Minor Multipliers Adjustment

[Testarossa002]

Hey
Got permission from @Mr. Bambu
So this was something I brought up in a QnA thread earlier this year, and I think it needs proper discussion.

Our Multipliers page says this:

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.

Herein lies my grouse.
This section goes against how we currently scale AP in relation to DC. This specifically:

A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such, it isn't proof of a low attack potency if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

For instance, let me use a straightforward case from Narutoverse.
Toneri slices the moon, which gives him 88 Exatons of DC/AP
Naruto straight up overpowers him. He gets 88 Exatons of AP
Meanwhile, his DC while overpowering Toneri looks to be tier 8 at best.
If, in any scenario, Naruto gets a 1000x multiplier statement for power, the current standards require him to nuke Mercury or something on a similar level to that. Even though, taking his pre multiplier DC into consideration, he should only be showing DC feats in the tier 7 range.
Why should he be required to replicate a DC feat in the Zettaton range when his pre amped DC feats are tier 8 at best?

This becomes an even bigger issue with less glamorous statistics like speed. Most fiction progress this way with speed (Combat and reaction) feats:

Subsonic (bullets, arrows, etc) > Sonic/Supersonic > MHS+ (lightning related feats) > Rel+/FTL (light speed feats)

I understand the sentiment - I don't necessarily agree with it - that a subsonic character who gets a 1000x speed boost should have feats that put them comfortably above sonic speeds to support the multiplier
Where the issue (or main issue) arises is when an already FTL+ Combat speed character (for example, Luffy) gets 1000x faster via an amp.
What's the commensurate level of feat he should exhibit before such a multiplier is accepted?
Other than blitzing his opponent.

Solution
Get rid of that section on the page. Now, to be fair, the page doesn't say that it's a MUST that products of high end/stacked multipliers should be similar to the tier its going to end up with but it's certainly implied given that the other two requirements on the page:

or the multipliers importance to the plot of the story, and a higher amount of evidence

are very subjective and/or are already required for lower levels of multipliers (clear performance increase against opponent)
Looking at one of the accepted multipliers on the page (Mori). It says this:

The 250,000x multiplier itself was used by Mori Jin to completely overwhelm Satan, who was previously physically overpowering him.

This should work as a standard. Clear stat superiority. Blitzing or oneshotting the opponent is compulsory. You can't have a 1000x power boost and still can't dispatch some relative to your previous state. Mori didn't erase 2 galaxies with his 250k amp. Requiring high-end feats simply doesn't work per reason given above.

Tl;dr
Requiring similar level of feats for high-end multipliers should be a bonus requirement at best and not a main focus.

Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[Testarossa002]

Bump

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I can definitely see where the OP is coming from.

Most verses rely on AP-based scaling, rather than pure DC. So expecting all of them to perform DC feats to match up to the multipliers they have might be a bit unrealistic. Same goes for speed, which usually amounts to the person receiving the amp simply being able to blitz someone they were previously unable to, rather than giving tangible speed feats we can calculate.

I guess I can get behind the main criteria being that the multipliers in question offer tangible and consistent amps that actually make a difference in combat.
So for instance, if a character gains a supposed 10x boost, and then they still can't overwhelm someone who's relative to their unamped selves, that kinda renders the multiplier null and void in my eyes.
I know a lot of people always fall back to the good old excuse of "not all amps are portrayed the same by every verse", but to me that's just rubbish. If a 10x amp isn't portrayed as a 10x amp, then it's simply not a 10x amp.

So, yeah, in conclusion I support focusing less on calcable feats/DC showings, and more so on the multipliers just being consistent scaling and logic wise in-verse.

 

[Vzearr]

Question:what is DC?

Destructive capability, though, since this is a staff thread, you should keep these types of messages on peoples message walls.

 

[Testarossa002]

Bump

 

[DavidTPPM]

Mori didn't erase 2 galaxies with his 250k amp. Requiring high-end feats simply doesn't work per reason given above.

I mean, his feat with a 190,000x amp is basically the cornerstone of the GoH scaling that eclipses feats without it, and his 250,000x does vaporize 2 quintillion star level characters in a single kick, so that's not exactly true. He does have feats that correspond with the high multiplier values.

