Regarding Upscaling

[Damage3245]

@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.

How we take this account for the profiles then? Because this can have implications on how characters are later rated via multipliers.

Multiplying an exact calced value of "770.45 Gigatons" is one thing - but then if we're upscaling them to 800 Gigatons, are we then going to use the multiplier on that value of 800 Gigatons?

 

[KLOL506]

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.

Yeah it is a small miniscule difference, but it's not something that jumps tiers so there's literally no need to rate someone as 800 gigatons even though common sense alone dictates that he'd be clearly well above 770 gigagtons

 

[KLOL506]

How we take this account for the profiles then? Because this can have implications on how characters are later rated via multipliers.

Multiplying an exact calced value of "770.45 Gigatons" is one thing - but then if we're upscaling them to 800 Gigatons, are we then going to use the multiplier on that value of 800 Gigatons?

They stay at 770 gigatons, we don't upscale just to remain in the same tier.

Again, upscaling works exclusively if you're literally right near the next tier's doorstep, not in cases like this. In the 770-800 gigaton stuff, just use At least High 6-C or something. But for someone that casually lolnopes a 970 gigaton, that's when everything changes.

 

[Damage3245]

They stay at 770 gigatons, we don't upscale just to remain in the same tier.

Again, upscaling works exclusively if you're literally right near the next tier's doorstep, not in cases like this. In the 770-800 gigaton stuff, just use At least High 6-C or something. But for someone that casually lolnopes a 970 gigaton, that's when everything changes.

But why is that where everything changes? What does being next to a tier actually change about the context of the feats themselves?

The situations need to be treated the same. We can't give a bias just for higher tiering.

 

[KLOL506]

But why is that where everything changes? What does being next to a tier actually change about the context of the feats themselves?

The situations need to be treated the same. We can't give a bias just for higher tiering.

Because that's how upscaling is supposed to be used in the first place?

There's no bias here because upscaling should only be used for tier-jump-based situations.

 

[Schnee_One]

What is the bias here? Can we stop throwing this nonsensical word around

That’s how upscaling should be used in the first place, how we rate on the files is through a detailed AP section, if someone goes through the files and they see “Far superior to X who performed this feat” then they can come to the conclusion they are above the feat to a degree.

We already assume that people are occasionally equal in AP if they upscale in versus threads depending on the character, it really isn’t a big deal

 

[Damage3245]

Sorry if the word "bias" offended. Wasn't meant that way.

Just that we're now being inconsistent with how we approach "one-shot" feats. You're saying that it is okay to for characters to be a given a 1.1x or 1.3x or 1.5x increase in their rating so long as it can be done to rate them as a higher tier.

But if it can't rate them as a higher tier, then they don't get any increase.

And the only reason I'm seeing been given for why this would be permitted is just "This is how upscaling is supposed to be". And that's not a very reasonable answer to me. It makes it seem like the only important thing here is rating the character at a higher tier. Not rating a character as accurately as possible.

 

[Schnee_One]

I’m not offended by it, it just seems nonsensical and we throw it around to make a point.

We are assuming a small gap of 1.5x times, if it’s fine to upscale then that shouldn’t be a problem when it’s that small, assigning a number means to keep it consistent

Rating a character a higher tier if they deserve it, is by definition more accurate, if we assume a character stated to be stronger, is not actually stronger and that’s not represented by the tier despite a small gap, that’s inaccurate

 

[Damage3245]

Rating a character a higher tier if they deserve it, is by definition more accurate, if we assume a character stated to be stronger, is not actually stronger and that’s not represented by the tier despite a small gap, that’s inaccurate

A character being stronger than another character doesn't tell us how strong they should be. But it does tell us what they are at least stronger than. So I don't see what is inaccurate about rating them as "At least stronger than X". And we can substitute any value for X whether it is 700 Gigatons or 990 Gigatons. Which means it is an equally fair solution.

 

[Schnee_One]

No it absolutely does, especially depending on the gap. I don’t see why assuming being stronger then a character especially with such a small gap is in accurate, if a character needs to be 1.03x stronger then another character, they are blatantly stronger then that compared to another, but we ignore how small that is anyway, is not an equally fair solution, less of a gap between tiers means less of an assumption on the jump.

Ignoring such a small gap and saying that gap doesn’t exist in the tier is the part that’s inaccurate

 

[Damage3245]

But as I illustrated earlier, the small gap is irrelevant.

There is a small gap between 600 Megatons and 605 Megatons too, but we don't bump characters up in a scaling chain through increments like that.

I pointed out a scenario just a few posts above:

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."

