# The Scale of Power Differences Discussion

• 58 results
#1 Posted by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

Earlier I was pondering the Force. More specifically, a Force user's ability to shear through another's defenses and "ragdoll" them with no chance of the victim resisting. I am also curious as to whether people think a speed difference translates similarly.

Without devolving into lowballing or spite on certain characters, I am interested in hearing everyone's opinions on approximately how much of a disparity is necessary to outclass an opponent at full strength with no underlying circumstances involved. Is it around a mere 1.5 times? Double the power, triple the power or more?

#2 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

As a hypothetical to make the scale easier: lets pretend Galen Marek can hold a Star Destroyer with maximum exertion. Let's pretend Darth Jadus held his Dreadnought with maximum exertion. Star Destroyer = 1,600m Dominator = 600m. Jadus's maximum would be 0.375 of Galen's, if we assume the mass is relative to the respective size.

Could this Galen Marek dismiss this Jadus without any chance of the latter's defense?

Callouts

This is my first attempt at a callout list; hopefully its working. All that have been tagged are those I have seen often and respect. I probably missed some names. Please inform me if you do not wish to be tagged in the future.

#3 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

i think the ragdoll thing is dubious as measurement.

#4 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@keencraft said:

As a hypothetical to make the scale easier: lets pretend Galen Marek can hold a Star Destroyer with maximum exertion. Let's pretend Darth Jadus held his Dreadnought with maximum exertion. Star Destroyer = 1,600m Dominator = 600m. Jadus's maximum would be 0.375 of Galen's, if we assume the mass is relative to the respective size.

Could this Galen Marek dismiss this Jadus without any chance of the latter's defense?

Callouts

This is my first attempt at a callout list; hopefully its working. All that have been tagged are those I have seen often and respect. I probably missed some names. Please inform me if you do not wish to be tagged in the future.

As far as I remember, he redirected an already falling SD by wasting like 20 minutes TK struggle, didn't hold it.

Also don't forget that TFU and SWTOR are officially exaggerated, the same things wouldn't happen in the movies, and animations etc.

#5 Posted by xolthol (973 posts) - -

@keencraft: Well I think the problem is that you suggest that because you are powerful in TK you are equally powerful in force defense (active or passive). It seems a bit too quick to my point. It is like saying that because you are a ataru specialist (forme IV) you will be a master of soresu (form III). To my point the gap between the two must be big enough to bypass:

-their respective shielding abilities

-the possibility to be counter by the other one reacting (example : you are ragdolling someone but you are suddenly strike by a lightsaber throw in the back -> Exal kresh versus young thanaton)

-the cheapshot scenario (example Dooku vs Kenobi in ROTS)

-the less quick tired scenario (after a long fight if someone is only a defenser he could stay fresh and so could defeat a ennemy more powerful than him by having enough ressources or having hurt the other guy up to the point that this latter cannot guard himself).

Now the real question is how to quantified the gap between two force wielders. Well this is more than hard. I have huge difficulty to find any figure to precisely scale the gap. Yes it is easy to find some missmatch that are a stomp for one side. But finding a real ragdoll is really really hard.

#6 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

@erkan12 said:
@keencraft said:

As a hypothetical to make the scale easier: lets pretend Galen Marek can hold a Star Destroyer with maximum exertion. Let's pretend Darth Jadus held his Dreadnought with maximum exertion. Star Destroyer = 1,600m Dominator = 600m. Jadus's maximum would be 0.375 of Galen's, if we assume the mass is relative to the respective size.

Could this Galen Marek dismiss this Jadus without any chance of the latter's defense?

Callouts

This is my first attempt at a callout list; hopefully its working. All that have been tagged are those I have seen often and respect. I probably missed some names. Please inform me if you do not wish to be tagged in the future.

As far as I remember, he redirected an already falling SD by wasting like 20 minutes struggle, didn't hold it.

I'm aware. But you ignored the first words: ---Let's pretend--- Also Jadus never used maximum effort. He barely used any at all afaik. This is more or less a fake version of the characters as an example.

I may as well have named them Character X and Character Y to eliminate confusion.

#7 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

@xolthol said:

@keencraft: Well I think the problem is that you suggest that because you are powerful in TK you are equally powerful in force defense (active or passive). It seems a bit too quick to my point. It is like saying that because you are a ataru specialist (forme IV) you will be a master of soresu (form III). To my point the gap between the two must be big enough to bypass:

-their respective shielding abilities

Force Barriers and Auras stem from psychokinetics and will. There would have to be a precedent for a specific character to suck at concentrating or something, in order for a fault like that to arise. And I wasn't creating this as a VS scenario

-the possibility to be counter by the other one reacting (example : you are ragdolling someone but you are suddenly strike by a lightsaber throw in the back -> Exal kresh versus young thanaton)

-the cheapshot scenario (example Dooku vs Kenobi in ROTS)

-the less quick tired scenario (after a long fight if someone is only a defenser he could stay fresh and so could defeat a ennemy more powerful than him by having enough ressources or having hurt the other guy up to the point that this latter cannot guard himself).

I said with no underlying circustances and two characters at full strength. Assume they are engaging in a pure Force superiority test with ample conditions for both, where one erects a barrier and the other tries to penetrate it, and vice versa. This isn't a battle per se

Now the real question is how to quantified the gap between two force wielders. Well this is more than hard. I have huge difficulty to find any figure to precisely scale the gap. Yes it is easy to find some missmatch that are a stomp for one side. But finding a real ragdoll is really really hard.

I agree insofar as we don't see many maximum exertions. But do you believe that Ventress or Savage have any chance at ragdolling Sidious or Yoda?

#8 Posted by darthbane77 (2111 posts) - -

The answers before mine seem to do well at elaborating on the question.I don't think it's really possible to gauge how much more powerful someone needs to be than another person to be able to ragdoll them. My thinking on this is that Sidious should be more than capable of ragdolling Vader or otherwise one-shotting Vader without effort, and Vader is only 20% beneath Sidious by RotJ, according to George Lucas.

