• 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.

Project - Attack Potency revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kavpeny

Kavpeny

VS Battles
FC/OC VS Battles
Retired VSB Bureaucrat
815
570
Introductio

As many of you are probably aware, this wiki has been growing at a rather significant pace. As noted by Darkness552, this wiki now has almost 5,000 articles.

However, it's time to take a step back, and improve on the quality of articles on the wiki, along with the wiki in general. I have some projects aligned for improvement of the wiki, to make VS Battles wiki a better place. However, I require the community to band together, to work together to improve the wiki.

At the moment, I have eschewed all other projects in favour of the most important one: Revising the Attack Potency chart.

Steps

  1. The Calc Group revises the chart, as per OBD listings and some of our our own.
  2. Staff members go through pages, and spot any pages which require changes, as per the new energy levels.
  3. Each Tier will be handled by teams of staff members.
Guidelines

  • When the project will begin implementation, no edits apart from revising attack potency will be allowed.
  • A standard edit summary, "Revised Attack Potency" must be made.
  • I sincerely request that the staff members give it their all.
  • Regular members are also free to participate.
  • Anybody who tries to utilize the overwhelming edits to cover any suspicious ones of their own will be banned.
Teams

Note: If a character has more than 1 tier, the team with the higher tier will deal with it.

Note 2: Due to the minimal number of characters in Tier 11, we will leave it be for now.

Dates

  • New Attack Potency energy levels - September 24th-28th
  • Finalizing the energy levels and values - September 29th, 30th
  • Editing - October 1st onwards.
Note: If any staff member is uncomfortable with the listed dates, kindly mention it right now.


Conclusion
I will not mince words: The task is humongous. It will require a lot of work, from a lot of people. In particular, it will require a lot of work from the staff. I strongly urge all staff members, as well as interested community members, to help out with this massive project.

Improving the Attack Potency chart's accuracy is the first major step towards significantly increasing the quality of this wiki

Does anybody have any objections/suggestions?
 
What do we do when Mods have to adjust locked pages?

I also have a reccomendation. We will not make energy levels for the + rating, that will only apply when the character is very low on the energy level (Like 57.3-60 zettatons for Planet Level, and 60+ for Planet Level+).

Aside from that, I'll give it my all to make this wiki better.
 
@The Everlasting: That is precisely why there's an Admin per team. Segregate the tier pages three-fold, list the pages you want unlocked, and said Admin will unlock them.

Otherwise, you can always ask me. Just give me the list of pages you want unlocked, and I'll take care of it.

I agree with your recommendation. The '+' creates quite a bit of confusion. I request that the Calc Group members do away with '+' ratings when revising the table.

Thank you very much for your support.
 
@Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot: That is correct.

@Skodwarde The Almighty: Go through any pages which need changes in Attack Potency post the revised chart, and pre-inform staff members before making an edit to the Attack Potency (and Tier).

No problem. I would suggest that you go through the guidelines section at least once, though.
 
It's ok for me...

I'm concerned about the calculations that already are in this wiki, shouldn't we revise the attack potency of those as well?
 
@Lord Kavpeny:

Certainly.

However, one thing I must inform you about:

Mid October is a very busy month for me school wise. I have several make-up exams spread out during the dates of Oct. 12-20. During these days, my activity will range from severely limited to none at all. Of course, the days before and after this, I will be fixing profiles to my fullest.

I hope this is understandable...
 
@ImagoDesattrolante: Thank you

@KamiYasha: Since the numerical values of the calcs will be the same, regardless of their classification, the calcs will not become defunct, simply revised to match the new levels. While ideally it would be best to modify the classifications within the calcs as well, we must do things one step at a time. Any confusion between differing calc listing and stat listing can be waived by mentioning "Revised Attack Potency since then".

Additionally, any stats based on calcs must have their numerical values compared with the new chart, and have their listing changed if necessary.

@Sheoth: It is understandable. That is precisely why I have assigned multiple staff members per team. If you're busy in the 2nd and 3rd week of October, make sure to take the brunt of the work-load in the first week of October, and then the other staff members will take over when you're busy. Fair enough?
 
Also, as I think it would be helpful, should each team make a thread on one of its members user pages to follow so they can more effectively edit and communicate?
 
FINALLY!!! I've been waiting for this for months! Thanks a bunch, Kavpeny!

Alright, now a few questions & suggestions.

Firstly, I propose keeping the sub-sub tiers of Small Galaxy level (Low 3-C) Universe level+ (Low 2-C), and Small Planet level (Low 5-B) and the like, as well as maybe add a Brown Dwarf/Sub-Stellar level (High 5-A).

Now for the question: Are we gonna revise our system based on the new revision of OBD? I read that article they posited for explaining the downgrade of the Small Galaxy and Galaxy levels, and what little I understood of it didn't seem too convincing to me... Apparently, destroying the Supermassive Black Hole is enough to disperse the Galaxy or something.
 
Alright, I will do my best to improve this wiki.

@Sheoth. That seems like a good idea to me. If the members are capable of communicating more effectively, than this project will go by more smoothly.
 
