- 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
-
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.
The DC Comics Cosmology Revision Project - Part 3
- Status
- 7,904
- 14,966
As with all of the ratings, it's something that can be addressed in later CRTs.
- 3,363
- 3,186
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.
- 13,816
- 15,014
Well maybe we should rethink at what we may think we agree on but is not.
Apparently this thread is making ourselves a laughing stock even among Reddit.
One more thing: Is true form The Writer revised as "at least (one dimension / sub tier higher than the other fictional supreme character), likely Tier 0, possibly higher"?
And how is the avatar Grant Morrison with the machine affected?
Apparently this thread is making ourselves a laughing stock even among Reddit.
One more thing: Is true form The Writer revised as "at least (one dimension / sub tier higher than the other fictional supreme character), likely Tier 0, possibly higher"?
And how is the avatar Grant Morrison with the machine affected?
Last edited:
- 7,904
- 14,966
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.
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.
- 1,898
- 989
Good thing this site isn't reddit.
- 10,984
- 4,943
Let's not care what reddit says it's not as if that site is a paragon.
- 3,270
- 1,096
Wait a second
Doesn't DC in it entirety peak at High 1-C? Or did I misunderstand something
- 7,904
- 14,966
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.
- 3,215
- 2,432
His talking about the endless dream sequences from Animal Man. That’s apparently 1-B+ at the least.
- 3,215
- 2,432
I don’t not agree with the 1-B Animal Man addition into Grants interpretation of the Cosmology.
How would it work with Synder mesh of the Cosmology not to mention there’s are quite a leap of wording with Grants notion during the earlier time he had on Animal Man.
There was already a CRT based on this with Xearsey bringing the topic which had been shut down. So feel free to make another based on what you can gather but this thread is reaching it’s conclusion and I feel for now we should primarily focus on individual ratings rather than entire addition of Cosmology mesh.
How would it work with Synder mesh of the Cosmology not to mention there’s are quite a leap of wording with Grants notion during the earlier time he had on Animal Man.
There was already a CRT based on this with Xearsey bringing the topic which had been shut down. So feel free to make another based on what you can gather but this thread is reaching it’s conclusion and I feel for now we should primarily focus on individual ratings rather than entire addition of Cosmology mesh.
- 13,816
- 15,014
If this thread is about revising DC cosmology, esp. the high tier cosmologies and the different takes among different DC writers, why not taking one step more solid?
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.
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.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I already answered this the first time you asked.
Buddy your grammar is really hard to follow.
- 3,215
- 2,432
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.
- 13,816
- 15,014
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.
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, I do want to ask:
Would this also mean that we do also need to split the character profiles by the author lines as well?
Now, this will be a far bigger work to do.
So big this will contribute to different characters under different phases written under different author lines needing their own feat calc blog bases and their own scaling chains established.
First, sorry for any inconvenience caused (my bad or not).
No offence but this is what VBW as an international forum looks like. You literally have people from all over the world - including people (with insomnia) typing at Asia Pacific right now.
In fact, I am going to return to sleep right now after replying to you while I myself am suffering from some insomnia.
Last edited:
- 3,215
- 2,432
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.
I'm sorry? Are you saying the splitting of profiles should include statements that go with each Author's interpretation of the Cosmology?
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.
Anything else might need a separate thread.
- 7,904
- 14,966
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.
No. We are only splitting the cosmology which most characters do not scale to. And even the cosmologies are only roughly based on authorship.
- 13,816
- 15,014
Excuse me?
If authorship (and any coherence and contradictions among stories of such) is what we base on to decide on splitting and retiering the characters, then it naturally flows any character portrayed under different authorships should be under separate profiles.
This indeed will be a far bigger profile change than just "splitting the cosmology which most characters do not scale to".
- 7,904
- 14,966
But we aren't deciding that? That's not even on the table.
- 12,802
- 5,936
deagon everyone agrees with 1-C void
you just need to delete the word possibly in the blog
- 7,904
- 14,966
I'd have to get Ant or Firestorm to update the official blog
- 5,422
- 1,073
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?
Is it not cited because it is taken to be separate from Morrisons cosmology even though it is within the New 52 continuity?
- 12,802
- 5,936
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?
- 7,904
- 14,966
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.
- 2,168
- 2,128
Where?
- 7,904
- 14,966
They're in the blog.
- 3,215
- 2,432
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?
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.
- 2,168
- 2,128
I cant seem to find anything that goes against limitless higher dimensions in the cosmology though?
- 7,904
- 14,966
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.
- 13,816
- 15,014
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.
Like how other cosmologies pages are done. Will be useful. Thanks.
- 3,215
- 2,432
I think we have the gist for this thread. I think we should create another thread for individual tiering or an additional Cosmology except for the one we already mentioned. This thread is 8 pages long and we pretty much finished it at this point.
- 7,904
- 14,966
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
- 7,904
- 14,966
Yes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