And I was basically told, "Yeah, there's a small gap but the second scenario doesn't have a tier jump, so we don't do it."

So clearly having a small gap between one rating and another rating doesn't actually matter. So why is ignoring such a small gap wrong now?

That's what I'm trying to get at when I'm saying you need a solution that works for all scenarios. It's literally inconsistent to approve of a jump in ratings to close a small gap in one scenario, and to disapprove of a small jump in ratings to close a small gap in an identical scenario.

If we say "One-shotting an opponent through sheer power is equivalent to 1.5x increase" and we treated that for all identical situations regardless of how close they are to the next tier, then that would also be a fair solution.

 

[KLOL506]

I honestly don't understand what part of "Do upscaling to the next tier only when Dude A has a high-enough AP value almost boderline close to the next tier and gets casually lolnoped by Dude B" you don't get, Damage. It's literally that simple. Don't do upscaling for anything else.

 

[Damage3245]

I honestly don't understand what part of "Do upscaling to the next tier only when Dude A has a high-enough AP value almost boderline close to the next tier and gets casually lolnoped by Dude B" you don't get, Damage. It's literally that simple. Don't do upscaling for anything else.

I get it.

But I think it is inconsistent, inaccurate and I don't agree with it.

EDIT: I think the examples I've given throughout this thread have been enough to prove that.

 

[Agnaa]

That's what I'm trying to get at when I'm saying you need a solution that works for all scenarios. It's literally inconsistent to approve of a jump in ratings to close a small gap in one scenario, and to disapprove of a small jump in ratings to close a small gap in an identical scenario.

We can already essentially have this (a jump getting approved in only one of two identical scenarios) happen.

Let's say that we have some sound reasoning to apply a 20x multiplier, and it gets accepted for one verse.

Let's then say that another verse has identical reasoning to apply a 20x multiplier. But then that verse has two more identical 20x multipliers that stack with the first one, totaling an 8000x multiplier. Those identical multipliers would not get accepted, because 8000x has a far higher burden of proof than 20x, even if the 20x multipliers would individually be sound.

Treating every one-shot as a 1.5x or whatever increase runs into this sort of issue, there are verses with large one-shot chains and verses with circular one-shot chains.

But let's say that you want to avoid that by only counting one one-shot and then stopping there. I'm not sure if people would even be okay with giving a value as generous as 1.5x to every feat in fiction. The majority of staff seem to disagree with giving a solid value for just tier-jumping, citing inconsistencies in fiction and the arbitrariness of our selected multiplier in light of that. And past that, a lot of staff seem more inclined to put the border near 1.1x or 1.05x.

If we end up at a point where the change is just "Some verses now get a single 1.05x multiplier on their calc" that feels kind of meaningless to me. Such a thing would be extremely difficult to represent in profiles (as we don't list joule values, just link to calcs with their own joule values), and be such a minor (around the level of a small error in the calc itself) but annoying-to-implement change to so many profiles that it feels pointless.

 

[Schnee_One]

But as I illustrated earlier, the small gap is irrelevant.

There is a small gap between 600 Megatons and 605 Megatons too, but we don't bump characters up in a scaling chain through increments like that.

I pointed out a scenario just a few posts above:





And I was basically told, "Yeah, there's a small gap but the second scenario doesn't have a tier jump, so we don't do it."

So clearly having a small gap between one rating and another rating doesn't actually matter. So why is ignoring such a small gap wrong now?

That's what I'm trying to get at when I'm saying you need a solution that works for all scenarios. It's literally inconsistent to approve of a jump in ratings to close a small gap in one scenario, and to disapprove of a small jump in ratings to close a small gap in an identical scenario.

If we say "One-shotting an opponent through sheer power is equivalent to 1.5x increase" and we treated that for all identical situations regardless of how close they are to the next tier, then that would also be a fair solution.

No, people already assume someone much stronger then 600 megatons is higher then 605, but that’s not high enough to go into the next tier.

Because the gap isn’t as small, we need to assign a number suitable for upscaling and I went for 1.5x.

If we can’t even assign a number at this point, I’m afraid just dropping it entirely is the issue, but I still completely disagree with not assigning a small number and moving on

 

[Antvasima]

Just a brief note that I also think that we should upscale in cases where character A is considerably stronger than character B, who is very close to the upper border of a tier. The question is just where exactly that we should draw the line.

 

[Schnee_One]

Again I think 1.5x is fine.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Again I think 1.5x is fine.

Honestly I could agree with 1.3x as well, but 1.5x is fine in general

It’s not inaccurate to suppose a huge implied gap of powerin fiction would at least have someone be at least 50% stronger than someone else

 

[KLOL506]

Me personally I prefer anywhere between 1.1x to 1.3x away from the next tier.

