• 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.
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Depends. In both cases for upscaling to qualify to make them jump to the next tier, it has to be really, really close, and the one-shotting needs to be done on a consistent-enough level with proper context.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's entirely fair, but what KLOL506 said is also reasonable
 
Yeah I support not tier jumping at all without some overt statement of "oh this guy is 1.45x stronger than the other" within the verse. One shotting is cirumstantial, certain body parts don't ever really get more durable, yada yada, a guy got one shot by a punch irl so here's your real life comparison, boom a speedrun of all my calc takes as of late

Really though, instantly killing or knocking out someone isn't anywhere near consistent even in the real world where physics works. Fiction makes shit even less consistent than reality. This isn't some sort of metric we should be using to say characters are any actual value except "stronger than the guy who got one shot", and even then you don't even necessarily need superiority.

Edit: A link of the above event that doesn't care if you have adblock on.
 
Last edited:
Wokistan said:
Yeah I support not tier jumping at all without some overt statement of "oh this guy is 1.45x stronger than the other" within the verse. One shotting is cirumstantial, certain body parts don't ever really get more durable, yada yada, a guy got one shot by a punch irl so here's your real life comparison, boom a speedrun of all my calc takes as of late

Really though, instantly killing or knocking out someone isn't anywhere near consistent even in the real world where physics works. Fiction makes shit even less consistent than reality. This isn't some sort of metric we should be using to say characters are any actual value except "stronger than the guy who got one shot", and even then you don't even necessarily need superiority.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even need to be one-shotting, it could be as blatant as a statement like "This dude is far stronger than this other dude" and that would be enough to upscale, so nuking upscaling just because of one-shotting not always being a sign of true superiority is not a good enough reasoning in my eyes

Besides you know for a fact real life one-shots aren't the same as in an battle series where people are nuking mountains
 
It doesn't even need to be one-shotting, it could be as blatant as a statement like "This dude is far stronger than this other dude" and that would be enough to upscale, so nuking upscaling just because of one-shotting not always being a sign of true superiority is not a good enough reasoning in my eyes

Who says I'm on board with that either?

Besides you know for a fact real life one-shots aren't the same as the typical term

I disagree with this on two fronts:
1: We assume stuff is like reality until proven otherwise for site purposes
2: It's really not hard to find people being quickly taken out by hits to the head and neck, penetration, cutting, etc within fiction. There's quite a bit of stuff I read that has stuff you could take as a one shot that falls under neither indicating they're way stronger nor are they not following any semblalce of realism. I could dig through stuff if someone really wanted it.
 
I can see valid arguments from both sides honestly. I'll just put forth some cases and give my opinions on them to see what others think.

Case 1:

Two characters. Character A is 970 Gigatons. The next tier is at 1000 Gigatons. Character B one shots A via sheer power. I think it's okay to just go ahead and rate character B in the next tier. "Likely higher" also works but I'd just prefer upscaling in this case. It's that blatant.


Case 2:

Two characters. Character A is 700 Gigatons. The next tier is at 1000 Gigatons. Character B one shots A via sheer power. I feel uneasy about giving character B a 1.5x boost in this case because imo, the character can be 800 or 900 Gigatons and still one shot within the setting of the verse.

This will be like setting a multiplier for one shot. It's no different than saying just because I one shot someone, I am 1.5x stronger than them. And it's inconsistent if we give the character a multiplier only to make them jump tiers when we don't do it in normal cases for a character who one shots someone who is 600 Gigatons.


Case 3:

Many characters in a scaling chain. Character A is 700 Gigatons. The next tier is at 1000 Gigatons. Character B one shots A, C one shots B and so on.

I think this is the main issue. The OBD way to deal with this was to just rate everyone in the scaling chain, no matter how massive, as "likely far higher". We didn't do that because we thought it was too restrictive. Normally, we eyeballed and said that since it involves a big scaling chain, it's more logical to rate these characters to the next tier, rather than simply slapping "likely far higher" to all of them.

But there are many unknowns. Like, how big is the scaling chain? After a series of how many one shots do we jump tier? Would jumping tier be valid if the feat was 300 Gigatons but the scaling chain contained 20 characters?

