- 13,228
- 21,044
THIS
I couldn't have said it better. If we accept the individual multipliers, we accept the end result of their usage. If we don't, that's just personal bias
-
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.
Dbs downgrade
- Thread starter StekFence
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dragon ball
- Status
I couldn't have said it better. If we accept the individual multipliers, we accept the end result of their usage. If we don't, that's just personal bias
- 12,128
- 4,364
when is a 2.000.000 times boost is shown? Do they have a feat approaching such value? how many instances of such a massive boost in speed is shown? what is the evidence? again, that is just the standards of the site, idk what to tell you, we could try and change them if you don't like the way they work on this
- 12,128
- 4,364
the bigger the multiplier, the bigger the evidence needed, so multiple accepted multipliers stacked into 1 massive bigger one needs more evidence for the final value of said stack, to see if it is consistent, again, this are the standards, it is not me saying it
- 13,228
- 21,044
You don't need all of this.
We have this evidence for the 50x Super Saiyan amp. We have this evidence for the Kaioken amp of up to 20x. That's why both were accepted. This is just applying those whenever necessary. I can't help but call this scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny.
- 12,128
- 4,364
"For higher multipliers, like times 100 and above, the importance of stronger evidence, such as feats displaying power of a similar magnitude as the value the multiplier points to or the multipliers importance to the plot of the story, and a higher amount of evidence becomes increasingly necessary."
"If multiple multipliers are to be stacked, that are used upon each other, the evidence for the end result is equal to the total multiplier applied to the best feat. That means that if, for example, a character has a times 10 multiplier and later on gets another times 50 multiplier, than the evidence necessary to use both multipliers to get a statistic, is like that of a times 500 multiplier, as the best feat would be increased by a factor of 500 in that case."
- 13,228
- 21,044
We see such amps though. SSB Goku kept up with Hit, then with Kaioken he was able to completely escape Hit's sight, for instance. But let me guess, that doesn't count.
Honestly, this is a bad standard if it's gonna be abused like this. These multipliers are consistent within the series, but now people are trying to axe them just because we don't see feats septillions of times FTL with every move made
Last edited:
- 3,493
- 5,191
It’s consistent though i am looking at the full picture of the multiplier scaling chain theres no contradictions and the multipliers are accepted
Though what we do need right now is clarification on the standards because I don’t agree with how you guys are interpreting it
Nah we just need a clarification on the standards because i do not feel the arguments are what are the standards say
Serlock_Holmes
He/Him- 3,651
- 1,554
A clarification would be good. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that accepted multipliers need to be reaccepted because although they individually are we aren't allowed to what multiply them? Like that sounds so ridiculous. And again the fact that the multipliers allow the bridging of tremendous gaps is a good enough portrayal of their scale and validity. Asking for a specific calculation showcasing an exact or near increase in speed is pedantic for the sake of being pedantic as we are able to see the increase in action.
- 12,128
- 4,364
that is certainly proof of him getting faster sure, but is that proof of him getting more than 50.000x faster specifically tho? also the bigger point is the scaling above 2.000.000 times the initial value without solid proof of them getting that much faster consistently, a multiplier can be accepted sure, but the evidence for the stacked value of the stacked multiplier with another would be necessary independent of the accepted initial multiplier
i mean, that is what i have been saying, if the problem is that the standard is bad, then change the said standard for it to not be bad, the reasoning in the standard is that it is for it to make sure that the boost is consistent and that it makes sense, again, like how the immeasurable LS zamasu thread, we can't complain about a standard being bad without changing them, or else it is no evidence for it to be ignored just because i find it to be bad
not having contradictions is not enough by the current standard, it needs evidence for it in the first place, like evidence that the chars really did get 2.000.000x faster like what the multiplier scaling chain would imply, not having contradictions is not enough
i don't see how it is an interpretation when it is written pretty blatantly
- 31,399
- 27,689
I'm neutral on this.
I don't think that the multipliers are implemented in the best way right now, but I don't think this thread was thought out well enough to tackle it.
I don't think that the multipliers are implemented in the best way right now, but I don't think this thread was thought out well enough to tackle it.
- 2,714
- 3,501
you mean for DB? How are they not implemented well
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,979
- 2,190
To summarize:
This is what this guy is proposing:
key1: Character peforms an X m/s feat
key 2: has a new form that is directly 10x faster in combat speed, stated consistently.
this is what the new quantification under his CRT would be:
Y tier (exactly at X m/s) | Y tier ( X m/s, faster than before when using a 10x speed multiplier)
This is what this guy is proposing:
key1: Character peforms an X m/s feat
key 2: has a new form that is directly 10x faster in combat speed, stated consistently.
this is what the new quantification under his CRT would be:
Y tier (exactly at X m/s) | Y tier ( X m/s, faster than before when using a 10x speed multiplier)
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,979
- 2,190
The standards need to change then. That literally makes no sense.