Wait this is staff discussion can I even comment here? If not I'll just delete my comment, don't kill me, I was just Spreading Knowledge

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I mean, his feat with a 190,000x amp is basically the cornerstone of the GoH scaling that eclipses feats without it, and his 250,000x does vaporize 2 quintillion star level characters in a single kick, so that's not exactly true. He does have feats that correspond with the high multiplier values.

Wait this is staff discussion can I even comment here? If not I'll just delete my comment, don't kill me, I was just Spreading Knowledge

You should ask for permission from a staff member first next time, but I'll spare this comment since it has relevant information.

 

[Testarossa002]

250,000x does vaporize 2 quintillion star level characters in a single kick, so that's not exactly true. He does have feats that correspond with the high multiplier values.

I mean actual DC feats. Not feats based off character scaling.
I'm not saying his multiplier is invalid btw.
The opposite actually

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

We need evaluation help here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As OP already pointed out this isn't a requirement, just an example of how stronger evidence may work. So I don't think it makes any sense at all to remove it.
Just being stronger than before alone is not sufficient evidence past a certain point. We don't upscale people beyond all actual feats without better support than them being stronger, because it at a certain point completely stops reflecting what is going on.
That is especially the case if we repeatedly stack the same multipliers with scaling in-between. A fiction which's best feat is 9-C shouldn't be ranked 6-B based on having multipliers applied over and over again while characters get unquantifiably stronger.

When we allowed multipliers to even be used at all the deal was that increasing multipliers need proportionally increasing evidence as proof. So running with the kind of reasoning that suffices for x2 multipliers forever just isn't reasonable.

Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, we need to get stricter with our multiplier rules.

 

[Testarossa002]

We don't upscale people beyond all actual feats without better support than them being stronger, because it at a certain point completely stops reflecting what is going on.

This doesn't work. Like at all. We'll be discarding credible statements backed up by superiority feats simply because they're not having DC feats on that level. Even though, as I already mentioned in the OP, we acknowledge that lack of DC feats isn't an auto disqualifier for AP ratings. Whats the rationale behind that?

That is especially the case if we repeatedly stack the same multipliers with scaling in-between. A fiction which's best feat is 9-C shouldn't be ranked 6-B based on having multipliers applied over and over again while characters get unquantifiably stronger.

First things first, they aren’t getting unquantifiable stronger. They're getting 2, 7, 50x etc stronger because of rock solid statements. Multipliers by definition is the very opposite of unquantifiable stat increase.
Second, a verse that goes from 9-C to 6-B is very much an outlier (if it exists at all). Outliers don't, and shouldn't determine a rule.
Third, this doesn't factor in other statistics like speed. Like I mentioned in the OP, there's little to no room for improvement for anything beyond light speed. What new feats should they showcase without calc stacking?

When we allowed multipliers to even be used at all the deal was that increasing multipliers need proportionally increasing evidence as proof. So running with the kind of reasoning that suffices for x2 multipliers forever just isn't reasonable.

And the increasing evidence can be anything from consistency of statements to consistency of portrayal against other characters. Requiring relative level of calcs simply doesn't work.

I'm all for making the standards stricter provided it doesn't go against one of the core pillars of the way we powerscale here.
We can't go around saying, for example, Krililin is 4-B (even though his punches doesn't tear through everything between Mars and Alpha Centauri) and at the same time, hold the position that Krililin can't have a 1000x multiplier that takes him from High 4-C to 4-B because he doesn't tear through everything between Mars and Alpha Centauri)

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree with the OP, and agree with DT.

This doesn't work. Like at all. We'll be discarding credible statements backed up by superiority feats simply because they're not having DC feats on that level. Even though, as I already mentioned in the OP, we acknowledge that lack of DC feats isn't an auto disqualifier for AP ratings. Whats the rationale behind that?

You don't need DC feats on that level, instead you need AP feats on that level. So pointing out the distinction between DC and AP is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Second, a verse that goes from 9-C to 6-B is very much an outlier (if it exists at all). Outliers don't, and shouldn't determine a rule.

Yes they should. Rules should be able to accommodate all cases, even if just in addendums/notes.

Third, this doesn't factor in other statistics like speed. Like I mentioned in the OP, there's little to no room for improvement for anything beyond light speed. What new feats should they showcase without calc stacking?

Feats using greater distances and smaller time scales. There is quite a bit of room for improvement there.