I believe this is why a limit of 1.5x was put? We just started assuming that if there is a massive scaling chain, and the feat is also less than 1.5x away from the baseline of the next tier, then all those characters should be upscaled. But that was not supposed to work as a multiplier as in Case 2 when only two characters are involved? Also, how many characters make a big scaling chain?



I don't really have the answers. I just think that upscaling is fine in Case 1. Not in Case 2. And there is a lot to discuss in Case 3 if we decide to make some guidelines and not treat them on a case-by-case basis.
 
Agnaa said:
Also, some fictional one-shots are stuff like "Turns half of a character's body to dust with one attack", which can't be dismissed as just hitting a weak spot.
Click to expand...
My response to this is that I don't think it's consistent enough across fiction to make some sort of standard, not that there are literally no cases where it would be possible to argue in a vacuum that they are at least x amount of joules higher.

Because I was reading it recently, in Uber people around the same level can legit mangle one another if given the opportunity. Tankman fights are pretty nasty. Thank you for the gore, Avatar press. Scaling would get really weird if you took that sort of stuff as we'd currently take a one shot. Conversely, look at a series like dragon ball. They'll buff themselves to be like twenty times stronger mid fight and show effects not really befitting of those numbers. Iirc in the ToP there was a dude who was 300x.

These are two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum with this. One has it somehow easier to do than irl, the other has it unbelievably more difficult. I don't think either of these are massively atypical within the world of fiction. I don't think this sort of feat is consistent enough to be giving a direct tier off of.

Edit: How could I forget games like Hotline Miami and Katana Zero for the easy gore camp? Shoutout to those they're good
 
We need to decide on whether or not upscaling with be gone altogether or we do keep upscaling

If we do keep upscaling, then either we let it be a case by case as there is no proper standard in upscaling or find a specific guideline to give it, like I said before, a standard of a difference less than 1.5x is fine to me as a bar to set, but if you guys want to make it something like 1.3x, then that's fine as well

The first point tho is whether or not we keep upscaling
 
@AKM sama If you like Case 1 and not Case 2, doesn't that just mean that we should make the required multiplier particularly small, like 1.1x or 1.05x? 970 to 1000 is a gap of just over 1.03x
 
I am against keeping it, but if it is kept I don't think you should try and put some hard number to it because it's incredibly inconsistent and context specific. Just let people argue their cases for why something should and shouldn't count, as one would when debating what character would win a fight. This is nominally a battleboard after all.
 
@AKM sama; I appreciate you working this issue through multiple different scenarios.

There may not be any answers that satisfy everyone; but in these outlined cases I think we need to treat Case 1 and Case 2 by not upscaling in either case. Simply rating them as "At least X, likely higher" or "At least X, possibly Y" would satisfy both scenarios and we wouldn't have to make decisions on how much is enough for upscaling.
 
Damage3245 said:
@AKM sama; I appreciate you working this issue through multiple different scenarios.

There may not be any answers that satisfy everyone; but in these outlined cases I think we need to treat Case 1 and Case 2 by not upscaling in either case. Simply rating them as "At least X, likely higher" or "At least X, possibly Y" would satisfy both scenarios and we wouldn't have to make decisions on how much is enough for upscaling.
Click to expand...
I don't agree to that, one of my main reasons for supporting upscaling is that I hate formatting and look of the "At least" and "Possibly higher"'s on profiles and like just making characters the next tier when it is clearly warranted
 
@DemonGodMitchAubin; in the end the tiers are just a description for what value the characters scale to. This is why I wanted the hypothetical scenario of where there were no exact tiers. The profiles in reality are currently "At least 550 Megatons AP" or "Mach 300 speed" or "11 tons Lifting Strength".

Wanting to round up those values via upscaling may make the profiles more aesthetically pleasing, but I object to the notion that it would inherently make them any more accurate.

Which is why I think the more accurate solutions for scaling is not to jump up by small, random amounts like closing the gap of 100 Gigatons in order to reach a nice, round 1000 Gigatons.
 
Damage3245 said:
@DemonGodMitchAubin; in the end the tiers are just a description for what value the characters scale to. This is why I wanted the hypothetical scenario of where there were no exact tiers. The profiles in reality are currently "At least 550 Megatons AP" or "Mach 300 speed" or "11 tons Lifting Strength".