- 12,128
- 4,364
Well the multiplier scaling chain, small multipliers like 10x would still remain
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,979
- 2,190
Nah cause they'd be yeeted under this CRT. Keep in mind, SSJ would remain a 50x speed so
- 12,128
- 4,364
Well, some of the multipliers would still remain, the smaller ones, like kaioken and ssj1, the real big ones, like the stack that makes MUI and gogeta blue 2.000.000x the BoG feat would be the ones removed
- 12,128
- 4,364
- 3,493
- 5,191
The standard dont need to change that specific part is just talking about what is needed to get a multiplier above 100x to be specifically accepted
If a character uses SSJ with x50 and then surpasses his previous Ssj state in base and goes Ssj again that’s 2500x that wouldn’t be needed
- 12,128
- 4,364
Well you would need proof of a 2500x increase, since you would be stacking multipliers with one another
- 3,493
- 5,191
It’s the same accepted multiplier it’s not just a number pulled out of thin air
Goku SSJ (Transforming after improved Base)>Improved Goku Base>SSJ goku>Base Goku
The Ssj multiplier would be accepted as a x50 therefore he does have proof of that increase
And I’ve already explained what evidence is considered on the multiplier page and why this also doesn’t contradict anything
- 12,128
- 4,364
Why would the evidence for the 50x multiplier matter for the requested proof for the 2500x one? One beinf accepted matters not for the fact that bigger ones need far more proof than smaller ones like 50x
And not what the evidence is for the stupedely higher ones like the 2 billion multiplier currently used
- 2,899
- 3,966
All I'm seeing is circular arguments so I'm going to disagree with the thread. Saying we can't use any of our multiplers is asinine and I've yet to see a convincing argument other than pointing to so very reductive standards for reasoning.
Of all the paragraphs I've seen for removing this, none of them had a single good argument.
We have 2+2, that's our proof for 4. Not accounting for the disconnect between writer and power scaler and saying that because the exact increase isn't stated within the show is hilariously unproductive. It's as someone said, scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny.
Of all the paragraphs I've seen for removing this, none of them had a single good argument.
We have 2+2, that's our proof for 4. Not accounting for the disconnect between writer and power scaler and saying that because the exact increase isn't stated within the show is hilariously unproductive. It's as someone said, scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny.
- 12,128
- 4,364
When has anyone said that no multiplier can be used at all?
Well, the standards call for evidence for the increase for really big multipliers, this is as guacamolefletcher said, a standards problem
- 13,228
- 21,044
Well Lonkitt has expressed disagreement with the thread and DDM has given a like to my initial comment on the thread, which was literally just "No"
I'm seeing very little, if any, support for this
I'm seeing very little, if any, support for this
- 2,899
- 3,966
Because no one has made any arguments.
'I disagree. We have 2+2, that's all we need for proof for 4'
'But muh standards'
- 3,493
- 5,191
… Are you doing this on purpose? Did you just ask why the evidence for the 50x multiplier would matter for 2500x?
If a character scales to 1 joule
SSJ so now 50 joules
they now surpass their previous state in base 50 joules
SSJ again 2500 joules it’s simple math your claims are not what our standards are saying
you keep saying standards this standard that but they’re not claiming what you’re claiming
Standards don’t even claim what’s being claimed
- 12,128
- 4,364
Yeah, which would make the character 2500x the initial value of 1 joule, so by the multiplier standards you would need to provide evidence for the value of 2500x, quoting it again here:
"If multiple multipliers are to be stacked, that are used upon each other, the evidence for the end result is equal to the total multiplier applied to the best feat. That means that if, for example, a character has a times 10 multiplier and later on gets another times 50 multiplier, than the evidence necessary to use both multipliers to get a statistic, is like that of a times 500 multiplier, as the best feat would be increased by a factor of 500 in that case."
- 3,493
- 5,191
Yes evidence doesn’t just refer to only feats the multiplier page gives other examples of evidence that would help with multipliers and the increases in strengths via multipliers for the requirements with said evidence
also you’d have to downgrade saiyan saga as well if it was only via with feats since characters go from Moon Level to like large planetary via multipliers which is way beyond just 100x Kaioken multipliers
- 12,128
- 4,364
Yeah, which is why i have been asking for someone to compile all the said evidence so that we can add it to the current blog and keep the multipliers
The saiyan saga is 5B tho, what are you talking about?
- 9,387
- 6,685
@DontTalkDT even made a thread about using importance of multiplier to the plot as evidence too.
- 3,493
- 5,191
Evidence can be clear increase against equally matched or superior opponents and importance to the plot I don’t think a blog is needed for that
Meant speed because Namek Saga Goku scales above x4 kaioken and can use Kaioken x10 So x40 post zenkai goku gets stronger than that and can use Kaioken x20 but even if you say x120 you would have to make it so they wouldnt be able to scale past this point
Serlock_Holmes
He/Him- 3,651
- 1,554
Let's just tell all the authors to always match a new multiplier with a feat because else that multiplier is not real despite a drastic increase in the stats of the character. That's what this is basically.
Guacamolefletcher
Username Only- 1,979
- 2,190
yeah exactly. it makes no sense. The sagan standard in general should be dropped, tbh, since it doesn't work like they're saying it does
- 2,899
- 3,966
This thread is basically;
'50x50 equals 2500'
'Erm, proof?'
'50x50 equals 2500'
'Erm, proof?'
- 12,128
- 4,364
For smaller multipliers yes, but:
"For higher multipliers, like times 100 and above, the importance of stronger evidence, such as feats displaying power of a similar magnitude as the value the multiplier points to or the multipliers importance to the plot of the story, and a higher amount of evidence becomes increasingly necessary."
What you said apply to small multipliers, but not really big ones
you are not trying to compare a multiplier of 120x to one of 2.000.000 bilions and saying that the same ammount of evidence is needed for both, are you?
- 1,630
- 762
ain't ya using these kinds of multipliers in that Speed upgrade CRT of yours, omega?
- 12,128
- 4,364
yep, because my crt is purely updating the speed value of the base feat, and then applying it with the current scaling, mine is not trying to change the multiplier scaling outside of changing the base value
- 3,493
- 5,191
It’s evidence in general can refer to those and either way how are the multiplier increases not important to the story?
If it’s over 100x it’s the same with our standards no?
- Status
Similar threads
