Regarding Upscaling

[Armorchompy]

There's also the fact that this assumption would cause ridicolous issues. Like a huge scaling chain off a feat that's 1.1x below 8-A never breaking out of 8-B, or a character getting a huge but unspecified power boost and not clearing such a minuscule gap in AP.

 

[Damage3245]

What's more likely?

A character being 1.5x stronger then a feat performed by casually by somebody that is far weaker then them?

Or not being stronger at all? Despite the verse clearly telling you they are.

Who said anything about them not being stronger at all?

That is not what an "At least" rating means.

And again, as Mitch pointed out earlier, the 1.5x border is arbitrary. It's no different than if it was a 1.75x gap. Or a 2x gap. Or as the "One Shot" page lists it as, a 7.5x gap.

We don't use the 7.5x multiplier listed on the One Shot page for rating pages. So why should we use a 1.5x multiplier? Because it's lower? Even though nothing else about the principle has changed?

 

[Damage3245]

There's also the fact that this assumption would cause ridicolous issues. Like a huge scaling chain off a feat that's 1.1x below 8-A never breaking out of 8-B, or a character getting a huge but unspecified power boost and not clearing such a minuscule gap in AP.

I don't see that as a problem.

If a character is rated as X value, and they get a new unlocked super-mode that has no feats and only statements of being more powerful, then we would rate that character as "X normally, higher with Super Mode".

Otherwise you'd be saying something along the lines of "X normally, X * 1.2 with Super Mode".

 

[Armorchompy]

We shouldn't use a 1.5x multiplier. We should find a number and say it's rougly around that ballpark, depending on context.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I've seen people throw the term "1.5x Multiplier" around a lot, I'm not talking about a Multiplier and never have been, just saying if the gap to the next tier is less than a 50% increase, then you can upscale to the Baseline of the next tier and no further

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't see that as a problem.

If a character is rated as X value, and they get a new unlocked super-mode that has no feats and only statements of being more powerful, then we would rate that character as "X normally, higher with Super Mode".

Otherwise you'd be saying something along the lines of "X normally, X * 1.2 with Super Mode".

No, I would be saying X normally, at least X * 1.2 with this Super Mode that clearly makes the character way stronger than before, reversing stomp battles and being treated as a completely new level of power. I don't think it's "likely" that this Super Mode is at least equivalent to what working out for a few years can accomplish for a normal person, I think it's "obviously" at least equivalent to it.

 

[Schnee_One]

Who said anything about them not being stronger at all?

That is not what an "At least" rating means.

And again, as Mitch pointed out earlier, the 1.5x border is arbitrary. It's no different than if it was a 1.75x gap. Or a 2x gap. Or as the "One Shot" page lists it as, a 7.5x gap.

We don't use the 7.5x multiplier listed on the One Shot page for rating pages. So why should we use a 1.5x multiplier? Because it's lower? Even though nothing else about the principle has changed?

Literally the whole point of upscaling is making the character the next tier by being stronger, if you are arguing that they are not the next tier because the gap is unquantifiable with a difference that small, that is essentially what you are saying.'

The accepted gap from the previous thread was 1.5x, if you need to assign a number for consistency, then use that.

 

[Damage3245]

I've seen people throw the term "1.5x Multiplier" around a lot, I'm not talking about a Multiplier and never have been, just saying if the gap to the next tier is less than a 50% increase, then you can upscale to the Baseline of the next tier and no further

I've pointed out how that is inconsistent for how we treat characters who are near the next tier and those who aren't. You'd be giving power-boosts for some characters just because it can rate them higher and not for others.

If we're going to upscale, we need to be consistent about it. Not just because it boosts certain characters to higher iters.

 

[Schnee_One]

Simply put, we need to find a number to upscale, or botch upscaling entirely, we need a consistency

 

[Armorchompy]

I've pointed out how that is inconsistent for how we treat characters who are near the next tier and those who aren't. You'd be giving power-boosts for some characters just because it can rate them higher and not for others.

If we're going to upscale, we need to be consistent about it. Not just because it boosts certain characters to higher iters.

No? If a character is 50 times or 1.2 times below a baseline it doesn't affect what the upscaling's gonna be like. You're making this up to make it sound like there's an inconsistency.

 

[Schnee_One]

I've pointed out how that is inconsistent for how we treat characters who are near the next tier and those who aren't. You'd be giving power-boosts for some characters just because it can rate them higher and not for others.

If we're going to upscale, we need to be consistent about it. Not just because it boosts characters to higher iters.

