Significance of history and destructive potential in a certain level of forces

[NikHelton]

There's a lot to look over here.

Focusing on the Lifting Strength topic; I do agree that has gotten a bit out of hand. A character might have no feats of actually lifting anything heavy but because they jumped at Relativistic velocities while having the mass of an ordinary person, they may end up with a lifting strength value of being able to lift up a small moon.

What do you think about the rest?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm not even sure what's supposed to be evaluated here... Like, this all just kinda seems like a nothing burger in one way or another. All of these are sorta already covered in one way or another.

Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity + Feats like Earthquakes and Cloud Formation/Splitting

What you're saying about the whole Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity thing just doesn't make sense to me. We already give scrutiny to such statements, otherwise so many characters would be High 6-A or 5-B from some "destroying the world" statements. Tomura Shigaraki, for instance, would be given such a tier from this statement. But we don't, because looking at the context, this is something that would result from his widespread Decay Quirk. Then, you bring up the likes of earthquake feats and cloud feats, saying they should be abilities rather than scaling to AP, like below:

If the destructive potential shows the power of a character through the scale of destruction or the level of phenomena necessary for them, then the attacking potential is a broader concept that covers any manifestations of the character's interaction with surrounding people or the environment, whether it is the creation of an earthquake, storm, freezing of something or many other options.

However, it seems to me that most of these feats relate more to abilities and hacks, rather than being a means of manifesting AP. I think these are great supporting feats that can help with scaling when there are similar DP calculations, even with lower values, but coming in the same tier.

I have a strong disagreement with this approach. We're basically eliminating completely viable forms of calculating feats just because... they result in numbers the author allegedly didn't intend for. And giving them random abilities at that. No, we're not going to assume authorial intent. Never have, never will. It's a completely arbitrary thing to judge feats by, because literally anything could be argued to be "authorial intent." I could say, for instance, that we should scale Lucifero to 5-B because he has multiple world-ending statements - clearly showing the mangaka's intention of making him a planetary level threat - but naturally that would go entirely against what you're proposing.

And since you brought up Demon Slayer, I'd like to emphasize that the 8-B+ feat the god tiers scaled to wouldn't have been inconsistent or anything if it was accepted. The next highest feat is an 8-C feat from a Lower Moon. An 8-B+ Upper Moon feat is 100% consistent. It was only removed because there was no Universal Energy System for it to scale to physicals.

Multipliers

Gonna be honest, this really doesn't amount to much. We already don't allow multipliers that are inconsistent with the work, so you're not proposing anything new here. And then the rest of this - such as mentioning Black Clover - is just a complete non-argument. It's just personal disbelief, and that's not a good reason for dismissing stated multipliers. The High 6-A calc scales to characters that are nowadays very low-tier in the grand scheme of things. If we have stated multipliers that go along with the power progression of the verse, we're not gonna axe them just because it doesn't "look right."

Lifting Strength

This is just more of the same. If a feat is inconsistent with others within the work (like a Class P character struggling to do a Class G feat, in which case we axe the Class P feat unless there's some explanation for this like the character being heavily weakened). This is just like the multipliers section, and again, if there is no such inconsistency, the only "problem" this leaves is the value being... "too big."

In which case, I feel I have to ask: What exactly is the problem? A lower value isn't inherently better, yet I've started to notice a sentiment floating around that a lower value actually is inherently better, without much reason given. It always comes from a position of personal disbelief, and that's not a valid reason to discard a valid calculation method. The likes of jumping at a certain speed, for example, does require a certain amount of force to be exerted - and the only argument against this is "it makes the result too big." That's not a good look.

Power Fitting into the Story

Again, this is nothing new. We always evaluate cases like these, where proposed power levels are inconsistent with what's shown in the story. This is literally why outliers exist. If anything, I feel we've historically been too liberal with handing out the term "outlier" to any remotely impressive feat (5-C Roshi being an outlier, anyone?). If an example you're thinking of got by, chances are there was a reason for that.

Yeah so overall, from my perspective, this thread's comprised of things we already do and things I fundamentally disagree with.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Completely agree on this point. The multiplier should definitely be reviewed and in the case of Black Clover, Ichika and Asta are Low 5-B so Asta can just solo Lucius currently without any problem and Ichika should be able to beat up all the paladins single-handedly, no one could hurt her.

As for this, BC's stats are outdated since we're waiting for more stuff from this final arc. The Paladins should be 5-C for hurting Black Musha Ichika, and once Lucius shows feats involving tanking Zetten attacks or the like, he'll be updated accordingly.

I don't want to make this about BC tho so I'll leave it at this

 

[NikHelton]

What you're saying about the whole Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity thing just doesn't make sense to me. We already give scrutiny to such statements, otherwise so many characters would be High 6-A or 5-B from some "destroying the world" statements. Tomura Shigaraki, for instance, would be given such a tier from this statement. But we don't, because looking at the context, this is something that would result from his widespread Decay Quirk.

We also have Record of Ragnarok where we have several world destruction claims and the highest score is 7-B. One of the latest techniques that showed a result of 8-B/8-A is generally considered prohibited and overly destructive.

Then, you bring up the likes of earthquake feats and cloud feats, saying they should be abilities rather than scaling to AP, like below:

My main argument is that in order to use these feats, characters must have DP feats at least roughly close to this.
Because otherwise we would have poems where characters create 9-A destruction through their most powerful attacks, but scale up to 7-C through an earthquake feat

I have a strong disagreement with this approach. We're basically eliminating completely viable forms of calculating feats just because... they result in numbers the author allegedly didn't intend for. And giving them random abilities at that. No, we're not going to assume authorial intent. Never have, never will. It's a completely arbitrary thing to judge feats by, because literally anything could be argued to be "authorial intent." I could say, for instance, that we should scale Lucifero to 5-B because he has multiple world-ending statements - clearly showing the mangaka's intention of making him a planetary level threat - but naturally that would go entirely against what you're proposing.

Перевод текста с помощью камеры
I think you didn't understand me.

We have to rely on the context of the manga and what the characters have shown. Calculations of earthquakes, KE, storms provide only potential energy to perform these feats, but most often we do not even see a demonstration of such DP.

