• 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.

Undertale MHS Downgrade

Agnaa

VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
15,392
13,498
Previous thread here.

The lightning isn't real, and should not be given speeds of cloud-to-ground lightning or even electricity. This has previously gone on and off profiles over the years, I'd like it to be done once and for all. Removing the ratings, reverting characters to Supersonic/Supersonic+, removing the note saying this one (and the exceedingly similar Mettaton feat) are accepted from the verse page, and adding a discussion rule against it, since imo the arguments aren't substantially changing each time; it's just getting accepted by different staff members that weren't there for previous times it was discussed.

Part of my counter-arguments are based on how Frisk's soul is accepted as being ~43 cm wide, and how that's accepted for scaling to the sizes and distances of attacks.

One can see a visual of this attack here.

This attack doesn't involve real lightning as:
  1. It is emanated as discrete bolts from the cloud, shaped as cartoonish depictions of electricity, while real lightning streaks up from the ground, and down from the cloud simultaneously, in curving, branching lines, until they connect.
  2. Many of the bolts are fired in unrealistic directions, almost parallel to the ground, or even away from the ground, which cannot occur with real lightning.
  3. The cloud is just over a meter across, and just under a meter tall, completely unlike any real clouds.
  4. The cloud is about 2.5 meters above the ground, which is not a sufficient distance for cloud-to-ground lightning.
Now, to respond to the relevant counterarguments from the last thread's OP.

Vulkin says "Thunder!" before this attack. It comes from a cloud.

Because these attacks are themed off of lightning. It's unsurprising that a goofy RPG monster also says things in line with that. There are many fictional things that take some theming from real-world phenomena, while acting completely differently. We should not let their style overturn the substance.

Some other magic attacks in Undertale clearly correspond to their real-world counterparts, by persisting in that way afterwards.

Not everything from a magic system is inherently equally real. One character being able to create ice and it being real does not mean that another character creating a black hole has to be legit; they're different abilities that should be judged on their own adherence to reality. Mettaton's bombs being unrealistic by only exploding in the four cardinal directions has not managed to disprove the usability every other magic attack in the game, I would not expect the valid attacks to auto-allow every magic attack with issues.

Some other magic attacks like fireballs are manipulated to move in unnatural ways, why can't that be the case here?

If it is the case here, then we lose the basis for a speed rating, since it could be manipulated to move at any arbitrarily low speed. If we knew that a fire manipulator's fire was sometimes as cold as 50 degrees, we would not always assume that it was 800 degrees. The ability to alter these things, rather than letting us justify sticking to real values despite the discordance, in fact makes us unable to use real values.

Pinging users who I think might care: @TheOrangeGuy09 @ShionAH @StrymULTRA

Pinging staff members who accepted the previous thread: @DarkDragonMedeus @Propellus
 
Last edited:
Yeah, like regardless of the merit of the thread itself, we've recently-ish established a discussion rule against bringing up speed changes for Undertale, in regards to the lightning feats.
 
Oh wew. Looking at the thread, the only staff comments on the actual substance of such a downgrade were "This is just a mix of appealing to reality and incredulity", after that it was just talk about implementing the discussion rule.

"Appeal to reality" is not a fallacy, it's how the site operates, with our standards on black holes, light, kinetic energy, mass-energy equivalence, and far more. It's not even on our Fallacies page.

Both this and the previous thread don't really have anything that imo you could point to for a claim of incredulity.

But if you and the others who supported that rule addition (@LephyrTheRevanchist @LordGriffin1000 @Antvasima) don't find any of this convincing, then ig it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Since the discussion rule is present I got no say here
Discussion rules can change! You are in fact allowed to say "That rule is unfounded, and this reason for downgrading and changing that rule makes sense." or "The reasons for the speed rating make sense, so it, and the rule, should stay." or even "I'm not sure what should be done."

I think your view in particular is pretty relevant, since you were one of the two staff members that commented on the upgrade immediately before the discussion rule got put into place.
 
Discussion rules can be struck down if it is decided by a later group that the rule is illegitimate. For now, discussion ought to continue as if the rule were not made, until those staff pinged on the subject speak their minds: reckon their opinions are among the most relevant.
 
Gonna hold off on responding. I'd rather get the discussion rule concern ironed out before engaging in a big back-and-forth.

EDIT: This was aimed towards a now-deleted post by Eden_Warlock99 defending the rating.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top