Regarding Upscaling

[Armorchompy]

Oh yeah, one more thing we should get out of the way, does everyone agree that upscaling should not only apply to AP and related stats, but also LS and Speed (provided the circumstances are right)?

 

[KLOL506]

Oh yeah, one more thing we should get out of the way, does everyone agree that upscaling should not only apply to AP and related stats, but also LS and Speed?

Provided there's enough context and the LS and speed values are high enough, yes.

 

[Armorchompy]

Of course, edited that in

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with case by case, but do we need to write some kind of guideline for how it should work?

 

[Antvasima]

Oh yeah, one more thing we should get out of the way, does everyone agree that upscaling should not only apply to AP and related stats, but also LS and Speed (provided the circumstances are right)?

That seems fine to me.

 

[Damage3245]

I am fine with case by case, but do we need to write some kind of guideline for how it should work?

We will need some kind of written guideline. Or else how could we argue one way or the other whether not upscaling is justified in some cases?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Of course we need guidelines, but that's kinda hard to do when everyone disagrees

 

[Antvasima]

Just to get somewhere, are the rest of you fine with if we use a case by case "use your common sense" type of solution for this, and if so, do you have any suggestions for some kind of loose written guideline in this regard?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Just to get somewhere, are the rest of you fine with if we use a case by case "use your common sense" type of solution for this, and if so, do you have any suggestions for some kind of loose written guideline in this regard?

I can agree to that, once again, I think 1.33x difference is a good compromise, but if people don't want a number to be definitive, then we could specify the gap to the next tier needs to be realtively small and the implied power gap is implied to be large like a one shot or statement of far superiority

We also need to mention that it applies to AP, Durability, and Speed as well

 

[Damage3245]

What happened to using "At least 3/4s of the way to the next tier"?

 

[Armorchompy]

We could specify the gap to the next tier needs to be realtively small and the implied power gap is implied to be large like a one shot or statement of far superiority

We also need to mention that it applies to AP, Durability, and Speed as well

I like this

What happened to using "At least 3/4s of the way to the next tier"?

It was inconsistent, some tiers allowed for a much bigger multiplier than others

 

[Damage3245]

It was inconsistent, some tiers allowed for a much bigger multiplier than others

If we're talking about inconsistent, then just upscaling to the baseline of a tier is an inconsistent practice too.

To give an example; somebody massively scaling above 850 Megatons gets upscaled to 1000 Megatons for a one-shot feat.

Somebody massively scaling above 950 Megatons performs the same feat. They also scaled up to 1000 Megatons.

So we have two characters getting boosted by different amounts despite doing the same thing.

This problem is avoided by applying a multiplier to all one-shot feats instead of jumping up to the baseline of tiers (which are random values).

 

[Armorchompy]

Holy shit, this again? We're not treating it this way at all! We're not upscaling them to 1000 Megatons, we're upscaling them to "at least" 1000 Megatons. Of course in a VS debate or whatever the latter's gonna be stronger.

 

[Damage3245]

Holy shit, this again? We're not treating it this way at all! We're not upscaling them to 1000 Megatons, we're upscaling them to "at least" 1000 Megatons. Of course in a VS debate or whatever the latter's gonna be stronger.

That's exactly what it is being treated like, from what I can tell.

And this whole thing started because people don't like "At least" ratings. But now we're doing "At least" for all cases of upscaling?

If we're going to do "At least" ratings anyway, then what's the problem with not doing upscaling?

EDIT: To go back to the earlier example...

You have a character who is portrayed as clearly superior to somebody who has a 800 Megaton calc.

You could do either:

A) Scale them to "At least 800 Megatons", because that is a value that you know for certain they scale to.

B) Scale them to "At least 1000 Megatons", (which just so happens to be a higher tier).

I don't know why B would possibly be a more preferential option to go with. It's just so bizzarely random to me.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies for being blunt Damage, but I would appreciate if you try to collaborate more with us, so we can get anywhere.

We cannot completely scrap upscaling, as it would be too limiting and impractical, so collaborating to figure out a loose case by case guideline seems best, in lack of better options.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; I'm just pointing out the issues as I see them.

I'd like for there for be a consistent, practical guideline that we could apply - but it's hard to even determine what makes one system better than another.

AKM and DDM have said up above that it should only be used very sparingly, like in cases of 1.1x difference from the tier border. There isn't a reason why I can think 1.33x is any better than that, aside from personal preference.

If we used a limited multiplier like that, then it would be easier to apply that in all cases of one-shotting isntead of just jumping people up when they're near a tier border only. That makes for a more consistent system.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

This is really annoying me at this point, every time we try to make progress, we go in ******* circles

Nobody can agree on anything

 

[Damage3245]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; trust me, I feel the same way.

And I wouldn't say nobody can agree on anything. I agree with AKM's and DDM's general thoughts that they've posted so far. And I agree that consistency is more important than an inconsistent solution.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I am getting quite annoyed as well.

Look, it is not remotely realistic for us to stop upscaling altogether. It would be far too restrictive and impractical, and we would have to revise far too many verses if we suddenly drastically change our standards in this manner, for no practical gain whatsoever, so I am not going to allow that option to get through.

What does seem most realistic is to continue much as we currently do, but provide some practical guidelines for how this should be handled. Can we please try to collaborate around that solution? Thank you.

