• 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.

Tier 5 Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Epyriel said:
Could also use more input on the proposed Tier 5 change of Tier 5: Planetary -> Tier 5: Substellar.

Currently stands as:

Agree: GyroNuts, Everything12, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, CloverDragon03
Disagree:
Neutral:
Click to expand...
@Antvasima This list includes everyone who supports the change from Planetary to Substellar. So, as far as voting staff go, just everyone on this list except me
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. Given that I also support the change, I think that it can probably be applied. 🙏
Click to expand...
I applied the change.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️🙂

So how should we proceed with the "Brown Dwarf level" renaming issue?
 
No, not for such an important issue.

Does anybody here have a suggestion for another, also considerably less inaccurate, title that we can use for the "High 5-A" tier, which more staff members may find acceptable?
 
Antvasima said:
No, not for such an important issue.

Does anybody here have a suggestion for another, also considerably less inaccurate, title that we can use for the High 5-A tier, which more staff members may find acceptable?
Click to expand...
Two synonyms for "brown dwarf" are "hyperjovian" and "planetar", but both are technical jargon utterly unsuitable for the tiering system. "Brown dwarf" is by far the best term; no others are available that capture the range of High 5-A so perfectly.
 
Okay.

If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Okay.

If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish. 🙏
Click to expand...
Ok, here we go:

Tier High 5-A is currently precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs. ‘Dwarf Star level’ is unsuitable as it is not a synonym of brown dwarfs, but in fact a mutually incompatible designation (as brown dwarfs are not stars) applicable only to higher tiers (such as Low 4-C which covers red dwarfs and 4-C which covers yellow dwarfs, although both these have appropriate synonyms for names). It is a serious flaw in naming convention if you have a designation that applies exclusively to objects outside of the tier you want to name.

- The first argument against the change was that it was simply too much of a burden to make all the edits for all the individual pages that reference the tier.

This has been solved by an offer to fix it all with a bot swiftly.

- The second argument against the change was that ‘dwarf star’ was still colloquially understood as brown dwarf.

In response, it has been pointed out that the main reason it is understood as such on the forums is because the tiering system itself makes the error, and that this has not prevented the distinction becoming a point of confusion in several discussions (in fact pretty much every time the nature of ‘dwarf stars’ gets raised) amongst anyone with any prior knowledge of either term.

- The third argument against the change was that there might be an overlap with red dwarfs infiltrating High 5-A from above.

In response, I have pointed out the upper limit of the tier is VB 10 which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible red dwarf star. The number of non-brown dwarfs inside High 5-A is absolutely minuscule compared to issues of overlap/infiltration in pretty much any other tier.

- The fourth argument against the change is that some people simply don’t like ‘brown dwarf’ as a name.

Not much I can do about that, as brown dwarf has been the overwhelmingly dominant accepted name for the class of objects in question for the last half century, pretty much since they were first theorized. The only synonymous alternatives like ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’ are far too unknown to be seriously considered (if you try and google ‘planetar’ the only thing you will get are links to a DnD monster by the same name, while ‘hyperjovian’ won’t get you much at all).

‘Substar’ was proposed as an alternative, however it was pointed out such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish. 🙏
Click to expand...
Epyriel said:
Ok, here we go:

Tier High 5-A is currently precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs. ‘Dwarf Star level’ is unsuitable as it is not a synonym of brown dwarfs, but in fact a mutually incompatible designation (as brown dwarfs are not stars) applicable only to higher tiers (such as Low 4-C which covers red dwarfs and 4-C which covers yellow dwarfs, although both these have appropriate synonyms for names). It is a serious flaw in naming convention if you have a designation that applies exclusively to objects outside of the tier you want to name.

- The first argument against the change was that it was simply too much of a burden to make all the edits for all the individual pages that reference the tier.

This has been solved by an offer to fix it all with a bot swiftly.

- The second argument against the change was that ‘dwarf star’ was still colloquially understood as brown dwarf.

In response, it has been pointed out that the main reason it is understood as such on the forums is because the tiering system itself makes the error, and that this has not prevented the distinction becoming a point of confusion in several discussions (in fact pretty much every time the nature of ‘dwarf stars’ gets raised) amongst anyone with any prior knowledge of either term.

- The third argument against the change was that there might be a overlap with red dwarfs infiltrating High 5-A from above.