So the minimum requirement for it that we have canonical (Legends Canon anyway) basis for is a 20% difference. Mastery could also have a big role, someone with massive raw power could still be easily overpowered by someone with far greater mastery.

I don't really think it's possible at the moment to have a definitive answer really. We've never seen two Force users perfectly even in mastery with one being significantly more outright powerful. It's always been mitigating factors or one combatant being outright more powerful and masterful than the other.

#9 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

@redheathen said:

i think the ragdoll thing is dubious as measurement.

I agree, since we don't see equal opportunity scenarios with maximum effort in similar mediums. But assuming we did, could you not gauge it based on that?

#10 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

@erkan12: The feats being exaggerated doesn't mean anything because they still happened regardless and are still canon.

Online
#11 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

@erkan12: The feats being exaggerated doesn't mean anything because they still happened regardless and are still canon.

They are legends not canon,

And secondly, lmao how so 'doesn't mean anything'? people don't need to accept that just because it happened in the legends, we know it wouldn't happen in the different platforms. I would certainly consider that in the battles between a TFU / SWTOR character and a non-TFU / SWTOR character.

Pretty sure a SW writer would consider that too if those two characters had to fight in SW mythos, to make fair I would either downgrade the TFU / SWTOR character's power, or I would upgrade the non-TFU / SWTOR character's power.

#12 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

@darthbane77 said:

The answers before mine seem to do well at elaborating on the question.I don't think it's really possible to gauge how much more powerful someone needs to be than another person to be able to ragdoll them.

True that definitive answers aren't possible, but we can still estimate.

My thinking on this is that Sidious should be more than capable of ragdolling Vader or otherwise one-shotting Vader without effort, and Vader is only 20% beneath Sidious by RotJ, according to George Lucas.

Is it confirmed that he was referring to RotJ versions in that particular context? It seemed like it could have been referring to both of their potentials (or perhaps even RotS). As dubious as "maybe 20%" is, if this was referring to RotJ, could you elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that Sidious should be capable of ragdolling or one-shotting Vader? Wouldn't Vader be capable of lifting the mass of 6 to 8 Star Destroyers if 80% is a hard amount to actualized power?

Mastery could also have a big role, someone with massive raw power could still be easily overpowered by someone with far greater mastery.

I think our definitions of raw power can get confusing here. Mastery is partly connected to raw power (true power). I infer potential or maybe their inherent power is what you personally call raw power. A being with massive potential starts with greater inherent power and their growth spurts are large, from what I've learned, but Im not interested in bringing one's potential into the equation.

I don't really think it's possible at the moment to have a definitive answer really. We've never seen two Force users perfectly even in mastery with one being significantly more outright powerful. It's always been mitigating factors or one combatant being outright more powerful and masterful than the other.

Fair enough, but that is not what I was asking lol. I'm interested in hearing how much more actualized power everyone thinks a Force user needs over another to outclass them. Basically imo: potential(inherent power) + mastery = actualized power/raw power. I'm only interested in the hard final numbers of what a Force user is capable of however; maximum effort. This isn't supposed to be a fair scenario except that both Force users are granted equal opportunity to focus and ready themselves.

#13 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

They are legends not canon,

I meant they are canon to Legends Continuity.

And secondly, lmao how so 'doesn't mean anything'? people don't need to accept that just because it happened in the legends, we know it wouldn't happen in the different platforms. I would certainly consider that in the battles between a TFU / SWTOR character and a non-TFU / SWTOR character.

Pretty sure a SW writer would consider that too if those two characters had to fight in SW mythos, to make fair I would either downgrade the TFU / SWTOR character's power, or I would upgrade the non-TFU / SWTOR character's power.

We don't disregard feats or lower characters because you don't think they would we written to stomp someone without those kind of feats. That's not how the battle forums work.

Online
#14 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

They are legends not canon,

I meant they are canon to Legends Continuity.

And secondly, lmao how so 'doesn't mean anything'? people don't need to accept that just because it happened in the legends, we know it wouldn't happen in the different platforms. I would certainly consider that in the battles between a TFU / SWTOR character and a non-TFU / SWTOR character.

Pretty sure a SW writer would consider that too if those two characters had to fight in SW mythos, to make fair I would either downgrade the TFU / SWTOR character's power, or I would upgrade the non-TFU / SWTOR character's power.

We don't disregard feats or lower characters because you don't think they would we written to stomp someone without those kind of feats. That's not how the battle forums work.

Oh you want to talk about the rules now huh?

#### Use Feats

Feats are, essentially, evidence of ability to back up an argument.

When looking at feats, be objective. Do critical analysis and unravel the context behind the feats; don’t take them at face value. See if there is:

• PIS / Plot Induced Stupidity – When a character wins, loses, or does something out of character for the sake of plot.
• CIS / Character Induced Stupidity – When a character wins, loses, or does something out of character because of something that is occurring in the story. Maybe the character is holding back for some reason, or fighting uncharacteristically ruthlessly.
• WIS / Writer Induced Stupidity – When something happens in the plot due to the writer not doing research on a character’s prior abilities.

Remember: try to be objective.

Using biased TFU / SWTOR feats against non-TFU / SWTOR characters is what I would call WIS due to a Lucasfilm story group member already admitted that they are exaggerated, and what I would call it not being ''objective'' when you know they are obviously ''exaggerated''.

#15 Posted by darthbane77 (2111 posts) - -

20% is very vague, but we've seen in the past that Sidious is able to easily overpower Vader in the EU, and we know Luke as of RotJ is Vader's equal, and Sidious casually overpowered Luke using a fraction of his power. Honestly, I disagree monumentally that it's odd to believe Sidious could one-shotting Vader on those grounds. Anyway, I assume it means RotJ Vader, though I don't think anything says it explicitly. Lucas was,iirc discussing Vader in RotS as opposed to Vader on the OT, saying in RotS that he was as powerful as Sidious, and that afterwards, he was 80% of Sidious. The fact that Lucas explicitly says Anakin had been as strong as Sidious,imo,rules out the idea that it was referring to potential,the wording doesn't really support it.

