Revising the Puella Magi Top-Tiers to Unknown

[SomebodyData]

As the title suggests, the thread is just to revert the top-tiers to Unknown.

• The 5-B feat was performed by the Fourth Timeline version of Madoka Kaname's witch form.
• Currently, the wiki is scaling this feat to characters with a rather ridiculous scaling chain behind them, mainly because Madoka becomes exponentially stronger with each timeline, ie:
  • First Timeline Madoka: Low 7-C
  • Second Timeline Madoka: 7-B / 7-B+ (Tier is going to be revised later)
  • Third Timeline Madoka: 6-C
  • Fourth Timeline Madoka: Unknown, Kriemhild Gretchen: 5-B
  • Fifth Timeline Madoka: At least 5-B
  
  This feat is being used to scale to a Madoka whose gone through approximately 100 timeline resets at this point, safe to say she's not in 5-B anymore and just unknown.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Yeah, i think this make sense

 

[Lynieryz]

As the title suggests, the thread is just to revert the top-tiers to Unknown.

• The 5-B feat was performed by the Fourth Timeline version of Madoka Kaname's witch form.
• Currently, the wiki is scaling this feat to characters with a rather ridiculous scaling chain behind them, mainly because Madoka becomes exponentially stronger with each timeline, ie:
  • First Timeline Madoka: Low 7-C
  • Second Timeline Madoka: 7-B / 7-B+ (Tier is going to be revised later)
  • Third Timeline Madoka: 6-C
  • Fourth Timeline Madoka: Unknown, Kriemhild Gretchen: 5-B
  • Fifth Timeline Madoka: At least 5-B
  
  This feat is being used to scale to a Madoka whose gone through approximately 100 timeline resets at this point, safe to say she's not in 5-B anymore and just unknown.

I have a question, is this thread just to add unknown or is it to remove the 5-B and put unknown in its place?

because regardless of Madoka being unknown times above Kriemhild Gretchen, she would still scale above KG which would make the 5-B stay.

(Sorry if there are any mistakes in English, I'm using the translator)

 

[SomebodyData]

To remove 5-B and put Unknown in its place.

I would understand leaving it as At least 5-B if it was, like, fifth timeline KG. However, with exponential growth we know she's just no longer Tier 5-B. It'd be like putting any Unknown Tier character at "at least 10-B" since most scale above regular humans.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Changing it to Unknown is fine i guess.

 

[Lynieryz]

she would still have 5B
because she is above KG.

being several times unknown above her doesn't change that she is above KG, 5B would still be a minimum value of her strength.

being multiple times unknown above KG would just cause the addition of unknown and not the removal of 5B.

 

[SomebodyData]

I could replace 5-B with 10-B and KG with any regular human and that same argument would apply to most unknown tier characters.

The issue is that's an oversimplification. We know that each timeline's growth is exponential. Sure it's an unknown amount, but even ^2 every timeline would be enough to kick her out of tier 5-B.

 

[Lynieryz]

I could replace 5-B with 10-B and KG with any regular human and that same argument would apply to most unknown tier characters.

The issue is that's an oversimplification. We know that each timeline's growth is exponential. Sure it's an unknown amount, but even ^2 every timeline would be enough to kick her out of tier 5-B.

character literally with no feat or scale = character who clearly scales above another, this is false equivalence.

 

[SomebodyData]

If you really want to go technical with this, being at least as strong as the average human is scaling.

 

[Lynieryz]

If you really want to go technical with this, being at least as strong as the average human is scaling.

not for a character who literally has no feats or is not placed above another, he can literally have any value until demonstrated.

 

[SomebodyData]

Unless you're talking about a character whose dimensional existence (ie 3-D, 2-D, etc) is unknown, they all have a bare minimum.

 

[Lynieryz]

is unknown, they all have a bare minimum.

I really didn't understand what you said.