Wanting to round up those values via upscaling may make the profiles more aesthetically pleasing, but I object to the notion that it would inherently make them any more accurate.
Click to expand...
Well like I said, I just completely disagree with you, I think upscaling is accurate and there's nothing wrong with it, therefore there is no reason to get rid of it and ban it's usage for all verses

But I'm beating a dead horse at this point
 
If you upscale you'd be giving a definite value. It'd be the difference between saying "at least 9 tons" and "11 tons". The second one is a definite statement that ultimately cannot be proven, while the first one can be.
 
Wokistan said:
Yeah I support not tier jumping at all without some overt statement of "oh this guy is 1.45x stronger than the other" within the verse. One shotting is cirumstantial, certain body parts don't ever really get more durable, yada yada, a guy got one shot by a punch irl so here's your real life comparison, boom a speedrun of all my calc takes as of late

Really though, instantly killing or knocking out someone isn't anywhere near consistent even in the real world where physics works. Fiction makes shit even less consistent than reality. This isn't some sort of metric we should be using to say characters are any actual value except "stronger than the guy who got one shot", and even then you don't even necessarily need superiority.

Edit: A link of the above event that doesn't care if you have adblock on.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. It is a very good point.

I'm actually more in favour of an "At least" and "likely higher" rating in such cases.

However, I am not against upscaling to next tier in certain cases.

For example: A certain character at 100% chi power is calculated at 900 Gigatons, and another character is explicitly stated to be so-and-so times as powerful or whatever...

Example: The High 6-A scaling for Yu Yu Hakusho's Upper S-class is based on a Petaton level feat from a Low S-class (whose power level is in the tens of thousands while Upper S-class are several hundred thousand when suppressed and in the millions when going all out). So the upscaling there made sense.

I agree that context matters, and the decisions have to be made on case-by-case basis.
 
I can agree that every upscaling decision needs to be case by case and discussed on its own, maybe we shouldn’t put down a specific rule because every upscaling scenario will be different

So basically if upscaling is suggested for a scenario, it needs its own CRT on whether or not it should be done
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
I can agree that every upscaling decision needs to be case by case and discussed on its own, maybe we shouldn’t put down a specific rule because every upscaling scenario will be different

So basically if upscaling is suggested for a scenario, it needs its own CRT on whether or not it should be done
Click to expand...
^ This.
 
The problem with that is as many people said, upscaling should not be allowed in most cases, but only in select blatant cases, but opening it up to be on a case-by-case basis doesn't really help because people will just make arguments like

"In this setting, it makes perfect sense for a these characters who scale above 500 Gigatons feat to be on the next tier"

OR

"This much difference was deemed fine for that other verse, then why not for this verse"

I don't think it will solve the main issue.
 
I also agree with AKM, and with Soldier Blue's first post.
 
IMO Putting a number on something that'll vary so much is just silly, and while it's true that this might lead to inconsistencies or stupid arguments like "well if this verse does it why can't i????", I feel that's just a necessary drawback. As for "higher" ratings, those imply it's only a possibility that the character is stronger, while by virtue of upscaling, it's certain that they are.
 
@Armorchompy; that would be where the "At least" ratings come in. Because those tell us what the minimum a character's strength would be, without us having to add a random number onto the end of it to round it up.
 
AKM sama said:
"In this setting, it makes perfect sense for a these characters who scale above 500 Gigatons feat to be on the next tier"
Click to expand...
I see no Inherent flaw with this. If the person can make a convincing argument based on Referential data then what's the problem? we already do this for dozens of other elements of our tiering system so why is upscaling different.
AKM sama said:
"This much difference was deemed fine for that other verse, then why not for this verse"
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be a valid argument unless the person arguing this can provide evidence that the situation and upscaling fundamentally meet the same standard. otherwise, it's whatboutism.
 