Moreover, the example with the quote is a little strange, when I have already expressed distrust of them above.

We can't get into the author's head, but we can see what he shows us directly in the course of the story and what resolutions are demonstrated. It seems to me that we can easily distinguish a “city killer” from a character who seems like that because he strongly shook up a neighborhood or created a cloud

Multipliers

Gonna be honest, this really doesn't amount to much. We already don't allow multipliers that are inconsistent with the work, so you're not proposing anything new here. And then the rest of this - such as mentioning Black Clover - is just a complete non-argument. It's just personal disbelief, and that's not a good reason for dismissing stated multipliers. The High 6-A calc scales to characters that are nowadays very low-tier in the grand scheme of things. If we have stated multipliers that go along with the power progression of the verse, we're not gonna axe them just because it doesn't "look right."

Okay, I'll take that on board. But the very problem that some poems are built purely on factors still exists

Lifting Strength

This is just more of the same. If a feat is inconsistent with others within the work (like a Class P character struggling to do a Class G feat, in which case we axe the Class P feat unless there's some explanation for this like the character being heavily weakened). This is just like the multipliers section, and again, if there is no such inconsistency, the only "problem" this leaves is the value being... "too big."

In which case, I feel I have to ask: What exactly is the problem? A lower value isn't inherently better, yet I've started to notice a sentiment floating around that a lower value actually is inherently better, without much reason given. It always comes from a position of personal disbelief, and that's not a valid reason to discard a valid calculation method. The likes of jumping at a certain speed, for example, does require a certain amount of force to be exerted - and the only argument against this is "it makes the result too big." That's not a good look.

First of all, the results must be safe, because we try to be objective in evaluating profiles.

Therefore, the low ends of calculations are most often accepted when we have no reason to choose the high end

 

[CloverDragon03]

We also have Record of Ragnarok where we have several world destruction claims and the highest score is 7-B. One of the latest techniques that showed a result of 8-B/8-A is generally considered prohibited and overly destructive.

I don't know Record of Ragnarok, so I can't say one way or another on this - hence why I only used verses I actually know

My main argument is that in order to use these feats, characters must have DP feats at least roughly close to this.
Because otherwise we would have poems where characters create 9-A destruction through their most powerful attacks, but scale up to 7-C through an earthquake feat

No, we're not gonna just randomly apply extra rules to these kinds of feats just because they produce big number results. We look at these the same way we look at any other feat: Is it consistent with the series? If so, no problem. If not, axe the feat. You're proposing something we already do and singling out these kinds of feats just because of the results they produce, which I wouldn't exactly consider fair.

For example, if a verse had High 6-C top tiers, with the god tiers being considerably above that level, I don't have a problem with using a 6-A storm calc for said god tiers.

I think you didn't understand me.

We have to rely on the context of the manga and what the characters have shown. Calculations of earthquakes, KE, storms provide only potential energy to perform these feats, but most often we do not even see a demonstration of such DP.

Moreover, the example with the quote is a little strange, when I have already expressed distrust of them above.

We can't get into the author's head, but we can see what he shows us directly in the course of the story and what resolutions are demonstrated. It seems to me that we can easily distinguish a “city killer” from a character who seems like that because he strongly shook up a neighborhood or created a cloud

I know exactly what you're saying, and it pretty much involves creating arbitrary extra requirements for using these kinds of feats because they dared to give a bigger result. My example was used to show that trying to use "authorial intent" can easily backfire - creating something you clearly don't agree with, but potentially viable because "authorial intent." Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also no, we can't "easily distinguish" like you're saying. Say under a Universal Energy System, a character creates a storm - a standard 7-B feat. But according to you, such a character isn't actually a city buster. Why is that? The answer turns into something like "because it doesn't look that way" or "because I don't think the author intended that." Regardless of what it is, it's not solid enough to be an actual argument. It's just personal belief. And I'm not going to agree with something that just comes from personal belief.

Okay, I'll take that on board. But the very problem that some poems are built purely on factors still exists

It depends. I haven't really seen a case like this myself, but I could be wrong

First of all, the results must be safe, because we try to be objective in evaluating profiles.

Therefore, the low ends of calculations are most often accepted when we have no reason to choose the high end

Why is the lower result automatically the "objective" one? And this goes beyond a low-end and a high-end of a calc. You're suggesting we remove entirely valid methods of calculating strength just because they produce "results that are too high." Like, I'd say that's a form of lowballing that's actually very anti-accuracy.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I basically agree with a lot of things CloverDragon has said.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Force multipliers. How reliable is this shit anyway?

Sometimes, to indicate the superiority or growth of a character, the author often resorts to statements based on power multipliers.

"He's twice as fast!"
"He's 10 times stronger than me."

I'm not against using multipliers, but they should also be logically sound.

In Kengan, we have a moment when, receiving a blow from Wakatsuki, Ohma admits that he is outnumbered 5 times. We also see an x3 multiplier for kicks for Wakatsuki. Ohma successfully survives these attacks, albeit with serious damage, although the attack exceeds its strength by 15 times, but does not cause anything more than bruises and cracks in bones. Does it make sense? Hardly.
In the same Kengan, there is a scene where Raian was beaten by Edward using x3.33 and no one could even damage him, but at the end of the fight he breaks through the enemy into pieces, even if he was completely weakened. He does this while in his basic form, which also doesn't make sense.

The biggest madness of multipliers for me is the Black Clover verse. I will say right away that I am not familiar with the work and only observe that we have in mind High 6-A and a bunch of multipliers that raise the verse to Low 5-B (!!!). It looks like pure madness considering the number of multipliers.
Multipliers work with a small number of them, but when the entire power level of a verse is based on 1 feat and a dozen of its multipliers, it looks far-fetched.

I think for the full use of multipliers, we should see supporting feats, which do not even have to confirm the multiplier figure exactly, but only show clear superiority.

