Revising the Varies tier

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM sama. Thank you for helping out.

 

[The_Smashor]

Well yeah, mostly. The regulation is because not all varies tiers actually go through all in-between tiers.

Then they probably shouldn't have Varies? They should probably have the 2 or 3 tiers that apply to them as Likely and Possibly?

 

[Bobsican]

TBH it would be best to make two different sorts of tiers...
One for when a character ranges specifically as either X tier or Y tier, and another for a character whose statistics can be anywhere from X tier to Y tier, without being restricted specifically to either the minimal or its limit.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Then they probably shouldn't have Varies? They should probably have the 2 or 3 tiers that apply to them as Likely and Possibly?

The problem is that you can't assume the varies tier is lineary in how it varies. You could absolutely have a Bruce banner whose hulk who has feats for tier 9, 8, then 6 and 5 at different levels of anger. You can't know if there is a level of anger where he'd be 7-C, or B or A in there.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH it would be best to make two different sorts of tiers...
One for when a character ranges specifically as either X tier or Y tier, and another for a character whose statistics can be anywhere from X tier to Y tier, without being restricted specifically to either the minimal or its limit.

For the above, the latter would just be kept for cases where this is explicit, rather than just the character in question having feats all over the place, like how Ditto's stats change directly depending on the opponent in question and what it remembers, unlike Spongebob and just having a ton of feats that are either 10-C or another specific tier.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you remind us what we need to do here and the conclusions so far please?

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with this. "Varies", in a lot of cases, is different than "at least" or "at most". A character can vary between two tiers depending on some context, conditions or circumstances, both tiers being equally valid in those cases, and it does not mean the character can be any tier between those tiers (which is something like changing your power level at will, in which case we use the highest rating). "At least/most" is used when we are not sure about the character's rating.

After skimming a bit, this seems to make sense to me.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you want us to do here exactly?

 

[Bobsican]

Well, it seems there's still no proper conclusion from a glance.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought that we more or less ended up with Bambu's and AKM's solution.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH it would be best to make two different sorts of tiers...
One for when a character ranges specifically as either X tier or Y tier, and another for a character whose statistics can be anywhere from X tier to Y tier, without being restricted specifically to either the minimal or its limit.

I also brought this alternative and it seems there's no opposition nor support for it, and I think it would be considerable for some input at least.
This would be more of a secondary thing as the generally agreed on stuff from AKM Sama wouldn't change beyond this kind of cases being organized better.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What do the rest of you think?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I saw a few people arguing against this because it would allow people to become stronger than comparable opponents. Is Goku not allowed to increase his power level mid-battle?

 

[Antvasima]

That is a good point. I also think that giving combattants any power level between two tiers seems inappropriate.

 

[Bobsican]

Thing is some characters are clearly not intended to have a static power level that can only be X (minimal) and Y (most), take in case Ditto, its whole characteristic is that it just copies the one of an opponent, and so it'll vary inherently, with only a minimal being presumably the base form, and at most another tier for the sake of NLFs, but we can't assume that Ditto can transform into something and amplify to such limit when it's still bound to the same form's capabilities and there's no feats for that.
Similarly, indexing characters whose power isn't bound in this manner is inappropiate and far from accurate, as we're assuming out of nowhere that these cases are always bound to either a minimal or a limit with no constant in-between.

Versus threads also aren't a big issue, we already restrict characters jumping from a tier to another by in-character stat amps of other forms bound to another key, so this wouldn't be different.

Now if the concern is that this can be misused to lazily give a character a rating without checking for outliers or the likes, then that's a valid concern, and am open for suggestions, or a decline if this appears too problematic and so we just stick with the compromise the current use of "Varies" is.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

The things is that "outlier" is used way too loosely in the VS Debating community and not everyone agrees with what's considered outliers. We have to determine a reliable standard as to judging a character's limits and when those limits are broken by the narrative, as isn't this what an outlier is supposed to be? To claim any instance of irregularity is an outlier could downgrade a lot of verses because there's "only 1 or 2 feats supporting the tier, otherwise they've been portrayed lower" is an argument that technically holds true for a lot of verses.

Ideally there could be discussions on whether a certain tier is consistent enough or not and if it's/they're an outlier within the narrative.