>>149263433
>But at the same time what situation does Kirby have where he needs to destroy a Universe? The only thing close to that level of destruction is Drawcia destroying her own universe but we have no clue how big that is
That’s why I said it’s really important to consider context when it comes statement scaling not only around the statement itself but the characters, setting and situation it refers to. Overall, statement scaling has its uses but more often than not it’s unreliable, especially at a higher degree.
>I just wanted to see what people think an "acceptable" amount of lore is
For me, an acceptable amount would be something that you look at, compare it to the characters and their capabilities and think “yeah, this seems reasonable without breaking or contradicting anything”. I know we shit and meme on DB saying “just because x has never done y, doesn’t mean he can’t!”, but they’re correct to a certain extent, where context really determines that while they haven’t done this one thing their overall capabilities and feats of a similar caliber reflect that they can do it if put in the certain circumstance. That’s why basically everyone here clowns on multiversal Kratos, because his feats don’t back up any of his “multiversal” statements and no one makes fun of Asura for losing (or say he’s weak), aside from the obvious KINGtos shitposters, since he does shit that backs up his scaling. With Chakravartin, I wanted to make a point that statement scaling should work alongside feats instead of being the only thing solely carrying the scaling. Like shit, Chakravartin was chucking a shitload of planets, suns and stars at Asura. Hell he even threw in a blue supergiant and red star going supernova along with massive ass planet that dwarved galaxies. All of that and he just stated that was a mere trial, which makes sense since he himself was stronger than Destructor Asura in base and ridiculous stronger than Asura in Creator form.