We already do this... If you see a verse with questionable multiplier use, you can make a thread to check it out. Currently though, we require evidence of a multiplier being valid and the higher the multiplier, the more evidence is required, which includes evidence that it's not inconsistent with in verse showings. If you can prove a multiplier is problematic in a verse and doesn't fit the narrative, you can discuss it on a CRT and get it removed so what your bringing up isn't anything new.

Lifting power. How did "I can lift the car" turn into "I left a dent in the steel door and now I have a Class M"?

I understand that strength can be measured both in how heavy an object you lift and in how fast you throw it. However, this has gone too far now.

I will cite the same Kengan, Grappler Baki and Chainsaw Man as an example, because these are works that I am well versed in.

The first two tell the story of ordinary people who became superhumans through training and comprehension of martial arts. Yes, we have exploits where they break down walls and do other crazy AP things. However, they have never shown that they have the ability to lift tens of thousands of tons, as calculations for crushing stone, steel or wood suggest.
Throughout the story, the characters can show that they throw people like rag dolls, flip trucks, lift cars and hold helicopters, but all this does not go beyond the boundaries of Class 100. At best, it reaches values of 70 tons for the highest LS feats.
We also have a lot of claims that the strength records of the characters are 500 kg.
In Kengan, a character with one of the most outstanding powers has trouble lifting a 20 kg sword because his center of gravity is located at the very end of the blade. Hayami also threatens to blow up the building, saying that everyone will die, which implies that the characters will not be able to rise from the rubble of the arena.
The characters also look tense as they perform their much weaker feats.

Because of this, Class M calculations, which find the force of a push, jump or hand pressure, giving results 1000 times higher than what the strongest representatives of the universe show, seem to be an outlier.

This is also something we already do. I can't speak on the calculation methods to get such values as that's not my expertise, but if the results of a calculation reach levels far beyond stated values and consist lesser showings then it's an Outlier unless something supports this, but if the characters are narratively shown and stated to be much weaker than the calculated value, we'd call it an Outlier. So if you see a verse with this issue, you can make a revision thread for that verse and have the calculation removed. Again, I can't speak for calc members and their methods but if it reaches unrealistic levels regardless of if the feat is valid, it can be deemed an Outlier. You just need to make a thread about the verse in question.

Power levels and does it fit with the story?​

Against the background of all this discussion, I have a question - how well the calculated levels of forces fit into the framework of the story and the logic of the narrative.

Using the example of scaling the same Kengan and Baki, we see that the entire verse is within the framework of 7-C, which makes them more dangerous than nuclear bombs, but in the course of history this applies only to the 2 strongest characters of these verses, against which the rest simply fade.

We have many situations where characters have calculations of High 7-A, and then the author seriously opposes the character's strength to a nuclear bomb and considers it a threat.
Or a situation where a High 6-A character is wholeheartedly surprised that his opponent can destroy a mountain.

This is also perfectly evident in the scaling example of Ultron, which, until one of its last editions, scaled as Low 4-C, which made absolutely meaningless its "High 6-A with preparation" key when it intended to destroy the surface of the earth with a sophisticated plan.

This can also be illustrated by the Beelzebub universe, where half of the verse is High 6-C, while the main villain's attack was supposed to destroy everything within a 10 km radius and kill all the characters, and other characters scaling to High 6-C did not show anything above 8-B.

First of all, we must not forget that we are dealing with the characters of the stories in which all the exploits and events take place. The authors may make mistakes such as punching with ordinary bullets and something of this category, but the narrative also imposes its own limits. Therefore, if in the course of the narrative we are told that the characters are in the 9th tier, and the manifestations of the destruction of the 7th tier seem to be a disaster and certain death for all of them, then the 7th tier obtained for them through calculations simply does not make sense.

Yes, and we already have standards in place regarding narrative issues like this. If the characters are consistently shown in a specific framework/tier narratively and are threatened by attacks with specific values that are below calculated values then those high values can be removed. For example, if a verse has characters with consistent 9-B showings but one ends up causing an earthquake that results in 8-B and scales to everyone but then said characters are threatened in verse by grenades, rocket launchers or heavy firearms then the 8-B feat is getting pushed aside as it doesn't fit the consistent narrative.

The issue is verses have various reasons for scaling, writers might be unaware of how powerful a feat is and while it's higher than they predicted, it doesn't change the number being correct. Destructive Capacity/Attack Potency can play parts in this as well but that depends on the verse but I don't follow the verses you mentioned, but if you can prove those verses have Tiers that are inconsistent with the narrative/framework of their setting you are more than welcome to make a thread or discuss it with users knowledgeable on the verse and ask for the reasoning behind the scaling.

Anyway, I don't have time to go over your thread on it's entirety, I'm just commenting on stuff I can respond quickly too. Overall though, most of what you brought up is stuff you'll have to take up with supporters of the specific verses you've mentioned because we already have standards in place, it's just some verses are either outdated, have specific reasoning or are just incorrect but I can't speak for them. All I can say is, the stuff I responded to is something that should be taken up with verse supports of the specific verses.

 

[NikHelton]

We already do this... If you see a verse with questionable multiplier use, you can make a thread to check it out. Currently though, we require evidence of a multiplier being valid and the higher the multiplier, the more evidence is required, which includes evidence that it's not inconsistent with in verse showings. If you can prove a multiplier is problematic in a verse and doesn't fit the narrative, you can discuss it on a CRT and get it removed so what your bringing up isn't anything new.

Black Clover, Hakuto No Ken.
Kengan was close to this, but the participants simply did not have time to promote this topic.

I'm not against multipliers, but we have to have something that maintains the finite level.
It turns out that BC has 5-C calculations, but without them it looks strange.
The level in HNK is generally based on the quote that the character is more dangerous than the apocalypse and subsequent multipliers.

This is also something we already do. I can't speak on the calculation methods to get such values as that's not my expertise, but if the results of a calculation reach levels far beyond stated values and consist lesser showings then it's an Outlier unless something supports this, but if the characters are narratively shown and stated to be much weaker than the calculated value, we'd call it an Outlier. So if you see a verse with this issue, you can make a revision thread for that verse and have the calculation removed. Again, I can't speak for calc members and their methods but if it reaches unrealistic levels regardless of if the feat is valid, it can be deemed an Outlier. You just need to make a thread about the verse in question.

