• 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.
Wokistan said:
What is his proposal? I'd also made arguments for just negating it entirely.
Click to expand...
Negating it entirely sounds like the most sensible, fair and accurate solution to me so far as well.
 
I really think it'd be helpful if someone went through the thread to tally everyone's views. Abolish upscaling, have upscaling with a vague multiplier, have upscaling with a fixed multiplier, etc.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
I'm not sure I could give any note but in regards to the 3 things DemonGodMitch asked..


2. Yes, considering verses very on how much stronger you'd need to be to stomp someone, I'd say a case by case basis is best.

3. If characters start tearing through someone with minimum to no effort or casually backhanding them and killing them while claiming they haven't used a fraction of their true power, you could also use statements like a character being "magnitudes" greater in power.
Click to expand...
^ I mostly agree with this
 
Agnaa said:
I really think it'd be helpful if someone went through the thread to tally everyone's views. Abolish upscaling, have upscaling with a vague multiplier, have upscaling with a fixed multiplier, etc.
Click to expand...
That would be appreciated, yes.
 
ShadowWhoWorks posted a tally of staff opinions on my wall, I'll paste it below.

Hello Agnaa,
I did a tally for staff opinion in the upscaling thread.

Keep upscaling within a specific multiplier to next tier (5): DemonGodMitchAubin (1.5x, fine with 1.3x), Antvasima (1.5x is a strict guideline with enough leeway), KLOL506 (1.1x to 1.3x), Schnee_One (1.5x, fine with 1.3x), Agnaa (1.05x to 1.5x)

Keep upscaling but didn't recommend a specific upper limit (7): AKM sama, Mr._Bambu, Shadowbokunohero, DarkDragonMedeus, Soldier_Blue, Armorchompy (finds 1.3x too conservative, but prefers no set multiplier), LordGriffin1000

Remove upscaling (6): Damage3245, Qawsedf234, DontTalkDT (thinks it will probably be a pain to apply though), Antoniofer, Abstractions, Wokistan

Overall it is agreed upon that there should be more scrutiny when applying upscaling to a character, and those who want to keep upscaling prefer a case-by-case basis.
Damage (and possibly Qawsedf234) is fine with universal 'stomp multipliers' which are applied regardless of tier increase, but prefers removing upscaling.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Okay. Thank you for the summary.

It seems like we should keep upscaling then, but need to decide in what manner.
 
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
Again, I'm no admin here, but maybe we should truly decide ti case by case? It's too of a broad term.
Click to expand...
We need some kind of basis to say whether certain examples are legitimate compared to other examples. It cannot be purely case-by-case.
 
Well, it would make sense if somebody one shot another character or is consistently being superior but not just if he won in a fight. Also, can we put a character at baseline 9-A if he no sold a barely not 9-A attack?
 
Hi, just coming in to bump the thread.

Also to remind you that standards for downscaling would also need to be brought up, even if they’re just a reverse of upscaling standards.
 
I think we tend to strictly disallow downscaling except in very special exceptions.
 
Ik it’s rare, but if Character A is baseline of a tier (let’s say 8-A for demonstration’s sake), and Character B is stated to be slightly inferior to them, or B is able to clash with A for an extended period, but is gradually overpowered. How would that be handled?

Would Character B downscale to 8-B+ (which is how I’ve seen it handled), would they be ‘At most 8-A’ or what?

Sorry to comment on the staff-only thread again, this is the last thing I wanted to say
 
LordTracer said:
Ik it’s rare, but if Character A is baseline of a tier (let’s say 8-A for demonstration’s sake), and Character B is stated to be slightly inferior to them, or B is able to clash with A for an extended period, but is gradually overpowered. How would that be handled?

Would Character B downscale to 8-B+ (which is how I’ve seen it handled), would they be ‘At most 8-A’ or what?

Sorry to comment on the staff-only thread again, this is the last thing I wanted to say
Click to expand...
I think that's gonna be covered in a separate thread regarding downscaling.
 
Well, how we settle this? I can't argue against positions that revolve around 'I don't like the formatting of "At least" ratings'.

I've tried to explain that allowing upscaling for all cases of one-shotting is more fair, but that gets countered with "That leads to inflation" which makes me wonder why all cases of upscaling aren't rendered invalid to prevent inflation altogether.

I haven't seen a single worthwhile justification for why any random value such as 1.1x or 1.3x or 1.5x would have any kind of objective meaning to them or why one would be more "accurate" than the other.

If the whole thing is purely case-by-case and subjective, then you could let people treat one-shotting as a 2x multiplier or a 3x multiplier and it'd be exactly as valid it seems. I can't think of an objective reason why I'd think 1.5x is totally cool by 2x isn't.

This is a painfully frustrating subject for me, which is why I think a simpler, "no upscaling" system is preferable.
 
