Regarding Upscaling

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I get what you're saying. But let's say for example if the tier boundaries didn't exist (after all, they're only there for our convenience and to keep things simple). And let's say that characters were rated as "X Value" based on their feats/calcs instead of "X Tier".

If a character is superior to another, and now there is no "checkpoint" system, now that there is no 1.03x gap or 1.5x gap. Then what exactly is the basis for increasing that character's value to a certain level?

I get the logic and I see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with that ideology, I don't want to talk about a scenario where the tier boundaries don't exist, because the truth of the matter is this, the tier boundaries do exist, if start talking about hypotheticals where tier boundaries don't exist, we're also talking about a scenario where no tiers exist, and at that state, the whole point of the site loses all meaning

 

[Damage3245]

I get the logic and I see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with that ideology, I don't want to talk about a scenario where the tier boundaries don't exist, because the truth of the matter is this, the tier boundaries do exist, if start talking about hypotheticals where tier boundaries don't exist, we're also talking about a scenario where no tiers exist, and at that state, the whole point of the site loses all meaning

This kind of ideology is why we have guidelines on the sight. It's why we use calcs to get a specific value for feats most of the time rather than eye-balling them and saying "Yeah, that looks to be Mountain level IMO".

I don't think we can leave such a thing to pure case-by-case basis because we've got people like AKM and DDM saying "Extremely small gaps are fine to bridge for tier jumps" but then we have loads of other people saying "Anything up to 1.5x" is fine to jump tiers. And even then as you stated earlier that 1.5x is entirely arbitrary. 2x is equally valid to use.

And then we have the issue of why can't we jump up to higher values within the same tiers? Why is it fair for one character to get a 1.5x increase if it bumps him to baseline "Next Tier" but somebody stomping someone within the same tier only scales to their rating and not a higher value.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

If a character is superior to another, and now there is no "checkpoint" system, now that there is no 1.03x gap or 1.5x gap. Then what exactly is the basis for increasing that character's value to a certain level?

by the implications of the narrative.

I don't need a checkpoint system for example to argue that Super Saiyan Goku is much stronger than his base.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I won't deny what I am saying is subjective, but what you're saying is as well, it's simply what I agree with and believe is right, I think upscaling is relatively harmless and it can be accurate when done properly, I refuse to just nuke power scaling because of it not being 100% certain, I mean nothing in Power Scaling is 100% certain, but like I said before trying to make something that is case by case 100% uniform behind everything is flawed to an extent, I agree with the guidelines of <1.5x being fine to discuss upscaling, but whether or not a character scales far above someone is up for debate whenever the topic of scaling is brought up

The truth of the matter is this, large scaling chains exist and in many stories, the implications of gaps of power can be astronomical, so being able to move someone up a 1.5x jump because they showed a massive superiority to someone close to the next tier is extremely reasonable

The ideology of "higher tiers aren't better" can be true to an extent, but the ideology of "lower tiers aren't better" is just as valid

My own ideology is that we should not remove upscaling and the suggested guideline I provided is perfectly acceptable to use

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Here is something a regular user asked me to post, this is a different person from the earlier post I gave (Note: Everything in bold text is what the regular user said, italicization is what he is quoting)

"I personally do not believe this:

“My proposal is simply that we adhere to this principle and stop upscaling characters just because they’re stronger and a higher tier would look neater on their profile. We don’t need to say; “Character B can lift a truck because Character A lifted a car.” To be a valid depiction of upscaling. A more valid one would be like “Character A lifted a large car, so Character B can lift a relatively small truck because they are much stronger than Character A.

The reason this “1.5 multiplier” is not arbitrary is because when using upscaling correctly, there is a massive gap between characters. Arguing that there is less than A 2x gap between Character C who can one shot Character D is not unreasonable. 1.5 is not unreasonable because it is a lowball."

 

[Arcker123]

Sorry this is staff only but I did edit something to my post after typing it: “in my previous example, it should be ok for character C to upscale because he is reasonably stronger than character D, the 1.5 thing for lowballing the gap in power.”

 

[Damage3245]

by the implications of the narrative.

I don't need a checkpoint system for example to argue that Super Saiyan Goku is much stronger than his base.

I don't have any issues with accepting Super Saiyan Goku is much stronger than his base. The issue is in how it is written.

Assuming we had no calcs or multipliers, and just scaling comparison between Goku's base form and his SS form (this isn't a really good analogy because Goku's SS form does have feats against other characters).

