Regarding Powerscaling

[MrHazama]

Since not everyone agrees with how strong a character/verse is (May it be here or elsewhere) and not to mention that powerscaling here isn't always "set in stone" my question is; is powerscaling objective, subjective or something else?

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

obviously it can be subjective at times

 

[Lukewoesal007]

Powerscaling is 90% subjective. The entire tiering system and the standards devised to determine the rankings of characters are all part of a subjective (if not logical) system used to evaluate objective evidence.

 

[MrHazama]

It dawned on me, if powerscaling is subjective, than what is the point of powerscaling supposing to be as "accurate" and "consistent" as possible?

 

[Potemkat]

It dawned on me, if powerscaling is subjective, than what is the point of powerscaling supposing to be as "accurate" and "consistent" as possible?

People try to be objective, but never will truly be.
That's true for everything in life.

 

[MrHazama]

Hmm, fair point

 

[Crabwhale]

Powerscaling is an almost completely subjective activity. You could easily compare it to literally analysis in this regard, except that literary analysis is less subjective. Most authors will know what themes they're going for in their work, what characters are doing, etc. (even if the quality of the work in question is not guaranteed in any regard). However, most authors probably won't give a second thought to how powerful their characters are and to what level their feats are meant to be placed at, beyond a very general outline. This is true of even combat-heavy works.

And then you have works with multiple authors, multiple interpretations/canons and straight up retcons, which make the whole shebang even worse.

 

[MrHazama]

Powerscaling is an almost completely subjective activity. You could easily compare it to literally analysis in this regard, except that literary analysis is less subjective. Most authors will know what themes they're going for in their work, what characters are doing, etc. (even if the quality of the work in question is not guaranteed in any regard). However, most authors probably won't give a second thought to how powerful their characters are and to what level their feats are meant to be placed at, beyond a very general outline. This is true of even combat-heavy works.

And then you have works with multiple authors, multiple interpretations/canons and straight up retcons, which make the whole shebang even worse.

I guess I can understand where your coming from.

 

[Flashlight237]

Real-life reference points are objective. Everything else like calcs and such are subjective, but calcs generally have stronger footing especially when the values used are properly sourced. I typically try to use .org, .edu, and .gov sites when possible since they're the more reliable sources, perhaps more reliable than what VBW gives them credit for at times (like they were claiming I should use 11.2 km/s for meteor speed based on some StackExchange forum when I used a far more reliable university source for a re-entry calc; come on, StackExchange is a .com site!)

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Powerscaling, ultimately, is the act of comparing two character's feat's and showings and extrapolating what we can from them to determine what we believe to be their power. Some feats can be Viable to some and not others, and ultimately, Opinion will heavily influence Powerscaling. There may be a few times where something is obvious- When the Author themselves confirm for a fact how a battle will go, and having some actual evidence to support such. Otherwise, however, it is often up to other's to figure out how strong a Character is if they so want.

Essentially, Powerscaling is a heavily subjective topic that is attempting to come to logical conclusions from more Objective Evidence.