The issue is that people are asking for specific guidelines on when upscaling can be used, but when presented with a possible guideline standard such as a maximum 1.5x gap jump to the next tier being valid, they say that said guidelines are arbitrary and something more solid should be used, the issue with that is that there is no 1 perfect solution to this, everyone's ideas on what's acceptable to upscale is subjective, so honestly a case by case method is the only solution we can do if we're not willing to put a specific number down for when upscaling is allowed, either that or you have nuke upscaling in it's entirety, which I obviously don't agree with

This is once again just a matter of whether we like upscaling or not, the question of whether it's accurate isn't objective
 
I don't agree with that. As Wokistan pointed out here:

Wokistan said:
If you upscale you'd be giving a definite value. It'd be the difference between saying "at least 9 tons" and "11 tons". The second one is a definite statement that ultimately cannot be proven, while the first one can be.
Click to expand...

Upscaling involves giving characters brand new values that cannot really be proven. Saying that they're "at least 9 tons" would be more accurate than listing them as "definitely 11 tons".
 
"Upscaling involves giving characters brand new values that cannot really be proven"

No AP value can be "proven", calcs and statistics for characters change all the time and for most series, you'll never be able to definitely "prove" that someone can punch with the force of 100 Megatons, upscaling is a reasonable conclusionbased on an educated estimation, if we consider one character 900 Gigatons, and then another character is stated to be far more powerful than that 900 Gigaton feat, it would be a smart and reasonable inference that said character would likely be at least 1 Teraton

The idea that we shouldn't use upscaling because it can't be "proven" is absurd, a lot of the stuff in power scaling can't be proven like literally every single calculation on the site, so that's not a valid argument to nuke upscaling in my eyes
 
No AP value can be "proven", calcs and statistics for characters change all the time and for most series, you'll never be able to definitely "prove" that someone can punch with the force of 100 Megatons, upscaling is a reasonable conclusionbased on an educated estimation, if we consider one character 900 Gigatons, and then another character is stated to be far more powerful than that 900 Gigaton feat, it would be a smart and reasonable inference that said character would likely be at least 1 Teraton
Click to expand...

I don't see how that could be treated consistently. We could also say they're also likely to be at least 1.1 Teratons. Or 1.2 Teratons, etc. Or they could even be below it at 999 Gigatons.

If we have a character who is "far more powerful than 900 Gigatons" then I think there ought to be a better way of rating them than "1 Teraton because 1 Teraton is the baseline of the next tier".
 
Damage3245 said:
I don't see how that could be treated consistently. We could also say they're also likely to be at least 1.1 Teratons. Or 1.2 Teratons, etc. Or they could even be below it at 999 Gigatons.

If we have a character who is "far more powerful than 900 Gigatons" then I think there ought to be a better way of rating them than "1 Teraton because 1 Teraton is the baseline of the next tier".
Click to expand...
Yes, and that better way of rating is "1 Teraton because we have analysed the feat, how it was done, the scaling and the characters in question and we have come to the conclusion that it's more likely for this character to be at least 1.112x stronger than the feat than not."
 
Armorchompy said:
Yes, and that better way of rating is "1 Teraton because we have analysed the feat, how it was done, the scaling and the characters in question and we have come to the conclusion that it's more likely for this character to be at least 1.112x stronger than the feat than not."
Click to expand...
How is that better? Because it's a more round number? Because it's a higher tier? What makes 1 Teraton an accurate figure?
 
Damage3245 said:
How is that better? Because it's a more round number? Because it's a higher tier? What makes 1 Teraton an accurate figure?
Click to expand...
It's not an accurate figure in itself, I'm not saying "this character is likely 1 teraton", I'm saying "this character is likely stronger enough than the feat for his effective AP to be at least 1 teraton)
 
Armorchompy said:
It's not an accurate figure in itself, I'm not saying "this character is 1 teraton", I'm saying "this character is likely stronger enough than the feat for his effective AP to be at least 1 teraton)
Click to expand...
Why not just rate them as "At least 700 Gigatons" (in the earlier 700 Gigatons example)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Robo432343
can we please add an NLF note regarding the durability negation page
Replies
23
Views
3K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
SJG13673
A point of tier upscaling for each tier?
Replies
4
Views
517
SJG13673
SJG13673
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
4K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Sdjlakjh
  • Locked
Revising the leading question rule
Replies
31
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top