But I'd rather write "Planet level+ as base Goku, far higher as Super Saiyan Goku". Instead of "Planet level+ as base Goku, Large Planet level as Super Saiyan Goku." (Not being accurate to his ratings here at all).

I won't deny what I am saying is subjective, but what you're saying is as well, it's simply what I agree with and believe is right, I think upscaling is relatively harmless and it can be accurate when done properly, I refuse to just nuke power scaling because of it not being 100% certain, I mean nothing in Power Scaling is 100% certain, but like I said before trying to make something that is case by case 100% uniform behind everything is flawed to an extent, I agree with the guidelines of <1.5x being fine to discuss upscaling, but whether or not a character scales far above someone is up for debate whenever the topic of scaling is brought up

Nobody has really said anything about "Nuking powerscaling." I've given alternatives to just jumping tiers for how profiles are written.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I don't have any issues with accepting Super Saiyan Goku is much stronger than his base. The issue is in how it is written.

Assuming we had no calcs or multipliers, and just scaling comparison between Goku's base form and his SS form (this isn't a really good analogy because Goku's SS form does have feats against other characters).

But I'd rather write "Planet level+ as base Goku, far higher as Super Saiyan Goku". Instead of "Planet level+ as base Goku, Large Planet level as Super Saiyan Goku." (Not being accurate to his ratings here at all).

Well at that point, it's purely a debate on personal preferences of what people prefer formatting wise, you're trying to get everyone to agree to one formatting style to go along with your preferred form of formatting tiers and profiles

While I get that, I still agree that upscaling is fine, you just don't like the look of it

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

IF there were no cals or Multipliers then the way we write it would be entirely different.
Calcs tie into our AP standards.


> But I'd rather write "Planet level+ as base Goku, far higher as Super Saiyan Goku". Instead of "Planet level+ as base Goku, Large Planet level as Super Saiyan Goku."

you wouldn't be able to argue what is accurate and what isn't because the standards no longer exists.

 

[Damage3245]

Well at that point, it's purely a debate on personal preferences of what people prefer formatting wise, you're trying to get everyone to agree to one formatting style to go along with your preferred form of formatting tiers and profiles

While I get that, I still agree that upscaling is fine, you just don't like the look of it

I don't think it's as subjective as you make it out to be. The side in favor of general upscaling is much more arbitrary than my position. You've said that in some cases multiplying a characters rating by up to 1.5x is fine so long as it grants him a higher tier.

But you also don't want to make a general 1.5x multiplier for characters who are clearly superior to other characters in some way or form.

If we allow one character in one verse to get a 1.5x multiplier for superiority, we have no reason to deny it for anybody else.

There's also no given reason for why 1.5x is the correct number. It's just as random as any other value for the limit. That's why I'm objecting to this principle. Not because I think characters having high tiers is bad.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I don't think it's as subjective as you make it out to be. The side in favor of general upscaling is much more arbitrary than my position. You've said that in some cases multiplying a characters rating by up to 1.5x is fine so long as it grants him a higher tier.

But you also don't want to make a general 1.5x multiplier for characters who are clearly superior to other characters in some way or form.

If we allow one character in one verse to get a 1.5x multiplier for superiority, we have no reason to deny it for anybody else.

There's also no given reason for why 1.5x is the correct number. It's just as random as any other value for the limit. That's why I'm objecting to this principle. Not because I think characters having high tiers is bad.

No I still think it is very subjective, my personal rule and I get why some may disagree with it is that if the gap to the next tier is less than 1.5x, I believe reasonable to upscale to the next tier if they are shown to be far stronger than the original calculation, that's my preferences and what I believe to be reasonable

What you're trying to do is say that we can't have such a loose rule and that we need a specific guideline to apply to all verses when I simply don't think it's as objective as that, most of the cases I have encountered where I upscaled were usually a 1.3x and lower difference, so I was 100% ok with upscaling, but since you say you want a specific guideline in place, I gave you what I think that guideline should be

Even tho once again, I think it's way more case by case then that, I will continue to believe the act of moving up a tier because you are close to it is fine and relatively harmless, so there should be no reason why we are 100% against it and get rid of it

 

[Damage3245]

I won't say I am absolutely 100% against it. But I think in the majority of cases it is unnecessary and we could word the profiles in a better way using our existing conventions which are on the tiering / AP pages.

