YODA (14):
Ursumeles
cs_zoltan
JKBart
SunRazer
The_Tempest
Selenial
Geistalt
i_like_swords
Lord Stark
Greysentinel365
Beniboybling
Azronger
Sasukedc
Rockydonovang
Prof. T. C. McCabe
VALKORION (8):
DarthAnt66
Rebel95
Ancient Power
Dark-Kenshin
XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Haschwalth
Nephthys
Total Warrior
UNUTHUL (1):
The Ellimist
We're missing a lot of votes compared to other threads.
Anyone else want to vote?
Originally posted by SunRazer
What Barrier? You mean Valkorion's hand? I don't recall him using Barrier against Arcann.
It's pretty easy to check these things, bro:
2g7BwwggxFI&t
20.35.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Lachris doesn't have anything going for her, so that's not that impressive. Pre-AotC Anakin moved fast enough to appear to be everywhere at once to Obi-Wan, who as of TPM himself was already faster than Qui-Gon and within the range of Maul, both of whom have highly credible speed feats and have better speed feats than Marr.Revan's feat is good but ambiguous. We don't know how long the fight lasted before he lost, we don't know the nature of how they fought, whether Revan exploited their numbers by getting them in each other's way, etc. He was also immensely amped there, while the others would have been suffering inverse effects save for Marr (but I accounted for him already).
The novel fight being a few seconds was debunked, if I recall correctly. It was just Vitiate unloading the Lightning into Revan which took a few seconds. Though even if it were a few seconds for that fight, that's not that impressive as it's literally just throwing a few Force powers at each other.
Uh, yes it is. Appearing to teleport to a Darth (who the game underlines are embodiments of death that only the elite manage to achieve in the most brutal and competitive environment in the mythos) is impressive as hell. It would be impressive to appear that fast to any trained force user. Anakin's ridiculous hyperbole is irrelevant. Regardless Lachris was the apprentice of the senior Dark Councillor, was part of the attack on Coruscant, was put in charge of the most important military-industrial planet in the Empire and is said to have never failed in war. She's obviously no chump.
He was fighting 6 BM-enhanced badasses at once: the HoT (or others), Marr, Lana, Mandalore, the Wookie and Theron. BM enhances coordination on top of everything else it does so its very unlikely he could get them to trip over each other. The fact is that he was keeping up with the protag, Marr and Lana while getting shot at by the others with a variety of weapons. As I showed, even Marr is extremely fast and he was doubly amped and he's inferior to the protag. This is after Revan had fought and larger strike team of elites and survived largely uninjured. You'd need insane speed to keep up with all of that.
It wasn't just some force attacks, Revan runs across a gigantic room twice and uses saber throw among other stuff that happens. A lot of distance is crossed. And you're welcome to debunk it yourself. The novel says "It all happened in the space of only a few seconds."
Originally posted by SunRazer
I don't recognise game mechanics that aren't pivotal to the story. The one time I can be sure of Revan using teleportation was at the end of The Foundry fight, which he did while gathering powers and probably exhausted himself (since he was also holding up the Protection Bubble).
Its a scripted event in the game. It's no less a canon event than the mission log or dialogue. Plus he teleports away in the midst of combat in the Operation fight too.
Originally posted by SunRazer
I was suggesting that it's not as spammable as you suggested. I've yet to see evidence on the contrary. Of course it's an instantaneous power. My point was that it was limited in application. We know all sorts of characters from Jadus to the First Son to An'ya Kuro and even Abeloth could teleport, but they hardly made unlimited use of the power. They still either outright fled or completely failed to muster the ability to do it again when they started losing. My assumption is that Valkorion isn't going to outright flee here as that would count as BFR'ing himself out of the fight and losing.
I was talking about time stop but ok. The First Son proves that its possible to use teleportation in combat rapidly. I never said that it was an infallible ability, just that it would let Valkorion play keep away with Yoda in addition to his other powers. And for all your speculation that it can't be spammed, you've not shown why it can't be. Its instantaneous and doesn't require much effort to do. Therefore there's no reason to dismiss the ability.
Originally posted by SunRazer
That's why I said it was irrelevant and obvious.