In response, I have pointed out the upper limit of the tier is VB 10 which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible red dwarf star. The number of non-brown dwarfs inside High 5-A is absolutely minuscule compared to issues of overlap/infiltration in pretty much any other tier.

- The fourth argument against the change is that some people simply don’t like ‘brown dwarf’ as a name.

Not much I can do about that, as brown dwarf has been the overwhelmingly dominant accepted name for the class of objects in question for the last half century, pretty much since they were first theorized. The only synonymous alternatives like ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’ are far too unknown to be seriously considered (if you try and google ‘planetar’ the only thing you will get are links to a DnD monster by the same name, while ‘hyperjovian’ won’t get you much at all).

‘Substar’ was proposed as an alternative, however it was pointed out such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole.
Click to expand...
Thank you. 🙏🙂❤️

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

What do you think about this? I personally support such a change.
 
 
On a minor note, even "Small Star level" and "Large Star level" have been argued as not very accurate either. Because it has been stated that some Blue Giant Stars actually have less GBE than the sun mainly due to less density. While there exist Dwarf Stars with GBE that would be Large Star level. Likewise, Neutron stars are 4-B; smallest stars in terms of volume but greatest in density. And I remember proposals to rename them to Low Star level and High Star level as opposed to Small Star level and Large Star level. But I believe they were rejected for reasons similar to this proposal.

I mean be willing to be okay with the changing the name if there's some better alternative. Like if there was a name more accurate than Dwarf Star level, but at least sounds better than Brown Dwarf level (By that logic, Large Planet level should be called Gas Giant level, and Small Planet level should be called Rocky Midget level). Maybe might sounds worse, but how about?
  • High 5-A is Sub Star level
  • Low 4-C is Low Star level
  • 4-C is still Star level (For obvious reasons)
  • And High 4-C is High Star level
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
On a minor note, even "Small Star level" and "Large Star level" have been argued as not very accurate either. Because it has been stated that some Blue Giant Stars actually have less GBE than the sun mainly due to less density. While there exist Dwarf Stars with GBE that would be Large Star level. Likewise, Neutron stars are 4-B; smallest stars in terms of volume but greatest in density. And I remember proposals to rename them to Low Star level and High Star level as opposed to Small Star level and Large Star level. But I believe they were rejected for reasons similar to this proposal.
Click to expand...
This is an extremely false equivalence. The individual tiers of the tiering system are named after their most common class of objects, but they don’t have to be all inclusive terms for every conceivable object which requires sufficient energy to destroy to fall within the joule values of a given tier.

Neutron stars and blue giants are extremely rare. They are not the most common reference objects for their given tiers. Making a less intuitive name in a vain attempt to cram them in next to more common reference objects that populate the tier makes little sense. “Low” and “High” are ambiguous qualifiers when referencing a physical astronomical object.

By comparison, Tier High 5-A is very uniformly comprised of brown dwarfs - they represent the only common class of object you can use as a reference (and much like small stars and large stars, the chosen joule values match the GBE of the object the name makes reference to).

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I mean be willing to be okay with the changing the name if there's some better alternative. Like if there was a name more accurate than Dwarf Star level, but at least sounds better than Brown Dwarf level (By that logic, Large Planet level should be called Gas Giant level, and Small Planet level should be called Rocky Midget level). Maybe might sounds worse, but how about?
  • High 5-A is Sub Star level
  • Low 4-C is Low Star level
  • 4-C is still Star level (For obvious reasons)
  • And High 4-C is High Star level
Click to expand...
Once again, changing High 5-A to a name like ‘Substar’ (which can refer to anything from tiny moons to large brown dwarfs) misrepresents what is actually inside the tier. This makes it both less intuitive and less accurate, failing on both metrics.

‘Low Star level’ and ‘High Star level’ would need a revision thread of their own, but from what you have said that has already been shot down. But for the same reasons above both seem a poor choice to me. After all, if you want to get really granular you could argue both tiers include objects that aren’t stars at all, like interstellar nebulas. Those are hardly the first things that come to mind as a reference, but by the logic of needing to cram rare examples of the tier into its name shouldn’t those also be included? This kind of logic could be applied endlessly, giving you a more general and general name that just becomes all the less intuitive at every step.

Better to just use the most common general class of object within the tier (basically the general form of whichever object you used as a reference marker for the joule values that mark off the tier). As we already do for basically every other tier.
 
