-
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
- 10,658
- 9,783
I did. Do you think that your idea should be used? If yes, why?
- 15,606
- 11,921
- 19,666
- 16,029
About the 1.5x difference? Yeah I feel like that's a better end to use, but basically everything else about Damage's comment is good to go.
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #445
This goes a lot more beyond just one-shotting humans; and something like targetting character's in a weak spot goes against the spirit of one-shotting through sheer power.
- 29,881
- 25,029
- 15,606
- 11,921
Uh, targeting a weak spot such as the head makes it easier to one-shot, which is why my 1.5x is a lowball. But a lowball based on actual data and not arbitrary multipliers.
- 15,606
- 11,921
Saitama versus... literally anyone is the perfect example.
- 15,606
- 11,921
I did indeed find some studies that support 1.5x a bit earlier in this thread
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #453
The 3/4 method would have stated multipliers. One for each tier based on the same proportional difference between each tier.
Using a single multiplier for all cases would be ignoring the fact that each tier is not the same.
- 14,911
- 12,427
Why does tiers not being the same justify some giving a 1.1x multiplier and some giving a 1.33x multiplier?
I don't see the relevance of how much stuff's below when deciding how far to allow people to jump up.
I don't see the relevance of how much stuff's below when deciding how far to allow people to jump up.
- 10,658
- 9,783
If Tiers aren't the same, why should we treat the multiplier as unique?
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #458
It follows the same logic as the + sign on ratings. The values between the baseline of a tier and the + sign vary from tier to tier, but they all follow the same general guideline of it being halfway between the base of the tier and the next tier.
In the same way, this method is applicable to each tier and takes into account how big the jump would need to be to get from a certain point to the next tier. It's proportionally consistent.
As always, there are no right answers here. Everyone has their own viewpoint.
But I was asked to come up with a guideline & work with people here on something we can use to advance the thread. I think this is a viable method and I'm willing to settle on this compromise to get the topic concluded.
- 14,911
- 12,427
What the **** is the difference between 75 joules > 100 joules and 15 terafoe > 20 terafoe?
It follows the same logic as the + sign on ratings. The values between the baseline of a tier and the + sign vary from tier to tier, but they all follow the same general guideline of it being halfway between the base of the tier and the next tier.
It does that so that half of the values in a tier are covered by the + sign and half aren't. This is irrelevant to the consideration of power gaps.
As always, there are no right answers here. Everyone has their own viewpoint.
Maybe you should have just taken my viewpoint as it was, instead of arguing against it as if it was wrong.
But I was asked to come up with a guideline & work with people here on something we can use to advance the thread. I think this is a viable method and I'm willing to settle on this compromise to get the topic concluded.
I'm not willing to settle on a variable multiplier, power gaps don't change, I don't care about the justification we use elsewhere for the aesthetic inclusion of a + symbol.
- 10,658
- 9,783
Then why the **** do you want a fixed multiplier when the Tiers are very different? Makes no sense. If you disagree, fine. You can agree with the 1.5x idea from @Armorchompy and we can count the votes.
- 15,606
- 11,921
I still don't want a stated multiplied by the way, but if we do have to choose one, then mine has actual logic behind it, rather than "this multiplier sounds nice don't you think"
- 32,811
- 38,005
Ugh, the tiers might be different, but honestly, the whole 3/4 away from the next tier's baseline value is still the same gap, it's basically 75% that of the next tier's baseline value, and you do this separately for each and every single tier. It's not really that hard to understand, this is basically what Agnaa wants to convey but with more detail. I really don't see why people are making a mountain outta this molehill as if it's something too complicated to go through with.
- 63,487
- 8,486
This is never going to end is it?
- 15,606
- 11,921
I mean, the fact that we wouldn't accept it just means that a valid one-shot's multiplier should be even bigger.
- 14,911
- 12,427
I mean, the fact that we wouldn't accept it just means that a valid one-shot's multiplier should be even bigger.
I don't see why, we're trying to play things safe to not lead to overly-inflated values. Since fiction itself varies widely with how much is considered a one-shot, and the different methods to determine a one-shot vary widely. Vaporizing a human, something applicable to many fictional one-shots, is almost 3 million times above baseline athlete level, and your value of "90% chance to kill when hitting a weak point" is 1.5x above baseline athlete level.
I don't see why, we're trying to play things safe to not lead to overly-inflated values. Since fiction itself varies widely with how much is considered a one-shot, and the different methods to determine a one-shot vary widely. Vaporizing a human, something applicable to many fictional one-shots, is almost 3 million times above baseline athlete level, and your value of "90% chance to kill when hitting a weak point" is 1.5x above baseline athlete level.
- 15,606
- 11,921
Meh, even if mine is not "acceptable" it remains that I've brought an actual logic here, it may not be flawless but there's an actual reasoning behind my multiplier instead of "this number sounds nice!". Either way I'm probably gonna unsubscribe from this thread, if it comes down to voting mark me down as "no set multiplier" first and "1.5x/1.33x" in case the decision to use one is made
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #469
Agreed. I think it's what we should go for.
And we'll make some progress towards this ending.
- 22,043
- 18,127
I disagree with assigning a set multiplier or any specific rule. But this thread is top-heavy as it is. Maybe we could also look into other avenues, like giving characters possibly/likely ratings depending on how much stronger characters are than specific ratings/how close they are to these tiers.
Last edited:
- 15,606
- 11,921
I'm fine with a duo of at least [TIER] + possibly/likely [TIER], I just think "possibly higher" is stupid
- 15,342
- 15,024
I'm not, there are a lot of cases where that is unnecesarry, especially when the gap is 1.1x of lower
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #473
I agree that "possibly higher" is not the best wording in most cases.
Though I agree that "At least [TIER] + likely [NEXT TIER]" is fine generally.
I believe that's pretty much my original suggestion.
- 15,606
- 11,921
here
- 15,342
- 15,024
I am personally not fine with never upscaling fully
If someone is 990 Gigatons, and someone scales far above them, they should be able to fully scale to 1000 Gigatons without issue, Damage's solution would mean that we are always forced to use the "Likely/Possibly" which like I said before, do not like and do not think is necessary for such small jumps
If someone is 990 Gigatons, and someone scales far above them, they should be able to fully scale to 1000 Gigatons without issue, Damage's solution would mean that we are always forced to use the "Likely/Possibly" which like I said before, do not like and do not think is necessary for such small jumps
- 29,881
- 25,029
- Thread starter
- #478
That's not my primary solution now.
My primary solution is the 3/4ths of the way towards the next tier.
That's not something I believe we can say concretely anymore than you insisting that HE IS 1.1 Teratons or HE IS 1.2 Teratons. I can understand why you'd want to round up the figure, but it is not inherently more accurate.
But since we're keeping upscaling, I'd rather us go with the 3/4ths method.
- 15,342
- 15,024
Well I agree with the 3/4ths solution, I definitely don't agree with the "Possibly/Likely" method
- 165,207
- 72,190
We use "likely" as a measure of uncertainty regarding where exactly a character should be placed. In fiction it is possible to be one-shot, but still survive, attacks from a character several tiers above after all.
Meaning, the above tier is not a definitive certainty. It could be even higher.
Meaning, the above tier is not a definitive certainty. It could be even higher.
- Status
Similar threads
