Feats and Scaling

[The_real_cal_howard]

Tbh, Idk whether this belongs on the General Discussion Board or the Q&A Board...

Anyway, this is a question I've had for a while. And despite the title, it's not as bad as it seems, as I'm not gonna imply that scaling should be thrown out the window or anything, obviously. It's just something that's been bothering me lately, as I've seen it quite often in many franchises. It an be DB, Bleach, KLK, Digimon, Pokémon, One-Punch Man, One Piece, etc.. Anyway, the question is how high can we make assumptions when it comes to scaling? In a match, I've seen quite often that because X>>Y>>Z>>A>>>B=some feat, it can mean that X is stronger than Character C from another franchise, even though he scales to a feat that's quite a bit higher than the one X scales from. Problem is, that causes quite a few assumptions, and is a bit unfair. Now, I understand when it's 2-A or higher, because the only way to measure anything above baseline is upwards scaling or casualness, but not in things like tier High 6-A or anything. And again, this isn't me saying that we should have a "feats or nothing" attitude, but I would like to know how far we can go with scaling.

 

[Kaltias]

It depends from case by case. Stomping someone/being casual/weakened while performing the feat means that you are pretty far above the feat itself, so it depends from how close the two feats are, and how much they reflect your strength.

Like, if A scales from a feat twice as powerful as B's, but the latter stomped someone who performed said feat on the brink of death, B is stronger.