Nuh-uh, I called it pedantic first!
Originally posted by SunRazer
Yes, and I still don't understand how that works.
Think harder.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Of course it's indistinguishable. The only time there's an attack in this supposedly stopped time is when the Outlander accepts Valkorion's power, which of course won't take extra time. That's just adding Valkorion's Force reserves on top of the Outlander's, something which wouldn't actually require additional time. So all it took was the time for the Outlander to actually use a Force attack as normal.
If you admit that its indistinquishable then you have to admit to its usefulness in combat. Stopping time and instantly forming a powerful barrier or attack against Yoda would easily fend him off or overwhelm him. Yoda was taken by surprise by Sidious multiple times through conventional attacks, Valkorions time stop into instant attacks would utterly overwhelm him.
As for the rest of this I already proved that its possible to attack with the Force in time stop. Heskal is still frozen when the attack hits him, and Valkorion uses attacks against the Outlander and Vaylin in stopped time.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Alright, lol. And no, you haven't. Once again, the only thing that ever happens in stopped time is conversation and the Outlander choosing to add Valkorion's powers onto his own. Whenever any actual attack happens, it goes back to normal time, as the Outlander is now taking action in the real world and not conversing with Valkorion in his head.
They hit Heskal in frozen time, Valkorion TK's the Outlander in frozen time, Valkorion attempts to subdue Vaylin with the Force in frozen time, the Outlander and Vaylin can walk around in frozen time freely, Vaylin tries to stab the Outlander in frozen time. You're wrong.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Sel just provided a good example of Scourge seeing Visions such that it appears that time stopped, and that's probably a good comparison. Valkorion just talks to the Outlander within his head as if it were a sort of vision, something which just isn't relevant in a fight.
Already proven false.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Nope, that's exactly as I addressed above. The "charging up" or "attacking" is just an animation to represent you accepting Valkorion's power, something which realistically would take just about no time in real time as well. As soon as an actual attack occurs (ie. instantaneous) time is back to normal.
Do I need to show you a screenshot? Here:
His head doesn't even move after he gets hit, he's still frozen. But again, this was disproven already. Though an instantaneous attack would still be near impossible for Yoda to defend against since he'd already be hit by it when time resumes as Heskal was.
Originally posted by SunRazer
What are you talking about? At 12:13, when Valkorion lifts the Outlander, Senya and Arcann can clearly witness it in real time and are screaming "No!".At 12:39, he seemingly goes into the Outlander's mind. That's it. We then get a prolonged mental sequence, and by the time it cuts back to real time we just have Arcann and Senya by the Outlander's side while he's entranced on the throne.
The Outlander shares a host relation with him that's proven to be an integral aspect to every use of this "time stop" power, which has shown and by Valkorion's own word has no effect on the outside world. Given this host relationship is absent here, I have good reason to suspect the power itself will be.
What are you taking about? Time may resume after Valkorions initial ragdolling but then he just stops time again as they run. At 12.39 he doesn't go into the Outlanders mind, which video are you watching? He starts forcing him to bow, tps him, lifts them up again and then tosses him onto the throne. Only then do they enter the Outlanders mind. When Arcann and Senya get there in reality the Outlander is on the throne in the position Valk threw them in, proving that all that really did occur.
Again, proven false. The Outlander and Vaylin can both move in stopped time and they don't snap back to their previous positions when it ends. Its not merely perception, they really do move.
Originally posted by SunRazer
@Neph - Interesting. So he can walk while chatting to Valkorion in his head. Assuming that isn't some sort of animation error, it still doesn't really deviate from my point about the spirit talking to his host. In essence, it seems every time Valkorion "comes out", we get the time meddling. It's almost like a pre-requisite for his communicating with the Outlander. So again, all it seems to be is the fact that he can speak with people without consuming significant real time. I still don't see a real difference compared to Muur and Celeste Morne, and I still don't see it being used in combat for any of the reasons that have been suggested over time.
😬
The Outlander clearly walks past Koth and is still there when time resumes. Its not just a conversation, he really moved. He can move around without consuming real time and he can use the Force too. Vaylin does the same thing.
