Who do you think is the most wanked character on KMC?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



WildBantha88
who do you think it is?

DarthAnt66
At the minute, Shaak Ti and Darth Zannah.

Skybreaker
Right now:
Vitiate
Anyone in TOR

historically:
ancient sith
Luke
Vader
Marek

Nephthys
Anakin, Windu, Talzin, Maul, Zannah, Vitiate and Sidious.

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by Nephthys
Zannah
Wut

Nephthys
winkwink:wonk:wink

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Wut

Skybreaker
Anakin's status as a top tier combatant is actually pretty new; back in 2007, most would consider him and Kenobi together to be unable to take down Bane or Exar.

S_W_LeGenD
From PT/OT/Legacy eras:

- Luke Skywalker
- Darth Sidious
- Yoda
- Darth Plagueis
- Darth Caedus
- Darth Wyyrlok III
- Count Dooku

From ancient eras:

- Darth Bane
- Meetra Surik
- Darth Nihilus
- Darth Traya
- Exar Kun

Nephthys
Originally posted by Skybreaker
Anakin's status as a top tier combatant is actually pretty new; back in 2007, most would consider him and Kenobi together to be unable to take down Bane or Exar.

I still think that.

Aurbere
Darth Maul

Skybreaker
Originally posted by Nephthys
I still think that.

I should have clarified; in a lightsaber duel.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Nephthys
I still think that.

For Bane at least.

Skybreaker
With his orbalisks on, perhaps. Otherwise I honestly can count on one hand the duelists in all the mythos who could pull a majority against the duo:

Luke
Sidious
Yoda
Caedus

Fated Xtasy
I might get shit for this but screw it:

Plagueis.
Tenebrous.
Darth Maul
Any and every TOR/PT character no matter how featless or insignificant they are.

Emperordmb
Anakin, though I feel Vitiate will be incredibly wanked by one of our old acquaintances who is returning from his hiatus....

Nargaroth
Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
I might get shit for this but screw it:

Plagueis.
Tenebrous.
Darth Maul
Any and every TOR/PT character no matter how featless or insignificant they are.

You're right about at least some of TOR's featless characters (like Tulak Hord), but not about PT's ones, who don't get that much attention. Other than that, Tenebrous is far more overrated on CV than here. Maul, as far as I can tell, is wanked only by Marco.

Right now, Vitiate.

Nephthys
Marco wanks enough to match a dozen, lesser wankers though.

Fated Xtasy
Oh shit, How could i forget. The most wanked person ever is...

*drum roll*

B-Team. This contest is over, i want my pumpkin flavored cookies now.

Emperordmb
Shit... how could I have ever forgotten about them?

WildBantha88
Sorry we only have raisin oatmeal cookies

Fated Xtasy
Originally posted by WildBantha88
Sorry we only have raisin oatmeal cookies

LOL I actually love raisin oatmeal cookies lmao. Are you on chat btw?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Shit... how could I have ever forgotten about them?

For one as limited as you perhaps, to have fallen so far and learn nothing, that is your failing http://r28.imgfast.net/users/2811/36/97/52/smiles/1702231425.gif

NewGuy01
Zannah, Vitiate, Plagueis, Luke, KOTOR 2 cast, anddddd... Prolly Nox.

ILS
We all wank characters we prefer to some degree, it's inevitable, and sometimes we view feats differently from others for whatever reason.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by ILS
We all wank characters we prefer to some degree, it's inevitable, and sometimes we view feats differently from others for whatever reason.
I see truthfulness in this. thumb up

ares834
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
At the minute, Shaak Ti and Darth Zannah.

This.

Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
I might get shit for this but screw it:

Plagueis.
Tenebrous.
Darth Maul
Any and every TOR/PT character no matter how featless or insignificant they are.

And this.

I'd also add Bane to the list as well.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Marco wanks enough to match a dozen, lesser wankers though.

laughing out loud

So true.

SIDIOUS 66
Marco is quite similar to how Ant is with Revan. Marco is just a lot more bold, has far less shame, and doesn't need the approval of the majority.

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Marco is quite similar to how Ant is with Revan. Marco is just a lot more bold, has far less shame, and doesn't need the approval of the majority.
/watch?v=RbtPXFlZlHg

Based
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

From ancient eras:

Everyone I debated for.

Fixed.

In all seriousness the wank/counter-wank of most characters seems to cancel each other out and in instances they don't such as Luke it's mostly justified. Choosing one, gun to my head its Malgus.

The Merchant
Exar Kun, Plagueis kinda, Shaak Ti a bit, and Sora Bulq kinda but most people use him as a measuring stick and think that if you beat him you're liek Mace level. Not necessarily on here but eye've seen that.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Based
Fixed.
Don't misrepresent me/other members via quoting system. This is unethical practice and moderators can take action if reported.

Emperordmb
LMFAO

Nalaniel
PT characters.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Nalaniel
PT characters.
I see wisdom in this. stick out tongue

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Emperordmb
LMFAO
Its very easy for me to insult and engage in unethical practices to teach lessons to those who tend to do the same with the others, can even consider cyber offensive strategies. However, I am being respectful to fellow members because of maturity factor. Unfortunately, I see lot of immaturity in fans of Star Wars. People should have tolerance for views of others and avoid singling each other out for debating preferences.

I admit of not being entirely free of bias but nobody is. I brought balance in debates by promoting TOR era characters because holistically G-canon and/or PT/OT/Legacy era characters are relatively more well-known, have larger fanbase, and are more likely to be promoted in "versus" and "comparative" topics. I admit that I have my share of extremes in debates but they are not without reason and evidences.

Nonetheless, fans of Star Wars lore should really avoid labeling each other biased because most are guilty of this. The sheer irony of this is baffling.

Sinious
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Its very easy for me to insult and engage in unethical practices to teach lessons to those who tend to do the same with the others, can even consider cyber offensive strategies. However, I am being respectful to fellow members because of maturity factor. Unfortunately, I see lot of immaturity in fans of Star Wars. People should have tolerance for views of others and avoid singling each other out for debating preferences.

I admit of not being entirely free of bias but nobody is. I brought balance in debates by promoting TOR era characters because holistically G-canon and/or PT/OT/Legacy era characters are relatively more well-known, have larger fanbase, and are more likely to be promoted in "versus" and "comparative" topics. I admit that I have my share of extremes in debates but they are not without reason and evidences.

Nonetheless, fans of Star Wars lore should really avoid labeling each other biased because most are guilty of this. The sheer irony of this is baffling.


thumb up x 10

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Sinious
thumb up x 10
Thanks mate. smile

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
Oh shit, How could i forget. The most wanked person ever is...

*drum roll*

B-Team. This contest is over, i want my pumpkin flavored cookies now.


This.

Emperordmb
Yeah I'll give you that one LeGenD.

The viewpoint that only characters who are from the movie era or characters that are combatively affiliated with characters from the movie era can be impressive, as well as the viewpoint that EU characters not affiliated combatively with movie characters can only be around Dooku's power level is a viewpoint that has aggravated me for a long long time.

Skybreaker
The level of self righteousness and arrogance here aside, people are way too quick to fall for vague accolades of power (we all kid about "the heart of the force" Revan and "the most powerful of the most powerful" Ragnos) and the nostalgic need to elevate ancient characters over modern ones. Perhaps some to overboard in the other direction, but that is a reaction rather than a default bias, IMO.

Nalaniel
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Its very easy for me to insult and engage in unethical practices to teach lessons to those who tend to do the same with the others, can even consider cyber offensive strategies. However, I am being respectful to fellow members because of maturity factor. Unfortunately, I see lot of immaturity in fans of Star Wars. People should have tolerance for views of others and avoid singling each other out for debating preferences.

I admit of not being entirely free of bias but nobody is. I brought balance in debates by promoting TOR era characters because holistically G-canon and/or PT/OT/Legacy era characters are relatively more well-known, have larger fanbase, and are more likely to be promoted in "versus" and "comparative" topics. I admit that I have my share of extremes in debates but they are not without reason and evidences.

Nonetheless, fans of Star Wars lore should really avoid labeling each other biased because most are guilty of this. The sheer irony of this is baffling.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I see wisdom in this. stick out tongue

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Skybreaker
Anakin's status as a top tier combatant is actually pretty new; back in 2007, most would consider him and Kenobi together to be unable to take down Bane or Exar.


That's because TCW began in 2008.

No longer does Anakin have to be "in the zone" or have help from Obi-Wan to compete with Count Dooku.

Skybreaker
^it's also a more general downgrading of pre-PT characters relative to those post Phantom Menace. And this is across the internet.

GenomeFrozener
Originally posted by Nephthys
Vitiate and Sidious.

My answer.

