Originally posted by cs_zoltanI never said that, nor did I imply it. It never ceases to amaze me how some of you are able to pull a meaning out of something when that meaning simply is not there.
So you mean accolades only matter when they align with your bias?
I take all accolades into consideration, and I treat them as true on the grounds that they aren't contradicted by feats.
Originally posted by darthbane77
I never said that, nor did I imply it. It never ceases to amaze me how some of you are able to pull a meaning out of something when that meaning simply is not there.I take all accolades into consideration, and I treat them as true on the grounds that they aren't contradicted by feats.
Merchant said that whats-his-face has better feats than Valkorion for which you implied that Valkorion has better accolades. Yet you don't apply the same principle for Sidious. What else am I suppose to think?
Also your idea of contradiction is hilarious.
Originally posted by SunRazerDepends. If the feats are comparable, the person who does it with no strain is obviously superior to the person who performs them with difficulty. If character A atomizes an opponent while on the cusp of death casually, and someone else performs the same feat while in full health, then that indicates the person who's on the verge of dying is likely stronger, because they performed the same feat in a severely weakened state.
What if one person clearly isn't straining to carry out the vast majority of his feats and the other is?
Originally posted by darthbane77
Depends. If the feats are comparable, the person who does it with no strain is obviously superior to the person who performs them with difficulty. If character A atomizes an opponent while on the cusp of death casually, and someone else performs the same feat while in full health, then that indicates the person who's on the verge of dying is likely stronger, because they performed the same feat in a severely weakened state.
That's predominately the case with Sidious though. He's not pressed to perform most of his biggest feats at all (and even then, a good deal of us find his feats more impressive than Valkorion's or indeed, any other Sith in history's). So where's the contradiction?
Originally posted by cs_zoltanA single super impressive feat doesn't overrule multiple consistently impressive feats. This is also where scaling can be used, Brakiss (to my knowledge) really doesn't scale well of anyone, Valkorion scales off of powerhouses like Revan and the Dread Masters. A general analysis of both feats and accolades shows Valkorion would obviously be above someone like Brakiss. What you fail to realize is that I DO hold accolades in high esteem, I just hold feats in HIGHER esteem. I still analyze and apply everything as I believe is necessary, just as everyone else does.
Merchant said that whats-his-face has better feats than Valkorion for which you implied that Valkorion has better accolades. Yet you don't apply the same principle for Sidious. What else am I suppose to think?Also your idea of contradiction is hilarious.
Originally posted by SunRazerBecause Sidious has done nothing without difficulty that Vitiate has done with difficulty. Everything they do, they do with ease. That's part of why they're as comparable as they are, imo.
That's predominately the case with Sidious though. He's not pressed to perform most of his biggest feats at all (and even then, a good deal of us find his feats more impressive than Valkorion's or indeed, any other Sith in history's). So where's the contradiction?
Originally posted by darthbane77
Because Sidious has done nothing without difficulty that Vitiate has done with difficulty. Everything they do, they do with ease. That's part of why they're as comparable as they are, imo.
Being comparable doesn't preclude Sidious still being superior.
Let's take it to other characters like Plagueis. The general idea is that for something to actually be "contradicted" in the realm of feats, you need to show that character X has a limit that character Y has surpassed. Because character X may just have been in different situations, not used his full power, etc. It's not enough to say one character has shown better feats and therefore all statements are nought.
What if a new character was introduced, clearly supposed to be powerful, but makes few appearances and doesn't do much? If an accolade entitles him as the most powerful of all time, then that's just what he is. You can't say "even padawan X has better feats", because the character in question just hasn't demonstrated his power. So therefore feats aren't actually contradicting anything, and the accolade stands.
To show me a contradiction, you need to show me Sidious attempting something related to power and failing, with someone else succeeding. Otherwise there's no real contradiction, is there?