Fiction varies, ergo our standards should vary. Making a universal one is just putting another arbitrary restriction on things. People already try to "change things in their favor" on this site, all the time, and those upgrades are, ideally, rejected. I see no reason this should be different.
 
If we're going to go in circles, I'm willing to agree with Mitch's proposal. Damage makes solid points that asserting weird ass numbers like 1.5x being not much better than assuming the 2x multiplier; which we already agreed that's bad. But I don't need to repeat how silly it would be to not upscale if the gaps are as going from 999 Gigatons to 1 Teraton. If there's no way to properly deal with it, it's considered best to let the lore scaling do the work.

We can just avoid putting specific numbers in the rules and just say case by case. But mention it should only be okay if the gap till next tier is very miniscule.
 
We can just avoid putting specific numbers in the rules and just say case by case. But mention it should only be okay if the gap till next tier is very miniscule.
Click to expand...

How do we judge what's very miniscule? Less than 1.1x gap?

If we don't put in specific numbers in our guidelines, then people will just go with whatever is highest.
 
Apologies for not staying consistent; RL work fatigue. Both sides are right for different reasons. Agreed with case by case, but most cases should use At least, and possibly higher stuff. And for gap being miniscule; I'd say something more like 1.1x or 1.05x.
 
You might as well be deleting upscaling completely if it's gonna be so strict. 1.3 should be better.
 
I don't think 1.1x is "basically" deleting it.

Hell, a lot of people in the last thread had their intuitions closer to something like that. Being over 90% of the way to the next tier captures a lot of people's intuitions, actually. 1.3x has upscaling from 77% of the way to the next tier.
 
Yeah, but being only 1.3x from the next tier is a small gap to me and upscaling should be fine if you are far stronger than someone only 23% away from the next tier
 
I agree with Agnaa. Since we should only be upscaling when "we're on the border of the next tier", 1.1x should be enough so that upscaling is only applied when necessary.
 
Damage3245 said:
I agree with Agnaa. Since we should only be upscaling when "we're on the border of the next tier", 1.1x should be enough so that upscaling is only applied when necessary.
Click to expand...
To me, being 1.3x away is on the border of the next tier, you need to be less than 1/4 stronger than before to reach the next tier
 
M3X suggests 1._21_x away from the next tier. Here's their post about it:

Hello. I'm reading the Upscaling Thread and I have a suggestion. I'll use the Mountain level Tier as the my example.

The Tier starts at 100 Megatons and the limit is 1000 Megatons. 1000 + 100 = 1100/2 = 550, this is the number we give a +. If the 2/4 of Tier is enough to get a +, what if we consider 3/4 to be enough to upscale?

275 is 1/4, 550 is 2/4 and 825 is 3/4 of the Tier. 825 Megatons is 1.21212121212x below 1000 Megatons. It's based on the current system we use.

That's my suggestion.
Click to expand...
 
I actually think that's an invalid way to evaluate things, as it isn't consistent between tiers.

Here's that same method applied to City Block tier:

The tier starts at 11 tons and the limit is 100 tons. 100 + 11 = 111/2 = 55.5.

27.75 is 1/4, 55.5 is 2/4, and 83.25 is 3/4 of the tier. 83.25 Tons is 1.201201201x below 100 Tons.

This may not seem like a large difference, but it shows some variance between tiers.

For tiers where the lower-end is a rounding error, like Solar System level, it approaches 1.33x.

For the smallest tiers on the site, like Human level, this process actually goes over the border into the next tier:

The tier starts at 40 joules and the limit is 100 joules. 100 + 40 = 140/2 = 70.

35 is 1/4, 70 is 2/4, and 105 is 3/4 of the tier. 105 joules is above 100 joules.

Even if you do the maths differently, in a way where it can't go over the boundary to the next tier, the required multiplier still varies between 1.1765x and 1.33x, which seems off to me.
 
It'll vary because the Tiers vary. Not all of them starts with 100 and ends with 1000. My suggestion is about using 3/4 of the Tier, not 1.21212121212x from the Mountain level.

The Human level Tier fails because of the Tier itself, not the method. The method consist in using the + sign (wich is arbitrary). But you can use 3/4 of the Tier, without using the +. 3/4 of 1000 of the Mountain Tier is 750, it'd result in 1.33 times. The Human Tier would be 75 Joules. Again, it vary because the Tiers vary.

I suggested using based on the + sign, because it's something accepted, and it wouldn't be arbitrary. You can use the max of the Tier, but it'd be arbitrary.

But anyway, I'm in favor of using a mathematical solution with the use of Tiers.
 
I think that M3X's solution seems to make sense.
 
I think that I'm still fine with what DDM has suggested.
 
What do the rest of you think?
 
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
19
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
SJG13673
A point of tier upscaling for each tier?
Replies
4
Views
494
SJG13673
SJG13673
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Sdjlakjh
  • Locked
Revising the leading question rule
Replies
31
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top