 

[Damage3245]

What does seem most realistic is to continue much as we currently do, but provide some practical guidelines for how this should be handled. Can we please try to collaborate around that solution? Thank you.

My suggestion is to go with what DDM suggested. Which I believe is to do it case-by-case like we currently do, but only upscaling when it is very close such 1.1x difference to the next tier.

That reduces inflation of ratings and limits usage of upscaling overall without being too restrictive for cases when calcs are really near to the next tier.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Reading this thread, you can see several times that Damage always questions the use of a number, saying that it is baseless and etc., but now, I'll do it. If 1.33x comes from the Tier system itself, what makes you think that 1.1x is valid? Where does that number come from? And please don't start with "low ball" or "we need to be safer"

 

[Damage3245]

Reading this thread, you can see several times that Damage always questions the use of a number, saying that it is baseless and etc., but now, I'll do it. If 1.33x comes from the Tier system itself, what makes you think that 1.1x is valid? Where does that number come from? And please don't start with "low ball" or "we need to be safer"

Of course I still think it is arbitrary, but did you just miss Antvasima telling me to work with people in putting guidelines together?

That means I'm having to compromise on this.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Then now you agree with something that is arbitrary, but don't agree with something coming from our Tiering system? This shouldn't even be a discussion. Why do you agree with something arbitrary now, and before all of that, you didn't? Very convenient to change your mind and adhere to such a small and arbitrary value

 

[Armorchompy]

I think 1.1x is unreasonably low.

 

[Armorchompy]

Anyway, if you want something slightly less arbitrary, 150 joules to the head is lethal 90% of the time. If we treat basic humans as 100 joules, that's 1.5x

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am currently leaning towards just putting together a "use your common sense" loose case-by-case-basis guideline, since we will never be able to agree regarding a specific limit.

 

[Damage3245]

Then now you agree with something that is arbitrary, but don't agree with something coming from our Tiering system? This shouldn't even be a discussion. Why do you agree with something arbitrary now, and before all of that, you didn't? Very convenient to change your mind and adhere to such a small and arbitrary value

I don't see what's convenient about it. It's not like I'm jumping with joy over this.

How does the 1.33x come from the tiering system exactly? If it was based on the 3/4 of the way to the next tier, that would be something focused specifically on the tiering system and the gaps between each tier.

 

[M3X_2.0]

You answered your own question.

 

[Damage3245]

You answered your own question.

3/4 of the way between each tier is not a solid 1.33x multiplier though. It varies from tier to tier.

 

[Armorchompy]

Anyway, if you want something slightly less arbitrary, 150 joules to the head is lethal 90% of the time. If we treat basic humans as 100 joules, that's 1.5x

Wouldn't want this to be missed. It's worth noting 1.5x is a lowball in this case, since obviously the head is a weak spot and the average human is probably clsoer to 80-90 joules.

 

[M3X_2.0]

It'll vary because the Tiers vary. Not all of them starts with 100 and ends with 1000. My suggestion is about using 3/4 of the Tier, not 1.21212121212x from the Mountain level.

The Human level Tier fails because of the Tier itself, not the method. The method consist in using the + sign (wich is arbitrary). But you can use 3/4 of the Tier, without using the +. 3/4 of 1000 of the Mountain Tier is 750, it'd result in 1.33 times. The Human Tier would be 75 Joules. Again, it vary because the Tiers vary.

I suggested using based on the + sign, because it's something accepted, and it wouldn't be arbitrary. You can use the max of the Tier, but it'd be arbitrary.

But anyway, I'm in favor of using a mathematical solution with the use of Tiers.

Let me quote myself from page 3.

 

[Antvasima]

I used to be on board with 3/4ths of a tier, but it received too much opposition, so I do not know if we will be able to get it through.

 

[Damage3245]

I used to be aboard with 3/4ths of a tier, but it received too much opposition, so I do not know if we will be able to get it through.

I think it's worth exploring.

It's functionally not that different to applying the + sign for being the halfway point between the tier.

So with that precedent, the 3/4s of a tier idea should be just as viable as the alternatives.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I used to be on board with 3/4ths of a tier, but it received too much opposition, so I do not know if we will be able to get it through.

I am still in favor of this. I don't agree with only one value of 1.1 or 1.5 if all Tiers are different from each other in numbers.

 

[Damage3245]

I am still in favor of this. I don't agree with only one value of 1.1 or 1.5 if all Tiers are different from each other in numbers.

Let's see if we can make it happen, and we can get this topic moving towards a conclusion.

Using the 3/4ths of a tier method isn't too low or too high (at least, it's not too close to either extreme presented so far, I mean) and it's based on the tiering system itself.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

 

[Damage3245]

The exact wording of the guideline I doubt I'll be able to get right the first, but something like:

1) Regarding Upscaling: In cases where characters are presented to be significantly superior to a calced value whether through repeated statements of superiority in terms of power or through self-evident feats of one-shotting another character using AP advantage alone, then if the value they are scaling to is more than three-quarters of the way towards the next tier, they can upscale to the baseline value of that tier.

*Note about making sure they aren't exploiting weak points or using durability-negating hax.

*Note about the values used for each tier.

Etc.

Something like this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah something like that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That looks good.

 

[Armorchompy]

Has anyone even looked at my idea? You know, the one with an actual scientific basis behind it?