Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?

So here's the thing. We often have things like "higher" and "far higher" in our profiles, and our Vs debates often have things like "upscales from" or "downscales from," yet we never really have an idea for how much upscaling is worth. We don't even have a page for upscaling. Heck, I came up with this thread when I looked at Metro Man's AP rating from his profile wondering why he's considered Small Town level when he upscales from 808 tons of TNT and realized "Oh shit, we don't really have guidelines for upscaling": https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Metro_Man

So, here's the deal. While I recall statistical significance starting at 8% somewhere, I looked it up recently and noticed that statistical significance actually starts at 5%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Linking the Wikipedia article specifically because it cites an article from 2007 about the figure while other sources don't really have a citation for it. Other than that, this Harvard article recommends that you exert 70-85% of your maximum for exercise: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/resistance-training-by-the-numbers

This would mean if one is forced to give it their all against someone else, they would technically be exerting about 1.176470588 to 1.428571429 times what they should be exerting.

As such, we would have 3 real-world values for upscaling: 1.05x, 1.176x, and 1.429x. Still lower than the 5x we have listed for one-shotting, but still.

But how should we handle this thing? Personally, I think like one-shotting, these should only apply to the baseline values of which these things scale from, and even then, they should be considered exclusive to Vs Debates just like how our rule for one-shotting works. That's my take on the matter at least. It should handle how we handle things like "higher" and "far higher" and the like if said higher values are unknown. I'm just afraid that real profile application would cause circular scaling issues.

So yeah, that's what I can gather. Feel free to discuss.

It's just better that multipliers aren't to be assumed here without reason for upscaling as the gaps are far too unknown commonly which most fictions depict.

Propellus said:

It's just better that multipliers aren't to be assumed here without reason for upscaling as the gaps are far too unknown commonly which most fictions depict.

Click to expand...

Isn't our one-shot multiplier basically just doing that but with a pretty high number (5x)?

Flashlight237 said:

Isn't our one-shot multiplier basically just doing that but with a pretty high number (5x)?

Click to expand...

It's 8x, and that's really only for versus threads and not for scaling purposes for indexing

Propellus said:

It's 8x, and that's really only for versus threads and not for scaling purposes for indexing

Click to expand...

Thought we revised that to 5x as of late. Plus I also made my proposal as a "for versus threads only" thing, so uhh...

Ya'll do realize that the one-shot gap isn't used for upscaling characters by 8x a piece right? You don't get to scale a character to 8x the calculated value just cause they one-shot someone.

Can't have it both ways, either we start inflating stats like Efi once inflated Kirby's profile or we don't do this crap.

The one shot value is only for what is needed to one shot with pure AP in versus threads, assuming optimal conditions.

We did have a thread talking about upscaling/downscaling, it was very long and the discussion was heavy. This was the result.

For people who don't get a solid number change. We just say they're higher or lower than the value they're scaling to if we don't have an exact multiplier.

There's really no need to set any standard number to how much a person should downscale or upscale from something, even if just in versus threads. When it comes to versus threads you can just compare the feats and see who's value gives a better boost. This is part of the debating process in versus threads.

I disagree with assuming any kind of number for upscaling/downscaling whatsoever.

Especially due to how simple higher rating can vary heavily between two characters.

Yeah, definitely no number for this stuff. That's equalizing all instances to be equally impressive which they just aren't. Not to mention different treatment between fictions.
Not everything needs to be put into a number. I have the feeling I'm saying this frequently lately, but it is to be encouraged that people think for themselves and compare feats against feats, instead of trying to simplify everything to "number is higher, I win".
And, obviously, just upscale chaining to infinity with no comparable feats also looks really bad. As much as they are ignored these days, we did once upon a time even agree that straight-up stated multipliers should be viewed with increasing scrutiny the more they derivate from direct feats. So since this involves things neither stated nor scientifically properly quantified, the scrutiny is obviously much higher... so high that it just doesn't work.

So yeah, that just doesn't seem like a healthy way to rank things.

DontTalkDT said:

So since this involves things neither stated nor scientifically properly quantified

Click to expand...

Bruh, one of the sources is Harvard; you can't get any more scientifically valid than them.

Flashlight237 said:

Bruh, one of the sources is Harvard; you can't get any more scientifically valid than them.

Click to expand...

You realize that most of the upscaling in most fiction could be way higher than those numbers you're providing, right? And even then, it's literally impossible to get a reasonable number out of high upscaling

I'm not in favor on most cases of upscaling on principle, so I'm also wholly against assigning a specific number to it.

Flashlight237 said:

Bruh, one of the sources is Harvard; you can't get any more scientifically valid than them.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it scientifically sound if the other steps involved don't work. The reasoning is only as good as the weakest link.
Just because you can vaguely attach some good source to something it doesn't give credibility to reasoning that goes beyond what the study you provide actually says. And the study you provide in no way is about upscaling fiction feats of greatly varying nature and with the usual casual and vague descriptions fiction gives.
How is that study supposed to have any validity for a ninja that powers his physicals via chakra? How would you know that the usual performance of a fictional character adheres to Havards recommendations of exertion in the first place? How much relevance would this have when the average shonen character regularly pushes way past that, clearly violating the estimate?

DontTalkDT said:

That doesn't make it scientifically sound if the other steps involved don't work. The reasoning is only as good as the weakest link.
Just because you can vaguely attach some good source to something it doesn't give credibility to reasoning that goes beyond what the study you provide actually says. And the study you provide in no way is about upscaling fiction feats of greatly varying nature and with the usual casual and vague descriptions fiction gives.
How is that study supposed to have any validity for a ninja that powers his physicals via chakra? How would you know that the usual performance of a fictional character adheres to Havards recommendations of exertion in the first place? How much relevance would this have when the average shonen character regularly pushes way past that, clearly violating the estimate?

Click to expand...

That's the thing, the figures presented are for irl human exertion, aka how much we as humans could do. Just because fiction tends to, for example, boost a character's attack in additive 50% increments in Pokemon, doesn't mean that we should just... Ignore what reality bases we find, especially when the wiki already puts reality first in calcs for example. One of our profiles even has a Statistics Amplification rating link to a scan equating the boost given to human exertion as opposed to an arbitrarily assigned SSJ multiplier, and it's for a shonen manga universe: