• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like, for this sort of thing, the relative gap (1.1x, 1.5x, 2x, 50x, etc.) is more important than the absolute gap (100 joules, 2 exatons, 940 gigafoe). So I wouldn't discredit scaling up to 3-B any more than scaling up to 8-B.
 
The gap in tiers, though relevant, isn't the only angle I view this from. If we look at this example: You can have X be 4-C+ and be one shotted by Y. That shouldn't make Y a High 4-C character even if they are described as 20x stronger than X. X isn't High 4-C.

AP in relation to powerscaling simply means "they overcame this level of durability". Did Y overcome High 4-C durability? No. Is it possible or likely that they are High 4-C based on being 20x stronger than someone with 4-C+ durability? Yes. Are they definitively High 4-C? No. They could be 3-A for all we know. Without the relevant feats for scaling, we are forever uncertain. Why assume they are High 4-C when they haven't overcome High 4-C durability? Especially when according to upscaling, they can be put up against a legitimate High 4-C despite lacking the feats.

In this case, Y should be listed as At least 4-C(+), likely/possibly High 4-C (or just "highe"r). That expresses how the character was analyzed better than the assumption that "nah they're High 4-C.

If jumping to a subtier isn't much a big deal, we can say X is High 4-C+ and Y is 4-B instead.
 
You can have X be 4-C+ and be one shotted by Y. That shouldn't make Y a High 4-C character even if they are described as 20x stronger than X. X isn't High 4-C.

Uh... Given our rules on Multipliers the latter statement would definitely give High 4-C.

That aside, I think your point on not upscaling is fair.
 
I don't really agree with our standards on multipliers but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
 
I think upscaling is fine if the jump to the next tier is really close, say around 2x. Larger multipliers are more susceptible to inconsistencies or hubris so for those I’d lean more against upscaling.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, currently we are leaning towards continuing with "common sense, case by case". We just may need to write a clarifications text.
Click to expand...
This, I think.
 
I tried to help with a proper guideline, but people generally aren't enthusiastic about it. A no-guidelines approach is nonsensical and will inevitably run in the direction of the highest interpretation being fought for.

But people have fought against me on every turn on this thread no matter option or compromise I try to explore. It's impossible to satisfy everyone, so I can't even try to get a guideline through.
 
I just noticed that from the last thread about this, which reached a similar "common sense, case by case" conclusion, Dargoo suggested adding the following text to the Powerscaling page:
It is possible for a character who is depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to be placed in a tier above the other, given that the other character is close to the the next tier. However, this ultimately needs to be decided through case-by-case analysis.
Click to expand...
But it seems like it was forgotten about and never added.
 
Everyone in this thread is advocating for the lowest possible scaling. Adding something an arbitrary 3/4ths rule is a non-sensical way to upgrade characters, at this point. From my experience (at least when it comes to Dragon Ball and OPM), made-up numbers are what people try to impose so that they can upgrade characters.
 
Last edited:
Damage3245 said:
I tried to help with a proper guideline, but people generally aren't enthusiastic about it. A no-guidelines approach is nonsensical and will inevitably run in the direction of the highest interpretation being fought for.

But people have fought against me on every turn on this thread no matter option or compromise I try to explore. It's impossible to satisfy everyone, so I can't even try to get a guideline through.
Click to expand...
Well, I appreciate that you are trying to help out. I am just concerned about that drastically changing our approach too much at this point will have a similar effect as a bull in a porcelain shop.
 
LordTracer said:
I need this thread to be completed for my plans
Click to expand...
That's the thing tho, it will never be completed

Nobody can agree on anything and therefore no progress will be made, everyone has been saying the same stuff for 6 pages now and no conclusion has been reached, majority agrees to keep upscaling, but people aren't willing to agree on a guideline for it
 
LordTracer said:
I thought the majority agreed on that whole 3/4 thing
Click to expand...
no lmao, the majority agreed on upscaling being vague. There's a guideline from the last thread on some "common sense, case by case" rule text to be added to a relevant page.
 
So should we add Dargoo's suggested text to the Powerscaling page?
It is possible for a character who is depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to be placed in a tier above the other, given that the other character is close to the the next tier. However, this ultimately needs to be decided through case-by-case analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you. I will wait for some more input first though.
 
Seems good to me.
 
Thank you for the evaluations. I think that I can add the text then.
 
Where in the page do you think that it is most appropriate for me to paste the text?
 
Yes, but it has several text sections. Should we use one of them, or create a new "Notes" section near the bottom of the page?
 
ByAsura said:
Maybe the powerscaling page.
Click to expand...
Sorry for jumping in but I figured it should be fine since this is basically over; he meant where in the Powerscaling page.

I suggest either making a new Notes section or putting it in between these two paragraphs.

Edit: The link was broken so I fixed it, in case anyone clicked it and got confused when they saw a blank page.
 
Thank you. Should we close this thread then?
 
Probably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Robo432343
can we please add an NLF note regarding the durability negation page
Replies
24
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
SJG13673
A point of tier upscaling for each tier?
Replies
4
Views
561
SJG13673
SJG13673
Accelerated_Evolution
Question about Upscaling
Replies
2
Views
247
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top