It seems to me that instead of revising a verse every time, we should generally question the squeezing, throwing and jumping method of finding LS.
We can use these feats as support, but don't build character strength on them alone

Yes, and we already have standards in place regarding narrative issues like this. If the characters are consistently shown in a specific framework/tier narratively and are threatened by attacks with specific values that are below calculated values then those high values can be removed. For example, if a verse has characters with consistent 9-B showings but one ends up causing an earthquake that results in 8-B and scales to everyone but then said characters are threatened in verse by grenades, rocket launchers or heavy firearms then the 8-B feat is getting pushed aside as it doesn't fit the consistent narrative.

The issue is verses have various reasons for scaling, writers might be unaware of how powerful a feat is and while it's higher than they predicted, it doesn't change the number being correct. Destructive Capacity/Attack Potency can play parts in this as well but that depends on the verse but I don't follow the verses you mentioned, but if you can prove those verses have Tiers that are inconsistent with the narrative/framework of their setting you are more than welcome to make a thread or discuss it with users knowledgeable on the verse and ask for the reasoning behind the scaling.

Oh man, Bakiverse has been reviewed over 5 times in my presence.

We have one dubious feat 7-C that has been rejected and accepted numerous times and the rest of the feats 9-B/9-A.

However, this does not prevent the verse from being 7-C

Anyway, I don't have time to go over your thread on it's entirety, I'm just commenting on stuff I can respond quickly too. Overall though, most of what you brought up is stuff you'll have to take up with supporters of the specific verses you've mentioned because we already have standards in place, it's just some verses are either outdated, have specific reasoning or are just incorrect but I can't speak for them. All I can say is, the stuff I responded to is something that should be taken up with verse supports of the specific verses.

Thank you for your participation

 

[NikHelton]

I was probably misunderstood or couldn't get my point across correctly.

I am not against multipliers, calculations of natural phenomena as such. However, I believe these are secondary proofs of power, unlike DP and narrative.

Multipliers up to the Low 5-B level make sense if we have disruptions at the 5-C level and scaling above that.
However, when the highest DP score is 6-B, and then we have only weather exploits, KE and multipliers based on this, then the result looks bloated.

If a character has shown destruction at level 7-B and has a natural feat at level 7-A, then this does not look like a problem, because it fits into the context of the story.

However, when characters are limited to destruction at level 9-A and, for the sake of the plot, suffer from level 9-C attacks, then even with the 7-C feat with an earthquake or cloud creation, they will not become a town level.

What exactly can we call an outlier?
Characters throughout the story can push concrete, which will give Class M, jump on buildings with insane speed and throw things very quickly, however, the feats of lifting weights for the strongest characters can remain within the Class 25 limit. Is this considered an outlier? After all, we have 10 Class M feats in one verse and it looks common. From the point of view of calculations, this is not an outlier, from the point of view of the narrative it is nonsense and overblown.

The same goes for feats of clouds, KE and earthquakes. Animators can make a massive object very fast and through this we will get an incredibly huge KE, but the attack will be stopped and we will never see DP. Characters can systematically hit so hard that people will think there was an earthquake or scatter clouds. However, their DP feats can continue to be 8s, and a grenade explosion, bullet, or missile can damage them. Again, in the context of calculations, this is not an outlier, but it contradicts history.

Alex Mercer is stronger than Green, who caused the earthquakes, but dies from a shock wave that ranges from High 8-C to 8-B. He's not a city killer.

Characters who cannot break a tree with a hail of blows, a character who can be cut by a bottle or who gets light, but wounds from a shotgun cannot be 7-C.

I like the variety of calculations on this site, however, I believe that the calculations should correlate with the demonstrated exploits of DP and the direct statements of the authors. Not something indirect like "He can destroy the world," but something like "He destroyed Mount Fuji with one blow."

The policy of the levels of forces is now extremely soft and condescending. I believe that such feats should be discussed much more strictly, and the supporters of the verse should be impartial, because we must understand that everyone wants to see their favorite poems the most powerful, so many support any level increase without objection.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This is still repeating stuff I've already talked about - either stuff we already do, or stuff that's an unnecessary level of strict. Arbitrarily limiting or even removing certain calculation methods just because they produce "too high results" is, contrary to what one might believe, not good practice.

If it's not consistent with the work itself, then we also have Outliers and Inconsistencies for that very purpose. We already handle such cases.

I think the only thing new is the whole "Alex Mercer is stronger than Green, who caused the earthquakes, but dies from a shock wave that ranges from High 8-C to 8-B. He's not a city killer" part. This is kinda reductive, because by this logic, we'd need to calculate every single thing like this in the series and we'd end up with 90% of verses capping at Tier 8.

Say a character scales to a Tier 7 calc that's consistent with the verse, but they're hurt by a character who's stated to be equal to them. One such attack they get hurt by is a blast from them that creates an explosion, which can be calculated to be Tier 8. Does this mean we should downgrade the verse to Tier 8? Absolutely not. We'd have this attack at Tier 7 via scaling. Trying to calculate every little thing like that is not a metric by which we should actually judge verses, otherwise most cosmic tier verses wouldn't exist because "they're not destroying planets/stars/galaxies/universes with every single attack." That's a classic matter of Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity - a distinction we've made for the longest time.

 

[Damage3245]

@NikHelton Is there any additions or changes to our policies that you would make specifically? Can you write out how they would look to you?

 

[NikHelton]

@NikHelton Is there any additions or changes to our policies that you would make specifically? Can you write out how they would look to you?

In short, I think that LS feats based on jumping, squeezing, etc., as well as earthquake feats, KE, and multipliers should be a secondary scaling factor.

Level of verse strength should not be built solely on KE and earthquake feats. In order for these feats to be used to increase the verse, we must have at least distantly close DP feats, direct statements from the author, as well as scaling chains.

As a compromise, we can use "possibly" for such things if we do not have the main feats of this level.

In the case of LS, we should either use only weight-related feats like pushing or lifting. Or break LS into several points, where the grip strength will be separately highlighted, etc.

 

[CloverDragon03]

With all these laid out, I can safely say I disagree with that completely. It's pretty much arbitrarily axing and/or limiting calculation methods for no reason other than resulting in a value higher than what one may like. And if the problem is the matter of inconsistency, we already have rules in place for that.

 

[NikHelton]

What do others think about this?

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

This is a staff thread to which I don't really have authorization to comment other than the thread starter telling me to comment, as such I will only be sharing my opinion on this comment and I'm not gonna answer anyone regardless.

I agree with some of the stuff presented in this thread, more specifically the part where this wiki give calculations way too much credit compared to statements. And this can go both ways giving a much higher or lower tier they should be. I don't want to turn this into a "verse specifics" so I'm not giving specific verse examples.

• Authors are hardly knowledgable of scientific formulas and stuff, and they are very unlikely to actually think about what each feat actually means, as such calculations that are very specific such as storms, earthquake some kinetic and gravity calculations may cause a verse to be upgraded or downgraded compared to what the author and the narrative requires. Some authors might not even see tthe difference between pulverization and fragmentation, for example vaporization of a building can grant a pretty impressive value but the author might just mean it to be building level and threat it as no different than collapsing a building which might later lead to contradictions.
• Authors also don't go around counting pixels and such to make a character consistent, that can go as bad as causing plot inconsistencies that might be considered anti feat because the authors don't really know or care about the requirements of the wiki, and this works not just for tiers but powers and abilities too.

The point I wanna bring with this is that this wiki sometimes just read too much into a feat by using math instead of making a simpler approach, destroying a building is might just be meant to be taken literal and not a higher or lower value because the calc says so. Some calcs and values are given through math that you need a master's degree to understand, while some authors don't even complete high school.

Force multipliers. How reliable is this shit anyway?​

This point ended up becoming a "black clover dowgrade" instead of actually thinking this as an example, even if the example is wrong the ideia is very valid, some multipliers are accepted way to easy simple because it doesn't actually has an anti feat which because of AP vs DP might never happen despite not making sense. And the requirements for lower multipliers are much more lenient you can end up getting 10 multipliers of 2x which in the end gets a big one.

Lifting power. How did "I can lift the car" turn into "I left a dent in the steel door and now I have a Class M"?​

This is a very good point of what I mean by going too much into math, many verses have this kind of problem because we are not taking lifting as how much one can lift but how much force that character can produce which can lead to very high values because math.

Power levels and does it fit with the story?​

Another very important point, the feats and their level should be relative to the verse, sometimes it might seem like an argument of incredulity but it's more about the intent of the author than a "he can't be tier X because he is weaker than my verse". For example if the story is entirely on a single island that we never see anything else can a character actually be above island? Is it really the intent of the author that this character's power is higher than the background he is in?


Now this are not a points that is mentioned in the OP but I think is relevant here

• The "survived one punch". Characters scaling because they managed to survive a punch from x character with a tier much above what that character shown even when sometimes the author and the whole narrative shows that the character is being stomped and is massively inferior to the other. Because of that a lot of versus have characters scaling with the same value despite being multiple layers of "one shot" between them. There is a lot of times where the resistance is taken to lightly and high tier characters end up scalign with god tiers way too easily, there are many authors who don't kill or avoid having bloody stuff and as such you will see characters being punch and still be "OK", the wiki technically has guidelines for those but like a lot of other stuff it lost it's importancy (like vehicular mastery over having a driving licence)
• Abusive scaling chains. At what point do scaling chains break? Because having like 10 characters scaling chain is abusive and breaks the verse itself where they end up having characters who are on a completely different level scaling to the same values and "it's fine they are downscaling" as I already pointed out the authors won't always show a character's power consistenly to what actually should happen it's obvious that a planet level one shots a island level but the authors won't necessarily show it has the guy vaporizating the other but instead just show or imply a very big gap much higher than a "downscaling" can showcase, as such there should be a limit to what a character can scale and downscale without proper support of feats and statements of "as strong as X"

The truth is that I don't believe this will change anything because to make it better than it is there needs to be a lot of "case by case" and there are a lot of verses that don't have a knowledgeable staff member who can verify if it was made right. Most of the examples that are given in threads such as this one are considerable popular verses and no one talks about the smaller ones, I think the situation could be better if Knowledgeable members had voting rights like staff members within certain limitations of course.

 

[Mikazzzuchi]

Hello everyone!
I have been sitting on this site for many years and vsb has become a place for me where I can have a great discussion with other people and have an interesting time with calculations. I wanted to write this thread a few months ago, but I couldn't get my thoughts together because of its scale and the fact that it affects 90% of the content. However, I'm here and decided to do it. I'm sure there will be those who disagree with my theses or say that this has already happened, but I really would like to do something to improve the wiki system.

We will talk about the NARRATIVE and its influence on the level of verse. And also on the contradiction of many calculations of the history of poetry and the logic of narration. This thread is just a starting point, and therefore, if I have the right number of supporters, then later I will delve into each of the points by creating a new thread for them.


Before answering the points, I would like you to read the entire post in its entirety. It's not about lowering specific verses. They have their own calculations that have already been accepted. We are talking about changing the system of force assessment and a more rigorous approach. Therefore, if you suddenly see that I made a mistake with your favorite verse, I will be glad if you point it out to me, but do not make the discussion of your verse the main topic. I hope for your understanding.


Now I would like to talk about such things as:

1) Tier list. Exploits and statements. Destructive potential and attacking potential. What is more important? The role of earthquake calculations, cloud calculations, and kinetic energy calculations in the force level. Attacking potential or hacks?
2) Force multipliers and when should they really be used?
3) Lifting force. Does any feat of strength really apply to LS?
4) To what extent does the level of forces fit into the narrative of the verse and does not violate the logic of the work?

Tier list. Which is more important - destructive potential or attacking potential?​

In the history of art, the destructive potential of a character plays a huge role in demonstrating the power of a character.

"He's a monster! He punched the asphalt with his bare hands like it was butter or jelly!"
"This guy destroyed a damn mountain with one punch!"
"This guy is going to destroy an entire planet. He is incredibly strong..."

