Super Mario CRT: Galaxy? I Think Not!

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It was when it absorbed the Observatory containing all Grand Stars thus only when all Power Stars and not really scale to anyone outside of arguably the durability of Rosalina's forcefield. But the reset is an aftermath after that final explosion. Also, that feat is not what I'm agreeing to scale to everyone, if that's what Fox is using to justify 3-B, I actually don't quite agree with that. Only that he seemed to have thought of other parts, if not. Then I'm not seeing 3-B altogether.

 

[AKM sama]

The Rosalina's forcefield thing comes from the guide that has contradictory info and I am pretty sure we already established we are not using it in previous threads. In fact, the guide says that a galaxy is planet-sized or something iirc, but don't quote me on that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That's why I added the word "Arguably"

 

[Antvasima]

So what do each of you think that we should do here, and why? Explanations would be appreciated.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Yeah, so my argument is ignored completely because, again, "it's just hax".

Great.

Well then if I can't upgrade it what's the counter to getting rid of 3-C altogether? We don't know the actual sizes of these galaxies provably. Bowser needed the whole game to say he would finally create a "galaxy" with the Grand Star. And again, could be over time and not an instant creation of one. And if Lumas are just hax it wouldn't scale to anyone anyways.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

In fact, the guide says that a galaxy is planet-sized or something iirc, but don't quote me on that.

I won’t quote you on that because you’d be wrong.
Also I have some thoughts about not using the guide

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I do agree with Fox btw (not like that’s anything new)

 

[Foxthefox1000]

I changed the OP to reflect what I believe to be the more agreeable revision. Please read the new summary in bold. Let's discuss that argument because I'm curious how people will respond. Given the trajectory of the discussion and certain arguments used I believe it's appropriate and shouldn't have any disagreements if people stay consistent.

 

[The_Almighty_Wholesome]

I agree with Fox here.

 

[Nierre]

Not knowledgeable on Mario but after reading the thread, I agree with Fox

 

[Foxthefox1000]

To clarify I'm also arguing for removal of 3-C altogether.

For more support, you could also argue there's proof the galaxies Lumas make aren't as developed, as there's only a single Power Star to be collected in such galaxies compared to the several in other galaxies.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I won’t quote you on that because you’d be wrong.
Also I have some thoughts about not using the guide

To clarify what AKM was referring to the guide actually does call a galaxy a planetary system.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

To be fair that's a planetary system not a planet.

But yeah, anyways given we have no context for galaxy creation and it's pretty vague, the Grand Stars only have Lumas to upscale from. But we also don't know their sizes and have an implication they have not as much in them as other galaxies anyways. Also worth noting Hungry Lumas are notably different from regular Lumas as they are gluttonous and want to feed on large quantities of Star Bits in order to transform into galaxies and planets, with both a Galaxy and Planet sharing the fact there's also a Power Star created, but given Planets require so little Star Bits in the game Power Stars likely aren't adding much to the energy Lumas need for galaxies or planets, making Power Stars inferior

Japanese also supports Star Bits being the "stardust" that falls during the Festival, and gameplay shows this too, which would mean Star Bits were used to become a Grand Star in the opening. Likely more than is required to create a Planet with an added Power Star as well (seriously you need 20-30 for Planets and Power Stars are part of that creation), but still likely way lower than the amount needed for galaxies.

So do with that info what you will. The way I see it Galaxy does not hold up under scrutiny. And no, Rosalina's statement is admittedly pretty vague and doesn't need to support the idea of the Stars being superior to certain Luma's higher transformations.

 

[Antvasima]

I changed the OP to reflect what I believe to be the more agreeable revision. Please read the new summary in bold. Let's discuss that argument because I'm curious how people will respond. Given the trajectory of the discussion and certain arguments used I believe it's appropriate and shouldn't have any disagreements if people stay consistent.

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @GyroNutz @Dino_Ranger_Black @CrimsonStarFallen @SamanPatou

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If comparing most of those Luma galaxies to the smallest galaxies in the universe as opposed to assuming they're Milky Way Galaxy sized is what's being proposed, I personally don't mind that option would would still probably get well into 4-A range via inverse square law. As is making Grand Stars simply upscale from them which scales to the Mario main cast.

Also, it sound hypocritical to use the guidebook to imply "Some galaxies are only solar system sized" despite that being the very same guidebook to justify some of the universal ratings. If we're going to attempt the guidebook, it's unfair to only use one side and not the other solely to enforce downgrades or upgrades. It should just be all or nothing. But I don't mind replacing 3-C with 4-A given the likely nature of those galaxies birthed by Luma booms.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, it sound hypocritical to use the guidebook to imply "Some galaxies are only solar system sized" despite that being the very same guidebook to justify some of the universal ratings. If we're going to attempt the guidebook, it's unfair to only use one side and not the other solely to enforce downgrades or upgrades. It should just be all or nothing.