For which characters? Use the standard we make here, if it follows, upscale them, if not, then don't.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

At leasts and likely highers pretty much exist for good reason; and some verses are inconsistent that like it happens all the time that characters can somewhat stand ground against characters dozens of times stronger while simultaneously it only takes a 1.1x AP difference combined with far better skill to be a curbstomp. And some verses have loopholes where Character A stomps character B through raw power, character B one-shotted character C with a precision strike, but character C matched character A's raw power. We can't really assume tier jumps if stuff like that exist.

However, while I said I don't agree with being many times stronger than a 500-700 Gigaton character makes you Low 6-B, I see know reason to avoid tier jumps if it was like 999 Gigatons and what not.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I've pointed out how that is inconsistent for how we treat characters who are near the next tier and those who aren't. You'd be giving power-boosts for some characters just because it can rate them higher and not for others.

If we're going to upscale, we need to be consistent about it. Not just because it boosts certain characters to higher iters.

I want to be consistent and like I said, I think if the gap is less than 1.5x, then it's fine to upscale, I'm fine with that standard, you're the one who has an issue with my proposed consistent upscaling

 

[Schnee_One]

However, while I said I don't agree with being many times stronger than a 500-700 Gigaton character makes you Low 6-B, I see know reason to avoid tier jumps if it was like 999 Gigatons and what not.

I agree with this, (Unless its a multiplier obv.)

Only a very small amount of people should be allowed to tier jump.

 

[Armorchompy]

At leasts and likely highers pretty much exist for good reason; and some verses are inconsistent that like it happens all the time that characters can somewhat stand ground against characters dozens of times stronger while simultaneously it only takes a 1.1x AP difference combined with far better skill to be a curbstomp. And some verses have loopholes where Character A stomps character B through raw power, character B one-shotted character C with a precision strike, but character C matched character A's raw power. We can't really assume tier jumps if stuff like that exist.

Yes, and all of that is not a problem if we use our brains and treat every example on a case by case basis. If I jab you in the neck with a knife and tear out your throat, I don't upscale. If I vaporize your entire body, I do. As for inconsistencies, we already gotta sort those out with scaling, that's not a new thing.

 

[Damage3245]

Part of the issue is that I think some people are seeing it purely in terms of tiers and not ratings.

Taking two identical scenarios where a character vaporizes another character's body, and in one scenario the victim is rated as 700 Gigatons and in the other he is rated as 990 Gigatons.

If we're upscaling solely to the baseline of the next tier then we're saying that both feats grant a power increase of 300 Gigatons and 20 Gigatons simultaneously. Whether the end result of 1 Teraton is more neat or not, we still have to acknowledge we're being inconsistent here.

When you say something like "If you're superior to 999 Gigatons, then you might as well be rated 1 Teraton." to me that is no different than saying "If you're superior to 600 Gigatons, then you might as well be rated 601 Gigatons".

This same topic could be applied for speed too. Do we have any standards for upscaling speed? Assuming we apply the 1.5x method for speed scaling:

1) If you blitz a Mach 667 character, that's within 1.5x of the next tier so you can be rated as Mach 1000.

2) If you blitz a Mach 665 character, that's not within 1.5x of the next tier, so you get rated as "At least Mach 665."

Some of the users here who think upscaling should only be allowed for very near exceptions. So to those users like @DarkDragonMedeus, what is the limit for when upscaling should be done? And what is the minimum standard required for upscaling? Vaporizing someone?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

@Damage3245 Speed upscaling would follow the same guidelines as AP scaling, if someone can blitz someone who is <1.5x to the next speed rating, then I think it's fine

But would a difference of 1.2x or 1.1x be fine to you then?

 

[Armorchompy]

Part of the issue is that I think some people are seeing it purely in terms of tiers and not ratings.

Taking two identical scenarios where a character vaporizes another character's body, and in one scenario the victim is rated as 700 Gigatons and in the other he is rated as 990 Gigatons.

If we're upscaling solely to the baseline of the next tier then we're saying that both feats grant a power increase of 300 Gigatons and 20 Gigatons simultaneously. Whether the end result of 1 Teraton is more neat or not, we still have to acknowledge we're being inconsistent here.

Not really. Assuming the scenarios are identical, both would get a similar ""multiplier"" applied to them, like "roughly x1.5" or whatever you wanna use. But of course we would consider the guy upscaling from 990 gigs as stronger.

 

[Damage3245]

Not really. Assuming the scenarios are identical, both would get a similar ""multiplier"" applied to them, like "roughly x1.5" or whatever you wanna use. But of course we would consider the guy upscaling from 990 gigs as stronger.

See, that's better. That's different than the earlier model we're currently using of upscaling to the baseline of the next tier.

EDIT: Though some staff on this thread have said they're not in favor of the blanket multiplier solution.

