- 12,450
- 5,641
disappears
-
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.
Mario AP Downgrade
- Thread starter Armorchompy
- Start date
- Status
- 9,886
- 12,893
I’m far more in favour of Armour’s arguments as I find them far more reliable for Mario scaling
ZespeonGalaxy
He/Him- 1,570
- 1,024
Thats fine, what argument did you find to be the most appealing instead luigi falling down taking no damage what so ever being used as an antifeat?
- 9,886
- 12,893
Maybe the giant laundry list of justifications Armour listed?
I don't know why you're asking me this
- 9,886
- 12,893
To be fair, you made it sound as if I was agreeing just because of Luigi falling, when in reality, that was not what compelled me to agreeCool way of twisting into something i literally quite never said only you see it that way
- 31,459
- 34,319
I still need more time to find a final verdict and still have a bunch of other things to take care of, but I will say people have only brought up some notes/policies on our outlier guidelines.
I'll spare the "Protagonist type" examples since quite a few people here already know what they fall into. But I have read over people like Agnaa or DaReaper bringing up some quantitively examples which are some basics things too look at but not the only things. DaReaper also got the basic "Consistency in context" statements and pure frequency isn't the ultimate example of consistency. But instead of collecting every single anti-feat in existence (Which I understand the OP isn't trying to go to overboard, but at the same time people have had far too many bad flashbacks that various trolls from CharacterRant). I can understand why people got anxious about Tier 9/8, but given I did read OP's conclusion, he's not trying to go too far and is advocating for 7/6 as a middle ground semi-consistent.
But another example for what effects our policy on outliers is the difference between direct feats (Feats independent from powerscaling such as destruction feats and/or other AP feats backed up by calculations) and indirect feats (Durability feats or feats dependent on harming characters with high durability scaling). We tend to be more strict with calling some of the latter type of feats outliers. Like destroying a moon even once that's basically treated as a plot essential feat is typically too blatant for us to just ignore or single out. Likewise, there are 9-B characters who survive getting brutally beaten by characters ranging from Tier 7 to Tier 2 with the same outcome (They survived but where in bad shape). Which all those durability feats are typically outliers and the conclusion is they're a wimpy pathetic character who exists to get his ass kicked.
But anyway, at least based on the consistency level of Mario and the main cast, how about we collect feats while also acknowledging the difference between direct feats and indirect feats. If there are at least 3 direct feats within a specific ballpark (Examples being 3 feats of a Mario protagonist busting/forming a star or nuking an Island), then Mario should not be any lower than that ballpark. That sounds like the lowest compromise in my eyes. As for indirect feats, of course having a few feats in which he traded blows with someone who can turn into a galaxy may not be the best. But if he has a couple dozen or more than a hundred, it may be a different story.
As for scaling non-main characters. We already went over the canon fodder characters, they are not getting upgraded to Mario's level regardless of Mario's tier. Though as for powerful bosses who only appear in one game, I still think some of those bosses should be allowed to scale from their own feats even if that means putting them well above Mario and crew; if that means Mario defeating them may be PIS. Unless it doesn't put their own feats above Mario, they can just scale from Mario regardless.
I'll spare the "Protagonist type" examples since quite a few people here already know what they fall into. But I have read over people like Agnaa or DaReaper bringing up some quantitively examples which are some basics things too look at but not the only things. DaReaper also got the basic "Consistency in context" statements and pure frequency isn't the ultimate example of consistency. But instead of collecting every single anti-feat in existence (Which I understand the OP isn't trying to go to overboard, but at the same time people have had far too many bad flashbacks that various trolls from CharacterRant). I can understand why people got anxious about Tier 9/8, but given I did read OP's conclusion, he's not trying to go too far and is advocating for 7/6 as a middle ground semi-consistent.
But another example for what effects our policy on outliers is the difference between direct feats (Feats independent from powerscaling such as destruction feats and/or other AP feats backed up by calculations) and indirect feats (Durability feats or feats dependent on harming characters with high durability scaling). We tend to be more strict with calling some of the latter type of feats outliers. Like destroying a moon even once that's basically treated as a plot essential feat is typically too blatant for us to just ignore or single out. Likewise, there are 9-B characters who survive getting brutally beaten by characters ranging from Tier 7 to Tier 2 with the same outcome (They survived but where in bad shape). Which all those durability feats are typically outliers and the conclusion is they're a wimpy pathetic character who exists to get his ass kicked.
But anyway, at least based on the consistency level of Mario and the main cast, how about we collect feats while also acknowledging the difference between direct feats and indirect feats. If there are at least 3 direct feats within a specific ballpark (Examples being 3 feats of a Mario protagonist busting/forming a star or nuking an Island), then Mario should not be any lower than that ballpark. That sounds like the lowest compromise in my eyes. As for indirect feats, of course having a few feats in which he traded blows with someone who can turn into a galaxy may not be the best. But if he has a couple dozen or more than a hundred, it may be a different story.
As for scaling non-main characters. We already went over the canon fodder characters, they are not getting upgraded to Mario's level regardless of Mario's tier. Though as for powerful bosses who only appear in one game, I still think some of those bosses should be allowed to scale from their own feats even if that means putting them well above Mario and crew; if that means Mario defeating them may be PIS. Unless it doesn't put their own feats above Mario, they can just scale from Mario regardless.
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #447
This isn't really pertinent to Mario, though. I wouldn't say that scaling is an issue here, the issue is that the feats that exist are contrasted and questionable. If we're talking about giving some weight to the portrayal of power, though, I think that actually ends up screwing Mario over more because the cosmic feats are usually extrapolated through a UES rather than obviously performed by the characters.