This makes sense to me.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

To be fair that's a planetary system not a planet.

But yeah, anyways given we have no context for galaxy creation and it's pretty vague, the Grand Stars only have Lumas to upscale from. But we also don't know their sizes and have an implication they have not as much in them as other galaxies anyways. Also worth noting Hungry Lumas are notably different from regular Lumas as they are gluttonous and want to feed on large quantities of Star Bits in order to transform into galaxies and planets, with both a Galaxy and Planet sharing the fact there's also a Power Star created, but given Planets require so little Star Bits in the game Power Stars likely aren't adding much to the energy Lumas need for galaxies or planets, making Power Stars inferior

Japanese also supports Star Bits being the "stardust" that falls during the Festival, and gameplay shows this too, which would mean Star Bits were used to become a Grand Star in the opening. Likely more than is required to create a Planet with an added Power Star as well (seriously you need 20-30 for Planets and Power Stars are part of that creation), but still likely way lower than the amount needed for galaxies.

So do with that info what you will. The way I see it Galaxy does not hold up under scrutiny. And no, Rosalina's statement is admittedly pretty vague and doesn't need to support the idea of the Stars being superior to certain Luma's higher transformations.

But yeah, assuming they do make veritable galaxies we can't instantly believe they're Milky Way sized and I've made the argument that shows why they could be considered smaller too, having less Power Stars than other galaxies. 4-A is fine with me. It makes more sense I think.

 

[VegetaFan756]

I do want to point out that Mario only goes to one section of a galaxy. The rest of it is much larger and very much not to scale

 

[Foxthefox1000]

I do want to point out that Mario only goes to one section of a galaxy. The rest of it is much larger and very much not to scale

Many people have been saying this.

But again, it's true that we don't know the exact sizes of these galaxies and can only assume. But given the galaxies we see Lumas create have less in them (only one Power Star) it's probably an implication these galaxies aren't as developed and therefore smaller and not as impressive to make as other galaxies.

 

[VegetaFan756]

I assume the ones the Lumas make are just mini galaxies.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

If they are it's more likely just 4-A under our AP Chart. Smaller galaxies are below what we base the baseline on, so it'd just be somewhere in the 4-A range if they are the actual cosmological systems.

 

[VegetaFan756]

even so, the Grand Stars are universe level

 

[Foxthefox1000]

That's apparently incorrect.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Lemme ask for total clarification so I can add up the agreements: How many users would agree with downgrading Lumas, Power Stars, and Grand Star's ratings to at least 4-A?

 

[Starter_Pack]

4-A Mario seems like it would work for me.

I'll go ahead and agree based on the things DDM said.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Added. That's two staff agreements so far.

 

[Antvasima]

So what is suggested that we should do here, in summary?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

hello, if I have something that can support 4-A mario that isnt about Mario Galaxy, can I talk about it here or should I make a new thread?

 

[Foxthefox1000]

hello, if I have something that can support 4-A mario that isnt about Mario Galaxy, can I talk about it here or should I make a new thread?

If it's related to Grand Stars, Power Stars, Lumas, or the Power of the Stars, then this is the thread. If not, it's best talked about elsewhere.

So what is suggested that we should do here, in summary?

Basically the new proposal is that there's no reason to believe the galaxy creation in Galaxy supports them becoming galaxies comparable in size to the Milky Way, with context like having only a single mission and thusly a single Power Star being potential indicators they're not as developed. Really, we shouldn't automatically assume all galaxies are comparable to the Milky Way in fiction in general as they vary greatly in sizes. Bowser's galaxy creation also has little specifications behind it to boot.

So basically, should we accept they become the actual celestial bodies and what can reasonably be qualified as a galaxy, then the lowest interpretation of that is 4-A and seems like the most reasonable as well.

So any profiles with 3-C would be downgraded to something like "At least 4-A, likely higher (There is a possibility "galaxy" as it is used in Mario Galaxy could mean galaxies comparable to the Milky Way or even larger when referring to galaxies, but due to the large range of what qualifies as a galaxy, the loose term of "galaxy" being used, and the inconsistent size portrayals of the Marioverse, we cannot give a definitive tier beyond the energy needed to create the smallest galaxies as the safest end without explicit proof the galaxies are bigger)"

 

[Omnificence]

Currently the Grand Star is 3-C because that's it's only shown feat of power.