Last edited:
I still agree with Epyriel here. 🙏
 
Well, I still want our wiki to be as accurate as possible, including in its naming conventions, but I am just a head bureaucrat (basically a form of public servant), not a tyrant, so I cannot enforce this change against our staff's wishes. 🙏

What is the current staff opinion tally here? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
What is the current staff opinion tally here? 🙏
Click to expand...
Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, Celestial_Pegasus, IdiosyncraticLawyer, GarrixianXD, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, KLOL506
Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa
 
Last edited:
Okay. Thank you for your reply. 🙏
 
Epyriel, please remind us about your view of using the "Substellar" naming convention. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Epyriel, please remind us about your view of using the "Sub-Stellar" naming convention. 🙏
Click to expand...
‘Substar’ was deemed unsuitable for High 5-A as such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5, not just High 5-A), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole to ‘Substellar’ (to replace the inaccurate former name of ‘Planetary’, which covered only 3 of the 5 tiers within Tier 5).
 
Epyriel's previous post said that "Planetary" only covered 1 of the 5 tiers within it, which caused my confusion, but it was corrected afterwards. 🙏
 
It very unfortunately does not seem like this will reach sufficient support to be accepted.

Or what is our current staff voting tally? 🙏
 
Epyriel said:
Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, IdiosyncraticLawyer, GarrixianXD, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, KLOL506
Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa
Click to expand...
Never mind.
Antvasima said:
Thank you for the information. 🙏

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov @Everything12 @Elizhaa

Are any of you willing to reevaluate your viewpoints here?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov @Elizhaa
 
I am not going through 5 pages, can anyone summarize what the contention is here, is just about the name, substellar or brown dwarf star level?
 
Epyriel said:
Ok, here we go:

Tier High 5-A is currently precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs. ‘Dwarf Star level’ is unsuitable as it is not a synonym of brown dwarfs, but in fact a mutually incompatible designation (as brown dwarfs are not stars) applicable only to higher tiers (such as Low 4-C which covers red dwarfs and 4-C which covers yellow dwarfs, although both these have appropriate synonyms for names). It is a serious flaw in naming convention if you have a designation that applies exclusively to objects outside of the tier you want to name.

- The first argument against the change was that it was simply too much of a burden to make all the edits for all the individual pages that reference the tier.

This has been solved by an offer to fix it all with a bot swiftly.

- The second argument against the change was that ‘dwarf star’ was still colloquially understood as brown dwarf.

In response, it has been pointed out that the main reason it is understood as such on the forums is because the tiering system itself makes the error, and that this has not prevented the distinction becoming a point of confusion in several discussions (in fact pretty much every time the nature of ‘dwarf stars’ gets raised) amongst anyone with any prior knowledge of either term.

- The third argument against the change was that there might be an overlap with red dwarfs infiltrating High 5-A from above.

In response, I have pointed out the upper limit of the tier is VB 10 which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible red dwarf star. The number of non-brown dwarfs inside High 5-A is absolutely minuscule compared to issues of overlap/infiltration in pretty much any other tier.

- The fourth argument against the change is that some people simply don’t like ‘brown dwarf’ as a name.

Not much I can do about that, as brown dwarf has been the overwhelmingly dominant accepted name for the class of objects in question for the last half century, pretty much since they were first theorized. The only synonymous alternatives like ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’ are far too unknown to be seriously considered (if you try and google ‘planetar’ the only thing you will get are links to a DnD monster by the same name, while ‘hyperjovian’ won’t get you much at all).

‘Substar’ was proposed as an alternative, however it was pointed out such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole.
Click to expand...
Just saw this. So essentially it's just an aesthetics vs functionally argument, yea imo brown dwarf star level is ok, since it most accurately describes the tier.
 
Antvasima said:
It very unfortunately does not seem like this will reach sufficient support to be accepted.

Or what is our current staff voting tally? 🙏
Click to expand...
Updated tally:
Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, Celestial_Pegasus, IdiosyncraticLawyer, GarrixianXD, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, KLOL506
Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa

Is 7-4 a good enough margin to pass this type of revision?
 
It seems like a borderline case, given that DontTalk is a bureaucrat, and Medeus is a Super Moderator, who are in-between administrators and bureaucrats. 🙏

I would prefer a bit stronger consensus here, as it sets a bad precedent for wiki policy change safety reasons otherwise. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Just saw this. So essentially it's just an aesthetics vs functionally argument, yea imo brown dwarf star level is ok, since it most accurately describes the tier.
Click to expand...
It's brown dwarf, not brown dwarf star. And this is a major point with me. While it is accurate, it is not widely used or widely understood by a lay person. I get that accuracy is important but so is user experience.