Originally posted by SunRazer
Being comparable doesn't preclude Sidious still being superior.Let's take it to other characters like Plagueis. The general idea is that for something to actually be "contradicted" in the realm of feats, you need to show that character X has a limit that character Y has surpassed. Because character X may just have been in different situations, not used his full power, etc. It's not enough to say one character has shown better feats and therefore all statements are nought.
What if a new character was introduced, clearly supposed to be powerful, but makes few appearances and doesn't do much? If an accolade entitles him as the most powerful of all time, then that's just what he is. You can't say "even padawan X has better feats", because the character in question just hasn't demonstrated his power. So therefore feats aren't actually contradicting anything, and the accolade stands.
To show me a contradiction, you need to show me Sidious attempting something related to power and failing, with someone else succeeding. Otherwise there's no real contradiction, is there?
1: Sure, but the best Sidious has to offer is still on the same level as the best Vitiate has to offer. If someone else has feats just as good as Sidious' best, then saying Sidious is better just because an accolade says so, makes no logical sense.
2: I don't disagree. Obviously circumstances and context of feats need to be studied, I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, I scrutinize every feat I come across, and will research the context extensively if I need to, before I consider using it for an argument. Taking all context into consideration, for Sidious and Valkorion, as well as those they each scale off of, I've just simply come to the conclusion that they're heavily comparable. I don't even actually have Vitiate above Sidious "technically", I have him above ROTS Sidious, but only ~TFU/ROTJ Sidious.
3: I disagree. One can use Snoke as an example, I think. Depending on how one views actor opinions, Snoke is > Sidious. yet Sidious has not only superior feats, but also another accolade of his own confirming his superiority. Until the new character has feats that are actually impressive, I don't believe they can be undoubtedly placed above someone who DOES have super impressive feats.
4: I mean, I have an example I can use of Vitiate succeeding to do something Sidous failed to do. But it's entirely dependent on my own placements of the characters in question, which is the reason for this argument in the first place, haha.
Originally posted by darthbane77
1: Sure, but the best Sidious has to offer is still on the same level as the best Vitiate has to offer. If someone else has feats just as good as Sidious' best, then saying Sidious is better just because an accolade says so, makes no logical sense.2: I don't disagree. Obviously circumstances and context of feats need to be studied, I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, I scrutinize every feat I come across, and will research the context extensively if I need to, before I consider using it for an argument. Taking all context into consideration, for Sidious and Valkorion, as well as those they each scale off of, I've just simply come to the conclusion that they're heavily comparable. I don't even actually have Vitiate above Sidious "technically", I have him above ROTS Sidious, but only ~TFU/ROTJ Sidious.
3: I disagree. One can use Snoke as an example, I think. Depending on how one views actor opinions, Snoke is > Sidious. yet Sidious has not only superior feats, but also another accolade of his own confirming his superiority. Until the new character has feats that are actually impressive, I don't believe they can be undoubtedly placed above someone who DOES have super impressive feats.
4: I mean, I have an example I can use of Vitiate succeeding to do something Sidous failed to do. But it's entirely dependent on my own placements of the characters in question, which is the reason for this argument in the first place, haha.
1 & 2. Yes, it makes perfect sense. The accolade says Sidious is stronger. Valkorion having better feats (assuming he did) doesn't mean anything when we've not seen Sidious going all-out in relative showings. There's no contradiction, because it doesn't prove that Valkorion is better. Only that he's better when Sidious isn't going all-out... which doesn't matter.
3. Pablo Hidalgo has come out chucking out Andy Serkis' quote. Also, he refers to resources there, so it's unlikely he's even talking about Force power as opposed to overall reach and influence.
4. That sounds like circular logic, then.
Originally posted by SunRazer
1 & 2. Yes, it makes perfect sense. The accolade says Sidious is stronger. Valkorion having better feats (assuming he did) doesn't mean anything when we've not seen Sidious going all-out in relative showings. There's no contradiction, because it doesn't prove that Valkorion is better. Only that he's better when Sidious isn't going all-out... which doesn't matter.3. Pablo Hidalgo has come out chucking out Andy Serkis' quote. Also, he refers to resources there, so it's unlikely he's even talking about Force power as opposed to overall reach and influence.