 

[Schnee_One]

I can concede with 1.3x

 

[Armorchompy]

Meh, seems a bit too conservative to me and I'd rather have no set multiplier, but I don't hate it. Just to be curious, how about chains- say a character stomps a character who stomps a character who is, say, 1.6x under baseline of a tier. Can this character be that tier?

 

[KLOL506]

Meh, seems a bit too conservative to me and I'd rather have no set multiplier, but I don't hate it. Just to be curious, how about chains- say a character stomps a character who stomps a character who is, say, 1.6x under baseline of a tier. Can this character be that tier?

1.6x is way too far off IMHO, the character also needs to have the + in their AP value to qualify for upscaling like this, just in case I forgot to add.

 

[Damage3245]

I can understand wanting to go with a low figure like 1.1x, or 1.3x or 1.5x but the crux of the issue is that there is nothing that these values are based on.

The + sign in signifying AP values is at least based on being the midpoint between two tiers.

The 7.5x value in the One-Shot page is at least based on being the difference between a Street level character and a Human level character.

An "At least" rating is based on showing the lower cap of a character's rating if their exact level is not possible to determine. A character performing a feat casually does inform you of something about their level of power, even if it doesn't inform us of their limits.

So if the rationality that we're going with is going to something along the lines of "If A stomps B through sheer power than A can be rated as 1.3x B's value" then this needs some kind of logical framework that can be used consistently.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The 7.5x is mostly something we decided for Vs Threads, which has less to do with tier jumping on profile indexes. And the 7.5x is mostly if the oneshot happens through sheer raw power as opposed to things like "He struck him off guard" or "He struck a pressure point".

I do agree that the topic at hand is where we should draw the line. We got the more extreme ends out of the way; it would be laughably cherry picky if we said no to a tier jump despite the gap being 1.001x from the next tier. But a 2x or higher solely because of an A stomps B is too assumptive. But what we need are some guidelines, like a 1.3x for scenarios where character A is far beyond character B, a 1.1x if character A is moderately above character B, and for slight gaps, it could be something more like 1.03x. I'm not saying it has to be those specific numbers either; others may propose or vote different numbers. But I think this should be an example blue print of the topic at hand.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I would be fine with using a 1.3x gap being the bar for upscaling

I would prefer to use 1.5x, but if everyone agrees with the gap being 1.3x, then that's fine

 

[Agnaa]

Just to be curious, how about chains- say a character stomps a character who stomps a character who is, say, 1.6x under baseline of a tier. Can this character be that tier?

I am strongly against chains like that. If one isn't enough you shouldn't be allowed to keep stacking to climb higher and higher tiers.

1.6x is way too far off IMHO, the character also needs to have the + in their AP value to qualify for upscaling like this, just in case I forgot to add.

Having a + in their AP value means they're 2x off, so you're kinda being inconsistent here.

The 7.5x value in the One-Shot page is at least based on being the difference between a Street level character and a Human level character.

Even that's really arbitrary. The 10-B and 9-C borders are arbitrary and aren't really tied to one-shots. 10-B comes from punches iirc, 9-C comes from bullets, but even some humans have punches or at least kicks in the 9-C range without one-shotting other humans, at least the sorts of one-shots we'd imagine in versus threads.

So if the rationality that we're going with is going to something along the lines of "If A stomps B through sheer power than A can be rated as 1.3x B's value" then this needs some kind of logical framework that can be used consistently.

It doesn't need a logical framework to be used consistently. Relativistic KE capping at 4x doesn't come from a logical framework, yet it's applied consistently.

Since people are saying where they want the gaps to be, I'd like it to be 1.05x at the absolute minimum, and 1.5x at the absolute maximum. But I think it's also important to say that even if we agree on a number, there's been many staff in this very thread who have been against setting a number at all. Basically, don't get carried away, make sure to check back that setting a number is what people really want.

 

[AKM sama]

I have kind of lost track so which staff members disagree with upscaling to jump tiers altogether? And of those who agree with keeping it, how many are in favor of a fixed number and who are the ones who don't agree with any set number? It would be good to get a tally.

 

[Schnee_One]

I agree with upscaling and a 1.3x for said upscaling, if you’re that much stronger then another character with the feat.

However, I should say what should we do if there’s a character close to another tier via a casual feat?

 

[KLOL506]

1.6x is way too far off IMHO, the character also needs to have the + in their AP value to qualify for upscaling like this, just in case I forgot to add.

Having a + in their AP value means they're 2x off, so you're kinda being inconsistent here.

