- 12,802
- 5,936
I thought vertigo would have a straight up 1-C rating, not possibly. Its just the possible 1-A getting removed and adding in 1-C
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As with all of the ratings, it's something that can be addressed in later CRTs.I thought vertigo would have a straight up 1-C rating, not possibly. Its just the possible 1-A getting removed and adding in 1-C
You just made a small mistake here. You put the Upside-Down Man to 2-C, possibly 2-A while Hecate is only 2-C. Both are equal. I can fix this.Okay, that sandbox now has the updated tiers. We could transpose it to an official blog post once Antvasima is ready.
This sentence is a bit hard to follow, but the matter is far from settled. The wiki changes all the time, but the scope of this project is too vast to handle here with the level of specificity some are engaging in.Well maybe we should rethink at what we may think we agree on but is not.
Reddit has always mocked VSBW. But really not persuaded that /r/DeathBattleMatchups is going to be a place to find well-reasoned takes on anything.Apparently this thread is making ourselves a laughing stock even among Reddit.
Wait a secondPretty big lowball. Considering Grant Morrisons vision on the Orrery with each universe being its own authored work and whatnot
Which would obviously include Morrisons already accepted at least 1-B Animal Man cosmology.
But eh, pretty busy to do anything about that at the current moment.
It does. I have no idea what he's referring to about an "accepted 1-B Animal Man cosmology" but such a topic isn't actually included in these revisions.Doesn't DC in it entirety peak at High 1-C? Or did I misunderstand something
His talking about the endless dream sequences from Animal Man. That’s apparently 1-B+ at the least.It does. I have no idea what he's referring to about an "accepted 1-B Animal Man cosmology" but such a topic isn't actually included in these revisions.
I already answered this the first time you asked.why not taking one step more solid?
Buddy your grammar is really hard to follow.The "accepted 1-B Animal Man cosmology" to be refuted? Well it will be reestablished in the coming CRT in any proper way necessary should this thread want to rush in throwing it away and proceed with the downplay.
I think he means something on the lines of “why rush it.” He thinks putting Animal Man Cosmology should go alongside what we have for Synder/Grant and doesn’t need a follow up CRT to validate it. In other words, we are “downplaying” because we didn’t include it and are trying to proceed thus rushing it and missing a “fundamental” part of Grant’s Cosmology.Buddy your grammar is really hard to follow.
If the current take of this thread is to "downgrade first upgrade later" then it can be more acceptable. Although this will just be another hassle of this ultimately changes nothing.It was originally 1-A, but I am not 100% on where the discussion went from there. The thread got pretty messy. We decided that this lower set of tiers was in an acceptable ball park, and to conclude the matter for the sake of brevity since with 20+ tiers to debate, it was not practical to reach a thorough consensus about all of them. There will likely be future CRTs on many of the matters that can be examined in greater detail to determine the best tier.
First, sorry for any inconvenience caused (my bad or not).Buddy your grammar is really hard to follow.
It more so has to due with finishing the project and implementing individual tiers later. We have come to a consensus that the thread is coming to a conclusion and any follow-up would need a separate CRT to induce new tiers or revise old ones.If the current take of this thread is to "downgrade first upgrade later" then it can be more acceptable. Although this will just be another hassle of this ultimately changes nothing.
I'm sorry? Are you saying the splitting of profiles should include statements that go with each Author's interpretation of the Cosmology?By the way, given the current take is not just a simple downgrade but also splitting the profiles according to author lines (at least what I perceive) because apparently I have read from here that different authors have different character portrayals, would this also mean that we do also need to split the character profiles by the author lines as well?
Indeed but it was hard to follow what you were saying. However, Deagon already revise the tiers according to the major consensus agreeing on the tiers Elizio presented.Now, this will be a far bigger work to do.
That's not the approach. Some of the tiers are likely too high, some are likely too low. It's that we cannot practically reach a consensus on all of them here. The scope of the project is too broad. I already said this.If the current take of this thread is to "downgrade first upgrade later" then it can be more acceptable
No. We are only splitting the cosmology which most characters do not scale to. And even the cosmologies are only roughly based on authorship.because apparently I have read from here that different authors have different character portrayals, would this also mean that we do also need to split the character profiles by the author lines as well?
Excuse me?No. We are only splitting the cosmology which most characters do not scale to. And even the cosmologies are only roughly based on authorship.
But we aren't deciding that? That's not even on the table.If authorship (and any coherence and contradictions among stories of such) is what we base on to decide on splitting and retiering the characters
deagon everyone agrees with 1-C voidAs with all of the ratings, it's something that can be addressed in later CRTs.
I'd have to get Ant or Firestorm to update the official blogdeagon everyone agrees with 1-C void
you just need to delete the word possibly in the blog
this is 2-AI haven't really seen statement taken into consideration here
Is it not cited because it is taken to be separate from Morrisons cosmology even though it is within the New 52 continuity?
Yeah, a) it's not in any of the cosmologies and b) it's not specified what type of dimensions they are. I'm aware of the author statement, but that too was fairly vague and asked in a leading sort of manner, and isn't conclusive enough to override the other problems with that. There are also more definitive and direct statements that suggest there arent limitless spatial dimensions so they take priority.Is it not cited because it is taken to be separate from Morrisons cosmology even though it is within the New 52 continuity?
Where?There are also more definitive and direct statements that suggest there arent limitless spatial dimensions so they take priority.
They're in the blog.Where?
Although we already confirmed why this isn't anything more than 2-A.I haven't really seen this statement taken into consideration here
Is it not cited because it is taken to be separate from Morrisons cosmology even though it is within the New 52 continuity?
I cant seem to find anything that goes against limitless higher dimensions in the cosmology though?They're in the blog.
Okay. If you interpret the scans differently that's fine, but I'm not going to hash it out here now that everything has been decided.I cant seem to find anything that goes against limitless higher dimensions in the cosmology though?
At least, when drafting the cosmology explanation page, write the scan page source and say that it is proposed by which members that the dimensions here means "space time continua" and therefore infinite dimensions in this scan means 2-A to those proposers.Although we already confirmed why this isn't anything more than 2-A.
We could break down the scan with Rama and Deadman. There are immeasurable amounts of dimensions as the one they stand in is two steps removed from the other.
That does not suggest anything more than just an uncountable amount of dimension. Where they have time in a different meaning. With all that in mind, it's not Tier 1.
The plan is to close it and start a new thread that focuses on implementing the accepted changes since it'll be a large effort
YesOkay. That is probably fine. Is it acceptable if I close this thread then?