I'm saying to upgrade that to 3-B. If we have no issues with Grand Stars getting rated as Galaxy then my logic should make it having a possibly 3-B rating fine with all the proof it has.

The "consistency" issue is one y'all have with Base Mario and the scaling. This thread isn't about that. It's specifically about the amp they receive from these objects. Grand Stars only have the one feat and that one feat also has support for 3-B scaling.

The Power of the Stars, should we consider it, would at worst receive a Varies tier for supplying different amounts of Star Power canonically, with the lowest showing being the Crystal Stars/Star Stones which house the power of the stars merely only allowing Shadow Queen to "destroy the ENTIRE world" which can be Tier 6 or 5 depending on what you support.

Anything lower than that and the argued "consistent" tier (which apparently y'all are claiming is Tier 7-6) would overlap with this amp which is one of the big issues people had with the current scaling of Base to the Grand Stars/Power Stars.

Yeah, I was always thinking Mario and other characters should have a 3-B key.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

There's also the fact Bowser literally absorbed all kinds of matter and power from Power Stars and the Comer Observatory which had 120 Stars altogether, 6 of which were Grand Stars, on top of already having eaten a Grand Star and gained it's power. Galaxy 2 Bowser feasibly can be argued have had absorbed the power of 7 Grand Stars and at least 114 Power Stars and maybe even more and there's the argument he stole her own power and the Lumas on the ship as well. Literally an INSANE buff Bowser would have had. But I digress.

3-B seems to have been mostly rejected so I won't bother trying to argue for it more. If others want to go ahead, knock yourselves out.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

There's also the fact Bowser literally absorbed all kinds of matter and power from Power Stars and the Comer Observatory which had 120 Stars altogether, 6 of which were Grand Stars, on top of already having eaten a Grand Star and gained it's power. Galaxy 2 Bowser feasibly can be argued have had absorbed the power of 7 Grand Stars and at least 114 Power Stars and maybe even more and there's the argument he stole her own power and the Lumas on the ship as well. Literally an INSANE buff Bowser would have had. But I digress.

3-B seems to have been mostly rejected so I won't bother trying to argue for it more. If others want to go ahead, knock yourselves out.

You know what, don't waste time arguing 3-B here, this has been going on for too long. Just keep the argument for next time

 

[Omnificence]

But their profile states "They are stated to be comparable to Lumas by Rosalina, such are capable of becoming comets, planets, stars, and galaxies"

Doesn't that mean anything?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Basically the new proposal is that there's no reason to believe the galaxy creation in Galaxy supports them becoming galaxies comparable in size to the Milky Way, with context like having only a single mission and thusly a single Power Star being potential indicators they're not as developed. Really, we shouldn't automatically assume all galaxies are comparable to the Milky Way in fiction in general as they vary greatly in sizes. Bowser's galaxy creation also has little specifications behind it to boot.

So basically, should we accept they become the actual celestial bodies and what can reasonably be qualified as a galaxy, then the lowest interpretation of that is 4-A and seems like the most reasonable as well.

So any profiles with 3-C would be downgraded to something like "At least 4-A, likely higher (There is a possibility "galaxy" as it is used in Mario Galaxy could mean galaxies comparable to the Milky Way or even larger when referring to galaxies, but due to the large range of what qualifies as a galaxy, the loose term of "galaxy" being used, and the inconsistent size portrayals of the Marioverse, we cannot give a definitive tier beyond the energy needed to create the smallest galaxies as the safest end without explicit proof the galaxies are bigger)"

This is the summary by the way

 

[Foxthefox1000]

But their profile states "They are stated to be comparable to Lumas by Rosalina, such are capable of becoming comets, planets, stars, and galaxies"

Doesn't that mean anything?

Galaxy is far too vague, as it can mean a system small enough to hold 1000 stars or a system many times larger than our Milky Way. Without any specifics we can't really say. And she actually never mentions galaxies in that specific quote, either.

There's also evidence that Power Stars actually aren't superior to the Luma's other transformations as well.

Hungry Lumas are noted for their gluttony and require vast amounts of Star Bits to transform. Star Bits are also the "shooting stars" (stardust in Japan) that rain down on the Kingdom during the Festival, which can be seen in regular gameplay. Power Stars aren't raining down, but Star Bits are, and the Toad collect them. Using this knowledge, it's safe to say Star Bits comtribu to the creation of things, as they become a great Power Star in the intro and can cause Hungry Lumas to become planet and even galaxies in high numbers. The intro as well as the fact a single Power Star also gets creates with the planet and galaxies actually seems to imply Power Stars take less to make. If a Power Star required more energy to create than the Galaxy it formed with than why would the Lumas need considerably less to create a measly planet along with a Power Star?