You've probably heard these quotes in various works. The best way to show the strength of a character is a simple visual demonstration through which we, as a viewer, reader or player, can directly observe.
Of course, the authors do not always have enough budget, strength or skills, and we can get an idea of strength through the statements of other characters or the author's comments. However, this is an item that needs to be given sufficient attention.

On the one hand, we have God of War and Devil May Cry, where a whole ent is built on these statements and the authors cannot fully show the scale of the characters' powers through visualization, because this will turn a brutal slasher into a Gurren-Lagann.

On the other hand, we have works like Grappler Baki, where we have a huge amount that the characters surpass all human weapons, can defeat the country, move faster than light. But this is absolutely in contrast to the fact that ordinary bullets are able to pierce the skin of characters and bleed them, so a conventional nuclear missile, if it does not erase the character into dust, then completely burns his skin, leaving him to die. Or it contradicts the moments when the characters do not dodge much slower attacks. It contradicts the moments when the characters explicitly say that they are not sure about their statements regarding power scaling.


Or the author simply does not understand what he is writing. I swear, if you want, I'll ask my friend to find a moment where the magazine says that Yujiro is transcendent about time and space or something like that. What the hell?

If the feats shown are direct evidence, then the statements are more secondary achievements. I'm not saying that we should completely ignore them, but we should take them much more seriously.
A quote "He can destroy our world" can simultaneously be supportive for calculating High 6-A/5-B, and it is vague to talk about the character's ability to do this, because with enough time, even a 7-C character with hypersonic+ speed can destroy the world without the resulting resistance.
"He is more dangerous than any human weapon" can also be successfully suited for the Supersonic+ and 8-B character, who will simply leave the line of fire of any weapon and destroy the enemy's equipment and army with greater success than the 7-C bomb will do.

Anyway, the best evidence of a character's strength is his destructive potential, because this is exactly what the author wanted and was able to show us.

If the destructive potential shows the power of a character through the scale of destruction or the level of phenomena necessary for them, then the attacking potential is a broader concept that covers any manifestations of the character's interaction with surrounding people or the environment, whether it is the creation of an earthquake, storm, freezing of something or many other options.

However, do the authors always think about what real power the character carries through these manifestations?

In his interview, Murata stated that the Evil Eye character has a "multi-buildeng" level and we really saw how this devil threw several buildings at once. However, we have a 7-C hurricane calculation, which goes against what Murata and One intended.

Works such as Kengan and Grappler Baki have a number of earthquake exploits that place the verse at a level from 8-B to 7-C, although all the exploits of the verse do not go beyond 9-B, and the best of them are 9-A/8-C. Moreover, we see that conventional weapons and items can also harm characters. Is this author's stupidity? Of course, the authors of works often overestimate knives and bullets. However, this makes it clear that they clearly do not intend the characters to be like Godzilla, capable of surviving a nuclear bomb.

Speaking of the nuclear bomb. For example, I will also give the characters of Prototype, whose destructive character set is within 8-C, however, we have a potential earthquake feat that puts the verse at 8-A/Low 7-C with a low end and probably higher if higher magnitudes are used. However, at the end of the game we have a scene where the character was torn to pieces by the shock wave of a nuclear explosion, which had a force of 8-B.

More recently, the verse Kimetsu no Yaiba scaled to 8-A through the feat of freezing, while all other feats of the verse were at the strength of 8-C and even the strongest character of the verse did not demonstrate anything close to this.

Of course, these are all specific examples and they are not applicable to all statements, but some demonstrate the very fact of the problem of the difference between DP and AP.
I have seen many other verses where all the exploits did not go beyond the 8th tier, however, we had exploits of freezing, earthquakes and the formation of storms, which put the verses on the 7th and 6th tier.

Personally, I think that such calculations should be supportive, not basic. If a character shows 8-C feats throughout the story, takes damage from verse characters who didn't show anything above 8-C, but demonstrated 7-C ability at some point, it seems questionable to scale it up to that. This should be discussed and either treated as an outlier, or we can use "possibly" if it is so important for us to maintain a high level of verse and the fact of compromise.
This turns the dubious "7-C" into "8-C, possibly 7-C", which makes more sense.

Also, these calculations will be an excellent support for a full-fledged level determination if we have a relaxed or ordinary Low 7-C feat, and the supporting feat is 7-C. Or if there is a High 6-C destruction feat and a 6-B supporting feat. As long as it's in the same tier and doesn't look like an outlier, it makes sense.

Of course, we have many exploits of the storm that are a manifestation of pure physical strength, as in the case of All Might, which hit so hard that a thunderstorm formed.

However, it seems to me that most of these feats relate more to abilities and hacks, rather than being a means of manifesting AP.
I think these are great supporting feats that can help with scaling when there are similar DP calculations, even with lower values, but coming in the same tier.

Force multipliers. How reliable is this shit anyway?​

Sometimes, to indicate the superiority or growth of a character, the author often resorts to statements based on power multipliers.

"He's twice as fast!"
"He's 10 times stronger than me."

I'm not against using multipliers, but they should also be logically sound.

In Kengan, we have a moment when, receiving a blow from Wakatsuki, Ohma admits that he is outnumbered 5 times. We also see an x3 multiplier for kicks for Wakatsuki. Ohma successfully survives these attacks, albeit with serious damage, although the attack exceeds its strength by 15 times, but does not cause anything more than bruises and cracks in bones. Does it make sense? Hardly.
In the same Kengan, there is a scene where Raian was beaten by Edward using x3.33 and no one could even damage him, but at the end of the fight he breaks through the enemy into pieces, even if he was completely weakened. He does this while in his basic form, which also doesn't make sense.

The biggest madness of multipliers for me is the Black Clover verse. I will say right away that I am not familiar with the work and only observe that we have in mind High 6-A and a bunch of multipliers that raise the verse to Low 5-B (!!!). It looks like pure madness considering the number of multipliers.
Multipliers work with a small number of them, but when the entire power level of a verse is based on 1 feat and a dozen of its multipliers, it looks far-fetched.

