Can we please add an explanation for why the lower ends on our comic herald profiles exist?

[The_Smashor]

What the title says. I'm sick and tired of constantly explaining to people that they're there exclusively for scaling purposes and aren't actually considered a reasonable end for the character. This is less an issue for DC Comics, but people keep laughing at our "Island level heralds" when Island level isn't meant to be an actual end but is only for how hard they fight normally.

Can we please get a note on our Marvel and DC Herald profiles that say that the 5-A/High 6-C ends are not actually low ends and are exclusively for scaling purposes? It would save me so much grief at this point. This is why I initially suggested the rating for scaling purposes be a note on the profiles instead of an actual part of the tiering, specifically so this wouldn't happen.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not against it; a lot of Marvel/DC things are pretty much worth having foot notes.

 

[The_Impress]

It's a wording error on Thor and Hercules' files too, it shoud be listed "4-B, High 6-C when holding back", and there was meant to be a matchban for the two characters at their High 6-C ratings.

This is an accepted revision multiple times, so I'll just apply it this time.

 

[The_Impress]

...although wait, who is misunderstanding the ratings?

"Large Island level (Usually operates under a far lower power level in fear of killing his mortal opponents. Comparable to Hulk and the Thing)"

...our files already state this, not to mention Thor and Surfer even have an elaborate Standard Tactics section detailing this.

 

[The_Smashor]

...although wait, who is misunderstanding the ratings?

"Large Island level (Usually operates under a far lower power level in fear of killing his mortal opponents. Comparable to Hulk and the Thing)"

...our files already state this, not to mention Thor and Surfer even have an elaborate Standard Tactics section detailing this.

Apparently, people see the tiering and just decide that they're angry.

They also seemingly refuse to listen when I explain the situation to them.

 

[The_Impress]

Apparently, people see the tiering and just decide that they're angry.

They also seemingly refuse to listen when I explain the situation to them.

Sounds like an issue with them rather than us, tbh. Our files are fine from what I am able to tell, and if people are going apeshit without reading the justifications, nothing a note will change, either.

 

[LordTracer]

I can see how some people might misunderstand the wording tbh. The “High 6-C, 4-B at peak” makes it seem like High 6-C is just their base strength and not their suppressed tier.

That wouldn’t be an issue if they just read the AP description, but meh

 

[The_Impress]

Maybe changing it to "4-B, usually High 6-C when holding back" may be better

 

[LordTracer]

Yeah, that’d definitely cause less confusion.

 

[The_Impress]

Anyone with a Variable tier ain't affected by this for the record, this is only Surfer, Hercules and Thor.

 

[The_Impress]

Oh also @Antvasima is my suggestion right above fine to apply?

 

[Hellbeast]

...although wait, who is misunderstanding the ratings?

Lots of people; we have discussed this before and I wrote a note for someone more able to apply at one poibt

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe changing it to "4-B, usually High 6-C when holding back" may be better

That seems good to me.

 

[The_Impress]

Lots of people; we have discussed this before and I wrote a note for someone more able to apply at one poibt

It's already stated in the profile very bluntly tho

 

[Antvasima]

I agree about that your new suggestion is much better in order to avoid misunderstandings and outrage.

 

[Eficiente]

I disagree with wording it as "4-B, usually High 6-C when holding back" as it sounds like it's saying "the character is 4-B always, but when it holds up its tier is usually High 6-C". As in, it's not conveying that the character is High 6-C most of the time, but that when it holds back, it sometimes does so by being High 6-C.

• As I said many times, the wording should be "High 6-C when holding back, 4-B at peak".
• The first line of the first tier saying "Usually operates under a far lower power level in fear of killing mortal opponents" or the like should have next to it a "[See note [number]]", and said note should have the evidence we have on the Standard Tactics about the characters holding back. The Standard Tactics should only say how the characters often fight like in any other page.
• Maybe adding their combat record would help? Thor's profile says he fought Hulk and the Thing like this, but he has also fought the likes of Wrecker (many times), Super-Skrull (idk how many times), Dr. Doom (idk how many times) and Loki. So how about the profiles say "Has repeatedly fought [characters they fought many times], and has contented with [characters they fought less times]"?
  • Whoever has the calc they scale to can have the numbers of the calc and its link in bold next to the name of the character, like this "Has repeatedly fought [character name], Mandarin [254.~ Gigatons of TNT], [character name], [character name]", as we would otherwise be linking a bunch of profiles while losing people on who has the feats. Yes I know the calcs are in the verse page but the average users can very well never think of this in their life.

I believe doing this would be the most clear way we can act.

 

[The_Impress]

that's like, work tho

In all seriousness I think that's nit-picky and presumptuous of you, and I don't see the point in bloating the AP section that much when the examples given work fine.

 

[Confluctor]

I think slapping "at peak" on them is also doing them injustice. They (Thor and surfer for example) can go higher than 4-B at their peak (without amps and whatnot). High 6-C when holding back, 4-B usually is more than fine.

 

[Eficiente]

In all seriousness I think that's nit-picky and presumptuous of you, and I don't see the point in bloating the AP section that much when the examples given work fine.

Knowing this characters and being told that they often hold back should do the job, there is people who think this isn't enough, and I believe this is the way to act if we assume that we're the ones who are doing something wrong. The latter assumption invites me to be presumptuous, the examples given do work fine, but they would work better with more, as it would reflesh people on the claimed consistency this characters have on holding back.

Aside from that, how about the first 2 lines in the Unordered list of what I proposed?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There are characters we typically list their main tiers first. A lot of characters are 9-A physically but are 9-C to Tier 8 with various firearms for example. So I think Zark's suggestion for listing 4-B first is fine and I also recall the High 6-C while holding back is something only to be used for scaling to underdogs and considered taboo during Vs Threads. Though for characters like Hulk who actually does vary based on anger, it's High 6-C to 4-B.