Originally posted by SunRazer
If I said that Valkorion can only affect the mind of his host, then I'll concede on that. However, my comparison to Karness Muur stands. After all, in Vector: Dark Times, we clearly see Muur being able to communicate with Vader as well even if he primarily converses with Celeste as a result of being tethered to her in the same way that Valkorion is tethered to the Outlander. And really, time doesn't ever appear to pass when Muur communicates with someone as a spirit either (a better example of that would be Muur talking with Celeste during her fight with Krayt, which would be suicide if it was real-time talk). Spirit Muur and Valkorion seem to be doing the exact same thing, right down to them asking their hosts to accept their power.Again, this "time freeze" just happens to be a side-effect of whenever Valkorion chooses to show himself as a spirit. In the flesh, I've no reason to assume it would be a thing, just as it wasn't when Muur actually possessed Celeste and so on.
For godsakes man, when are you going to get that it isn't just a conversation? Vaylin actually ****ing walks around the room, Valkorion flat out attacks her with the Force and she tries to stab the Outlander. You can clearly see this, when he stops time shes standing next to Koth. At the end shes standing far away from him.
People talk in the middle of fights all the time in comics. Deadpool makes fun of it a lot. It happens in every comic fight ever. 😬
Originally posted by SunRazer
👆As I've said about three times now, Valkorion himself not only states that time has not stopped but that the Outlander needs to "choose quickly". It's clear that this state of mind and external action are completely independent of each other. I'll wait for a reason as to why this thing with Valkorion is any different from Karness Muur in Vector.
I already said that I'm only using the phrase "time stop" for convenience. The exact mechanics of what he's doing is unknown, but most likely he's just saying that time is still flowing, just imperceptibly slowly. This is the most likely explanation given the evidence.
Originally posted by The EllimistHonestly, I don't see any vagueness or confusion. Feats are better for determining who would win in a hypothetical situation since they provide more specific information about a character's combat abilities, specifically address how a character would be able to react in a hypothetical situation and relying upon them doesn't involve us making broad assumptions that potentially disregard the author's intent. There is zero indication that when something places Sidious as being the most powerful sith lord of all time, it is declaring that Sidious would beat any character, past, present, future or conceivable were he to enter a random unrealistic vaccuum styled cage-match, much less any indication that if past character is given a new never before seen feat (i.e. blowing up a galaxy with just the stroke of his hand), that we should then automatically assume Sidious can replicate the feat as well since he is "the most powerful."
😕 What does any of this have to do with the topic you yourself had brought up? You said that feats were better than accolades because accolades don't line up with authorial intent. Do you have any argument to why feats are better in this regard, and/or any counter to my position to the contrary? All you're doing now is vaguely asserting that they work fine in comic book vs. and saying the inverse of my position with no elaboration or explanation at all.
I brought up the comic book vs forum because you were making the point that it was difficult to make assessments about characters using feats. I disagree and would cite the arguments made on the comic book forum as proof.
I never said "feats were better than accolades because accolades don't line up with authorial intent." I said your argument premised on accolades does not line up with authorial intent. That's the problem. You're making inferences about who would win between Valkorion and Yoda based on an accolade that was by no means designed to declare Sidious would beat every other conceivable character in the mythos in a hypothetical cage match. That's grasping to the extreme.
I mean if we equalize Force power under your hypothetical, Sidious has a lightsaber and extensive close quarters combat training, being considered by multiple sources and in multiple demonstrations one of the most prolific duelists in the mythos, while Valkorion has absolutely nothing - there's no indication that he even knows how to use a lightsaber. Even as a trainee Palpatine is taking on hundreds of opponents in physical combat while the one time we see Vitiate holding a lightsaber he barely knows what to do with it and gets disarmed by a saber throw from Meetra Surik.These arguments, I don't mind. It's actually examining how a combat scenario would play out and that's good. And I would 100% agree that Sidious has infinitely superior lightsaber showings. Showings that definitely indicate Valky would get crushed one-sidedly in a lightsaber duel of any form. Zero question about that. For the time being, however, I give the nod to Valky, however, since his mastery of force lightning appears to be superior the pre-DE version and since his perception altering abilities would negate the need to carry a lightsaber in the first place. Jedi dueling games if you will. And I'm not persuaded by this idea that Valky-boy's spat with the Outlander was neither time-alteration nor perception-alteration.
No, because the fact that cosmic feats can operate on a greater scale than combat feats doesn't mean that ordering characters by cosmic feats doesn't correlate with how you order them by combat feats. E.g. there is obviously a huge scaling factor but that doesn't mean that a scaling factor doesn't exist. Different Force abilities are not performed in isolation; you're harnessing the same general reserves. While having greater cosmic feats doesn't prove that Plagueis would win in a fight, it is a substantial piece of evidence that he would.The thing is that Star Wars isn't like DBZ where you can do anything you want just by having a bigger number than the other guy. This is why Anakin is never seen "manipulating celestial bodies" or whatever. This is why Sidious intentionally did not kill Plague on multiple occasions; he may have had more raw power, but there was still things Plagues had yet to teach him. Knowledge, mastery and preparation factor into a large majority of the major feats in the mythos. And so it's misleading to suggest that such showings would bare any relevance in a random vacuum styled cage-match.
What's more, if you can't actually quantify how Plagues' cosmic feat scales to his combat prowess, it's pure speculation. We have no clue and should therefore be disregarded automatically in a debate. A guy whose combat showings are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% below Skyfather level is capable of manipulating the cosmos outside of combat provided he has assistance and months of preparation. Does that really tell us anything about a hypothetical cage match? You're welcome to disagree, but I don't think so. 😕
Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
Honestly, I don't see any vagueness or confusion. Feats are better for determining who would win in a hypothetical situation since they provide more specific information about a character's combat abilities, specifically address how a character would be able to react in a hypothetical situation and relying upon them doesn't involve us making broad assumptions that potentially disregard the author's intent. There is zero indication that when something places Sidious as being the most powerful sith lord of all time, it is declaring that Sidious would beat any character, past, present, future or conceivable were he to enter a random unrealistic vaccuum styled cage-match, much less any indication that if past character is given a new never before seen feat (i.e. blowing up a galaxy with just the stroke of his hand), that we should then automatically assume Sidious can replicate the feat as well since he is "the most powerful."
It's not enough to be specific; it has to be specific in a relevant manner. "Sidious is the most powerful Sith" is honestly more specific relative to, say, Sidious vs. Ragnos than "Sidious can blitz the B-team in a matter of seconds". While the latter provides more information, it's information that requires lots of guesswork and extrapolation to relate to the actual topic (how well would Ragnos do against the B-team? How do we know?). Meanwhile, it is true that "more powerful" != "wins in a fight" but it's surely well correlated and a far more holistic explanation.
Exclusive use of feats comes with two additional problems:
1. Authors don't calibrate feats very well, so we could come to conclusions like Brakiss being one of the most powerful characters in Star Wars because he can manipulate solar flares.
2. You can rarely establish hard upper and lower limits; just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean that they can't (otherwise we can conclude Sidious can't kill Ragnos because we don't see him kill Ragnos, or that The Father can't lift a rock because we don't see him doing it).
That's why some sort of prudent combination of the two makes the most sense.
I brought up the comic book vs forum because you were making the point that it was difficult to make assessments about characters using feats. I disagree and would cite the arguments made on the comic book forum as proof.
The comic book forum uses accolades too, not that it's a great form to model SW on if we want to optimize for continuity/cohesion.
I never said "feats were better than accolades because accolades don't line up with authorial intent." I said your argument premised on accolades does not line up with authorial intent. That's the problem. You're making inferences about who would win between Valkorion and Yoda based on an accolade that was by no means designed to declare Sidious would beat every other conceivable character in the mythos in a hypothetical cage match. That's grasping to the extreme.
...but you're making inferences about who would win between Valkorion and Yoda based on feats that were by no means designed to declare Sidious would beat every other conceivable character in the mythos who haven't done that feat themselves...