I saw that throughout the thread, the OP had to clarify several times that "brown dwarf" is not the same as "brown dwarf star". If people here are getting confused, a 15-year old who opens a page and sees "brown dwarf level" will probably have to google again as to what is a brown dwarf. He might lose interest by that time. I am not against keeping an accurate name but I want that term to be generally understood by a lay person, something that is in colloquial use.

We want to keep things simple with our tier names, since we use these 3 words to tell people a lot about a character's strength. If someone sees "Dwarf Star level", they will get the general idea of what it is compared to our other tier names. If they want to delve deep in detail, they can use our information pages (tiering system, attack potency chart, etc.). As long as the name is simple and gives the general idea, I think it is fine to have.
 
AKM sama said:
It's brown dwarf, not brown dwarf star. And this is a major point with me. While it is accurate, it is not widely used or widely understood by a lay person. I get that accuracy is important but so is user experience.

I saw that throughout the thread, the OP had to clarify several times that "brown dwarf" is not the same as "brown dwarf star".
Click to expand...
I would like to clarify that there is no such thing as a “brown dwarf star”, so if someone reads “brown dwarf level” and sticks ‘star’ into it by mistake it doesn’t really matter as everyone is referring to the same object.

This, however, is not the case with “dwarf star level”. Because there are such things as ‘dwarf stars’ and they are not a part of the tier named after them. Real dwarf stars correspond to tiers Low 4-C (red dwarf stars) and 4-C (yellow dwarf stars) respectively.

AKM sama said:
We want to keep things simple with our tier names, since we use these 3 words to tell people a lot about a character's strength. If someone sees "Dwarf Star level", they will get the general idea of what it is compared to our other tier names. If they want to delve deep in detail, they can use our information pages (tiering system, attack potency chart, etc.). As long as the name is simple and gives the general idea, I think it is fine to have.
Click to expand...
This is the issue I have with the tier - it gives the wrong impression to those at all familiar with either term. While “brown dwarf” gives the correct idea to anyone with any knowledge of astronomy, those in this thread that have added “star” to “brown dwarf” make it clear that those less familiar with astronomy are still making the same connection as those who use “dwarf star” to refer to this tier currently are.

The difference between “brown dwarf” and “brown dwarf star” is a matter of semantics and scientific precision in language, however provides no substantive challenge to clarity in our tiering, because both refer to the same object (as there is no real “brown dwarf stars”).

The difference between “dwarf star” and “brown dwarf star” is a matter of a serious substantive challenge to clarity in our tiering because the words refer to two different and distinct classes of objects. It is a serious problem if we have a tier called “dwarf star level” that has no dwarf stars in it, but instead dwarf stars occupy different tiers while a different, mutually incompatible class of objects occupy the tier.

AKM sama said:
I am not against keeping an accurate name but I want that term to be generally understood by a lay person, something that is in colloquial use.
Click to expand...
If you wish to have a tier with a name that is at all accurate I beg of you to support this revision. “Brown Dwarf” is the only name that is both accurate and in colloquial use. If you wish to minimize confusion and maximize accuracy, this is the way to go. 🙏

AKM sama said:
And this is a major point with me. I get that accuracy is important but so is user experience.
Click to expand...
I fully understand and appreciate the concern for user experience. But I would say user experience is best served by accurate names that do not spawn sporadic confused discussions about why a tier is labeled with a misleading name.

If you wish for people to have the best time understanding and using the tiering system, such will be served best by when google searches on the names of our tiers do not increase confusion as oppose to reduce it.
 