Anyway, I define raw power as potential, yes.

It remains though that it isn't really possible to assign a numerical value or percentage to the power required to ragdoll an opponent, the point of the last paragraph in my original comment was to lay out what I think would be the ideal conditions from which to make that study, but they haven't actually happened, so it's difficult to get a clear idea.

#16 Edited by KeenCraft (825 posts) - -

@darthbane77: I deleted that part of my comment because I wasn't fully thinking. Once I pondered it I recognized that was a faulty thing to say. Please review the new edit lol.

As for the maybe 20% quote,

[Phone's at 1%, will finish response when charged]

...

@darthbane77:

Cont: According to Red, the quote is referring to RotS suited Vader directly after the fight. There doesn't seem to be much else to add in this regard. I had stuff to add but she did it first lol... but fair enough about the potential thing. I just find it strange that he even mentions his ability to be twice as good as Sidious in the same sentence. It seems like a tangent.

#17 Posted by darthbane77 (2111 posts) - -

Aight. I'll come back to this once I have computer access again.

#18 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

@erkan12: It's WIS now lmao. Then there is no way to use these characters because there simply isn't other evidence to go off. You're essentially calling the characters WIS because you don't like their feats. There is plenty of EU material which potrays characters far more outlandishly than TFU or TOR. He basically said anything outside of the movies is exaggerated unless it adheres to the movies rules (which is pretty retarded since none of Legends does). You're essentially dismssing entire segments and eras of the lore because of non existent WIS...

Online
#19 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

@erkan12: The feats being exaggerated doesn't mean anything because they still happened regardless and are still canon.

as are accolades. this includes the red lightsaber wielder list.

@redheathen said:

i think the ragdoll thing is dubious as measurement.

I agree, since we don't see equal opportunity scenarios with maximum effort in similar mediums. But assuming we did, could you not gauge it based on that?

idk. probably. ??? first let me make sure i understand you. are you asking if we could use feats as a gauge if we have many similar duels between various characters, and if the opponents were fighting with max effort, and if the environmental/external circumstances were all similar?

#20 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

@darthbane77 said:

The answers before mine seem to do well at elaborating on the question.I don't think it's really possible to gauge how much more powerful someone needs to be than another person to be able to ragdoll them.

True that definitive answers aren't possible, but we can still estimate.

My thinking on this is that Sidious should be more than capable of ragdolling Vader or otherwise one-shotting Vader without effort, and Vader is only 20% beneath Sidious by RotJ, according to George Lucas.

Is it confirmed that he was referring to RotJ versions in that particular context?

Maybe DB77 has another quote in mind, but the one I am familiar with is Lucas in a Feb 2005 interview with Vanity Fair. The article is titled, "Behind the Scenes of Star Wars: Episode III––Revenge of the Sith, and The Making of George Lucas’s Empire". He is talking about ROTS Vader and says that Anakin had the potential to become very powerful, twice as powerful as Sidious, but then Kenobi defeated him on Mustafar. When that happened. he lost limbs, and is now 20 percent of Sidious:

“Anakin, as Skywalker, as a human being, was going to be extremely powerful,” he says. “But he ended up losing his arms and a leg and became partly a robot. So a lot of his ability to use the Force, a lot of his powers, are curbed at this point, because, as a living form, there’s not that much of him left. So his ability to be twice as good as the Emperor disappeared, and now he’s maybe 20 percent less than the Emperor. So that isn’t what the Emperor had in mind. He wanted this really super guy, but that got derailed by Obi-Wan."

In this interview, Lucas uses the word "now" while he is discussing how Vader lost limbs in the fight. "At this point."

As far as I know, there is nothing in Legends or canon that says that Vader could not gain more power. He simply could never reach the full potential he had prior to Mustafar. Here's a bit of backup for the above quote. This is another Lucas interview with Rolling Stone in June 2005, just after the ROTS release:

"...what the Emperor was looking for in the first place: somebody who would be more powerful than he was and could help him rule the universe. But Obi-Wan screwed that up by cutting off his arms and legs and burning him up. From then on, he wasn’t as strong as the Emperor..."

Another Lucas statement from The Making of ROTS:

"You have to be either Mace or Yoda to compete with the Emperor," Lucas says. "If Anakin hadn't got all beat up, he could've beat the Emperor."

Although Lucas doesn't say anything about of loss percentages, etc, he does reinforce the fact that Anakin could have defeated Sidious if he would not have been beaten up. Back to the first quote I provided, here is another quote of Lucas' that we can use to back up his statement about Vader having the potential to become twice as powerful as Sidious. This was in the ROTS Special Edition commentary about The Chose One:

"Would, had he reached the potential, have been twice as powerful as Lord Sidious..."

It seemed like it could have been referring to both of their potentials (or perhaps even RotS). As dubious as "maybe 20%" is, if this was referring to RotJ, could you elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that Sidious should be capable of ragdolling or one-shotting Vader? Wouldn't Vader be capable of lifting the mass of 6 to 8 Star Destroyers if 80% is a hard amount to actualized power?

Mastery could also have a big role, someone with massive raw power could still be easily overpowered by someone with far greater mastery.

I think our definitions of raw power can get confusing here. Mastery is partly connected to raw power (true power). I infer potential or maybe their inherent power is what you personally call raw power. A being with massive potential starts with greater inherent power and their growth spurts are large, from what I've learned, but Im not interested in bringing one's potential into the equation.

It's difficult to quantify raw power, but I was thinking that it was just simply unrefined power. I thought that the word "raw" was key. I thought of it like finding a mineral's ore product and then having to extract the mineral. Instead of extracting a mineral, you refine your force power by learning to harness it and use it to your will. I think "inherent power" is good.