And the increasing evidence can be anything from consistency of statements to consistency of portrayal against other characters. Requiring relative level of calcs simply doesn't work.

I just worry that the way you're presenting things would make this sort of thing circular. Each previous jump would be implicitly used to support the next jump, despite us needing to actually justify the entire chain. Consistency of portrayal against other characters doesn't really work when you're going, like, 5 multipliers deep, since every relevant character would've had their own way to keep up with that, making us lose a measuring stick against the original level of strength.

Plus, I think importance to the story is a good metric; it's not like feats on that level are the only way to get those amps.

I'm all for making the standards stricter provided it doesn't go against one of the core pillars of the way we powerscale here.
We can't go around saying, for example, Krililin is 4-B (even though his punches doesn't tear through everything between Mars and Alpha Centauri) and at the same time, hold the position that Krililin can't have a 1000x multiplier that takes him from High 4-C to 4-B because he doesn't tear through everything between Mars and Alpha Centauri)

We can. He has AP feats on that level via scaling, yet lacks DC feats on that level.

A character could get a 1000x multiplier accepted much more easily if they have scaling to a character whose durability is 800x their current value.

 

[Testarossa002]

You don't need DC feats on that level, instead you need AP feats on that level. So pointing out the distinction between DC and AP is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The distinction is necessary as the AP feats needed for substantial boosts in ratings are almost always DC feats.

Yes they should. Rules should be able to accommodate all cases, even if just in addendums/notes.

No.
That's why case-by-case/discretionary rulings exist. Even in a localized organization like this wiki. An established framework guiding the rule is what's necessary. Not a rule that seeks to cater to ALL scenarios.
This is especially true when the "exception" is far more unlikely to occur. The chances of a 9-C verse having stacked up multipliers to even 8-B (a difference of over 3 million) based off rock solid statements and narrative/plot consistency is nigh-impossible compared to a random shonen verse stacking multipliers from 10c to 40,000c. I didn't even need to dig deep before hitting on Dragon ball stacking multipliers from 0.5c to 400,000c. I also remember Black Clover having something similar a while back.

Feats using greater distances and smaller time scales. There is quite a bit of room for improvement there.

I'm aware of that. You're versed in calculations. How many times have you stumbled upon a light speed related valid calcs that yields six figures above c? Again, it's rare (if it exists at all). Are verses supposed to not get quantifiably faster because Kubo didn't depict Yhwach blitzing light from Jupiter like distances? Even though the verse has solid statements for speed increase?

Each previous jump would be implicitly used to support the next jump, despite us needing to actually justify the entire chain. Consistency of portrayal against other characters doesn't really work when you're going, like, 5 multipliers deep, since every relevant character would've had their own way to keep up with that, making us lose a measuring stick against the original level of strength.

Spoiler: Yap

Hypothetical Verse A has a stated mechanism that grants the characters 5x strength boost. Said verse is currently 5 Mt (Low 7-B) off a feat done by Random A. Random B gets 5x stronger and oneshots A. Random C gets the same amp and oneshots B. Random D does the same with Random C. Random E does same with D. At the end of the chain, Random E now scales to 3.1 Gt (H7-A)

How does the above scenario make us lose a measuring stick against the original level of strength? Unless I didn't understand the point you were conveying.

Plus, I think importance to the story is a good metric;

I agree

A character could get a 1000x multiplier accepted much more easily if they have scaling to a character whose durability is 800x their current value.

In the very likely absence of that, what happens then? The multiplier gets dismissed?

 

[Agnaa]

The distinction is necessary as the AP feats needed for substantial boosts in ratings are almost always DC feats.

No, the point you made becomes nonsensical.

Your point was "Why do we require DC feats to back up AP, while simultaneously saying you don't need DC to back up AP?" which, with this nuance, becomes "Why do we require AP feats to back up AP, while simultaneously saying you don't need DC to back up AP?" It becomes nonsensical. There's nothing special about multiplier situations that makes AP feats skew more to being DC feats. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite, as lower-tier feats (i.e. 9-B and below) are far more likely to involve actual destruction of the environment.