Grand Stars seem to only be able to perform the feat over the course of the game and not instantaneously like the Lumas as well. I know the next question is "But then why not use the Lumas to power his machine?" but also consider he likely wouldn't have been aware of Lumas and their powers as he just "met" Rosalina and the Lumas shortly before the game begins supposedly. May not have even met her as she stated "a strange force latched onto their ship and took away [their] power source" so she didn't even realize what it was at first. Bowser noticed her Star Power on the ship and decided to whisk it away is the implication, and it seems he did it discreetly and from afar. So it seems to make sense why he didn't use the Lumas at all (not to mention, as Rosalina said, SOME become certain things, it's not like every Luma is boasting the ability to create galaxies, a feat we only see Hungry Lumas, the more gluttonous and therefore requiring more energy ones do).

And as for the second game, he clearly wasn't only taking from the Grand Stars that time, as was blatantly shown by him taking Rosalina and her Observatory's power as well

But even if they are superior, they would only upscale from the 1000 Stars safe assumption by am untold margin.

 

[Antvasima]

Basically the new proposal is that there's no reason to believe the galaxy creation in Galaxy supports them becoming galaxies comparable in size to the Milky Way, with context like having only a single mission and thusly a single Power Star being potential indicators they're not as developed. Really, we shouldn't automatically assume all galaxies are comparable to the Milky Way in fiction in general as they vary greatly in sizes. Bowser's galaxy creation also has little specifications behind it to boot.

So basically, should we accept they become the actual celestial bodies and what can reasonably be qualified as a galaxy, then the lowest interpretation of that is 4-A and seems like the most reasonable as well.

So any profiles with 3-C would be downgraded to something like "At least 4-A, likely higher (There is a possibility "galaxy" as it is used in Mario Galaxy could mean galaxies comparable to the Milky Way or even larger when referring to galaxies, but due to the large range of what qualifies as a galaxy, the loose term of "galaxy" being used, and the inconsistent size portrayals of the Marioverse, we cannot give a definitive tier beyond the energy needed to create the smallest galaxies as the safest end without explicit proof the galaxies are bigger)"

Okay. That seems reasonable to me.

What do other staff members here think?

 

[Omnificence]

Galaxy is far too vague, as it can mean a system small enough to hold 1000 stars or a system many times larger than our Milky Way. Without any specifics we can't really say. And she actually never mentions galaxies in that specific quote, either.

There's also evidence that Power Stars actually aren't superior to the Luma's other transformations as well.

Hungry Lumas are noted for their gluttony and require vast amounts of Star Bits to transform. Star Bits are also the "shooting stars" (stardust in Japan) that rain down on the Kingdom during the Festival, which can be seen in regular gameplay. Power Stars aren't raining down, but Star Bits are, and the Toad collect them. Using this knowledge, it's safe to say Star Bits comtribu to the creation of things, as they become a great Power Star in the intro and can cause Hungry Lumas to become planet and even galaxies in high numbers. The intro as well as the fact a single Power Star also gets creates with the planet and galaxies actually seems to imply Power Stars take less to make. If a Power Star required more energy to create than the Galaxy it formed with than why would the Lumas need considerably less to create a measly planet along with a Power Star?

Grand Stars seem to only be able to perform the feat over the course of the game and not instantaneously like the Lumas as well. I know the next question is "But then why not use the Lumas to power his machine?" but also consider he likely wouldn't have been aware of Lumas and their powers as he just "met" Rosalina and the Lumas shortly before the game begins supposedly. May not have even met her as she stated "a strange force latched onto their ship and took away [their] power source" so she didn't even realize what it was at first. Bowser noticed her Star Power on the ship and decided to whisk it away is the implication, and it seems he did it discreetly and from afar. So it seems to make sense why he didn't use the Lumas at all (not to mention, as Rosalina said, SOME become certain things, it's not like every Luma is boasting the ability to create galaxies, a feat we only see Hungry Lumas, the more gluttonous and therefore requiring more energy ones do).

And as for the second game, he clearly wasn't only taking from the Grand Stars that time, as was blatantly shown by him taking Rosalina and her Observatory's power as well

But even if they are superior, they would only upscale from the 1000 Stars safe assumption by am untold margin.

Was also wondering, can this calc still be used for Mario and the other characters?

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Iirc no it can't be used

 

[Omnificence]

Iirc no it can't be used

Why not?

 

[Foxthefox1000]

If I remember right the argument is that black hole feats can't be used for whatever reason. I don't really remember. I just remember people strongly opposing it before as a Tier 4 feat