Yeah my bad didn't see that one initially, was gonna correct my comment regarding that but forgot to.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with upscaling and a 1.3x for said upscaling, if you’re that much stronger then another character with the feat.

However, I should say what should we do if there’s a character close to another tier via a casual feat?

Would depend on the context and the casualness of the feat.

 

[Damage3245]

I have kind of lost track so which staff members disagree with upscaling to jump tiers altogether? And of those who agree with keeping it, how many are in favor of a fixed number and who are the ones who don't agree with any set number? It would be good to get a tally.

I believe that Antoniofer, Abstractions, DontTalkDT, and Wokistan (and myself) are the ones against upscaling altogether. Some others have said they're against it in the majority of cases but I'm not sure how to tally them exactly.

 

[KLOL506]

From what I've found, DemonGod, DDM, Schnee, Armorchompy, Soldier Blue, Agnaa, Antvasima and Shadowbokunohero (myself included) agree to keep upscaling only when said character is high enough to be literally at the border of the next tier or close to it.

 

[Antvasima]

KLOL506:

I think that you forgot Armorchompy.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; he mentioned Armorchompy between Schnee and Soldier Blue.

Regarding about where the discussion goes next - I think it is worth repeating that too much importance is being placed on the tiers themselves right now which is why people keep mentioning "Only when characters are close to the next tier."

Characters are given tiers in the first place only because of specific ratings, usually from calcs. Any all ratings are "close" to some other rating. 990 is close to 1000 sure. But 890 is close to 900. 790 is close to 800. And in objective terms, there is no difference between the scenarios. There is no good reason why you'd upscale someone from 990 to 1000, but you wouldn't upscale someone from 890 to 900 in the exact same scenario.

When somebody says that "X value is close to Y value, then it is okay to rate someone as Y is they appear to be overwhelmingly stronger than X" then it shouldn't matter whether Y is a tier boundary or not.

I'm having a hard time seeing why people would disagree with this notion. I also don't see why we'd rely on calced values on some characters whereas for others we'd just say "They're probably 1.14x stronger than this other character, so it's fine to rate them a higher value."

 

[Agnaa]

I draw a distinction because crossing a tier boundary is easy to represent on a profile in a non-confusing way, and because upscaling everyone lends itself to inflation by stacking with multipliers or with other one-shots. This is almost a repetition of the first point, but we already treat characters who one-shot as stronger for the purposes of threads, but there's nowhere else where we'd really need to state that.

 

[Damage3245]

I draw a distinction because crossing a tier boundary is easy to represent on a profile in a non-confusing way, and because upscaling everyone lends itself to inflation by stacking with multipliers or with other one-shots. This is almost a repetition of the first point, but we already treat characters who one-shot as stronger for the purposes of threads, but there's nowhere else where we'd really need to state that.

It's easy to represent but the issue is that it introduces inaccuracy and inconsistency.

If there are complicated bits of scaling explanations, there can always be a scaling blog / breakdown made for certain characters or a verse, like we do with Dragon Ball.

If you agree that upscaling everyone would lead to inflation ratings, then I think it would be best to cut out the inflation altogether by avoiding upscaling altogether. Instead of rating characters as "Y" because it is a higher value than "X", just say they're "At least X". Or if have to go with a compromise, say they're "At least X, possibly Y".

 

[Agnaa]

It is not easy to represent. How do you indicate on a page that some characters from a series have a 1.05x multiplier on the linked calc and some don't? For most verses it wouldn't make sense for there to be a scaling blog like this.

Why should we cut out upscaling when it doesn't lead to inflation?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Agnaa makes sense; one of the biggest issues with upscaling is because most fanbases want to assume their own verses powerscaling is as simple as DBZ; when most verses either don't actually care about vs debating, indexing, or powerscaling for that matter. Or they have Marvel/DC styles of scattered shackles and loopholes albeit not quite as big as those two.

But anyway, I do agree with some of Damage's points; we should cut it out when scaling chains have a tendency to be circular, but there cases where it's pretty easy to represent in a not so controversial fashion. Though the statements about comparing 990 Gigatons to 1000 Gigatons being similar to 890 Gigatons jumping to 900 Gigatons makes sense.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Bump

 

[Damage3245]

Regarding upscaling, we just need to determine if there are valid scenarios / situations where we can rate one character's rating above another characters rating by a concrete figure. For example; does one-shotting via vaporizing a weaker character through sheer power, or blitzing a character through sheer speed mean that you can safely be rated as X times above the weaker/slower character?

And if those standards take shape, then we will be in a better position to create guidelines for why and how upscaling can work.