These arguments, I don't mind. It's actually examining how a combat scenario would play out and that's good. And I would 100% agree that Sidious has infinitely superior lightsaber showings. Showings that definitely indicate Valky would get crushed one-sidedly in a lightsaber duel of any form. Zero question about that. For the time being, however, I give the nod to Valky, however, since his mastery of force lightning appears to be superior the pre-DE version and since his perception altering abilities would negate the need to carry a lightsaber in the first place. Jedi dueling games if you will. And I'm not persuaded by this idea that Valky-boy's spat with the Outlander was neither time-alteration nor perception-alteration.
I'm going to let Nova's debate on time-altering run its course for now. I have no idea why you think Valkorion's lightning is better than pre-DE Sidious though (and why are we excluding DE again?), given that Sidious is literally bending lightsaber blades in the RotS novelization, reducing massive dark side creatures to ashes, etc.
The thing is that Star Wars isn't like DBZ where you can do anything you want just by having a bigger number than the other guy. This is why Anakin is never seen "manipulating celestial bodies" or whatever. This is why Sidious intentionally did not kill Plague on multiple occasions; he may have had more raw power, but there was still things Plagues had yet to teach him. Knowledge, mastery and preparation factor into a large majority of the major feats in the mythos. And so it's misleading to suggest that such showings would bare any relevance in a random vacuum styled cage-match.
The fact that two variables are correlated doesn't mean you can't find exceptions to the rule or that the p-value is super small if that's all we have. You rebuttal doesn't actually refute my point, given that it's not the only line of scaling we have for Plagueis and my burden is "more likely than not", not "absolutely certain".
What's more, if you can't actually quantify how Plagues' cosmic feat scales to his combat prowess, it's pure speculation. We have no clue and should therefore be disregarded automatically in a debate. A guy whose combat showings are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% below Skyfather level is capable of manipulating the cosmos outside of combat provided he has assistance and months of preparation. Does that really tell us anything about a hypothetical cage match? You're welcome to disagree, but I don't think so. 😕
You're still missing the point. So long as the derivative of our best fit curve is positive, it doesn't matter what the scaling factor is, unless if you're wondering whether the advantage should outweigh Valkorion's alleged advantages in other areas, but nobody has really provided those in areas that wouldn't have the same issues, so I don't see the contradiction.
Originally posted by AncientPowerYou must have a really sore vagina to care this much about the poll
It seems you actually believe in the intellectual integrity of this sub-forum. Though given that you subscribe to the Tempest lite-yes Azronger, that's you-brand of PT wank I shouldn't be entirely surprised that you're still here waiting to make half-baked bait posts for me.
Originally posted by The EllimistMy argument from the getgo is that accolades should be used sparingly, not that they should be excluded. The stated concern was disregarding the intentions of the author/publisher. If you can work the accolades into your argument without doing that, then I don't see a problem. Here, I believe you disregarded the author's intentions in using a statement about Sidious' power to conclude that he would therefore defeat nigh-every conceivable character in the mythos in a random cage match fight.
It's not enough to be specific; it has to be specific in a relevant manner. "Sidious is the most powerful Sith" is honestly more specific relative to, say, Sidious vs. Ragnos than "Sidious can blitz the B-team in a matter of seconds". While the latter provides more information, it's information that requires lots of guesswork and extrapolation to relate to the actual topic (how well would Ragnos do against the B-team? How do we know?). Meanwhile, it is true that "more powerful" != "wins in a fight" but it's surely well correlated and a far more holistic explanation.Exclusive use of feats comes with two additional problems:
1. Authors don't calibrate feats very well, so we could come to conclusions like Brakiss being one of the most powerful characters in Star Wars because he can manipulate solar flares.
2. You can rarely establish hard upper and lower limits; just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean that they can't (otherwise we can conclude Sidious can't kill Ragnos because we don't see him kill Ragnos, or that The Father can't lift a rock because we don't see him doing it).
That's why some sort of prudent combination of the two makes the most sense.
You make some points about specificity. Specifically (no pun intended), you give an example of "Sidious blitzing the B team in a matter of seconds" and argue that reliance on such information requires a lot of information and guesswork (i.e. how would Ragnos do against the B team). I disagree. Sidious blitzing the B team would be indicative of him being very very fast. We have absolutely no indication of Ragnos being able to move at such speeds, therefore it would not be improper to argue that Sidious has a large speed advantage over Ragnos. We make conclusions based off the information we have available. That is the heart and soul of any versus debate.
