Changing the + requirements for tiering.

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

The conclusion is that if you're significantly stronger than someone who is close to the halfway point of a tier, you can upscale said character to the halfway point and give them the "+"

 

[The_Calaca]

And what do we define as "close"? The difference between baseline and the halfway point is pretty small and I can see lots of people pushing this point for characters who are classified for feats quite small compared to the halfway point.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I think people above were saying above that a 1.5x difference and lower, which seems reasonable to me, especially if it's lower than a 1.25x difference

 

[The_Calaca]

Considering most halfway points are drawn in 5.5 (many tiers ranges between 1 to 10), that means anything higher than 4.4 would get a +.

I honestly think this should be provided in case the difference is high enough, like having a pretty big scaling chain fully supported. Otherwise, this will get out of control since this is harder to define and revise than actual tier jumps.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I don't think that it's that much different from full tier jumps, it's pretty much exactly the same, but with the halfway point of every tier being another checkpoint for upscaling, so if a character is 500 Gigatons and you're far above them, then it should be fine to upscale them to 550 Gigatons which is a 1.1x increase and is when the "+" is added

That seems reasonable to me

 

[The_Calaca]

1.1 is acceptable.

I think we should also discuss how we treat characters who backscale from baseline people. Either we give them the + or not.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

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

I don't think there should be an exact number.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I don't think there should be a specific number either, but if it's less than a 1.5x increase, that's more solid

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Sure.

 

[BlackeJan]

Ok....so what's the conclusion here?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

The conclusion is that if you're significantly stronger than someone who is close to the halfway point of a tier, you can upscale said character to the halfway point and give them the "+"

This

 

[BlackeJan]

Calaca was talking how this could still turn into a mess. It's best to wait for everyone else to say what they think

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Everyone already did agree to this above BlackeJan, most of which were staff members, I was just trying to answer your question about what the conclusions were, this thread was already settled

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think there should be a specific number either, but if it's less than a 1.5x increase, that's more solid

I agree with that a specific number seems inappropriate. We need to get this change done very soon though. Is some staff member willing to handle it?

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

It should just be a quick change to the Attack Potency page.

 

[AKM sama]

A "+" can only be added without a direct calculation, if there is one extremely close to the arithmetic mean, and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, like being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack.

This is what the text will look like if we remove the specific number part. Is this okay?

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

>can only be added without a direct calculation

This part sounds weird. Maybe "can be added with or without a direct calculation"? Or just omit this part.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

There should be an if after the "calculation" instead of ",".

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Ah I kinda understand what AKM meant now. So I suggest:

"A "+" can be added if there is a direct calculation or if there is one extremely close to the arithmetic mean and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, for example being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack."

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yeah, seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

"A "+" can be added if there is a direct calculation or if there exists one extremely close to the arithmetic mean, and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, for example being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack."

I made some very minor sentence adjustments. It seems fine now.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Just to clarify, how close the gap between a character's AP and the "+" sign need to be in order for other characters to get the plus sign by scaling way above that character?

 

[AKM sama]

Well, extremely close, just like we do for tier jumps. There is no defined gap here.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Well, extremely close, just like we do for tier jumps. There is no defined gap here.

So it's a csse by case basis thing?

 

[Magi_Hussie]

Low-Ends and High-ends are preferred to be treated the same way as we treat that for speed ratings that use "+" and doesn't always require calculations to have (ex: reliable statements that can give high-end ratings and etc.).

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to apply this now?

 

[AKM sama]

I'll do it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the help. Tell us here when you are done.

 

[AKM sama]

I made the change.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Attack_Potency&diff=6307084&oldid=5937015

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. That seems fine. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Super_Saiyan_God_Julian]

I think there is nothing left to discuss, and the changes seem fine. So yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.