- 16,121
- 12,623
I'm also fine with 1.33x or whatever, I just think 1.1x is too low.
-
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.
Regarding Upscaling
- Thread starter Damage3245
- Start date
-
- Tags
- powerscaling
- Status
- 31,401
- 27,693
- Thread starter
- #362
1.33x seems too high to me.
- 15,442
- 15,410
I mean as I've said many times before now, I'm fine with 1.33x
But not everyone can agree to one solution...
But not everyone can agree to one solution...
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,576
- 13,861
I mean, if you think 1.1x is too low, doing it by the +-derived method has one tier with a 1.17x mutliplier. Although this is above 1.1x (85 out of 100 instead of 91 out of 100).
And if you think 1.33x is too high, many tiers reach that multiplier with a +-derived method.
And if you think 1.33x is too high, many tiers reach that multiplier with a +-derived method.
- 16,121
- 12,623
I can agree with the + method being inconsistent. I'm still against anything below 1.25x though
- 167,863
- 76,487
Would 1.25 be an acceptable compromise for the rest of you?
- 167,863
- 76,487
However, I am concerned about that such a low multiplier might not even allow us to upscale characters such as The Rhino from Spider-Man, despite that he is canonically several times stronger.
- 16,121
- 12,623
Personally I'd still prefer 1.5x or 1.33x tbh
- 31,401
- 27,693
- Thread starter
- #370
Does Rhino seriously not have any feats of his own? He needs to rely on multiplying Spider-Man's rating by a random figure in order to have an accurate rating?
- 63,529
- 8,506
Rhino is comparable to Mettle who has his own 7.2 ton feat, which Spiderman does not scale too
- 16,121
- 12,623
Isn't Post-Crisis Bane 8-C via upscaling?
- 32,835
- 38,108
Yeah, he is. Batman's feat is a stone's throw away from 8-C.
- 16,121
- 12,623
Post-Flashpoint Bane is also High 8-C via upscaling, which is an odd constant
- 167,863
- 76,487
I am not sure if The Rhino has any significant feats of his own, unless he has caused minor earthquakes at some point.
Anyway, thank you for the information.
- 11,135
- 14,120
I'm just gonna remind that the least number of people in the thread actually agreed with keeping a specific multiplier. Just because most of the people don't have anything else to say after already giving their opinions, I don't think they should be ignored.
Either just be consistent and remove upscaling altogether, rating everyone as "higher", or just look at everything on a case-by-case basis while being strict about it.
And this is exactly the problem with this method. We all want the limit to be high or low enough to make the scaling of the characters we are familiar with more accurate. And due to fiction's inconsistent nature and our different interpretations, we will never settle for a fixed multiplier. Some will feel it's too high, some would feel it's too low.
Either just be consistent and remove upscaling altogether, rating everyone as "higher", or just look at everything on a case-by-case basis while being strict about it.
Last edited:
- 16,121
- 12,623
Yeah, I'm still of the opinion there shouldn't be one, I just stated that if there must be, it should be between 1.5 and 1.25
- 31,401
- 27,693
- Thread starter
- #378
Do you mind telling me what those figures are based on?
What makes 1.25 valid and not 1.24? What makes 1.5 valid and not 1.6?
- 16,121
- 12,623
Well, I do remember reading 150 joules to the head will kill the average dude 90% of the time, if that helps. But no, they're arbitrary, which is why I wouldn't want there to be a set limit at all.
- 167,863
- 76,487
Does anybody here have any suggestions for how we could word a rule regarding the second option?
- 15,442
- 15,410
Bump
- 31,401
- 27,693
- Thread starter
- #383
I'd like to know what situations would be made worse on the profiles if we were either very strict with upscaling or made upscaling virtually non-existent. I'm struggling to think of any.
- 15,442
- 15,410
I think 1.33x is strict enough, I see no problem with upscaling and don’t even find it something that needs to be strict
- 167,863
- 76,487
I agree with Mitch. It would be frustrating to never be allowed any flexibility to upscale characters no matter how much superior they are shown to be compared to ones relatively close to the lower border of a higher tier.
Last edited:
- 63,529
- 8,506
I feel like I need to ask this again, what should be allowed for upscaling? Strictly one shotting?
- 15,442
- 15,410
One-shotting and clear feats or statements of great superiority in specifically power would all be valid upscaling situations
- 16,121
- 12,623
Personally I think that, with this being case-by-case, a feat being incredibly casual could be considered upscaling material
- 63,529
- 8,506
Well this concerns a verse of mine, one that I pinged a couple people on
- 31,401
- 27,693
- Thread starter
- #390
Do you have any examples where we currently have to upscale someone for a casual feat?
- 63,529
- 8,506
@Damage3245 inFAMOUS is an example but that’s in debate and it wasn’t actually stated to be casual.
- 16,121
- 12,623
None currently, but I don't see how that's an argument. Statistically speaking there's a good chance we'll either eventually have one or already have one, and these rules shouldn't be made solely to deal with pre-existing problems, but to prevent future similar problems from existing
- 15,971
- 8,191
- 16,121
- 12,623
I'd rather not see multipliers at all still
- 11,972
- 11,581
If we keep this "but I don't agree with X or Y" and keeping disagreeing with small stuffs, we'll never get this finished. If this continues, it's better to simply close this and pretend nothing happened. Just agree with a 1.33 multiplier and let's finish this for God's sake
Last edited:
- 16,121
- 12,623
Or we could try a staff vote to see which one people actually want.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Ye.
Have a vote for the following-
Use upscaling with multipliers:
Use upscaling without multipliers:
- 22,387
- 18,590
I haven't read the entire thread, and I know I'm late to the discussion.
It shouldn't be black and white. For example, if character A pushes to their absolute limit to lift an object that's 5 kg away from baseline Class 5 and character B effortlessly overpowers them, I'd say there's more than a reasonable enough case for upscaling B to Class 5. If character B is just vaguely stronger, then I'd say we rate them 'Class 1, possibly Class 5'.
This is the reason why Frieza is Small Star level+, despite falling short of that rating by less than 6%, as Goku is far superior to a feat First Form Frieza performed with relatively little effort. However, scaling someone like Frieza to something like Star level is another matter, as there's no concrete numbers to support Goku being just over twice the strength of First Form Frieza, despite the massive amount of evidence in its favour.
Basically, it should be case-by-case. All or none just seems illogical here, and it seems everyone agrees currently.
Edit: I misremembered some stuff. Math has been fixed.
It shouldn't be black and white. For example, if character A pushes to their absolute limit to lift an object that's 5 kg away from baseline Class 5 and character B effortlessly overpowers them, I'd say there's more than a reasonable enough case for upscaling B to Class 5. If character B is just vaguely stronger, then I'd say we rate them 'Class 1, possibly Class 5'.
This is the reason why Frieza is Small Star level+, despite falling short of that rating by less than 6%, as Goku is far superior to a feat First Form Frieza performed with relatively little effort. However, scaling someone like Frieza to something like Star level is another matter, as there's no concrete numbers to support Goku being just over twice the strength of First Form Frieza, despite the massive amount of evidence in its favour.
Basically, it should be case-by-case. All or none just seems illogical here, and it seems everyone agrees currently.
Edit: I misremembered some stuff. Math has been fixed.
Last edited:
- 32,835
- 38,108
Good point, and I'm pretty sure the majority have already agreed that getting rid of upscaling is not gonna happen, so basically we're left to decide which form of upscaling we need to go with.
- Status
Similar threads