I don't see how not upscaling a character would be worse than upscaling them.

I think either way that we absolutely do need a specific guideline with examples of cases where it is permitted. Otherwise CRT's become messes where everybody argues for the highest interpretation because the highest interpretation was allowed for another verse or another CRT.

EDIT: I don't know how I'm supposed to argue this. I've presented a case in the OP where we're being inconsistent about our approach to this, and the responses I'm getting are "I subjectively believe in my personal rule". That doesn't give me any closure.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, 1.5 times is a pretty strict guideline. It just gives us a bit of leeway to work with in cases when a character clearly exceeds the higher border of a tier, but it isn't explicitly spelled out with a calculated feat.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Listen Damage, I get what your saying, but your entire argument boils down to...

"I don't like upscaling and I don't see why it has any meaning, therefore we shouldn't do it"

Which while it's your opinion and you're fine to have it, I don't see why we should force every single verse to follow that one subjective stance, upscaling is like I said before a case by case and I don't think a proper specific guideline or number can be nailed down, but if we do need to have a guideline and you prefer we do, then like I said, less than 1.5x jump should be perfectly acceptable

It's relatively harmless and just because it is relatively harmless, that doesn't mean it has no meaning and therefore we shouldn't use it

 

[Damage3245]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; upscaling can have standards and meaning to it. The major issue right now is that it doesn't - not on any official page.

For multipliers we have standards for when they're acceptable to use, and we give examples of viable cases from other verses that we can compare to and check to see whether multipliers are valid to use for another verse.

So the same should be able to apply for upscaling/downscaling.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; upscaling can have standards and meaning to it. The major issue right now is that it doesn't - not on any official page.

For multipliers we have standards for when they're acceptable to use, and we give examples of viable cases from other verses that we can compare to and check to see whether multipliers are valid to use for another verse.

So the same should be able to apply for upscaling/downscaling.

I’m fine with applying guidelines and I have proposed a guideline that I agree with, but you said that my guideline doesn’t work, there is no one number guideline that is 100% the correct answer to use, but I believe most of us can agree a less than 1.5x difference is reasonable bar to place on upscaling

 

[DontTalkDT]

If you want my personal opinion I would simply get rid of upscaling. Would be a pain to apply at this point, though.
Definitely against slapping a 1.5x multiplier on any time something indicates a big stat gap. The only reason the "tier jumping" is ok, is because you can't do it twice.

 

[Damage3245]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; the issue is that it can't just be applied for the sake of a higher tier. This isn't about whether higher or lower tiers or bad, but applying upscaling equally.

Let's say that the "One-Shot" in this scenario is punching another characters body so hard that they turn to mush and explode. Clear superiority.

If the person you're punching is 700 Gigatons. Then that's approximately 1.428x increase to the next tier of 1000 Gigatons / 1 Teraton. So that's fine.

But if the person you're punching is 100 Gigatons. That's nowhere close to the next tier, or the tier midpoint. So the one-shot there only scales to 100 Gigatons.

So we've got:

700 Gigatons + One-Shot = 300 Gigatons increase.

100 Gigatons + One-Shot = 0 Gigatons increase.

It doesn't look reasonable or consistent or fair to me.

If you want my personal opinion I would simply get rid of upscaling. Would be a pain to apply at this point, though.
Definitely against slapping a 1.5x multiplier on any time something indicates a big stat gap. The only reason the "tier jumping" is ok, is because you can't do it twice.

Thanks for commenting. I think it wouldn't be so bad to apply though if it was done gradually through revisions.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Isn't that exactly why we use scaling chains, though? We say that character has a massively higher AP because they scale >>>>>> some other feat or character, but we can't but an exact number on it because that's the extent of what we know.

 

[Antoniofer]

I disagree with the x1.5 multiplier, we rather just add the "at least [tier of whoever was oneshotted]". Plus, one is not necessary an AP thing, known how and where to hit its enough to one shot (as long its in a vital zone), as well as catching one off guard (in this case however, the character is unable to defend, and suffer the whole effect of the impact).

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

@Damage3245 Just because the small tier jump isn’t necessary, that doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong and needs to be banned

As for your example, the tier jump from 700 Gigatons to 1 Teraton is 1.4x difference, if we applied that difference to the 300 Gigaton person, their tier would remain exactly the same, so there’s no upscaling involved at all and therefore no reason to upscale, that’s the difference

To everyone else, I am not and never suggested a multiplier, just said that if the distance to the next tier is small, an upgrade to said next tier is fine

 

[Abstractions]

This was discussed about two years ago but not to any great length, and the number decided was decided seemingly at random, which doesn't sit right with me.