That's kind of what I did, though. Most- all- cosmic Mario feats are as indirect as they can get, given they're all environmental destruction/creation being scaled to physicals or AP via the assumption that a UES exists- this doesn't make them wrong in a vacuum although I do disagree with some of the assumptions taken to get there, but under your system, it would make just about all of them indirect.
There's also the fact that like, I just don't really wanna come up with a new solution that's kind of its own method, when the thread is 5 pages in and almost unanimously accepted
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
We should have a thread for the DaReaper approach, a.k.a the "At least [], likely [], possibly []" thingy
- 9,886
- 12,893
We do not need three separate ratings like that
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
It has been done before to show that the characters are inconsistent, these guys go from struggling to perform 9-B feats to casually doing 4-C feats
There's really now way to give em a solid rating
- 9,886
- 12,893
Except there is. Obviously, the instances of them struggling to perform 9-B feats has no place on these profiles given the casual nature of 9-B feats in the series (such as breaking bricks). We literally have tier 6 feats as Armour brought up
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #452
I'm just gonna make this clear: "At least/likely" isn't a get out of jail free card to ignore any anti-feats. It's done when a feat is unclear or there's some debate to be had but 6-C would be the "likely" tier, not the "At least" tier here.
With that said and done, if you want to add a lower tier, I have acknowledged 6-C is a bit of a high-ball, so sure. Not 3 ratings though, that's way too clunky for literal dozens of profiles to have
With that said and done, if you want to add a lower tier, I have acknowledged 6-C is a bit of a high-ball, so sure. Not 3 ratings though, that's way too clunky for literal dozens of profiles to have
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
Literally all of the anti-feats used contradict the one tier 6 feat we're giving them, despite the fact they struggle to perform Tier 8/7 feats
- 9,886
- 12,893
I'm gonna direct you to what Armour said since he summed it up perfectly
- 42,759
- 37,002
My devil's whisper was "At least 9-A, likely 8-A, possibly (highest tier 7 feat), at most 6-C" lol
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
Henry Stickman does it just fine, don't see why Mario can't, it's way more accurate then just slapping 6-C lol
- 521
- 353
MORE WHATABOUTISM YAY ! ! !
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
Ye I forgot to add the last part lol
- 9,886
- 12,893
A) Thats whataboutism
B) Henry Stickman is a terrible example. He could honestly settle for a single rating and it would make his profile so much better. Profiles that have three or more ratings are just cluttered messes in regards to statistics
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
That's kinda needed for verses with 0 consistency in terms of power
- 9,886
- 12,893
Not really....? Two ratings, maybe. Three? Thats where you push it
Sometimes (actually, most of the time) it feels more like people just can't let go of a weaker rating thats obviously not the peak of what a character can perform or there's a higher rating that's just obviously not useable/an outlier
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
3 ratings is already the limit due to aesthetic lol
- 9,886
- 12,893
Idk what that even means. My point is, we should settle for one or two ratings for the characters in this verse. Three is just gonna make things cluttered. Again
- 42,759
- 37,002
Then we find the highest tier 7 feat or 8-A to put that as the "At least part"
4 ratings would be better but still
- 12,125
- 4,364
4 ratings in a single key really sounds ugly to look at ngl
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
Ye, 3 still looks aesthetically pleasant if it's done right
- 9,886
- 12,893
We seriously do not need four ratings, Mario isn't that inconsistent. I'd go as far as to say there's not a single verse that needs three to four ratings
Tier 7 being the "At least" part and "likely/possibly 6-C" seems fine
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
This is the only anti-feat addressed by an "At least Tier 7" rating
- 42,759
- 37,002
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #470
That's just kind of unhinged. I kinda commend you on that, but also, no. I'd be fine with like, "At least tier 8/7-B, possibly 6-C" tho
Also something I realized, how should I deal with the Low 6-B rating? I presume at least some of Mario's powerups scale to it, given he fights amped giant bowser in Bowser's Fury, so he should scale above the state's usual peak
- 42,759
- 37,002
I made a thread to make Luigi slightly faster than Mario using a King of Skill video as my sole justification. I am always unhinged
Basically, make the god-Tier power-ups scale to it, like goku cat Mario, Super Star, Etc.
- 13,228
- 21,044
“up to Low 6-B with Power-Ups”
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #473
yeah, fair. I'd like to specifically be able to note in the AP section which scale to the rating that way it doesn't sound like every single one is Low 6-B tho
- 42,759
- 37,002
I would do "Higher with most power-ups, up to Low 6-B with strongest power ups"
- 6,070
- 1,867
Thinking about it, another cosmic feat could be Bowser manipulating individual dreams in Party 5, his plan was to fill dream worlds with bad dreams in order to reshape them, like he did with Bowser Nightmare.
Kirbonic_Pikmin
He/Him- 3,480
- 6,934
Bowser Nightmare is literally just his Dream world, not one he created by reshaping another dream. He says at the beginning of the Dream upon entering it that it’s his. I also don’t really see a way this feat would be quantifiable as anything,
Eden_Warlock99
She/Her- 10,357
- 3,864
A cosmic feat is Paper Mario's fan in Color Splash
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #478
Seems fair. What do I use as examples, Super Saiyan Cat Mario, uhh, Power Stars?
- 6,070
- 1,867
I guess him being able to manipulate enough dreams to fill a universe sized space in finite time
- 16,120
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #480
this is actually true (although surface area screws it over) but it's after paper jam so it doesn't scale to mainline
- Status
Similar threads
