• 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.

Changing the + requirements for tiering.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ricsi-viragosi

Ricsi-viragosi

VS Battles
Retired
26,160
3,653
Gonna cut it short and sweet, the absolute need for a calculation is not really needed. An exemple would be pokemon, where a Tyranitar would only need to be 1.03 times stronger than a Pupitar, which is really more that justified.

I would suggest it to reword it to simply add something like "A + can only be added without a direct calculation above the arithmetic average if there is one very close to it, and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin. Jumps greater than X2 in power should not be assumed."
 
This was by far one of the most annoying things regarding tiering on this site, the need for a Plus without a calc on a wiki that allows upscaling to another tier was completely silly.

Is it safe to assume that if a characters scales massively above a feat but the difference between a plus or another tier is less then 2x, that it's okay to scale up?
 
Our rules on + have been very, very strict for a long time.

...why exactly do we have + again? If it only serves to cut the tier in half, upscaling-wise, that seems a bit odd.

(Withholding any stern opinion on the matter, for now.)
 
Schnee One said:
Is it safe to assume that if a characters scales massively above a feat but the difference between a plus or another tier is less then 2x, that it's okay to scale up?
Click to expand...
Should be, yeah.

As long as we don't suddenly jump tiers or slap massive multipliers because of scaling chains, there's no problem against it as far as I can think of.
 
Yeah, there's no need to be that strict with giving a "+". If a character has a calc on the precipice of getting the "+" and another characters comes and one shots them, it's safe to give them the "+".
 
Is this enough agreement for it? Should I contact Ant to ask if he has a problem with this or..?
 
Ricsi-viragosi said:
Is this enough agreement for it? Should I contact Ant to ask if he has a problem with this or..?
Click to expand...
Ant should probably be contacted about this, yeah. Though for such a major site-wide change, you'd definitely want to get some admin input as well.
 
I don't have a problem with this in the sense that this would work.

My problem is that people will argue that any scaling chain provides enough grounds to support a + in most profiles.

I could say just one-shoting a 300KT dude is enough to provide a + since the difference between that and baseline High 7-C+ is of 1.83x only, and that applies to the majority of the characters since baselines are the most difficult case to upscale. People will think "oh, it's not absurd that the character is 1.83x stronger because he..." while that can very well apply to basically anything. Heck, the difference between baseline + and the next tier is less than 2x as well, and we'd enter a state where we start abusing of this just to inflate the ratings based on scaling chains that might or might not be long enough to provide such jumps.

If we discard the rule we will have people doing that. This is pretty common right now and the + problem wasn't a thing that I'd have seen someone pointing out until I complained about its abuse with SU.

So I suggest we either reject this, or delete the + entirely as it serves little purpose. Right now more verse pages are listing their notable feats used to scale the characters, and the + is giving more troubles than solutions as people will argue their characters belong there because they don't want to lose an argument.

I'm leaning towards the latter option, at this point. The + is an arbitrary term that has divided more people than character's ratings actually.

Lol at the fact that Weekly said this was settled when no admin has showed yet, only Mods
 
@Calaca Wouldn't removing the + impact how we tier characters above Universal? Granted that 2-A is dependent on it?

I am in agreement with the OP, but also believe if we start removing the requirement that it will be abused.

I think a possible good solution would be to remove the + for tiers below universal, because we can reasonably assess the differences between characters through calculations or scaling chains below 3-A.
 
The Calaca said:
I'm not aware at how those tiers work, but your proposal also sounds good.
Click to expand...
2-A is currently written as Multiverse level+ and Low 2-C is Universe level+, making those tiers reliant on them.
 
I see. Well, I wasn't talking about those cases in particular.

There's no actual distinction between 7-B and 7-B+ in the chart and even the profiles don't use the + in the Tier section, just with Attack Potency and the rest of the stats, so I don't see the need for + in general right now if they are not a specific tier like Low 2-C and 2-A which are separated in the chart and are their own tiers.
 
The Calaca said:
I see. Well, I wasn't talking about those cases in particular.

There's no actual distinction between 7-B and 7-B+ in the chart and even the profiles don't use the + in the Tier section, just with Attack Potency and the rest of the stats, so I don't see the need for + in general right now if they are not a specific tier like Low 2-C and 2-A which are separated in the chart and are their own tiers.
Click to expand...
I agree, calculations kinda make the need for the + sign in most cases unnecessary. But a concern I have is when tiers get broad like High 6-A and 5-A, how do we treat a large scaling chain when the difference for the top/bottom of the tiers are 6000x apart? It could hamper things from a VS standpoint. Things also could potentially get confusing for non-regulars.
 
For cases where the difference between baseline and next tier is considerably big (Like 9-B or some others), the + might serve an actual purpose. But for most Tiers below 6 the difference tends to be less 10x or less, so it's not a big jump at all and the numbers are easily quantifiable.
 
I largely agree with the Calaca about that applying this change would likely lead to upscaling abuse.

I do think that we should keep the "+" signs though, both because it helps to make our tiering system a bit more specific, and because it would involve going through over 20,000 profile pages, to find all the ones that need to be modified, for no actual gain, when we already have some other major revision projects to take care of, such as for Regenerationn.
 
Ieam, limiting the maximum jump in power to a X2 should mitigate much of that, and upscaling a lot is already a thing.

Threads will be needed for old profiles to be updated with this, people that were on the wiki for a bit should know not to do that, and new people will probably not read through all the rules at all.

Acting like someone that one-shots enemies 1.03 times below the + is still weaker than someone that barely made it is hardly more logical.
 
i think if the jump in power to get the + is lowered to something like 1.5 it would be better, as 2x is already a decetly big multiplier
 
I suppose that Ricsi has a point.
 
Yeah, stuff like "well they beat the hell out of each other for a few minutes and this guy didn't even break a sweat" isn't the standard I was proposing for this. Is was more for the plain One-shotting range.
 
Well, we still need to define a sensible restriction for when upscaling to use a "+" sign can be used.
 
"A + can only be added without a direct calculation above the arithmetic average if there is one very close to it, and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, such as being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single attack. Jumps greater than X1.5 in power should not be assumed, as it would lead to potentially large power jumps, inflating the rating of certain characters."

Would that be better.
 
I suppose that could work, yes.
 
I totally agree with Ricsi, there are many profiles that already apply this logic, and I always thought it was a bit stupid to allow Tier jumps without calcs, but not allow the + jumps, no matter how close the calc was to it.
 
This seems to be mostly accepted then.
 
Just a question: If Character A is in a tier, but only around 2 times below the requirements to a "+" sign, and Character B AP stomps them, then should character B get a "+" sign or not?
 
Probably not, if I understood correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Ednaxel2
Question about the + symbol for attack potency
Replies
1
Views
653
TheRustyOne
TheRustyOne
Tyri456
Shinza Banshou - Revising the Tiering
Replies
16
Views
2K
Violatas
Violatas
Luxxy_Ethereal
  • Locked
Upgrade for Kaguya Otsutsuki to Multi-solar system 4-A.
Replies
9
Views
1K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Flashlight237
Dropkick on my Devil! CRT: AP for High Tiers
Replies
1
Views
302
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
Back
Top