 

[The_Impress]

...I'll be frank to an extent I don't care how it's listed since in every case it's already doing the job imo, even the current one.

So I'll let y'all work this out.

 

[Antvasima]

I think slapping "at peak" on them is also doing them injustice. They (Thor and surfer for example) can go higher than 4-B at their peak (without amps and whatnot). High 6-C when holding back, 4-B usually is more than fine.

I personally agree with Confluctor.

 

[Eficiente]

• As I said many times, the wording should be "High 6-C when holding back, 4-B at peak".

 

[Confluctor]

Except you are leaving the part that they aren't 4-B at peak, just usually. This is us taking into consideration both lows and highs.

 

[Antvasima]

Confluctor is correct.

 

[LordTracer]

“4-B, usually High 6-C while holding back” still seems like the best option (and least likely to cause confusion) by far.

 

[Confluctor]

We should just go with what's Tracer is proposing. Should solve the problem (didn't know there was one to begin with ngl)

 

[Eficiente]

I disagree with wording it as "4-B, usually High 6-C when holding back" as it sounds like it's saying "the character is 4-B always, but when it holds up its tier is usually High 6-C". As in, it's not conveying that the character is High 6-C most of the time, but that when it holds back, it sometimes does so by being High 6-C.

 

[Antvasima]

“4-B, usually High 6-C while holding back” still seems like the best option (and least likely to cause confusion) by far.

Strongly agreed.

 

[Eficiente]

Except you are leaving the part that they aren't 4-B at peak, just usually. This is us taking into consideration both lows and highs.

Look, if anyone fights a character who often holds back and there are comments saying how they're not holding back anymore, then they're 4-B regardless of how their highest peak may be something else. It's not wrong to call it "their peak" when they in-universe call to be their peak. In fact we would be outright lying if we had profiles at this usual 4-B not be their peak but their peak being at tier 2 or whatever, because that means any normal person can conclude that if in a fight they don't hold back or are at their peak then they're at tier 2. We need to make the wording understandable for anyone, not those who know as much as we do on comics.

Having it as "4-B, usually High 6-C when holding back", on top of what I said before against it, has a strong tier first, then it goes down on a lower tier, and then if the character has a higher tier/tiers then it will go higher than the first tier. It's pretty ugly. And it's not an examplary of how profiles should be as the tier you would more often find the characters at isn't the first one shown, without making a roller coaster of tiers.

"High 6-C when holding back, 4-B" would work better.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that "High 6-C when holding back, 4-B otherwise" might work as well.

What do the rest of you think? Would we still have to deal with constant massive uproar and confusion from the western superhero comics fans if we handle it this way?

 

[The_Impress]

We'll deal with it anyways since the people outraged in the OP did so only reading the tiering section and never scrolling down.

Instead we should focus on what's better wording for our files, rather than appealing to frankly speaking, bored folks wanting to get outraged.

 

[LordTracer]

As DDM mentioned before, there is precedent to have a high tier followed by a low tier. And it makes more sense to start with the high tier here imo, since 4-B is their base strength.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, they technically quite seldom demonstrate power of this level, and mostly interact with tier High 6-C characters, but occasionally some of them (such as Thor and the Surfer) go even higher.

 

[Antvasima]

Instead we should focus on what's better wording for our files, rather than appealing to frankly speaking, bored folks wanting to get outraged.

Anyway, I agree that our main focus should be finding the best available wording.

 

[Eficiente]

I suppose that "High 6-C when holding back, 4-B otherwise" might work as well.

Sure.

Instead we should focus on what's better wording for our files, rather than appealing to frankly speaking, bored folks wanting to get outraged.

Yes. I do still still believe that this:

• Maybe adding their combat record would help? Thor's profile says he fought Hulk and the Thing like this, but he has also fought the likes of Wrecker (many times), Super-Skrull (idk how many times), Dr. Doom (idk how many times) and Loki. So how about the profiles say "Has repeatedly fought [characters they fought many times], and has contented with [characters they fought less times]"?
  • Whoever has the calc they scale to can have the numbers of the calc and its link in bold next to the name of the character, like this "Has repeatedly fought [character name], Mandarin [254.~ Gigatons of TNT], [character name], [character name]", as we would otherwise be linking a bunch of profiles while losing people on who has the feats. Yes I know the calcs are in the verse page but the average users can very well never think of this in their life.

would help a lot, for exmple Thor's High 6-C tier would go from

• "(Usually operates under a far lower power level in fear of killing his mortal opponents. Comparable to Hulk and the Thing)"

to

• "(Usually operates under a far lower power level in fear of killing his mortal opponents. Has repeatedly fought Hulk, Loki and Wrecker, and has contented with the Thing, Dr. Doom, Namor and Super-Skrull)"

Personally, I see the latter as much better. Saying that Thor is "Comparable to Hulk and the Thing" is ok, but it sounds like they're the only ones giving him that lower tier, which can make some people think that the tier is bs and something we settled for to make things easier. Meanwhile by putting whom he fought it suddenly makes a whole lot of sense that anyone going in and punching him in the face isn't 4-B.

A valid point that can be extracted out of the outrage some people have is how they don't see how if a character often holds back, why they often do so at the specific tier we claim, which is genially pretty weird based on looking at some profiles alone, but that gets fixed by knowing that there is a number of characters at that level coming in to fight at different levels of consistency.

Imp called doing this presumptuous, which I respect as it is some work to do, but I disagree with, at least the big pages like Superman and Thor could have this.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems to make sense.

What do the rest of you think?