I don't really think it's possible at the moment to have a definitive answer really. We've never seen two Force users perfectly even in mastery with one being significantly more outright powerful. It's always been mitigating factors or one combatant being outright more powerful and masterful than the other.

Fair enough, but that is not what I was asking lol. I'm interested in hearing how much more actualized power everyone thinks a Force user needs over another to outclass them. Basically imo: potential(inherent power) + mastery = actualized power/raw power. I'm only interested in the hard final numbers of what a Force user is capable of however; maximum effort. This isn't supposed to be a fair scenario except that both Force users are granted equal opportunity to focus and ready themselves.

but I don't think that actualized power = raw power. ...hmm...but that could also make sense. I've had a difficult time quantifying it because in Legends Beware the Sith, TPM Darth Maul's Raw Power > ROTS Darth Tyranus' Raw Power. We know that Maul had great potential and so perhaps I was thinking along those lines to define raw power, but Maul was also listed > Tyranus in Force Ability.

@darthbane77 said:

The answers before mine seem to do well at elaborating on the question.I don't think it's really possible to gauge how much more powerful someone needs to be than another person to be able to ragdoll them.

True that definitive answers aren't possible, but we can still estimate.

My thinking on this is that Sidious should be more than capable of ragdolling Vader or otherwise one-shotting Vader without effort, and Vader is only 20% beneath Sidious by RotJ, according to George Lucas.

Is it confirmed that he was referring to RotJ versions in that particular context? It seemed like it could have been referring to both of their potentials (or perhaps even RotS). As dubious as "maybe 20%" is, if this was referring to RotJ, could you elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that Sidious should be capable of ragdolling or one-shotting Vader? Wouldn't Vader be capable of lifting the mass of 6 to 8 Star Destroyers if 80% is a hard amount to actualized power?

Mastery could also have a big role, someone with massive raw power could still be easily overpowered by someone with far greater mastery.

I think our definitions of raw power can get confusing here. Mastery is partly connected to raw power (true power). I infer potential or maybe their inherent power is what you personally call raw power. A being with massive potential starts with greater inherent power and their growth spurts are large, from what I've learned, but Im not interested in bringing one's potential into the equation.

I don't really think it's possible at the moment to have a definitive answer really. We've never seen two Force users perfectly even in mastery with one being significantly more outright powerful. It's always been mitigating factors or one combatant being outright more powerful and masterful than the other.

Fair enough, but that is not what I was asking lol. I'm interested in hearing how much more actualized power everyone thinks a Force user needs over another to outclass them. Basically imo: potential(inherent power) + mastery = actualized power/raw power. I'm only interested in the hard final numbers of what a Force user is capable of however; maximum effort. This isn't supposed to be a fair scenario except that both Force users are granted equal opportunity to focus and ready themselves.

Do either you think that the Gillard quote on archived SW site has any bearing on this topic?

On equal-footing, such ranking could easily determine the victor. Star Wars duels, however, rarely occur on equal footing or level ground.

#21 Posted by darthbane77 (2111 posts) - -

Yeah, that's the quote I was referencing. Will read more in depth when I can get to my computer.

#22 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

Yeah, that's the quote I was referencing. Will read more in depth when I can get to my computer.

cool. looking forward to your thoughts/comments.

#23 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

@erkan12 said:

Using biased TFU / SWTOR feats against non-TFU / SWTOR characters is what I would call WIS due to a Lucasfilm story group member already admitted that they are exaggerated, and what I would call it not being ''objective'' when you know they are obviously ''exaggerated''.

here's at least one story group member addressing the issue, if this helps:

A character's skills are based on STORY NEEDS.

#24 Posted by Azronger (4334 posts) - -

Purely Legends, I've personally always perceived a ragdoll to be at bare minimum a 2x difference in power, but that'd require the more powerful guy to exert basically all their strength into it. An effortless ragdoll requires much more than a 2x difference.

#25 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

@redheathen: as are accolades. this includes the red lightsaber wielder list.

I don't care what accolades say if they contradict what was written in universe.

For example if a quote says Y is stronger than X but Y can't lift 100 tones whereas X can I'd favour X regardless of the quote.

The same principle applies here. We have Palpatine stomping a rage amped Maul in 25 seconds whereas we have Vader fighting Ahsoka for a minute and a half with her holding her ground who of course is Maul's inferior.

So from this we can draw Palpatine>Vader.

Online
#26 Edited by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

@azronger said:

Purely Legends, I've personally always perceived a ragdoll to be at bare minimum a 2x difference in power, but that'd require the more powerful guy to exert basically all their strength into it. An effortless ragdoll requires much more than a 2x difference.

i think 2x is a bit much. dooku ragdolled vos, but vos legit defeated him anyway. savage choked dooku and ventress simultaneously, and before anyone says anything about luck or whatever, savage also threw both of them simultaneously. it could have been luck the first time, but back to back showings? i don't think so.

#27 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

@redheathen: as are accolades. this includes the red lightsaber wielder list.

I don't care what accolades say if they contradict what was written in universe.

For example if a quote says Y is stronger than X but Y can't lift 100 tones whereas X can I'd favour X regardless of the quote.

The same principle applies here. We have Palpatine stomping a rage amped Maul in 25 seconds whereas we have Vader fighting Ahsoka for a minute and a half with her holding her ground who of course is Maul's inferior.

So from this we can draw Palpatine>Vader.

feats can be horribly skewed. they need to be tempered with accolades and creator statements-statements such as martin's i shared above.

good example is kenobi defeating vader on mustafar. vader should have wiped the floor with him. not saying kenobi isn't a great combatant, but at that time, vader should have been unbeatable. (lucas)

#28 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

obviously ''exaggerated''.

here's at least one story group member addressing the issue, if this helps:

A character's skills are based on STORY NEEDS.

Well of course they are. Characters fluxuate depending on the story but they're nearly always given sufficient reason to do so.

For example Maul vs Vizsla:

They wanted to have a cool battle between these two so they made Maul hold back his full power from Vizsla and gave him a good reason to not use the force which is the fact that he wanted to kill Vizsla like a warrior.

Trying to chalk down all TFU and TOR feats down to story needs just because you don't like them is kinda silly tbh. They still happened regardless and are canon.

Online
#29 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

feats can be horribly skewed. they need to be tempered with accolades and creator statements-statements such as martin's i shared above.

good example is kenobi defeating vader on mustafar. vader should have wiped the floor with him. not saying kenobi isn't a great combatant, but at that time, vader should have been unbeatable. (lucas)

There is an entire blog outlining the context. I'll just leave it here (link).

There are some good examples you could bring up for fights that are blatantly PIS/WIS/CIS but in this case it becomes pretty had to argue when all statements besides the list point to Sidious>Vader and to argue all of their feats are just story driven or not accurate representations of their abilities is a fallacy lol.

Online
#30 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

@redheathen: Considering this isn't exactly relevant to the OP can we take this debate somewhere else? You're on the SW Discord server with Ant ect right? Log on there and I'll discuss it with you should you wish to continue discussing it.

Online
#31 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

obviously ''exaggerated''.

here's at least one story group member addressing the issue, if this helps:

A character's skills are based on STORY NEEDS.

Well of course they are. Characters fluxuate depending on the story but they're nearly always given sufficient reason to do so.

For example Maul vs Vizsla:

They wanted to have a cool battle between these two so they made Maul hold back his full power from Vizsla and gave him a good reason to not use the force which is the fact that he wanted to kill Vizsla like a warrior.

Trying to chalk down all TFU and TOR feats down to story needs just because you don't like them is kinda silly tbh. They still happened regardless and are canon.

i never said i didn't like or dislike anything. i just happen to think it illogical to rely solely on feats when other information is available. to me, the fallacy occurs when a person ignores all legit sources.

feats can be horribly skewed. they need to be tempered with accolades and creator statements-statements such as martin's i shared above.

good example is kenobi defeating vader on mustafar. vader should have wiped the floor with him. not saying kenobi isn't a great combatant, but at that time, vader should have been unbeatable. (lucas)

There is an entire blog outlining the context. I'll just leave it here (link).

There are some good examples you could bring up for fights that are blatantly PIS/WIS/CIS but in this case it becomes pretty had to argue when all statements besides the list point to Sidious>Vader and to argue all of their feats are just story driven or not accurate representations of their abilities is a fallacy lol.

oh, gosh. okay so you are saying that we are accepting a blogger's statements as canon? and at the same time you accuse me of being illogical? and you are loling at me? really?

i never said that feats are inaccurate representations of a character. you've entirely missed the point, which is that i don't think that it is appropriate to only use feats. as to that list, there are several out of universe and official statements about the book and the list being canon. not only do i think it is important to consider everything that is stated about a character in feats and accolades when developing an opinion about a character, i also think it is important to incorporate creator and/or official statements.

just fyi, my preference is to read info first hand via original sources. granted, i have a terrible memory so RT's, Wook articles, etc, can be helpful. (not to mention there's also the fact that i most certainly haven't read everything in SW lore.) i'm not belittling LOTL's hard work or anyone else who takes to the time to assimilate and organize and interpret and then share so much information. thanks for sharing the link, and i'll read it at some point in time. actually, i just noticed that i bookmarked this a while ago to read later here it is more than a year after the fact, and i have yet to check it out. :/

@redheathen: Considering this isn't exactly relevant to the OP can we take this debate somewhere else? You're on the SW Discord server with Ant ect right? Log on there and I'll discuss it with you should you wish to continue discussing it.

thanks for offering to do that. perhaps we can the next time we are both on the server. =)

#32 Posted by LordOfTheLight (2678 posts) - -

@redheathen The blog is just an interpretation, but if Ant's quote checks out, it could very well be factual.

#33 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

@redheathen The blog is just an interpretation, but if Ant's quote checks out, it could very well be factual.

Which quote?

Online
#34 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -
#35 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

@erkan12: It's WIS now lmao. Then there is no way to use these characters because there simply isn't other evidence to go off. You're essentially calling the characters WIS because you don't like their feats. There is plenty of EU material which potrays characters far more outlandishly than TFU or TOR. He basically said anything outside of the movies is exaggerated unless it adheres to the movies rules (which is pretty retarded since none of Legends does). You're essentially dismssing entire segments and eras of the lore because of non existent WIS...

You can use these characters against other TFU / SWTOR characters, no one argues with that.

What I am saying that using a TFU / TOR character against a non-TFU/TOR character isn't fair and you know it.

#36 Posted by Greysentinel365 (6169 posts) - -
#37 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

You can use these characters against other TFU / SWTOR characters, no one argues with that.

What I am saying that using a TFU / TOR character against a non-TFU/TOR character isn't fair and you know it.

It's perfectly fair.

Online
#38 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

You can use these characters against other TFU / SWTOR characters, no one argues with that.

What I am saying that using a TFU / TOR character against a non-TFU/TOR character isn't fair and you know it.

It's perfectly fair.

So using feats from TFU and TOR platforms -they have officially ''exaggerated'' Force feats- against other SW characters who never showed up in TFU and TOR platforms is perfectly fair for you, you've a quite different understanding on what's fair and what's not.

#39 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

So using feats from TFU and TOR platforms -they have officially ''exaggerated'' Force feats- against other SW characters who never showed up in TFU and TOR platforms is perfectly fair for you, you've a quite different understanding on what's fair and what's not.

Apparently you have difficulty reading. He said anything that isn't in line with the movies is exaggerated which is 98 percent of Legends. He's not a very reliable source when to prove anything when he considers most of Legends exaggerated is he?

Online
#40 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

So using feats from TFU and TOR platforms -they have officially ''exaggerated'' Force feats- against other SW characters who never showed up in TFU and TOR platforms is perfectly fair for you, you've a quite different understanding on what's fair and what's not.

