• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Arbitrary and Unsourced Tier Ranges (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with DontTalk. There is no standard size for a building, country, city, etc. We got literal city sized countries, thwn we got stuff like Russia and rhe USA that get 6-A or higher destruction results because they're huge. Conversely, stuff like destroying buildings can go anywhere from 9-B to 8-A.

The values are arbitrary, but i'm mot sure that theree a real fix to this. Don't think there's like some sorta "average building size" and you always got the outliers to skew things.
 
I'll only say one thing then.

Creation of anything less than a Celestial Object shouldn't be considered AP. Unless there's Mass-Energy Conversion or other feats to back it up.
 
I have explicitly stated that the thread isn't about recalcing tiers and repeated it several times. I don't mind clearing confusion when it's necessary but when you assume things that is clear as day not what is said, I can only assume you didn't bother to read before commenting and I take issue with that
 
I don't think people are in those tiers without calcs/scaling as is, to answer the question about OP.
 
There are indeed characters

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/The_Narrator_(The_Stanley_Parable)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Spooky

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Robot_Randy

More importantly, the Tiering System page does state that these tiers are based off of destroying their namesake with no official rule clarifying that these tiers need calcs as far as I am aware. So there is still good reason to believe people will continue using these tiers as estimations when there aren't calcs

In fact when I told Agnaa about the need for these tiers needing calcs he refused because of other examples contradicting this and even the tiering system page going against this idea. And this was from a very experienced member
 
I agree with DonTalk; personally, I think only the more averaged values really need such as Town level or City level need a basis for the baseline to be based on a certain calculation. Stuff like Small or Large before Town, City, ect just need an approximation value. Where in that case, 1 Kiloton being the baseline for Low 7-C and 100 Kilotons being the baseline for High 7-C seems pretty appropriate due to approximated units.
 
I mostly agree with this, but to be honest many of our tier values are kind of arbitrary outside of those mentioned in the OP.

4-B - 3-A don't really deal with the amount of energy needed to actually destabalize/destroy a solar system and above, rather they're the values for explosions that destroy an N-sized object at X-distance.

In reality a large supernovae can destabalize most/all orbits in a solar system with exponentially less energy.
 
Destroying a star is kind of a case by case concept. Making a star go supernova can often be a chain reaction and the star often regenerates and forms a new star afterwards. Destroying a star to the point where it's simply not going to come back would be a different story. And we go by GBE values.

Also, destabilizing a star system isn't the same as nuking one via a oneshot.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Also, destabilizing a star system isn't the same as nuking one via a oneshot.
Click to expand...
Entirely true.

However, if our definition of the lower end of 4-B is "minimum energy needed to destroy a Solar System," our current value of it would be inccorrect and arbitrary.
 
It probably should be changed to "Minimum energy required to completely destroy a solar system in one blast" or something along those lines.
 
@Dargoo Well, some level of arbitrariness is inevitable but certain cases are far more outrageous than others. The tiers from 4-B to 3-A still have a rational basis and explanation, but 100 megatons for mountain level is just "it's a big enough megaton value I guess"

Regardless, I am more interested in providing citations like a good page with information is supposed to, and making it understood what the nature of some of our tiers are to avoid inaccurate ratings than do something about the arbitrariness directly. Even if I wanted to, that would be part of a different revision
 
DonTalk listed this page. I should note that fragmentation of 1/8th the size of of Mount Fuji would be the rough baseline for 7-A.
 
I don't see how "baseline is 1/8th the value of mt. Fuji" is useful information at all. I feel if you can accurately peg a mountain at that size, you would be working with enough information to just straight up calc it
 
While discussion is okay, I highly recommend waiting to actually implement this until after the initial tier system revisions, if we decide to go through with it. That way this can serve as a "Part 2" of sorts.
 
@Sera The revision extends to editing two official pages, it's not an actual tiering system revision like the GBE thing or the dimension thing. This is just about citations and clarifications

I've reiterated this quite a lot now
 
So, has this suggestion been properly accepted, and if so, should we start to discuss the wording of the clarification/explanation text?
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
It probably should be changed to "Minimum energy required to completely destroy a solar system in one blast" or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
That is probably fine.
 
Apchart2
I hope this will help, yet I don't see any problem this current borders
 
Any tier whose borders are without sources should only be assigned if there is a calculation putting a feat within that tier's border. This shouldn't need much explanation, if we cannot prove that a type of feat should typically

So, how do you define sources in contexts, are scans of Statements enough to qualify because I want to be certain, Andytrenom?
 
Elizhaa said:
Any tier whose borders are without sources should only be assigned if there is a calculation putting a feat within that tier's border. This shouldn't need much explanation, if we cannot prove that a type of feat should typically
Click to expand...
We are talking about the values in the attack potency chart itself, some have citations in the form of links or explantions like 5-C and above while others don't. That's what is being talked about, not individual ratings for characters.
 
It seems like this has been accepted, but if you need more staff input, you can message some of them directly to inform them about this thread.

After that we can decide on the wording on the clarification/explanation note, and insert it into the Tiering System page.
 
Does anyone mind going through the narutoforum articles and verifying whether their calculation matches up with our figures?

A lot of the stuff like 8-C and High 8-C and stuff weren't really given a result, just the base assumption was shown
 
@Andytrenom

Should we try to finish this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
39K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top