Stigma
Nihilus, Vitiate, Bane, Revan, Zannah, most TOR characters in general, Sidious, Maul, Luke

Selenial
Originally posted by Skybreaker
Right now:
Vitiate
Anyone in TOR

historically:
ancient sith
Luke
Vader
Marek

Selenial
Originally posted by Skybreaker
The level of self righteousness and arrogance here aside, people are way too quick to fall for vague accolades of power (we all kid about "the heart of the force" Revan and "the most powerful of the most powerful" Ragnos) and the nostalgic need to elevate ancient characters over modern ones. Perhaps some to overboard in the other direction, but that is a reaction rather than a default bias, IMO.

I'm going to have to agree with this.

People take accolades way too seriously, they are Meaningless. No one gives a flying **** if your character has been called Supremely powerful, or immensely powerful, or even "the most powerful".

What matters is feats, and people spend way too much time digging up encyclopaedic quotes that have no bearing.

Though of course, the usual double standards is an issue, as well as people thinking that violent displays of power = power....

FreshestSlice
Nah, I care. It just downgrades everyone else in the era. That's a win-win.

Nargaroth
Originally posted by Selenial
I'm going to have to agree with this.

People take accolades way too seriously, they are Meaningless. No one gives a flying **** if your character has been called Supremely powerful, or immensely powerful, or even "the most powerful".

What matters is feats, and people spend way too much time digging up encyclopaedic quotes that have no bearing.

Though of course, the usual double standards is an issue, as well as people thinking that violent displays of power = power....

I personally don't view accolades as completely meaningless and useless, but I think that they are just 1/4 of the cake and shouldn't be valued anything more than that, unless of course they are very specific and not contradicted by facts.

S_W_LeGenD
Accolades pave way for creative liberties and are important for characters who haven't been creatively explored much.

Selenial
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Accolades pave way for creative liberties and are important for characters who haven't been explored much creatively.

Which has absolutely no bearing on debate.

I'm glad you agree thumb up

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Selenial
Which has absolutely no bearing on debate.

I'm glad you agree thumb up
Accolades are also used to identify most powerful Force-users of an era. They make some topics easier to debate.

NewGuy01
Originally posted by GenomeFrozener
Sidious and Vitiate my answer

Nihilus is my answer. mad

NewGuy01
And accolades are extremely important. They provide the base that feats can be built upon.

FreshestSlice
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nihilus is my answer. mad
thumb up

Lord Stark
Vitshit, Revan and the B-Team

Selenial
Originally posted by NewGuy01
And accolades are extremely important. They provide the base that feats can be built upon.

So being called "the most powerful Sith in History is anywhere near as important as Sidious' force storm?

"More powerful at age 5 than I was at 14" is the same as single handedly slaying lord Vivicar? Nowhere near.

NewGuy01
Well, if it weren't for accolades feats wouldn't have much face value.

Ven Zallow was all but featless, but Malgus defeating him was still impressive because he has the accolade of being one of the most famous and powerful duelists in the Order.

Likewise, Ven Zallow blitzing Sith Warriors in the Sacking of Coruscant was impressive because those Sith had the accolade of being some of the best the Empire had to offer.

The same goes for most of the high ups if the mythos, accolades build the foundations for feats. It's also a core reason why the Legacy era is so much more difficult to scale. Because there are very few accolades to the names of masters like Wolf Sazen, and nor did the nameless One Sith he defeated have anything to distinguish themselves from fodder.

I suppose it's more tied to dueling than force use though.

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Vitshit, Revan
No one asked for your wrong opinion.

Trocity
Originally posted by Lord Stark
Vitshit

Shitiate*

NewGuy01
I thought it was traditionally Shitious? (Gotta love SWLogic)

Trocity
I just like the sound of Shitiate, rolls off the tongue.

NewGuy01
Not unless you're pronouncing his name improperly. (which a surprising number of members were).

That would be "Shi-shi-uht", which does not roll off the tounge.

Trocity
Let me have this.

SIDIOUS 66
Accolades can be just as important as feats, especially if the accolade in question has a connection to a character you're arguing for or against. However, a character from the PT era with top tier feats has more going for him/her in regards to a vs matchup than a character from an earlier era with a good accolade, since most of the time the accolade would have no connection to the PT era character on account of the PT character not even yet being born/existing. The only time I'll take an accolade over the feats of a PT era character is if it confirms superiority over another character from the same era with superior feats to the PT era character.