 

[Lynieryz]

Unless you're talking about a character whose dimensional existence (ie 3-D, 2-D, etc) is unknown, they all have a bare minimum.

if you know the dimensionality of the character of course it will have a minimum value this is literally what dimensionality is about, what I said refers to a character that literally has everything unknown ≠ a character that scales above another character that already has one set value.

 

[SomebodyData]

Okay, then let me specify this example, a 3-D unknown character would have the same issue here.

 

[Lynieryz]

Okay, then let me specify this example, a 3-D unknown character would have the same issue here.

What is the problem? average human strength is not even the minimum value of a 3d being.

and there is no comparison between an unknown 3d character and a character that scales above a character that has a set value.

 

[SomebodyData]

Well in that example the minimum would be 10-C, you're right, it's worse for your main argument though.

10-C's minimum is a set value though

 

[Lynieryz]

Well in that example the minimum would be 10-C, you're right, it's worse for your main argument though.

10-C's minimum is a set value though

this literally has no relevance to what I said, it seems you're just ignoring what I've been saying, is very simple: character A scales above character B, character A has no defining value but character B does, Character B <<<< A is that's all, the value of B would be a minimum for A and none of the examples you've given are comparable to that, literally the comparison you're making doesn't make sense.

 

[Lynieryz]

Well in that example the minimum would be 10-C, you're right, it's worse for your main argument though.

10-C's minimum is a set value though

this literally is nitpick of "set value" because in relation to what I said this literally has no relevance.

 

[SomebodyData]

this literally has no relevance to what I said, it seems you're just ignoring what I've been saying, is very simple: character A scales above character B, character A has no defining value but character B does, Character B <<<< A is that's all, the value of B would be a minimum for A and none of the examples you've given are comparable to that, literally the comparison you're making doesn't make sense.

I don't think you understand what my response is if you're just repeating your first post now. To reiterate my opening post, "At least 5-B" suggests that they're still in 5-B, as a minimum. That is not the case here, where we know the multiplier is exponential and has happened over 90 times. Hence, being 5-B is inaccurate and we should just place them at Unknown.

this literally is nitpick of "set value" because in relation to what I said this literally has no relevance.

You nitpicked between 10-C and 10-B in my example just a few posts earlier tho?

 

[Lynieryz]

I don't think you understand what my response is if you're just repeating your first post now. To reiterate my opening post, "At least 5-B" suggests that they're still in 5-B, as a minimum. That is not the case here, where we know the multiplier is exponential and has happened over 90 times.

even if the multiplier had happened more than trillion times it wouldn't change that madoka >>>>>>>>>>KG(5B)

Hence, being 5-B is inaccurate and we should just place them at Unknown.

inaccurate is saying that it's unknown when we have a value that the character scales, actually this is not just being inaccurate, it's a blatant lie.

You nitpicked between 10-C and 10-B in my example just a few posts earlier tho?

true, but unlike you that literally all your posts are nitpick.

 

[SomebodyData]

even if the multiplier had happened more than trillion times it wouldn't change that madoka >>>>>>>>>>KG(5B)

And I'm not denying that. I'm just saying the tier here, as it works, suggests that the character is still tier 5-B as a minimum. Literally from the attack potency page: "Should be used to denote the lower cap of a character, if the exact value is indeterminate."

inaccurate is saying that it's unknown when we have a value that the character scales, actually this is not just being inaccurate, it's a blatant lie.

... It is unknown. We don't know her actual tier. That's not a lie, that's a fact.

true, but unlike you that literally all your posts are nitpick.

You might want to re-read your posts then, since we started talking all you've been saying is about how x technically isn't something off a minor difference or just irrelevant.

 

[Antvasima]

To me this seems fine to apply.

@CrimsonStarFallen @Beast_Zero_Gudako @Kaltias

Would you be willing to help out here please?

 

[SomebodyData]

Will do, thanks for dropping by

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Tell us here when you are done and we should close this thread.