Changing the + requirements for tiering.

[Antvasima]

You should probably ask some administrators to comment here before this is applied.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

No, that would lead to the inflation it warns about.

Ok . Just asked to clarify this so there won't be misunderstandings

 

[AKM sama]

Fiction isn't consistent in terms of how much power difference is required to completely stomp an opponent. It could be 1.1x or even 15x. Assuming a value for it and therefore pushing a character to the + sign is something I'm uncomfortable with. Plus, it would set a bad precedent where people will argue the same thing for pushing characters to the next tier altogether.

Not that I'm totally against it because if a character massively outclasses someone who is just 1.03x behind the line, it makes perfect sense for that character to cross that line, and it should be done on a case by case basis. The problem arises when people claim that a character should be at least 1.5x or 2x stronger depending upon how they beat their opponent, even if that is not necessarily the case.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

We already do that tough. Upscaling tiers I mean. Not from baseline obviously, but still.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM

Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I agree with AKM, personally. There is inevitably going to be issues that arise when you handle these things on a case-by-case basis, but considering how inconsistent fiction can be with "stomping standards", there isn't much of a way to properly gauge it.

 

[AKM sama]

We already do that tough. Upscaling tiers I mean. Not from baseline obviously, but still.

Yeah we do when there's sufficient evidence and the difference is very small, and getting a + sign should not be any different. I agree with that part. But we don't use a fixed difference in AP as a requirement. If we decide to apply that to the + sign, we'll also have to do the same for tiers.

Also that is a very rare practice in which we mostly leave it as "likely/possbly higher". I'm afraid setting a 1.5x difference will become too lenient and cause many such cases where people start arguing for a + sign or a tier upgrade.

 

[GrathOfLux]

We already do that tough. Upscaling tiers I mean. Not from baseline obviously, but still.

Isn't that moreso in the case of exact multipliers, or are you referring to something else?

If a character would, say, only need a 2x AP advantage to jump a tier and they get an exact, provable 10x multiplier to their AP, then they would jump a tier. But we typically don't give anything better than a "likely higher" in the case that a character is far stronger than their feats depict.

 

[Andytrenom]

We already allow upscaling to higher tiers don't we? Just apply that same standard when scaling someone to the upper portion of a tier

 

[Antvasima]

Andy makes sense to me.

 

[Moritzva]

I agree with Andy.

For the sake of clarification, could someone post those standards here so there is no confusion?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not remember where they are written. My apologies.

 

[Mindovin]

Do we? From what I know we do only if there is multiplier(s) and/or statement(s).

I agree with using multipliers and/or statements for adding + but using stomping, one-shotting or something similar is too arbitrary imo.

 

[Crzer07]

Afaik it also applies for one shotting/overpowering multiple characters at once if I'm not mistaken, but really depends on the size of tier and how far into the said tier you are (along with the number of people you overpowered or one-shotted) can go into whether you get a "+" or the next tier without a calc of a feat performed by the character in question.

 

[GyroNutz]

If there's a small enough gap I don't think there's any reason not to upscale with stomping/one-shots. Common sense tells you that those one shot gaps aren't negligible.

 

[Antvasima]

Did we ever reach a conclusion here?

 

[GyroNutz]

OP seems almost unanimously agreed upon.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What do we need to change in/add to which page then?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

"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, like 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."

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

This would go below the 0art explaining the meaning of + in the Attack Potency page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Are the rest of you fine with if we add that text?

 

[Therefir]

Adding that should be okay.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will wait for some more input.

 

[GyroNutz]

Looks fine, any reason we're using 1.5x though? I'd say "Jumps greater than around 1.5x...", makes it less arbitrary and allows for gaps of like 1.501x to be upscaled. Point is, I don't think there should be a specific cutoff point for continuous values.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Maybe it can be evaluted as a case by case basis? Some verses have stomp multipliers that are higher than other verses and some verses have a lower stomp multiplier

 

[GyroNutz]

Yeah, I still feel like there should be a cap to it, otherwise it'd cause the same issue with tier jumps -- overinflated stats.

 

[Mindovin]

If we use 1.5x or any number I'm afraid it going to lead to one-shotting / stomping chain.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If we use 1.5x or any number I'm afraid it going to lead to one-shotting / stomping chain.

This can't be stacked though. Storming ten people won't give 1.5^10.

 

[Therefir]

I think we can all agree that if a character is already upscaling from another of a lower tier, there's no way this character can be further upgraded to a higher tier with the same reasoning, no matter how large the stomping chain is, or how small the tier you are in.

 

[Therefir]

The 1.5x is certainly a bit arbitrary, but I think it was made to avoid any tier+ character to upscale to the following tier.

So if you want to upscale to a higher tier, you would need to stomp characters with feats already very close to the next tier, and not any character with a barely tier+ feat.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

The 1.5x is certainly a bit arbitrary, but I think it was made to avoid any tier+ character to upscale to the following tier.

So if you want to upscale to a higher tier, you would need to stomp characters with feats already very close to the next tier, and not any character with a barely tier+ feat.

So you mean that if there are Characters A,B and C, where A AP stomps B, B AP stomps C, and C is twice below the "+" requirment, is it possible for character A to have a plus rating based on your words?

 

[AKM sama]

Don't use any specific number for this. Just do it like we already do for tier jumps. Or we'll have to do the same for tier jumps and assign the same value, in which case I'd be fine if the gap for jumping is reduced a bit.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I'm not ok with this, the "+" isn't a tier jump, it's just supposed to signify whether you are above or below the average, having a jumpy like this just doesn't make sense, it'd be exactly the same as if someone was far above someone who is 700 Megatons, therefore we should make them 800 Megatons, there's no actual tier jump, so we shouldn't just put a random higher rating on the tier

Edit: Nevermind, just realized this was unanimous

 

[Antvasima]

So has this been accepted then, or should we modify the text a bit?

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with using plus, I don't agree with making a 1.5x limit, it really is a case-by-case thing.

 

[Andytrenom]

The 1.5x limit shouldn't exist, just treat it the same way you would a tier jump from upscaling

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I agree with Andy.

 

[Therefir]

I'm fine with that.

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to modify the new regulation text accordingly?

 

[BlackeJan]

Wait so whats been agreed here then?