We can consider how a character upscales from another without applying senseless multipliers that don't come from in-verse power comparisons but rather our way of trying to keep everything consistent with each other, which doesn't adequately achieve that result.

I would be in favor of getting rid of the multipliers through upscaling and simply treat the characters as "likely higher", rather than allowing tier jumps the way we currently do.

 

[Damage3245]

As for your example, the tier jump from 700 Gigatons to 1 Teraton is 1.4x difference, if we applied that difference to the 300 Gigaton person, their tier would remain exactly the same, so there’s no upscaling involved at all and therefore no reason to upscale, that’s the difference

Err, there still would be upscaling. Even upscaling within the same tier would be significant because of the implications that would have on later powerscaling plus any actual multipliers that could affect that.

A character recieving a signiciant multiplier when their base is scaling to 100 Gigatons would be different than if their base was scaling to 140 Gigatons.

EDIT: Thank you for commenting DontTalkDT, Antoniofer and Abstractions. I'm glad to not be alone on this topic.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Just a heads up, I was the one who wrote a long as blog for the Dragon Ball scaling; and there's a bunch of arrows for considering gaps. Which in that case, even assuming each of those arrows are 1.001x multiplier resulted in some pretty big tier jumps via upscaling.

I mean, stuff like a Sub-Relativistic+ calculation got 0.099998c should have everyone superior to that Relativistic outright. But without exact multipliers being explicitly stated, I'd avoid assuming even 2x or 1.5x. I'd only ever upscale if either there's a giant in between scaling chain or if the initial feat is literally just a hair away from the next tier outside of exact numbers being in our faces.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

"I'd only ever upscale if either there's a giant in between scaling chain or if the initial feat is literally just a hair away from the next tier outside of exact numbers being in our faces."

See that's the thing tho, let's say someone is 1.1x away from the next tier based on their feat, then we get a long scaling chain of superiority and suddenly that initial feat that is only 1.1x away from the next tier is considered fodder, we're not allowed to upscale because it's not certain? That doesn't seem right to me at all, I will continue to say that there is nothing wrong with upscaling and I'm sure it didn't matter what I said, whether I said 1.5x be the bar or 1.2x, people would have said it's an arbitrary number, therefore we shouldn't upscale

Damage suggested we make guidelines but then goes on to say that you can't make a proper guideline, so we should just nuke upscaling all together

If some dude is 900 Gigatons (High 6-C+), and someone one-shots them and is stated to be far stronger, then having said person be 1000 Gigatons (Low 6-B) to me is more accurate and pleasing than said person being just At least 900 Gigatons, likely higher (At least High 6-C+, likely higher)

And this is purely a case of what happens when try to put rules and objectivity on a preference based subjective topic

 

[CloverDragon03]

I apologize in advance for commenting on a staff-only thread, but I've been watching this and while both sides make good points, there's a more pressing question about this thread in my opinion: Why was it made staff-only?

As a thread that affects so many verses, wouldn't it be more fair to let regular users give their input on it as well?

 

[Ionliosite]

I was given permission to comment here, so what I want to say is that, reading all the responses, the majority seems to agree with upscaling being a thing - the debate between Damage and Mitch is mostly focused on HOW MUCH of a difference would be reasonable to get it, and how to apply it. So wouldn't it be better to focus on having solid guidelines for these cases? Since a lack of actually written guidelines is also another of the major contention points here, and I see even AKM Sama noting that being issue that needs to be solved, because, truth to be told, agreeing with keeping upscaling solves very little if we don't have a way to consistently applying it.

 

[Damage3245]

I apologize in advance for commenting on a staff-only thread, but I've been watching this and while both sides make good points, there's a more pressing question about this thread in my opinion: Why was it made staff-only?

As a thread that affects so many verses, wouldn't it be more fair to let regular users give their input on it as well?

I thought it would be best to get the input of the staff in particular since it has to do with the standards of the wiki first and foremost, and after looking through other topics in the Staff Discussion section, it seemed to be the most appropriate place for it since there are numerous other staff-only threads here to do with the wiki's standards like the Lasers Feats threads, the Stability Feats threads, Speed Equalization Standards, Realms with Starry Skies Feats, etc.