Last edited:
If the reason has more to do with the fact that "Brown Dwarfs aren't actually stars, but an awkward celestial body that is in a class between a Gas Giant planet and a Dwarf Star", I could see merit for Brown Dwarf level. But I would recommend adding a foot note to our tier page to avoid confusion. Like note that we used to call it Dwarf Star level, but explain what a Brown Dwarf is and mention that further research confirming that a Brown Dwarf lacks criteria to be classified as a Star.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
If the reason has more to do with the fact that "Brown Dwarfs aren't actually stars, but an awkward celestial body that is in a class between a Gas Giant planet and a Dwarf Star", I could see merit for Brown Dwarf level.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. It is additionally especially important because the actual Dwarf Stars correspond to different tiers.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
But I would recommend adding a foot note to our tier page to avoid confusion. Like note that we used to call it Dwarf Star level, but explain what a Brown Dwarf is and mention that further research confirming that a Brown Dwarf lacks criteria to be classified as a Star.
Click to expand...
This sounds appropriate. Based on the note for the Striking Strength change, perhaps we could do something like this:

Note 5:

Prior to 2024, Tier High 5-A: Brown Dwarf level used to be named ‘Tier High 5-A: Dwarf Star level’, which we changed in 2024 in recognition that brown dwarfs (the class of objects whose GBE values are used to outline the tier) do not meet the criteria for being a star. Stars, including dwarf stars, are astronomical objects of sufficient mass to fuse protium (the most common isotope of hydrogen), a criteria brown dwarfs do not meet. Brown dwarfs are instead an independent class of astronomical objects larger than planets that hold enough mass to fuse deuterium (which becomes possible around 13 Jupiter masses), but not massive enough to fuse protium (which becomes possible around 78 Jupiter masses). Actual dwarf stars populate Tier 4, such as red dwarfs which outline Tier Low 4-C, and yellow dwarfs which outline Tier 4-C.

If you encounter a page that was accidentally overlooked, and still uses old name instead of the one listed above, we would appreciate the help to correct it.
Click to expand...
 

Permission from @DarkDragonMedeus

According to Nasa, some Brown Dwarfs are comparable to large planets.

www.nasa.gov

NASA’s Webb Identifies Tiniest Free-Floating Brown Dwarf - NASA

Brown dwarfs are objects that straddle the dividing line between stars and planets. They form like stars, growing dense enough to collapse under their own
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov


Which also repeated again in this different link by Nasa.





“Brown dwarfs are objects which have a size between that of a giant planet like Jupiter and that of a small star. In fact, most astronomers would classify any object with between 15 times the mass of Jupiter and 75 times the mass of Jupiter to be a brown dwarf. Given that range of masses, the object would not have been able to sustain the fusion of hydrogen like a regular star; thus, many scientists have dubbed brown dwarfs as "failed stars".”

Same applies for this source from a different space organization as well.



As well as this one in regard to the mass of brown dwarfs:

https://earthsky.org/space/definition-what-are-brown-dwarfs/
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
According to Nasa, some Brown Dwarfs are comparable to large planets.

“Brown dwarfs are objects which have a size between that of a giant planet like Jupiter and that of a small star. In fact, most astronomers would classify any object with between 15 times the mass of Jupiter and 75 times the mass of Jupiter to be a brown dwarf. Given that range of masses, the object would not have been able to sustain the fusion of hydrogen like a regular star; thus, many scientists have dubbed brown dwarfs as "failed stars".”

Same applies for this source from a different space organization as well.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the point of this post is. Specifically the NASA article mentions: “At the low end of the scale, some brown dwarfs are comparable with giant planets, weighing just a few times the mass of Jupiter.”

Which is true. Objects below the Minimum Deuterium Burning Mass of roughly 13 Jupiter masses are Large Gas Giants, those just above the threshold are Small Brown Dwarfs. Something I already covered in the original post.

If you are trying to imply Planets and Brown Dwarfs have the same GBE values then that is simply not true, as your own sources attest to. “Brown dwarfs are objects which have a size between that of a giant planet like Jupiter and that of a small star.”
 
Epyriel said:
If you are trying to imply Planets and Brown Dwarfs have the same GBE values then that is simply not true, as your own sources attest to. “Brown dwarfs are objects which have a size between that of a giant planet like Jupiter and that of a small star.
Click to expand...
That is not my implication as we also technically would have to include the masses of a small star as shown here as they been considered “Failed Stars” due to their mass and other factors not enough to consider being an actual star
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CCMBROTTERFN
Cucumber Otter’s Tier 5 Tourney! (2/8 Combatants)
Replies
10
Views
523
Rayfire
Rayfire
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Maverick_Zero_X
Ben 10 5-A/High 5-A Scaling Error
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
Ezaru
Ezaru
LordGriffin1000
Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
VeneficaAuthor
VeneficaAuthor's 'Lunar Eclipse' Tourney Thread (Tier 5-C only) (11/16 Filled)
2 3
Replies
88
Views
5K
DMUA
DMUA
Back
Top