- 585
- 314
Idk. We should make a crt regarding thatSo why does Jiren not have Immeasurable Lifting Strength?
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.
Idk. We should make a crt regarding thatSo why does Jiren not have Immeasurable Lifting Strength?
Exactly. If jiren can't scale to zamasu's LS then he also shouldn't scale to his AP either.So why does Jiren not have Immeasurable Lifting Strength?
doesn't make sense lol, those two don't correlate. just upgrade everyone to immeasurable LS or downgrade zamasu.Exactly. If jiren can't scale to zamasu's LS then he also shouldn't scale to his AP either.
Someone should make a thread for goku black arc goku to be upgraded to low 2-C.
That is like, completely irrelevant.Lifting strength and AP have never been comparable
Just because you can strangle someone and break their arms like spaghetti, doesn’t mean you can punch with enough force to damage them
And vice versa.
Get some reading comprehension, come back, then read my post again.It's better to go through these reasons than just "I said so" it will prevent potential annoying thread that could easily be resolved right now
Yeah we should give everyone immeasurable lifting strength too. Do we make a new thread?Sure.
Infinite Zamasu is Low 2-C.
There is still no solid reason to scale people off of him. That deserves its own thread, though.
Before you make it, are you sure its not an outlier? Not saying it is, but DBS kind of has some anti-feats for that I thinkYeah we should give everyone immeasurable lifting strength too. Do we make a new thread?
I mean I'm not sure there's a strong enough case against that for it to justify a new thread, considering goku literally intended to fight it if he had a senzu bean, and the saiyans literally held back a direct attack from it, as well as the fact that pre UI goku was able stall suppressed Jiren for a bit, who was the strongest enemy they had fought at that pointSure.
Infinite Zamasu is Low 2-C.
There is still no solid reason to scale people off of him. That deserves its own thread, though.
I don't think there are any anti feats for lifting strength for the characters stronger than infinite zamasu, they are all top tiers in the TOP which had no lifting strength anti feats, actually it did have those 2 black hole feats.Before you make it, are you sure its not an outlier? Not saying it is, but DBS kind of has some anti-feats for that I think
We are starting to derail, but no energy doesn't have mass, it wouldn't give lifting strength.Couldn't Goku lifting up the super dense energy ball at the end of the bog arc be a decent lifting stregth feat as well? Not only did it have enough energy/force to wipe out universe 7. But also, Beerus was pushing against it.
Actually yeah you're right all lifting strength anti-feats are before Future trunks arc and if Goku is supposed to have gotten uncountably infinitely stronger than I think it could be usable. You should probably make a threadI don't think there are any anti feats for lifting strength for the characters stronger than infinite zamasu, they are all top tiers in the TOP which had no lifting strength anti feats, actually it did have those 2 black hole feats.
Actually Elder kai called it a "high energy mass" https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:AKM_sama/Dragon_Ball_Super:_Battle_of_GodsWe are starting to derail, but no energy doesn't have mass, it wouldn't give lifting strength.
It called dense energy, not massActually Elder kai called it a "high energy mass" https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:AKM_sama/Dragon_Ball_Super:_Battle_of_Gods
But the Infinte Zamasu scaling is better anyways so it is what it is.
Scroll down and look at the pictures from my link. They refer to it as a "high energy mass". Ik they referred to it a dense energy ball as well.It called dense energy, not mass
I'll close this thread then.Sure.
Infinite Zamasu is Low 2-C.
There is still no solid reason to scale people off of him. That deserves its own thread, though.