowering him. That’s artifact-driven scaling, not vibe-based.

The same logic is used for characters in:

• Zelda (Ganon scaling to Triforce without AP calcs)
• Sonic (Shadow scaling to Chaos Emeralds without 100% quantification)
• Kirby (Meta Knight or Magolor scaling to Nova or Master Crown)

If the feat is done while empowered, and the source has a known AP level, scaling is valid unless disproven.

Which is exactly the case here — Bowser is visibly empowered by a Grand Star in Galaxy 2, while performing feats like:

• Growing to immense size (disputed, but clearly far beyond baseline)
• Warping the battlefield into an unstable gravity vortex
• Withstanding a starship crash (even if not Tier 6, it's not baseline either)

Bowser could only do these while empowered. The source of power is directly shown and required, so the logic applied to Sonic (Emerald-based feats done during usage = valid scaling) should apply.

The argument isn’t that Bowser definitely used all of a Grand Star’s power. It’s that:

1. Grand Stars canonically have 4-A potential.
2. Bowser in Galaxy 2 is explicitly empowered by one and performs feats vastly beyond his base.
3. This follows the same scaling logic used for Zelda, Sonic, and Kirby.

Unless there’s direct evidence that Bowser was not channeling its full power (or even a significant portion), the safest and most consistent interpretation is that he scales proportionally, which is what 4-A or "at least 4-A, likely higher" typically accounts for.

For Sonic, the Chaos Emeralds scalling mostly work around dudes doing the feats, or context implying they are using the full power of the emeralds... hence why Classic Sonic is not High 4-C anymore

 

[Chariot190]

Dude, seriously... Why do you keep asking for explicit visual or contextual proof of a character using the exact same amount or more of the energy that was used for the feat in order to be placed at a tier?!

Because that's the rule? Are you really asking me why we need proof to rate things?
It's this exact reason why Taranza or Ing got downgraded, the former of which you yourself brought up as an example in the form of Kirby. This is just standard practice, everything needs proof or at least sufficient evidence, whether it's minor like swimming or intellect, or major like a decillion times stat upgrade.

Is it really that important?

Yeah?

Do you honestly expect a character that's placed at a certain tier like 5-B for example to always display feats like busting a planet with or without an artifact and having statements claiming they can do something along those lines?

Yesn't?
I expect a 5-B character to actually have a 5-B feat, or proof they scale directly to 5-B yes, otherwise there's no proof they're 5-B.
I don't expect every thing they do to be 5-B though, as long as they establish it once or twice it's fine as long as it doesn't get to bad like a 5-B somehow being incapable of punching through iron. Like Freeza is a good example, he's established to be a planet buster clearly, does his every attack do so? Nope, but it doesn't need to because he's already been shown capable and has proof he is.

That also isn't what's being asked of you? Literally just one piece of solid evidence is good enough.

Just because Mario and Luigi were formally placed at 6-C or 3-C in base [without a Grand Star] doesn't mean there's any evidence or direct statements proving they can destroy an island or galaxy;

The 6-C example is bad given some of the 6-C feats were done by Mario himself on screen, like yeah he doesn't need a statement in that case because we straight up see him do it?
3-C, well, might be why they aren't 3-C anymore?

And this is a bit odd anyway because there is statements about island and galaxy busting directly in verse, like the cannon from dream team or galaxy slop ironically, but that's beside the point.
Am I really having to argue with you that you need proof to prove things?

the AP page says that. The Super Mario Galaxy games and every other part in the meta-series aren't upfront with evidence like that;

That isn't my problem. If there's no proof, then they don't get it.
What do you expect here?

there's almost no direct statements where they're using a said amount of power equal to or greater than what a feat outputs.

If there isn't any, then we don't scale them to it. If there is, we do.

Statements aren't ALWAYS required to place characters at a level.

You're right, which is why I also said that alternatively just prove that the feat in question was done by Koops himself and it'd also work. But we need one or the other.
There's ways to go about this, you just keep refusing and expecting us to vibe scale.

snip

Nobody is saying they aren't amped by it. They are, this isn't up for debate.
The problem is that power stars and grand stars, in the same game mind you, have a very clear caveat of being a limited energy source.
What this means, is that no matter the case, they can not be using the full output of it, otherwise it'd be drained with one attack, which doesn't happen. No, instead they're using its power yeah, but not all of it at once, it's more like a power plant or nuclear reactor, you plug your phone into a wall and it powers your phone right? But you sure as hell didn't use any meaningful amount of the city's output. Same here.
Koops can stay amped by it for days or weeks, throw countless attacks, yet never runs out, which by virtue means he isn't using a notable amount of it at once. So the question becomes how MUCH energy are they using in combat? That's what needs to be proven.

Like this has been explained a dozen times now, you're all missing what's actually being asked, we don't need proof they're amped, it's proof of how MUCH they're amped. You need to prove they're amped to equal or greater levels than the power used to perform the 4-A or ANY feat for that matter, could be 4-A, 3-C, or even 5-B, otherwise it's unknown, and could be anywhere from some infinintasmal percent or even higher than the 4-A feat. But fact of the matter is, we need proof, and when the only proof we have atm is they 100% can't use the whole output at once, we have an issue.
But as said, there's solutions, like prove Koops made the black hole while amped himself instead of via a machine or something for example, at that point it becomes his own feat and scales directly in his amped state. Nobody is actually digging through shit tho to check.

And Megamind doesn't have a statement in the movie where he's using equal or greater power than that, does he?

He doesn't which is why he's not 6-A with it, or that he scales to said 7-B output either himself?

 

[JPTheGamer]

Because that's the rule? Are you really asking me why we need proof to rate things?
It's this exact reason why Taranza or Ing got downgraded, the former of which you yourself brought up as an example in the form of Kirby. This is just standard practice, everything needs proof or at least sufficient evidence, whether it's minor like swimming or intellect, or major like a decillion times stat upgrade.

Okay, you know what? I need actual evidence this rule exists, because so far I haven't found much.

Where on the wiki does it state that you need to provide explicit statements or visuals that a character is using "equal or greater" energy than an artifact in order to be placed on that tier with it? If this rule isn't on the wiki, why do you guys only have it on the forums? Show me some CRTs your community made for the verses they added to the wiki that went over this very rule.

 

[SeijiSetto]

More importantly, seeing as how YOU helped with the math and pixel-scaling for the calculation and suggested that we use the black hole in the beginning of this thread, why haven't YOU provided explicit proof that Bowser was using greater or equal energy to the Grand Star or that the Grand Star was the cause of the black hole?

he doesn't have to
he can help with the calc but it's your CRT, he is not obligated to do anything for you
argue for your own points by yourself lol