Apparently you have difficulty reading. He said anything that isn't in line with the movies is exaggerated which is 98 percent of Legends. He's not a very reliable source when to prove anything when he considers most of Legends exaggerated is he?

Not every Legends source has ''exaggerated'' Force feats, which is why TFU and TOR are special in that regard. Even amongst the Legends sources, they are simply using exaggerated Force feats. This is something people said even before the Legends and Canon separation, TFU and TOR simply uses the Force too much in order the impress the video game users by using visual effects. It's not about the Legends or Canon.

People don't use Kenobi's Force push over Dooku (and Kenobi won the duel because of that Force push) for that reason, it's not because it's Legends, it's because the video game feats are mostly inconsistent and exaggerated sometimes, especially TFU and TOR does that all the time.

Look, obviously you're biased and you're not going to accept the fact that they have exaggerated Force feats, so let's agree to disagree, as far as I am concerned using TFU and TOR feats against the other SW characters who never showed up in the same platform is not fair and I will reconsider their Force powers when it comes to a battle, plain and simple.

#41 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

Not every Legends source has ''exaggerated'' Force feats, which is why TFU and TOR are special in that regard.

... Seriously? You literally posted a quote that says otherwise. He specifically said anything that doesn't align with the films is exaggerated and that is what he was using as a measurement for TFU being exaggerated. This isn't proof that they're exaggerated within Legends but rather that they're exaggerated when compared to the films.

Even amongst the Legends sources, they are simply using exaggerated Force feats.

No they're not. DE had Sidious threatening to destroy all of the galaxy with Force Storms IIRC. And the OCW Series had some pretty ridiculous stuff as well.

This is something people said even before the Legends and Canon separation, TFU and TOR simply uses the Force too much in order the impress the video game users by using visual effects. It's not about the Legends or Canon.

"People said." Lmao. No it's just you whining because some of TOR characters can one shot Maul.

People don't use Kenobi's Force push over Dooku (and Kenobi won the duel because of that Force push) for that reason, it's not because it's Legends, it's because the video game feats are mostly inconsistent and exaggerated sometimes, especially TFU and TOR does that all the time.

What are you talkig about? Which game? Also TOR and TFU are perfectly consistent. And you've yet to prove they're exaggerated.

Look, obviously you're biased and you're not going to accept the fact that they have exaggerated Force feats, so let's agree to disagree, as far as I am concerned using TFU and TOR feats against the other SW characters who never showed up in the same platform is not fair and I will reconsider their Force powers when it comes to a battle, plain and simple.

Salty Revan and Valkorion one shot Maul?

;)

Online
#42 Edited by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

@arkhamasylum3 said:

Not every Legends source has ''exaggerated'' Force feats, which is why TFU and TOR are special in that regard.

... Seriously? You literally posted a quote that says otherwise. He specifically said anything that doesn't align with the films is exaggerated and that is what he was using as a measurement for TFU being exaggerated. This isn't proof that they're exaggerated within Legends but rather that they're exaggerated when compared to the films.

Legends have tons of materials about the Force which are not exaggerated like the way that video games TFU and TOR have. It's not about the Legends, it's about the consistency amongst the average SW Force users, in TFU, a fodder like Kota can use Force feats on Maul's and Dooku's caliber, which is silly and thus it deserves to be ignored.

If Kota was anything like that powerful, then we would hear his name in a different material in the Clone Wars era, but we didn't. This is what people are complaining about, obviously it's either hard for you to understand this simple fact or you're simply a too much of a fanboy of those games.

@arkhamasylum3 said:

Even amongst the Legends sources, they are simply using exaggerated Force feats.

No they're not. DE had Sidious threatening to destroy all of the galaxy with Force Storms IIRC. And the OCW Series had some pretty ridiculous stuff as well.

That's Sidious, the strongest being who came as the latest production of the RoT Banite Sith Line, and he had prep and rituels to do that, and DE Sidious was even more powerful than his previous self, plus he couldn't fully control that Force storms and it was his undoing at the end.

I don't remember anything ridiculous from OCW.

@arkhamasylum3 said:

This is something people said even before the Legends and Canon separation, TFU and TOR simply uses the Force too much in order the impress the video game users by using visual effects. It's not about the Legends or Canon.

"People said." Lmao. No it's just you whining because some of TOR characters can one shot Maul.

You think I asked that ''exaggerated'' question to a member of Lucasfilm group? I don't even know who asked that question. I was saying this long ago and now someone finally approved that idea. No it's just you whining and highballing TFU & TOR characters who are insignificant to the main franchise SW characters such as Maul.

@arkhamasylum3 said:

People don't use Kenobi's Force push over Dooku (and Kenobi won the duel because of that Force push) for that reason, it's not because it's Legends, it's because the video game feats are mostly inconsistent and exaggerated sometimes, especially TFU and TOR does that all the time.

What are you talkig about? Which game? Also TOR and TFU are perfectly consistent. And you've yet to prove they're exaggerated.

I don't have time to educate you, find it yourself.

Yeah, TOR and TFU consistent with exaggerating the Force, let's say if a character like Kenobi appears in one of these games, he would start to lift dreadnoughts with ease.

@arkhamasylum3 said:

Look, obviously you're biased and you're not going to accept the fact that they have exaggerated Force feats, so let's agree to disagree, as far as I am concerned using TFU and TOR feats against the other SW characters who never showed up in the same platform is not fair and I will reconsider their Force powers when it comes to a battle, plain and simple.

Salty Revan and Valkorion one shot Maul?

;)

You're salty because of your favorite video game characters are officially approved as exaggerated by a Lucasfilm story group member, if Maul appears in one of these games he would kill that Failkorian and Revan ;)

#43 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -

Legends have tons of materials about the Force which is not exaggerated like the way that video games TFU and TOR have. It's not about the Legends, it's about the consistency amongst the average SW Force users, in TFU, a fodder like Kota can use Force feats on Maul's and Dooku's caliber, which is silly and thus it deserves to be ignored.

