Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,677
- 14,054
This is very very wrong. Anti-feats are vital for establishing a character's tier. They are not something we ignore.Which is kind of the problem beyond anti-feast often excluding or disregarding context: Anti-feats aren't used for tiering or scaling. They just aren't: Not even on this wiki. Every fiction is going to have some detail(s) you could technically use to scrutinize any one of it's character (in more ways than just strength), but every fiction has context for its plot points. Even in fictions where things occur (or can occur) non-causally, context is respected. 'Anti-feats' aren't legitimate reflections of the characters, being so specific, and isolated from context. For example: Comics. Nobody seriously tiers Darkseid based on that one time he fell down stairs. The wiki uses what he's actually capable of, what he does, and his lore status as a New God. His context. So do other battleboard wiki's. Specific instances of Darkseid, or any character just not being where they are in terms of strength most of the time - anti-feats - don't really tell us anything about the characters, fictions, or and especially how to go about scaling/tiering them.
For the reasons I explained, they never seem to be used or brought up to actually bring about more accurate tiering and scaling for characters or fictions, but only ever to downplay them. There isn't another reason to consider these almost always out-of-context instances for tiering/scaling, and again, not even this wiki considers them.
If there is information, a feat, or evidence that one can find is not as impressive as it was originally thought, that's fine. That actually gets us closer to an accurate tiering for a character; re-confirming information, recalculating with more accurate method or measure, and re-establishing actual evidence provided. But anti-feats don't serve any purpose other than to detract.
Drawing from some examples that I know...
- If a character's one feat is slightly damaging a 9-B character, we should probably put them at 9-B.
- If a character's high feats are slightly damaging a 9-A character three times, but they also have 15 feats and statements of being extremely frail, we should probably put them at 10-C.
- If a character has 6 statements saying that they're as frail as an ordinary human, but they have 12 feats and statements of being 9-A, we should probably put them at 9-A.
If you only want to look at a character's highest feats, ignoring anti-feats, some of our staff members have made a separate wiki for that.
Hmm I'm not sure what the best point is. Could you suggest one that's better?Or maybe y'all are being super ignorant and dismissing everything without much consideration at all.
Treating a verse by the merit of it's "anti feats" (most of these being super bad mind you), is a horrible precedent for the future of this wiki and shouldn't be the go-to at all.
What makes Tier 7 any better? I can scrutinize all of them as well. Bye bye Cannon is actually just not a feat since it works even in buildings so they aren't going around the world at all. How does the cast scale to city casually when OP has so many examples of them being harmed and almost killed by things lesser than that? How far are we willing to go? Why is tier 7 the stopping point?