Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.
Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
Re: Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
Re: Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
Whichever allows Superman to win the debate.
Re: Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
I generally use "hard" feats(lifting, breaking/knocking stuff away, throwing, ect for strength, surviving in stars, black holes, really big explosions, ect) for comparison for who should be stronger, tougher, ect when you've got characters with a good number of feats. For example, I'd compare strength feats for Superman with Thor or Hulk, because they have a lot and pretty good ones, but not so much Orion or Captain Marvel, because they have few and most aren't much to write home about.
But I put as much, if not more importance in combat showings, in context, especially for those characters with few if any "hard" feats. But also feats often don't quite translate into a fight. For example, Surfer going through stars should mean just about no non-mystical or especially exotic form of energy should harm him, including kinetic energy(which means getting hit), if it doesn't destroy the planet, but we know that's not the case at all.
Re: Re: Re: Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
Originally posted by celeyhyga17
If u really live in Brooklyn I'm gonna drive over there and Superman Punch you. I'm over at Queens.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I am the LORD of Brooklyn, of course I live there.Take your car and meet your doom!
YouTube this shit for us!!
Planet destroying or planet lifting feats wins every single time. Combat feats can and HAS fell under pis. Surfer and firelord have a good fight in the comics ( has happened ) Thor and firelord have a good fight ( has happened ) Spiderman comes along and beat firelord in a fight, Now using combat feats, i can claim that spiderman can stand up to both thor and surfer going by his BS combat feat. Superman benches the earth weight, gladiator destroys a planet but combat wise they both have lost to characters they should outright destroy with their powerset. You can go back and forth all day with combat feats where A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. We know that superman benched the earths weight and gladiator destroyed a planet with his fists, But do you see them using that kind of strength in combat??? No you do not, and when people make threads about characters at their best, superman will use that STRENGTH feat to send someone into outer space or to the grave and so will gladiator.
Originally posted by JBL
Planet destroying or planet lifting feats wins every single time. Combat feats can and HAS fell under pis. Surfer and firelord have a good fight in the comics ( has happened ) Thor and firelord have a good fight ( has happened ) Spiderman comes along and beat firelord in a fight, Now using combat feats, i can claim that spiderman can stand up to both thor and surfer going by his BS combat feat. Superman benches the earth weight, gladiator destroys a planet but combat wise they both have lost to characters they should outright destroy with their powerset. You can go back and forth all day with combat feats where A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. We know that superman benched the earths weight and gladiator destroyed a planet with his fists, But do you see them using that kind of strength in combat??? No you do not, and when people make threads about characters at their best, superman will use that STRENGTH feat to send someone into outer space or to the grave and so will gladiator.
So I guess since say, Kurse is lacking in strength feats, it's bad writing every time he fights Thor? Orion and Captain Marvel have almost no strength feats, I guess it's bad writing every time they give Superman a fight.
Originally posted by Delta1938
I generally use "hard" feats(lifting, breaking/knocking stuff away, throwing, ect for strength, surviving in stars, black holes, really big explosions, ect) for comparison for who should be stronger, tougher, ect when you've got characters with a good number of feats. For example, I'd compare strength feats for Superman with Thor or Hulk, because they have a lot and pretty good ones, but not so much Orion or Captain Marvel, because they have few and most aren't much to write home about.But I put as much, if not more importance in combat showings, in context, especially for those characters with few if any "hard" feats. But also feats often don't quite translate into a fight. For example, Surfer going through stars should mean just about no non-mystical or especially exotic form of energy should harm him, including kinetic energy(which means getting hit), if it doesn't destroy the planet, but we know that's not the case at all.
Hmmm....I really dont see the relevance. Ive seen characters who can punch a planetyo death get beaten consistently by inferior opponents who can't/couldn't replicate the feat.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Hmmm....I really dont see the relevance. Ive seen characters who can punch a planetyo death get beaten consistently by inferior opponents who can't/couldn't replicate the feat.
The reason for this is that mainstream toons tend to lose more than plot based or obscure ones. Simply due to the fact that if they couldn't be beaten or challenged from time to time, no one would like them. The Hero has to have adversity, or he/she just becomes stale.
Originally posted by Stoic
The reason for this is that mainstream toons tend to lose more than plot based or obscure ones. Simply due to the fact that if they couldn't be beaten or challenged from time to time, no one would like them. The Hero has to have adversity, or he/she just becomes stale.
U know u know that. Im just saying in reference to forum battles and the way we judge them
Originally posted by Sin I AM
U know u know that. Im just saying in reference to forum battles and the way we judge them
Ok I gotcha. However, inept or absent minded writers often make mistakes. Look at Wendigo, and the Abomination for example. Under some writers they seem to be very powerful, and under others they seem like class A wimps. If we look at Superman for example, his reason for appearing to have a tough time with many of his arch enemies seems to be due to his fear of letting loose... therefore he's constantly pulling his punches.
I see a huge flaw in using any characters best feats to make a solid argument without first arguing that characters state of mind. Superman and the Hulk both suffer from the same thing in many of their fights. They aren't murderers.
Re: Planet Busting vs.. Combat Related Feats
Originally posted by Sin I AMhulk did both at the same time as well as separately, therefor hulk wins
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.bless
Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
Originally posted by iscaremonkeys
well take this in to consideration. Are you familiar with Kyle Rayner? you know his feats are legendary and beyond cosmic belief right. well look at this
This is the reason why combat related feats are PIS. THIS ONE SCAN JUST OOZES PIS
I'll see your Slade> Kyle and raise u a Spidey>Firelord
Both count.
But I find combat Feats that have repetition (i.e.- not "one off" showings, but repetitive CONSISTENT performance) are the Gold Standard for really placing a character.
A big reason for me to pick this as my preferred weighing mechanism is based in the visual style variations of (primarily) Marvel and DC.
Note: The following is my opinion based on my view of industry "averages"; and I know that exceptions certainly apply. 😉
Marvel tends to be more "combat feat" rooted for its higher end Feats. Sure, there are "Splash Page Moments" from time to time, but planet pushing is not a typical means for a Marvel Write/Artist to express the power level of their Earth-Bound Herald Class characters.
Or put simply- A character does not need to literally "push a planet" for me to know that they are capable of pushing a planet. Simply (repetitively) matching strength with other foes that themselves have pushed planets is enough to make the basic deduction.
Hulk rarely (for example) blows up a planet. But he has a VERY long history of "consistently" matching well in combat against foes that are obvious planet poppers (such as Thor, Gladiator, Hyperion, etc).
Thus I could deduce that Hulk was a Herald Class Striker waaaaaay before Pak had him pop a planet.
Marvel just tends to be more combat oriented, IMHO, when it comes to showing how its "Supermen" size up against each other.
DC, by contrast, seems far more liberal with its over the top "Splash Page" non-combat visuals.
Wonder Woman, MM, and Supes tugging a planet using a giant chain... this is more of a DC medium than a Marvel medium. Again- I get that exceptions apply.
But overall; we are far more likely to see Superman push a planet than, say, Sentry or Gladiator. This doesn't mean that Gladiator is not capable of pushing a planet (Gladiator matched up almost identically with Hyperion in a grapple, and Hyperion is now famous for planet catching).
As long a character shows me consistent ability to match up with Planet Pushing Star Smashers in combat, then I don't require a separate Splash Page Picture of them also pushing a Planet of their own.
Common sense and repetitive comparative combat analysis are a better indicator for me.
After all... both Superman and Black Adam can push a planet. But it's not until you see them lock up with each other a few times that one can truly tell which of them is stronger than the other.
Nice thread! 🙂