 

[Schnee_One]

Not really. Assuming the scenarios are identical, both would get a similar ""multiplier"" applied to them, like "roughly x1.5" or whatever you wanna use. But of course we would consider the guy upscaling from 990 gigs as stronger.

I feel like that's what most people were doing anyway, but yeah I don't see an issue with this

 

[Armorchompy]

I feel like that's what most people were doing anyway

yeah that's probably the case

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, IDK why people were thinking these multipliers as arbitrary when in reality you just need to be a specific multiplier away from the next tier to qualify.

For example, M3X suggested to me that one should at the very least be 3/4 (or 75% or being 1.33x away from becoming the next higher tier) of the next tier to qualify for the brute-force upscaling, but me personally, it'd be much more valid if the person was merely 1.1x away from hitting the next tier. It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

For example. someone is 10 tons of TNT, right at the edge of High 8-C, that's about only 1.1x away from 8-B. And the other dude casually one-shots that 10 tons dude with a single finger flick or sends them flying with a punch so hard they get KO'd assuming they don't spam any pressure point or weak spot shenanigans and it's just a classic old beatdown. Then upscaling would fully apply here, no questions asked. Pretty sure this is the only type of upscaling we've been accepting so far and we don't randomly grant it to everyone unless the calc value is set that high and the one-shotting is utterly casual to the point where someone could laugh it off.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah it's basically what we already do- outside of misuses of it ofc

 

[KLOL506]

I feel like that's what most people were doing anyway, but yeah I don't see an issue with this

Me neither, this is pretty much the only legit way to do upscaling.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah it's basically what we already do- outside of misuses of it ofc

Then we should control the misuses. Axing it altogether however, makes no sense in the least bit.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reached any conclusions here yet?

 

[Schnee_One]

Damage conceded on upscaling by Armorchompy's proposal, so I think we're good here, I'll wait for others

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I think we agreed that case by case is the best way to handle upscaling, but I don't want to put words in people's mouths, so I'll wait to see what people say about that

 

[Damage3245]

Damage conceded on upscaling by Armorchompy's proposal, so I think we're good here, I'll wait for others

I'm not the only person opposing upscaling here. Multiple people have stated in the thread that they're not in support of a multiplier-based method unless I'm mistaken.

And all I said that Armorchompy's proposal was better than just doing it solely for characters who are near to the next tier.

Then we should control the misuses. Axing it altogether however, makes no sense in the least bit.

Axing it altogether would stop misuses, to be fair.

 

[Schnee_One]

Armorchopy's proposal is literally what most people were already doing

 

[Agnaa]

So have you reached any conclusions here yet?

I haven't actually counted up everyone's votes, but my impression from reading the thread is that the votes will land similar to last time. Most people wanting to upscale on a case-by-case basis, some people not wanting upscaling at all, and a few people wanting to upscale on a case-by-case basis up to a defined multiplier that can never be exceeded.

So I don't think there'll be a change from what was already happening.

 

[AKM sama]

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.

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.

And the first is the cause for second. A person can make arguments about upscaling being valid from 500 Gigatons to the next tier for verse A and say it gets accepted by the members dealing with that verse. The same kind of argument can be made for verse Y but members of that verse might disagree. Yes, comparison between verses is whataboutism, but the problem is that it gives rise to huge inconsistencies. Because different people handle different verses and the similar case of upscaling might be accepted for one verse, but not for another.

It also opens up doors for heavily exaggerated statistics just because many people agree to upscale someone from 100 Gigatons into the next tier because it makes sense to the majority of the supporters of that verse, when that shouldn't be the practice we should encourage. Case by case basis is fine only when the gap between the feat and next tier is miniscule.

 

[KLOL506]

It also opens up doors for heavily exaggerated statistics just because many people agree to upscale someone from 100 Gigatons into the next tier because it makes sense to the majority of the supporters of that verse, when that shouldn't be the practice we should encourage. Case by case basis is fine only when the gap between the feat and next tier is miniscule.

Except, 100 gigatons is absolutely not gonna be fine for upscaling to the next tier unless there are explicitly-stated multipliers, nor do we use upscaling for that low of a number anyway. Upscaling should only work if the character's AP is dangerously close to the next tier like in the examples I already showed.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

And the first is the cause for second. A person can make arguments about upscaling being valid from 500 Gigatons to the next tier for verse A and say it gets accepted by the members dealing with that verse. The same kind of argument can be made for verse Y but members of that verse might disagree. Yes, comparison between verses is whataboutism, but the problem is that it gives rise to huge inconsistencies. Because different people handle different verses and the similar case of upscaling might be accepted for one verse, but not for another.