No.
That's why case-by-case/discretionary rulings exist. Even in a localized organization like this wiki. An established framework guiding the rule is what's necessary. Not a rule that seeks to cater to ALL scenarios.
This is especially true when the "exception" is far more unlikely to occur. The chances of a 9-C verse having stacked up multipliers to even 8-B (a difference of over 3 million) based off rock solid statements and narrative/plot consistency is nigh-impossible compared to a random shonen verse stacking multipliers from 10c to 40,000c. I didn't even need to dig deep before hitting on Dragon ball stacking multipliers from 0.5c to 400,000c. I also remember Black Clover having something similar a while back.

A case-by-case codified into the rules is still a rule.

I'm aware of that. You're versed in calculations. How many times have you stumbled upon a light speed related valid calcs that yields six figures above c? Again, it's rare (if it exists at all).

Quite a few times. Often enough for series where that's actually fitting.

Are verses supposed to not get quantifiably faster because Kubo didn't depict Yhwach blitzing light from Jupiter like distances? Even though the verse has solid statements for speed increase?

Yes. Series have to put in the work with concrete feats for us to concretely claim that they land at higher levels. This often requires works to be lame, but that's what being demonstrably high-powered entails a lot of the time.

Spoiler: Yap

Hypothetical Verse A has a stated mechanism that grants the characters 5x strength boost. Said verse is currently 5 Mt (Low 7-B) off a feat done by Random A. Random B gets 5x stronger and oneshots A. Random C gets the same amp and oneshots B. Random D does the same with Random C. Random E does same with D. At the end of the chain, Random E now scales to 3.1 Gt (H7-A)

How does the above scenario make us lose a measuring stick against the original level of strength? Unless I didn't understand the point you were conveying.

It typically does, because Randoms A, B, C, and D typically will either stay plot relevant by catching up to E's strength, or never appear again in a meaningful way. Either the gap will vanish, or they won't be tested to show that the gap is actually far more tremendous than before.

In the very likely absence of that, what happens then? The multiplier gets dismissed?

If it's not exceedingly consistent and important to the story, then yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk andd Agnaa seem to make sense here.

Should we close this thread?

 

[Agnaa]

@UchihaSlayer96 Seemed sympathetic to the OP, I don't feel great about overruling him 3-to-1.

I'd like to give him a few days to see if he feels like DT and I properly addressed it, or otherwise to propose concrete changes.

 

[Testarossa002]

Was wondering why Agnaa never responded
Turned out, I didn't send the post.

---

Your point was "Why do we require DC feats to back up AP, while simultaneously saying you don't need DC to back up AP?" which, with this nuance, becomes "Why do we require AP feats to back up AP, while simultaneously saying you don't need DC to back up AP?" It becomes nonsensical.

This is a disingeneous interpretation of my overall stance. To reiterate, our current standards require a >10 Megaton DC feat in order for a multiplier jump from 1 Kiloton to 15 Megaton to be valid. While also maintaining that a 15 Megaton character - who gains that rating via powerscaling - doesn't need to perform a >10 Megaton DC feat in order for it to be valid. That's my whole premise

Yes. Series have to put in the work with concrete feats for us to concretely claim that they land at higher levels. This often requires works to be lame, but that's what being demonstrably high-powered entails a lot of the time.

"concrete feats" also includes feats where characters demonstrate considerable superiority over light speed but rated barely above 1c due to limitations in our calculations standards or when they casually split a mountain but it doesn't yield up to 200 kilotons for the same reasons as the first

If it's not exceedingly consistent and important to the story, then yeah.

isn't that my whole point? consistency in portrayal and relevance to the story?

---

With Ant's vote, there's 2 purple names against it. So there's 0 chance of this seeing the light of day.
That being said, I would like to point out that the conservative nature of the wiki contributes to verses not having enough feats to justify their rating. Our calculation standards, such as the prohibition of calc stacking (even though the logic makes sense in-verse) are largely responsible for it. I don't think it's a bad standard. I do think that the use of statements based scaling like high end multipliers can be used to compensate such verses.
Thank you for participating @Agnaa
This can be closed

 

[AKM sama]

That being said, I would like to point out that the conservative nature of the wiki contributes to verses not having enough feats to justify their rating.

I think we are more lax than a lot of other wikis. And not just other wikis, we have become increasingly lax compared to how we started, when things were very strict. Right now, I think we are quite balanced, leaning less to the conservative side.

I absolutely agree with DT and Agnaa though. And since you said that this can be closed, I will close this thread. Thanks for being reasonable.