Tag me for these. (I'm kinda bored)

I need to get a good idea of how this all goes down so i don't screw s**t up.
 
@Sheoth: Preferably make it on one other member's message walls instead of the forums. But yeah, it's a good idea. I'm fine both ways, whether you wish to set up such threads or not.

@SwordSlayer99: Thanks.
 
@Azzy and @SwordSlayer

when the editing starts we will communicate through my wall

also guys please do note my school schedule on my wall just in case
 
@GohanLSSJ2:

Thank you for your support.

I agree with your suggestions on splitting tiers such as Small Galaxy. Not sure about Brown Dwarf, though.

Well, the explanation is: Since Supermassive Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are what keeps them together, that is why GBE calculation should use the black hole instead of the galaxy itself, since the gravitational binding energy is that of the black hole, not the galaxy.

^ I disagree with that, since anything which has mass, also exerts a gravitational force, hence regardless of the existence of the supermassive black hole, the aggregated matter will not disappear if just the black hole is destroyed.

That's just me, though. I am willing to hear the viewpoints of other Staff members on the matter as well.
 
Well, even if we agree with the Galaxy level downgrade (I understand it, but don't really agree), we probably shouldn't take the Small Galaxy level downgrade into consideration (Since it's now 10 kiloFoe).
 
Lord Kavpeny said:
@GohanLSSJ2:
Thank you for your support.

I agree with your suggestions on splitting tiers such as Small Galaxy. Not sure about Brown Dwarf, though.

Well, the explanation is: Since Supermassive Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are what keeps them together, that is why GBE calculation should use the black hole instead of the galaxy itself, since the gravitational binding energy is that of the black hole, not the galaxy.

^ I disagree with that, since anything which has mass, also exerts a gravitational force, hence regardless of the existence of the supermassive black hole, the aggregated matter will not disappear if just the black hole is destroyed.

That's just me, though. I am willing to hear the viewpoints of other Staff members on the matter as well.
Click to expand...
I get ya man. I'm also in the fence regarding this stuff. Supposedly, OBD redefined Galaxy-busting as the force to "disperse" the Galaxy's matter beyond it's collective GBE (re-calculated to be that of the Supermassive Black Hole now). But that just means an explosion that shoots off the stars. For a example on a smaller scale, wouldn't the sun blowing up (which can be a force vastly less than a Supernova) also disperse all the planets on the Solar System that survive the initial explosion?
 
Regarding the idea of a Brown Dwarf / Sub-Stellar Level, maybe it could replace the current Large / Multi-Planet Level+?
 
Alright, I'll try to help out when I am able to!

Here's a couple questions, though... For one thing, for character stats that aren't necessarily dependent on calculations, would any edits be necessary? Two, wouldn't these edits also apply to a character's durability in many cases? Just wondering.
 
@GohanLSSJ2: Exactly.

  • Destroying the supermassive black hole at the centre of a galaxy will likely not disperse it, due the gravity of present matter aggregate.
  • The new definition of Galaxy "busting" is flawed because:
    • It can be interpreted as destruction via chain reaction, which is an inaccurate definition of busting.
    • It can be interpreted as cutting or shredding apart a galaxy, which is again very different from the accepted definition of busting, similar to the difference between breaking a planet into pieces and busting it. Completely incorrect, yet again.
    • The accepted definition of "busting" is actually the obliteration of something in its entirety, in one shot/strike. Not cutting, not spreading, and not via chain reaction.
@Gerdkinerf: And what about Large/Multi-Planet level?

@ThePerpetual: No, any edits would not be necessary. Isn't that precisely why we need to go through each and every page? To see in which pages the change is necessary, and change those specific pages?

Yes, said changes would apply to Durability as well, in all cases where a character's Attack Potency is listed similar to the Durability (or vice-versa).
 
We're in agreement, then.

In that case, I propose setting the benchmark for Small Galaxy level at 1 GigaFoe (10^53 if I remember correctly), and work with that all the way to 100 PetaFoe.

As to what Gerkinerf said, I think he means having Large/Multi Planet level as the basic 5-A, and have Sub-Stellar/Brown Dwarf level to be something like High 5-A (like how Small Galaxy level is Low 3-C or how Universe level+ is Low 2-C, for example).
 
@ThePerpetual: Fair enough.

@GohanLSSJ2: Sorry bro, but two people's agreement is not enough. I will wait for the rest of the staff's opinion on the matter as well.

Understood. Yeah, that can be easily taken into consideration.
 
I need to ask. Have we figued out an energy requirement for Multi-Galaxy level? I need to know when I start editing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ArachDusa
Would destroying Jupiter be a 5-A+ feat?
Replies
1
Views
854
KLOL506
KLOL506
Valxxroyz
Star Level Narwhale (Genshin Impact)
Replies
18
Views
914
Woomica
Woomica
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
367
Views
23K
Polandballczechball
Polandballczechball
Valxxroyz
  • Locked
Tartaglia Genshin Upgrade Attack Potency Atleast To Star Level 4-C
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Dereck03
Dereck03
  • Locked
Why can't characters be assigned a 5-C tier without calculations?
Replies
32
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top