I think for the full use of multipliers, we should see supporting feats, which do not even have to confirm the multiplier figure exactly, but only show clear superiority.

Lifting power. How did "I can lift the car" turn into "I left a dent in the steel door and now I have a Class M"?​

I understand that strength can be measured both in how heavy an object you lift and in how fast you throw it. However, this has gone too far now.

I will cite the same Kengan, Grappler Baki and Chainsaw Man as an example, because these are works that I am well versed in.

The first two tell the story of ordinary people who became superhumans through training and comprehension of martial arts. Yes, we have exploits where they break down walls and do other crazy AP things. However, they have never shown that they have the ability to lift tens of thousands of tons, as calculations for crushing stone, steel or wood suggest.
Throughout the story, the characters can show that they throw people like rag dolls, flip trucks, lift cars and hold helicopters, but all this does not go beyond the boundaries of Class 100. At best, it reaches values of 70 tons for the highest LS feats.
We also have a lot of claims that the strength records of the characters are 500 kg.
In Kengan, a character with one of the most outstanding powers has trouble lifting a 20 kg sword because his center of gravity is located at the very end of the blade. Hayami also threatens to blow up the building, saying that everyone will die, which implies that the characters will not be able to rise from the rubble of the arena.
The characters also look tense as they perform their much weaker feats.

Because of this, Class M calculations, which find the force of a push, jump or hand pressure, giving results 1000 times higher than what the strongest representatives of the universe show, seem to be an outlier.

Power levels and does it fit with the story?​

Against the background of all this discussion, I have a question - how well the calculated levels of forces fit into the framework of the story and the logic of the narrative.

Using the example of scaling the same Kengan and Baki, we see that the entire verse is within the framework of 7-C, which makes them more dangerous than nuclear bombs, but in the course of history this applies only to the 2 strongest characters of these verses, against which the rest simply fade.

We have many situations where characters have calculations of High 7-A, and then the author seriously opposes the character's strength to a nuclear bomb and considers it a threat.
Or a situation where a High 6-A character is wholeheartedly surprised that his opponent can destroy a mountain.

This is also perfectly evident in the scaling example of Ultron, which, until one of its last editions, scaled as Low 4-C, which made absolutely meaningless its "High 6-A with preparation" key when it intended to destroy the surface of the earth with a sophisticated plan.

This can also be illustrated by the Beelzebub universe, where half of the verse is High 6-C, while the main villain's attack was supposed to destroy everything within a 10 km radius and kill all the characters, and other characters scaling to High 6-C did not show anything above 8-B.

First of all, we must not forget that we are dealing with the characters of the stories in which all the exploits and events take place. The authors may make mistakes such as punching with ordinary bullets and something of this category, but the narrative also imposes its own limits. Therefore, if in the course of the narrative we are told that the characters are in the 9th tier, and the manifestations of the destruction of the 7th tier seem to be a disaster and certain death for all of them, then the 7th tier obtained for them through calculations simply does not make sense.

I want to try and contribute to the development of this thread, so that's why I'm here.

——————

I'll start perhaps with the first of the points. Calculations of attack potential and destructive capacity of characters are very much in touch with the narrative component, in many poems, for example, there are small but wildly dangerous locations (for example – "The Inside" within the Kengan Asura universe), but instead of destroying them because of the great threat - they do nothing, remember the same One-Piece in which the hive-like islands should be destroyed by the same Garp (who is one of the strongest within the universe), but it does not happen.
It's worth reminding that in most cases authors don't take into account calculations as such, if some pixel scaling plays a big role because of proportions (which greatly affects the drawing and is very important for the author), then feats are rather a way to show the pathos/strength of the character without even assuming approximate values, actually, because it's not always necessary (As an example - Tanba, creating a noticeable earthquake up to 60'x floors of the building, but not even able to scratch the wall with this punch). On that basis I fully agree with the position that such feats should be auxiliary or, in the case of the sequence of the verse (such as a big pile of 8-B feats and one 8-A or low 7-C feat) in the strength of the characters.

Statements are also not always taken seriously by authors, as nike already said we have statements such as:
———
Yujiro's and Musashi's transcendence of time & space.
Baki's transcendence to the concept of speed.
Baki's and Yujiro's light speeds.
———
None of this should be taken seriously when the verse doesn't even come close to showing this level of feats

——————

Let's move on to the second point.
Again, this is directly related to the system of calculations, the numbers given by the authors rather help in intra-verse scaling, a coordinate level change based only on multipliers is illogical when the characters don't even close to show such a level, but simply scaled from a feat of much lower power (the author almost never knows the exact values of speed/strength of his characters, so it depends on the calculation).

——————

I also completely agree with lifting, grip strength, pushing strength, bite strength or even more so calculations based on A.P. feats can in no way be scaled to lifting strength because they are coordinately different forces, just look at the stats on world records in these areas and everything will become clear.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This is still a staff discussion thread, so you need permission from a Thread Mod (for one post), Admin (for three posts) or Bureaucrat (for indefinite posting) to comment on this thread

 

[Antvasima]

Since Clover, Medeus, and Griffin seem to have rejected everything that was suggested here, should we close this thread?

 

[Antvasima]

There's a lot to look over here.

Focusing on the Lifting Strength topic; I do agree that has gotten a bit out of hand. A character might have no feats of actually lifting anything heavy but because they jumped at Relativistic velocities while having the mass of an ordinary person, they may end up with a lifting strength value of being able to lift up a small moon.

However, what about this issue?

 

[CloverDragon03]

However, what about this issue?

This falls into what I've said before. There's no real reason to reject the methodology that isn't arbitrary. Jumping with that level of speed does, in fact, require a certain amount of force to be exerted - which such a calculation would reflect. If there's any actual problems, say mathematically or with the methodology itself, that's perfectly valid. And if it's not consistent with the verse, then we have outliers for that reason. But this, to me, isn't a very legitimate concern. It falls under the argument from incredulity fallacy.

It's a matter where I can understand personal reservations, but in terms of an actual argument, I don't think it really works

 

[NikHelton]

It seemed to me that Medeus' position was more neutral, and Damage showed agreement.