Most here do it backwards, though, and want to put people like Scourge above Maul and Anakin, despite the fact that the latter two not only have superior feats, but superior accolades as well. That's kind of lowballing Maul and Anakin; not because Scourge sucks, but because he doesn't have enough to put him quite on par. Scourge is an implied powerhouse but so are Maul and Anakin, on top of having a plethora of feats to back it up.

Also, under Ventress's entry on the official website, Ahsoka is regarded as being a notable force user, so people having a hard time with her doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of ability on their part or qualify as a low showing, especially since the website implies that Ventress besting her is an indication of how good Ventress is. Let's face it, Ahsoka has some very good force feats and above average saber feats. Just thought I'd point that out.

FreshestSlice
"Feats can be just as important as feats?"

Nephthys
laughing

Nargaroth
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Feats can be just as important as feats, especially if the accolade in question has a connection to a character you're arguing for or against. However, a character from the PT era with top tier feats has more going for him/her in regards to a vs matchup than a character from an earlier era with a good accolade, since most of the time the accolade would have no connection to the PT era character on account of the PT character not even yet being born/existing. The only time I'll take an accolade over the feats of a PT era character is if it confirms superiority over another character from the same era with superior feats to the PT era character.

Most here do it backwards, though, and want to put people like Scourge above Maul and Anakin, despite the fact that the latter two not only have superior feats, but superior accolades as well. That's kind of lowballing Maul and Anakin; not because Scourge sucks, but because he doesn't have enough to put him quite on par. Scourge is an implied powerhouse but so are Maul and Anakin, on top of having a plethora of feats to back it up.

Also, under Ventress's entry on the official website, Ahsoka is regarded as being a notable force user, so people having a hard time with her doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of ability on their part or qualify as a low showing, especially since the website implies that Ventress besting her is an indication of how good Ventress is. Let's face it, Ahsoka has some very good force feats and above average saber feats. Just thought I'd point that out.

I regard feats are more important in general, but I think your assertion also makes sense.

As for Ashoka, I regard her as having a lot of potential more than anything, but I haven't seen anything impressive from her in terms of Force feats. She is an impressive duellist for her age, though.

SIDIOUS 66
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
"Feats can be just as important as feats?"


Lol

I even made 2 edits, before you brought that to my attention. SMH

SIDIOUS 66
Originally posted by Nargaroth
I regard feats are more important in general, but I think your assertion also makes sense.

As for Ashoka, I regard her as having a lot of potential more than anything, but I haven't seen anything impressive from her in terms of Force feats. She is an impressive duellist for her age, though.


For the most part, I do too. That's why I emphasized the word can.

Ahsoka has some pretty good TK feats. I can't recall much at the moment, other than moving a very large object quite casually in the movie. I know she has a lot more, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Nargaroth
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
For the most part, I do too. That's why I emphasized the word can.

Ahsoka has some pretty good TK feats. I can't recall much at the moment, other than moving a very large object quite casually in the movie. I know she has a lot more, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Ok.

Wait, now that you mention it, I recall that she collpsed a large wall that crushed several droids in the movie. That's a good feat considering that it only required moderate effort.

Selenial
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Accolades can be just as important as feats, especially if the accolade in question has a connection to a character you're arguing for or against. However, a character from the PT era with top tier feats has more going for him/her in regards to a vs matchup than a character from an earlier era with a good accolade, since most of the time the accolade would have no connection to the PT era character on account of the PT character not even yet being born/existing. The only time I'll take an accolade over the feats of a PT era character is if it confirms superiority over another character from the same era with superior feats to the PT era character.

Most here do it backwards, though, and want to put people like Scourge above Maul and Anakin, despite the fact that the latter two not only have superior feats, but superior accolades as well. That's kind of lowballing Maul and Anakin; not because Scourge sucks, but because he doesn't have enough to put him quite on par. Scourge is an implied powerhouse but so are Maul and Anakin, on top of having a plethora of feats to back it up.

Also, under Ventress's entry on the official website, Ahsoka is regarded as being a notable force user, so people having a hard time with her doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of ability on their part or qualify as a low showing, especially since the website implies that Ventress besting her is an indication of how good Ventress is. Let's face it, Ahsoka has some very good force feats and above average saber feats. Just thought I'd point that out.

Agreed entirely, since my post was concerning era Bias. I also think writing styles cross era come into the equation as well.

carthage
Vitiate, Revan, Bane, Nihilus, Zannah

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.