What feats does Kota have to put him on Maul or Dooku's level? Regardless you haven't articulated why they're exaggerated other than saying it. I mean AOTC Anakin a low tier force user moved a Dreadnought with ease in the OCW comics and Maul scales laughably far above that. That feat Anakin performed is incredibly exaggerated. Regardless you haven't refuted my point at all. I pointed out that the statement is in relation to TOR and TFU vs the films not them vs Legends. And using Kota as an example is flawed because he doesn't even have feats on par with Anakin's Dreadnought feat and AOTC Anakin is incredibly low tier force power wise.

If Kota was anything like that powerful, then we would heard his name in any different material in the Clone Wars era, but we didn't.

Maybe because he's not... He doesn't even have feats on par with AOTC Anakin lmao.

This is what people are complaning about, obviously it's either hard for you to understand this simple fact or you're simply a too much of a fanboy of those games.

Or your just salty because a few of their high tiers are vastly beyond what Maul could hope to be?

That's Sidious, the strongest being who came as the latest production of the RoT Banite Sith Line, and he had prep and rituels to do that, and DE Sidious was even more powerful than his previous self, plus he couldn't fully control that Force storms and it was his undoing at the end.

He didn't use rituals to do that lmao. Also I can easily use other feats from other characters. Such as KF Vader warping reality and Plagueis influencing the Force on a galactic scale. There is so much exaggeration in Legends and arguing it all comes from TFU and TOR is disengenuous.

I don't remember anything ridiculous from OCW.

No AOTC Anakin who is a trash tier force user lifting a Dreadnought isn't ridiculous at all. Neither is Mace soloing an army of battle droids with his bare hands. Please stop acting like TFU and TOR exaggerate the force the most. Other pieces of Legends Material do so as well.

You think I asked that ''exaggerated'' question to a member of Lucasfilm group?

No. It's you and a select few who can't accept that some characters from TOR and TFU are freakishly powerful like some characters from the PT and other eras. You can't accept that someone like Valkorion can one shot Maul.

I don't even know who asked that question.

I'm aware.

I was saying this long ago and now someone finally approved that idea.

No one approved that idea... As I pointed out Matt Martin was talking about TOR and TFU in relation to the movies not Legends.

No it's just you whining and highballing TFU & TOR characters who are insignificant to the main franchise SW characters such as Maul.

Valkorion is insignificant to Maul. Oh dear...

I don't have time to educate you, find it yourself.

Great to know you can't back up your claims...

Yeah, TOR and TFU consistent with exaggerating the Force, let's say if a character like Kenobi appears in one of these games, he would start to lift dreadnoughts with ease.

He already can per scaling massively above AOTC Anakin. Your delusional view on TOR is honestly astounding. Arguing we can't put characters from it up against Maul is just honestly ridiculous unless of course it's high tiers like Arcann, Vaylin, Revan, The Outlander and Valkorion ect.

You're salty because of your favorite video game characters are officially approved as exaggerated by a Lucasfilm story group member, if Maul appears in one of these games he would kill that Failkorian and Revan ;)

Him killing Revan or Valkorion is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

1. As I already outlined to you Matt Martin's quote is comparing there force feats to the movies not Legends which you have yet to refute.
2. Oh yes Valkorion will lick his shoes despite being intended to be the Sidious of his time with feats that blow Maul's out of the water and are honestly on a similair tier to TFU-ROTJ Sidious. Seems legit. Revan who is Plagueis tier dying to Maul is also asinine and deserves to be treated as such.
Online
#44 Posted by DarthAnt66 (2560 posts) - -

Don't bother talking with @erkan12, lol.

#45 Posted by RedHeathen (2241 posts) - -

#46 Edited by Kilius (1610 posts) - -

OCW as well as it's tie-in comics can easily be categorized along with TFU/KOTOR as exaggerated mediums.

And no there are plenty of Legends works that are far more moderate in regards to Force users power scale.

I mean most already dismiss Mace's Dantooine feats as hyperbolic for good reason; he's demonstrated far more difficulty with smaller armies, most notably Geonosis with the aid of 200 Jedi, Yinchor with the aid of Tiin, Koon, Gallia, Koth, Giiett, Jinn, TPM Kenobi, and K'Kruhk along with 3 other Jedi who's names I can't recall off the top of my head, and Nar Shaddaa where he was distraught at the prospect of facing a large horde of thugs until Depa Billaba joined in to assist.

Star Wars Republic comics, Jedi Apprentice/Jedi Quest/Last of the Jedi, most PT novelizations, and most non-TOR/TFU novels in general are far more grounded and less over the top in their presentation of the Force. It's how it should IMO.

I mean AOTC Anakin a low tier force user moved a Dreadnought with ease in the OCW comics and Maul scales laughably far above that. That feat Anakin performed is incredibly exaggerated.

Well that's exactly it. Maul only supersedes the feat via "scaling". His maximum effort feats in more realistic mediums don't exceed it. Same with Yoda and RotS Sidious in comparison to the more over the top feats in TFU/KOTOR.

Edit: Also it wasn't "with ease" it was a maximum effort feat; you can clearly see he was straining to do so, though of course this doesn't undermine the impressiveness of the feat.

I'm okay with using TFU/KOTOR characters against other PT SW characters, but I don't like the idea of applying scaling to the obviously exaggerated feats to characters who's maximum effort feats don't come close. We should just accept that the writers of the former mediums are playing by different rules and mechanics.

#47 Posted by Erkan12 (8391 posts) - -

Legends have tons of materials about the Force which is not exaggerated like the way that video games TFU and TOR have. It's not about the Legends, it's about the consistency amongst the average SW Force users, in TFU, a fodder like Kota can use Force feats on Maul's and Dooku's caliber, which is silly and thus it deserves to be ignored.