You further make some points in regards to why its bad to exclude accolades entirely. I never argued this, but the subpoints you make a worth noting, so I'll address them anyway.
In regards to the first subpoint, I haven't really understood this "authors don't calibrate feats well" notion from the getgo. In my eyes, if an event happens, it happens. At that point, you simply make a determination of whether the feat is a crazy outlier (i.e. SM vs FL). If, however, Brakkis is consistently seen doing stuff on the level of manipulating solar flares, then he's on that level and your complaints are more relevant to bad writing as opposed to what Brakkis can and cannot do in hypothetical cage match.
In regards to the second subpoint, the whole idea of these hypothetical fights is to make assessments based on the information we actually have available. Thus, the notion that "just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean that they can't" is a notion to be rejected. We can follow the train of thought down every proposed hypothetical matchup and never get anywhere. As to your examples, however, they don't follow as we have plenty to infer that Father is capable of basic level TK and that Sidious can kill Ragnos due to speed and offensive force showings.
The comic book forum uses accolades too, not that it's a great form to model SW on if we want to optimize for continuity/cohesion.The issue was the difficulty in assessing things based on feats. Generally, I don't see any difficulty. Now if people over there are also grasping to the extreme with their use of accolades, that's a problem as well.
...but you're making inferences about who would win between Valkorion and Yoda based on feats that were by no means designed to declare Sidious would beat every other conceivable character in the mythos who haven't done that feat themselves...Ah, but therein lies the rub. I'm not making the inference that Valky-boy would beat "every other conceivable character in the mythos who haven't done that feat themselves", nor am I making any broad conclusions about what the author intended. What I'm doing is using a described action/ability/showing from one character to determine his chances of prevailing against another character.
If X character is shown blowing up a galaxy and Y character can barely muster blowing up a ham sandwich, then it is by no means speculative or improper to infer that X character has superior destructive power. If, on the other hand, X character is stated, via blurb or exposition, to be the most powerful character and a series of non-combat factors are shown to demonstrate why X character is stated to be the most powerful, it is both speculative and improper to infer that X character would automatically beat any other conceivable character in a random combat setting. Especially in a universe where "less powerful characters" have been shown to legitimately and decisively be able to beat "more powerful characters" in a fight.
I'm going to let Nova's debate on time-altering run its course for now. I have no idea why you think Valkorion's lightning is better than pre-DE Sidious though (and why are we excluding DE again?), given that Sidious is literally bending lightsaber blades in the RotS novelization, reducing massive dark side creatures to ashes, etc.The lightning showings mentioned in the Revan novel strike me as being more impressive. If you can show me how your referenced feats are better, I'll gladly considering revising my stance. After all, I couldn't care less about any of the "brigades." 😂 I'm not taking pre-DE Sidious into account since a character who was more or less even with his ROTS incarnation is who we are voting on atm. I think DE Sidious' mastery of force lightning is plainly superior.
The fact that two variables are correlated doesn't mean you can't find exceptions to the rule or that the p-value is super small if that's all we have. You rebuttal doesn't actually refute my point, given that it's not the only line of scaling we have for Plagueis and my burden is "more likely than not", not "absolutely certain".I don't believe we've agreed upon any burden level here. 😉 Notwithstanding that, lets say for the sake of the argument that the imbalancing feat makes Plagueis more powerful than Valkorion. We seem to agree that both dudes are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy below galaxy tier combat wise to the point to where galaxy tier is 100 and both Valky-boy and Plaguess may as well be 0. So if there were such a thing as a force power level scale, how would you prove that the feat scales Plagueis above Valkorion any higher than say . . 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% without pure guesswork and otherwise baseless conjecture?
You're still missing the point. So long as the derivative of our best fit curve is positive, it doesn't matter what the scaling factor is, unless if you're wondering whether the advantage should outweigh Valkorion's alleged advantages in other areas, but nobody has really provided those in areas that wouldn't have the same issues, so I don't see the contradiction.Quantifying what the positive is, if any, is the problem. If, for example, it puts him 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% above Valky-boy, then my assessment that the feat doesn't tell us anything about combat performance holds.