4. That sounds like circular logic, then.
1: And what's your evidence for Sidious not going all out in "relative showings"? I'd wager he was going all out against Yoda, or using his full power when he created Force Storms.
3: I know he refers to resources, I was just using it as an example, since a lot of people I've seen like using that quote to wank Snoke. In retrospect, it was a poor example.
4: It is, hence why I didn't actually use the example.
Originally posted by The Merchant
Why would Brakiss need other people to scalw from him to show case his superiority over say, Valk? The only thing you can really say is hia feat is an outlier, but lordofthelight made a goos case why it's not.
Nah it only puts him within Naga Sadow's level, as he references him, meaning he most likely learned this knowledge from a holocron etc, of Sadows.
Originally posted by darthbane77
1: And what's your evidence for Sidious not going all out in "relative showings"? I'd wager he was going all out against Yoda, or using his full power when he created Force Storms.3: I know he refers to resources, I was just using it as an example, since a lot of people I've seen like using that quote to wank Snoke. In retrospect, it was a poor example.
4: It is, hence why I didn't actually use the example.
1. Depends on what the showing is. Things like Byss were obviously not full effort since he was doing other things simultaneously, and not even located on the planet.
Yes, I think he was going all-out against Yoda as well, but what do we have to compare from Valkorion? Not to mention that that's from the RotS film, and even the novelisations are restricted in what they can how far they can portray things. Differences in medium come into effect again.
He wasn't going all-out when he was using his Storm on Coruscant. He teleported Luke with a Storm while touching minds with Luke and summoning several other Force Storms at the same time in other locations. He probably was going all out when he was using the far more powerful Storm on Da Soocha V, though.
2. Yes, it was.
3. Right.
That was just 1 method of causing a nova with the Corsair. Iirc the Denarii Nova didn't involve ripping out either stars core, and Aleema accident made the other stars in the Crom Cluster go Supernova despite only ripping out the core of one. But still, Brakiss implies he could possibly ignite a nova on his own and demonstrated an albeit weaker demonstration of that. Brakiss feat is more impressive no matter how you slice it.
Originally posted by The Merchant
Tbh Id put him over Sadow since Sadow needed The Corsairs massive amps to affect Stars whilst Brakiss did not.
You also have to take into the extent of the affects. I would presume Naga would have some influence over the stars, without his meditation sphere, but to a vastly lesser degree. With the sphere he was creating massive solar flares, and even played a decent role in making a star go supernova.
This is just a glimmer of how Naga Sadow reached out to the stars and delivered a mortal wound five thousand years ago.
He states that it was only a glimmer of what Naga had done, which makes sense, as
Naga had his meditation sphere. He indicates that he held Naga sadow in quite high regard.
Originally posted by SunRazer
1. Depends on what the showing is. Things like Byss were obviously not full effort since he was doing other things simultaneously, and not even located on the planet.Yes, I think he was going all-out against Yoda as well, but what do we have to compare from Valkorion? Not to mention that that's from the RotS film, and even the novelisations are restricted in what they can how far they can portray things. Differences in medium come into effect again.
He wasn't going all-out when he was using his Storm on Coruscant. He teleported Luke with a Storm while touching minds with Luke and summoning several other Force Storms at the same time in other locations. He probably was going all out when he was using the far more powerful Storm on Da Soocha V, though.
2. Yes, it was.
3. Right.
1: Byss was also a pretty heavily circumstantial feat anyway, so it's not the best example. The other mediums still show Sidious struggling heavily against Yoda. As opposed to Vitiate, who was capable of borderline one-shotting Revan, and is a confirmed superior of the Dread Masters.