Could we hear from other people too?
I'm interested in what Therefier, Jasonsith and Ugarik will say

 

[CloverDragon03]

It seemed to me that Medeus' position was more neutral, and Damage showed agreement.

Damage agreed with one part, and Medeus pretty much agreed with me. What about that was neutral?

 

[NikHelton]

He also supported the dubiousness of the current LS calculations.

Please ask Damage for his opinion on the entire thread.

Could you also call the other participants again?

 

[Damage3245]

The main problem is that much of what is covered in the thread is already reasonably covered by our policies. You did a good job summarizing your issues earlier when I asked about what specific changes to the policies you'd make, but I don't think you've actually written out how the rule/policy would look like that you'd add to the page.

How would it formally be written out?

 

[NikHelton]

The main problem is that much of what is covered in the thread is already reasonably covered by our policies. You did a good job summarizing your issues earlier when I asked about what specific changes to the policies you'd make, but I don't think you've actually written out how the rule/policy would look like that you'd add to the page.

How would it formally be written out?

Calculations of KE, earthquake, LS through jumps and pressure are allowed with DP or LS feats of the same level or level close to this, direct and reliable statements by the author and a clear demonstration of scaling. Even with a large number of earthquake and KE feats, without having confirmation from the narrative or similar DP feats, the most we can use is "possibly"

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ugarik @Therefir @Jasonsith

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ugarik @Therefir @Jasonsith

What do you think about this?

There seem to be two kinds of complaints in the OP.

One that go in the direction of using feats against perceived author intent and the other about actual issues in evaluating the physics of feats.
We generally only have very little consideration for author intent. Generally, what actually happens overrules. It really is only relevant for the interpretation of statements. There's the outlier policy for the worst cases, but generally if the author made the character more impressive than intended we aren't going to downgrade them for that.
Author intent is generally not known anyways and taking precautions for the eventuality that the author didn't intend what they wrote makes no sense.

Meanwhile, I have the impression that any physics-related problems are already handled in a reasonable way by our existing rules.

Personally, I see no need to change any policies right now.

 

[Ugarik]

About lifting strength. I suggest we add a new rule. Something along the lines "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds"

Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth. This will also copletely separate consepts of lifting and striking strengths.

 

[Damage3245]

About lifting strength. I suggest we add a new rule. Something along the lines "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds"

Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth. This will also copletely separate consepts of lifting and striking strengths.

This seems like a good solution to me for the issues I have with our current Lifting Strength policies.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't really see why are LS standards need changing on the first place...

I think DontTalk summed it up best. Everything's fine as is

 

[Mr. Bambu]

About lifting strength. I suggest we add a new rule. Something along the lines "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds"

Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth. This will also copletely separate consepts of lifting and striking strengths.

I also think this is a great suggestion. We do have a lot of very weird LS feats floating around.

 

[NikHelton]

About lifting strength. I suggest we add a new rule. Something along the lines "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds"

Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth. This will also copletely separate consepts of lifting and striking strengths.

This seems like a good solution to me for the issues I have with our current Lifting Strength policies.

Would we classify grip strength as LS?

What do you also think about the AP part and the topic involving KE and earthquakes?

 

[CloverDragon03]

So, some questions regarding this suggested rule:

1. So, the whole "Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth" thing... Isn't that just a matter of stamina? Why would this affect Lifting Strength?
2. I can see this immediately nuking feats involving jumping at a certain speed... But, why? These sorts of feats very much require exerting a certain amount of force that can be calculated, so I don't understand why such feats would just get tossed aside

 

[NikHelton]

So, some questions regarding this suggested rule:

1. So, the whole "Just because a character can launch a football to space or punch a dent in a sheet of metal doesn't mean he can exort this level of force long enough to lift an object with coresponding mass of Earth" thing... Isn't that just a matter of stamina? Why would this affect Lifting Strength?

I don’t quite understand what the stamina is for here.

Punching dents requires force, just like throwing a ball. What is the fundamental difference between giving acceleration to an object and giving acceleration to yourself?

1. I can see this immediately nuking feats involving jumping at a certain speed... But, why? These sorts of feats very much require exerting a certain amount of force that can be calculated, so I don't understand why such feats would just get tossed aside

Because this is a feat of speed first and foremost. This is the same problem as KE.
This gives wildly huge results when it approaches the speed of light.

I understand that in real life AP, LS and Speed are inextricably linked, but in manga we can have a character with AP to the wall, LS Class 1 and Relativistic+ jumping speed

 

[CloverDragon03]

Because this is a feat of speed first and foremost. This is the same problem as KE.
This gives wildly huge results when it approaches the speed of light.

Why is this a problem? "Big number = bad" is not an argument

 

[NikHelton]

Why is this a problem? "Big number = bad" is not an argument

Because the large number must correspond to the history of the piece and the level shown

 

[CloverDragon03]

Because the large number must correspond to the history of the piece and the level shown

If it's inconsistent, we already have standards in place for this, such as the concept of outliers

 

[NikHelton]

If it's inconsistent, we already have standards in place for this, such as the concept of outliers

By your standards, having multiple such feats stops being an outlier, although characters can show a thousand times weaker peak DP and take damage from weaker attacks

 

[CloverDragon03]

By your standards, having multiple such feats stops being an outlier, although characters can show a thousand times weaker peak DP and take damage from weaker attacks

Yes, having multiple such feats would make it not an outlier. That's a good thing. What you're proposing requires a severe upending of our standards on Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity

 

[Testarossa002]

By your standards, having multiple such feats stops being an outlier,

Yes

although characters can show a thousand times weaker peak DP

That's the point of AP/DC
The only thing that can constitute an anti feat is if, for example, a 4-C character ACTIVELY tries to destroy a moon and fails. Or a reliable statement capping said character to like tier 6

take damage from weaker attacks

Another point settled by AP/DC
The only situations where they constitute anti feats is if for example, 7-C character gets blown to bits by a WW2 mine
Naruto defeating delta with a rasengan that did like 8-C destruction doesn't mean either of them are 8-C