Plus I was told by a Bureaucrat that it should preferably be staff-only.

reading all the responses, the majority seems to agree with upscaling being a thing

I don't know about that. It seems fairly split at the moment.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I can understand that, but it's also something that affects so many verses that it comes off as odd to me that only staff members can participate.

 

[Agnaa]

This was discussed about two years ago but not to any great length, and the number decided was decided seemingly at random, which doesn't sit right with me.

We can consider how a character upscales from another without applying senseless multipliers that don't come from in-verse power comparisons but rather our way of trying to keep everything consistent with each other, which doesn't adequately achieve that result.

I would be in favor of getting rid of the multipliers through upscaling and simply treat the characters as "likely higher", rather than allowing tier jumps the way we currently do.

That thread did not decide a number at random. The wide staff consensus was that we should allow upscaling if a character is close to the next tier, but we shouldn't specify a particular number as to what close means, as that choice would be arbitrary and ignore context. The thread also widely disagreed with banning any upscaling, and disagreed with allowing upscaling to be repeated ad infinitum, as this inflates values far beyond what was calculated.

There were also another important standard agreed upon in that thread: Scaling chains are only as good as their strongest link; everything else is dismissed. If a character can't upscale from a calc with one one-shot, they can't upscale with 100 one-shots.

I pretty much agree with everything that I said 2 years back in that thread. We should only allow upscaling if they're sufficiently close, and we should select a multiplier for how close they have to be so the boundary for "close" doesn't inflate over time. We shouldn't allow this upscaling to be repeated ad infinitum.

I don't really care what number we select, whether it's 1.5x, 1.2x, 1.1x, 1.05x, etc.

I can understand that, but it's also something that affects so many verses that it comes off as odd to me that only staff members can participate.

We don't usually do staff only for threads that only affect a few verses. Stuff like this gets staff only to try and avoid a deluge of unproductive comments, precisely because it affects so many verses and because so many people would like to comment.

 

[CloverDragon03]

In my honest opinion, for being far stronger than a character, any value less than a 1.5x gap should be permitted. Basically, if the gap between the AP being upscaled from and the baseline for the next tier (or the baseline for a +, since that was also accepted for upscaling in that thread) is less than 1.5x and there is sufficient evidence of a “far stronger” gap, upscaling to the + or the next tier (whatever it is for that situation) should be allowed.

 

[KLOL506]

I am also with Agnaa that upscaling should really only be applicable if the character is incredibly close to said tier, assuming their calc value puts them that high enough.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I am also with Agnaa that upscaling should really only be applicable if the character is incredibly close to said tier, assuming their calc value puts them that high enough.

I agree and didn't think it needed a specific number, but they said they wanted specific guidelines, so I thought less than 1.5x was reasonable to give them any number as a think that is a small tier difference

 

[StrawHatArslan]

I know I'm not staff here, but I just wanted to give my take, and I'll be on with my day. I 100% agree with Mitch. I don't see any problem with a gap of 1.5x, it all just varies down as to how close the relative tierings are to one another, and how the characters line up, but a 1.5x gap seems to be perfect to me. Nothing more, just a max of 1.5x. If say character A, oneshots character B, and lets say they're both moon level, but the person who got oneshotted say, had a 288.7 exaton feat, making him moon level. A 1.5x multiplier would get to 433.05 exatons, which is baseline small planetary, which is pretty close to the feat of someone who got oneshotted. As long as it's not by much, it's completely reasonable to upscale, considering the person who got oneshotted is high end moon, very close to small planetary. Once again, Mitch here has a really good point, and I 100% disagree with Damage's points.

Anyways, I'll be on with my day now, take care staff.

 

[KLOL506]

Me personally I'm more comfortable if the gap is around 1.1x from the nearest upper tier.

 

[Damage3245]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. No more non-staff comments, please. You can't all keep apologizing for jumping in then keep on posting.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, one more thing I forgot to add, this should probably still only apply to if the calculated feat is close enough. There are verses where a stated multiplier brings a character extremely close to the next tier, and then a one-shot ensues. I don't think tier jumps should be given in those situations.

 

[KLOL506]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. No more non-staff comments, please. You can't all keep apologizing for jumping in then keep on posting.

I am honorable staff.

 

[Damage3245]

I am honorable staff.

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

KLOL and Agnaa are honorary staff, so they may contribute.