How is this different from how we treat literally every other part of our tiering system? we have verses that go from tier 8 to tier 2 based on a flowery quote while other verses have dozens of feats but need to consistently back them up with supplementary elements because the said verse might be scrutinized more by the wiki at large. we also literally have an entirely different standard of power scaling for verses like Marvel and DC.

nearly every part of our system relies on case to case basis for us to come to a conclusion because the opposite is generalizing everything which is far more harmful than any case-to-case thing could ever be.

1. Why do we bother calculating mountain destruction feats, all Mountains are surely the same size,
because if you had to say to me that destroying something like Kilomanjaro or Everist is different from wipe outing your average scrub mountain then you would be conceding to evaluating things from a case to case basis.

It's just strange that we suddenly draw the line at Upscaling.

Can people abuse upscaling to inflate character tiers? Absolutely but not any more than they can with AP,Speed ect.
It's an Understandable concern but I don't think it's reasonable, considering the fact that in most cases upscaling happens when characters are ridiculously close to the next tier.

Nobody is arguing that should we multiply someone's tier by some value every time there's a oneshot. but if the Gap is small enough, the character implied to be significantly stronger and it makes sense within the context of the verse I see no reason why not.

tt also opens up doors for heavily exaggerated statistics just because many people agree to upscale someone from 100 Gigatons into the next tier because it makes sense to the majority of the supporters of that verse, when that shouldn't be the practice we should encourage. Case by case basis is fine only when the gap between the feat and next tier is miniscule.

that is what we have been arguing for.

 

[Damage3245]

Nobody is arguing that should we multiply someone's tier by some value every time there's a oneshot. but if the Gap is small enough, the character implied to be significantly stronger and it makes sense within the context of the verse I see no reason why not.

But what is the reason for it?

How is it any different from saying "This character that was one-shot was calculated to have 970 Gigatons durability, so obviously anyone far superior should be rated as 1000 Gigatons."

To saying: "This character that was one-shot was calculated to have 770 Gigatons durability, so obviously anyone far superior should be rated as 800 Gigatons."

It's exactly the same kind of scenario to me, only the latter doesn't involve a tier jump. So what does there being a small gap between two numbers actually have to do with what we rate the characters as?

 

[KLOL506]

But what is the reason for it?

How is it any different from saying "This character that was one-shot was calculated to have 970 Gigatons durability, so obviously anyone far superior should be rated as 1000 Gigatons."

To saying: "This character that was one-shot was calculated to have 770 Gigatons durability, so obviously anyone far superior should be rated as 800 Gigatons."

It's exactly the same kind of scenario to me, only the latter doesn't involve a tier jump. So what does there being a small gap between two numbers actually have to do with what we rate the characters as?

770 and 800 gigatons are still High 6-C, that isn't tier-jumping. The former, however, is tier jumping, 970 gigatons is literally 1.03x away from turning into a Low 6-B or 1000 gigatons. That is basically the only difference.

The latter part really doesn't need anything to be done with it in the first place. Only the former does.

 

[Damage3245]

770 and 800 gigatons are still High 6-C, that isn't tier-jumping. The former, however, is tier jumping, 970 gigatons is literally 1.03x away from turning into a Low 6-B or 1000 gigatons. That is basically the only difference.

The latter part really doesn't need anything to be done with it in the first place. Only the former does.

But would you be fine with rating somebody as 800 Gigatons because they one-shot somebody who we rate as 770 Gigatons? It is a miniscule difference as well.

 

[Agnaa]

@Shadowbokunohero there are parts of the system that we always do case-by-case, there are other parts where we always generalize. For example, the relativistic KE equation cannot be used to get results more than 4x above the classical KE equation, no matter the verse or the context (unless the verse literally states a KE value in joules that's above that, which in this case is comparable to a verse stating a multiplier).

We don't always have to go for case-by-case, and we don't always have to go for generalizations, we choose whether to use case-by-case on a case-by-case basis.

@Damage2345 We do kind of say the latter, we just don't include it on profiles.

A character who vaporized a character with a 770 Gigaton feat can probably one-shot a character with a 775 Gigaton feat, so we kind of do rate them higher.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

But would you be fine with rating somebody as 800 Gigatons because they one-shot somebody who we rate as 770 Gigatons? It is a miniscule difference as well.

Sure.
we do this already in versus threads.

If there are characters that are 800 Gigatons, we can easily argue someone who one-shotted a 770 Gigaton character is at least comparable.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

there are parts of the system that we always do case-by-case, there are other parts where we always generalize. For example, the relativistic KE equation cannot be used to get results more than 4x above the classical KE equation, no matter the verse or the context (unless the verse literally states a KE value in joules that's above that, which in this case is comparable to a verse stating a multiplier).

Hence why I said nearly.

> We don't always have to go for case-by-case, and we don't always have to go for generalizations, we choose whether to use case-by-case on a case-by-case basis.