What feats does Kota have to put him on Maul or Dooku's level? Regardless you haven't articulated why they're exaggerated other than saying it. I mean AOTC Anakin a low tier force user moved a Dreadnought with ease in the OCW comics and Maul scales laughably far above that. That feat Anakin performed is incredibly exaggerated. Regardless you haven't refuted my point at all. I pointed out that the statement is in relation to TOR and TFU vs the films not them vs Legends. And using Kota as an example is flawed because he doesn't even have feats on par with Anakin's Dreadnought feat and AOTC Anakin is incredibly low tier force power wise.

A TFU/TOR fanboy like you could easily put a fodder like Kota to Maul's and Dooku's level by only showing his feat of ripping of a very large command center by using TK only.

That's what using ''exaggerated'' Force feats is, and that's what generally TOR fanboys like @darthant66 do.

Your AotC Anakin example is a perfect one, if TFU and TOR fanboys can assume that people like Failkorion and Revan can one-shot Maul, then we can easily assume that Maul and Dooku are above of AotC Anakin who can move a Dreadnought by using TK, so they can contend with those video-game only guys.

If Kota was anything like that powerful, then we would heard his name in any different material in the Clone Wars era, but we didn't.

Maybe because he's not... He doesn't even have feats on par with AOTC Anakin lmao.

Not really. Ripping off a large command center with TK would do.

This is what people are complaning about, obviously it's either hard for you to understand this simple fact or you're simply a too much of a fanboy of those games.

Or your just salty because a few of their high tiers are vastly beyond what Maul could hope to be?

More like you're delusional to think those old relics can win against the superior generation of Sith Lords.

...

And I wasn't talking about Maul especially, I was talking about generally. Are you triggered? Since you started to talk about Maul as if you can achieve something by using it?

That's Sidious, the strongest being who came as the latest production of the RoT Banite Sith Line, and he had prep and rituels to do that, and DE Sidious was even more powerful than his previous self, plus he couldn't fully control that Force storms and it was his undoing at the end.

He didn't use rituals to do that lmao. Also I can easily use other feats from other characters. Such as KF Vader warping reality and Plagueis influencing the Force on a galactic scale. There is so much exaggeration in Legends and arguing it all comes from TFU and TOR is disengenuous.

I don't remember anything ridiculous from OCW.

No AOTC Anakin who is a trash tier force user lifting a Dreadnought isn't ridiculous at all. Neither is Mace soloing an army of battle droids with his bare hands. Please stop acting like TFU and TOR exaggerate the force the most. Other pieces of Legends Material do so as well.

Except they are not exaggerations.

Maybe Failkorion and Revan are trash tier and AotC Anakin isn't?

You think I asked that ''exaggerated'' question to a member of Lucasfilm group?

No. It's you and a select few who can't accept that some characters from TOR and TFU are freakishly powerful like some characters from the PT and other eras. You can't accept that someone like Valkorion can one shot Maul.

I don't even know who asked that question.

I'm aware.

I was saying this long ago and now someone finally approved that idea.

No one approved that idea... As I pointed out Matt Martin was talking about TOR and TFU in relation to the movies not Legends.

''a select few who can't accept that some characters from TOR and TFU are freakishly powerful like some characters from the PT and other eras.''

... Right

I think George Lucas, a.k.a creater of the frigging SW universe doesn't believe that. The guy literally said that the prime of the Jedi was Ep.I which is much superior to that era, or the RoT Sith which has become much more powerful through 1.000 years, or even Bane stated to be more powerful than Failkorion due to the Sith scaling... Let's forget all of that just because of those video game Kota style Force feats and say that they are more powerful than the prime of the Jedi and Sith... Right.

No it's just you whining and highballing TFU & TOR characters who are insignificant to the main franchise SW characters such as Maul.

Valkorion is insignificant to Maul. Oh dear...

Of course, Failkorion is even weaker than Bane... Don't compare him to a legend like Maul who is inferior only to Sidious and Vader.

I don't have time to educate you, find it yourself.

Great to know you can't back up your claims...

That was not a claim, that's a fact,

Hey look, based on video-game Force feats scaling; Kenobi can beat Dooku by using TK, and Failkorion can one-shot Maul, and Kota can rip off a giant command center.

Yeah, TOR and TFU consistent with exaggerating the Force, let's say if a character like Kenobi appears in one of these games, he would start to lift dreadnoughts with ease.

He already can per scaling massively above AOTC Anakin. Your delusional view on TOR is honestly astounding. Arguing we can't put characters from it up against Maul is just honestly ridiculous unless of course it's high tiers like Arcann, Vaylin, Revan, The Outlander and Valkorion ect.

Not unless they can actually do something on the same platforms that Maul did.

You're salty because of your favorite video game characters are officially approved as exaggerated by a Lucasfilm story group member, if Maul appears in one of these games he would kill that Failkorian and Revan ;)

Him killing Revan or Valkorion is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

1. As I already outlined to you Matt Martin's quote is comparing there force feats to the movies not Legends which you have yet to refute.
2. Oh yes Valkorion will lick his shoes despite being intended to be the Sidious of his time with feats that blow Maul's out of the water and are honestly on a similair tier to TFU-ROTJ Sidious. Seems legit. Revan who is Plagueis tier dying to Maul is also asinine and deserves to be treated as such.

Someone who is weaker than Bane has no business with beating the latest generation Sith lords, that includes Dooku as well.

#48 Edited by LordOfTheLight (2678 posts) - -
#49 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (3843 posts) - -
Online
#50 Posted by Intr3pId (92 posts) - -

It's an interesting question but I don't think rl calculations can ever be reliably used when it comes to Star Wars. I also don't think you can accurately gauge someone to be exactly 1.5 times more powerful than someone else, or any other number. What it usually comes down to is context. It's much easier to breach someone's Force defenses if their mindset is foggy or if they're confused, emotionally unstable, distracted etc., because being strong with the Force has a lot to do with having a clear state of mind.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

### Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.