• 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.

Upscaling Guidelines

Lilybitdun

Lilybitdun

She/Her
Messages
2,401
Reaction score
1,413
Permission granted by @Agnaa

The guidelines for upscaling were set in this thread 5 years ago and goes as follows:
It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is close to the next tier. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis.
Click to expand...
Arguments were made for a concrete gap allowed for upscaling but eventually the thread came to the conclusion it was too vague

Despite this, in current day it's generally agreed upon that the unofficial rule is 1.1-1.2x as the gap for upscaling to the next tier/sub-tier (Here and Here)

Hoping to set 1.1-1.2x as the "close" gap needed to upscale, as the vagueness has caused unnecessary confusion for what level of gap qualifies

The exact wording of the rule change will be discussed

Edit:
Qawsedf's rule change wording suggestion:
It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is given the "+" rating for that tier or is otherwise under 1.5x from the next level. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. Additionally, multiple-tier jumps through this method are not allowed, and generally, a gap of over 2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues.
Click to expand...

Agree: Agnaa (1.05-1.5x, Comment, Comment), DarkDragonMedeus (Same as Agnaa 1.05-1.5x, Comment. And 1.1-1.2x, Comment), Dalesean027 (Same as Agnaa 1.05-1.5x, Comment), KLOL506 (1.05-1.1x with the feat being done very casually for the character to upscale, Comment), SomebodyData (1.1-1.2x and acknowledge that it's arbitrary, Comment), Planck69 (1.2x, Comment), Qawsedf234 (1.5x, Comment)
Disagree: Agnaa (On upscaling to + rating as it's value is not listed as clearly and it's precise value is more arbitrary than most tier threshold, Comment), Damage3245 (Thinks it's too arbitrary, Comment), LephyrTheRevanchist (Agrees with Damage, Comment)
Neutral: Agnaa (1.2x or 1.4x, Comment), KLOL506 (Upscaling to + of a tier, Comment)
 
Last edited:
Lilybitdun said:
The exact wording of the rule change will be discussed
Click to expand...
I mean, I guess maybe:
It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is given the "+" rating for that tier or is otherwise under 1.5x from the next level. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. Additionally, multiple-tier jumps through this method are not allowed, and generally, a gap of over 2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues.
Click to expand...
 
I am fine with a maximum gap for upscaling that is anywhere between 1.05x and 1.5x

If the two leading options are "1.2x" or "1.4x" I am neutral on which one is chosen.
 
Agnaa said:
If the two leading options are "1.2x" or "1.4x" I am neutral on which one is chosen.
Click to expand...
The leading options I gave were 1.1x to 1.2x since those are what have been being used at the moment unofficially
 
IMHO, there should be two requirements.

1. 1.05-1.1x is the threshold I am most comfortable on for instant upscaling to the next tier.

2. The feat must be very casual for the character to perform.

As for upscaling to the + threshold of a tier, I am ambivalent.
 
I don't like upscaling to the + rating, since its value isn't listed as clearly, and its precise value is a lot more arbitrary than most of our tier thresholds.

Our wording should also be clear about whether this just applies to AP/Dura, or if it applies to LS and Speed too. I think it should also apply to those.
 
Agnaa said:
Our wording should also be clear about whether this just applies to AP/Dura, or if it applies to LS and Speed too. I think it should also apply to those.
Click to expand...
Qawsedf's suggested wording does just say "statistic" which would include LS & Speed
 
Agnaa said:
Our wording should also be clear about whether this just applies to AP/Dura, or if it applies to LS and Speed too. I think it should also apply to those.
Click to expand...
I have no issues with that.
 
Agnaa said:
It said "tier" a lot which doesn't seem to.
Click to expand...
Do speed and LS not use tiers? I'm not sure whatever term you would use for them instead since it's not like class is used anymore
 
Last edited:
I'd say rating/statistic.
 
For 1.5X to be a safe measure the individual would likely need to easily stomp the one they're upscaling from. 1.1X or lower seems reasonable and conservative if the person is just substantially stronger. Other factors need to be considered as well. This would still be a very case by case thing.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
For 1.5X to be a safe measure the individual would likely need to easily stomp the one they're upscaling from. 1.1X or lower seems reasonable and conservative if the person is just substantially stronger. Other factors need to be considered as well. This would still be a very case by case thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think the conservative 1.05-1.1x being for if it's a lower amount of upscaling makes sense
 
It's been a week so want to call attention to the thread again

What do yall think of RandomHelper's suggestion of the higher end being for higher showings?
Random-Helper323 said:
For 1.5X to be a safe measure the individual would likely need to easily stomp the one they're upscaling from. 1.1X or lower seems reasonable and conservative if the person is just substantially stronger. Other factors need to be considered as well. This would still be a very case by case thing.
Click to expand...
 
Meh, I don't really care either way.

But I wouldn't do "easily stomp" vs "substantially stronger", I'd do "one-shot" vs "easily stomp".
 
I disagree with having a rule for a specific "multiplier" gap to the next tier, and with upscaling to a + tier - mostly due to the arbitrariness of it.
 
Damage3245 said:
I disagree with having a rule for a specific "multiplier" gap to the next tier, and with upscaling to a + tier - mostly due to the arbitrariness of it.
Click to expand...
I agree that ultimately any rule will be vibes based. However, without a rule, we will be subject to hearing complaints of inconsistent upscaling and future threads tackling the issue.

I think adding a rule and acknowledging its arbitrary but done to set a standard is the best way forward. Personally, 1.1-1.2x works best for me to keep the gap as small as possible.
 
Damage3245 said:
I disagree with having a rule for a specific "multiplier" gap to the next tier, and with upscaling to a + tier - mostly due to the arbitrariness of it.
Click to expand...
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Agreed personally
Click to expand...
Since you two disagree with there being a specific gap to upscale, would you want to establish a rule against using this unofficial multiplier gap to upscale or keep it as an unofficial rule?
 
Bump

Here's the current votes from those with staff thread evaluation rights
  • Agree: 5
    • 1.05x: 2 (Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus)
    • 1.1x: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, SomebodyData)
    • 1.2x: 3 (DarkDragonMedeus, SomebodyData, Planck69)
    • 1.5x: 3 (Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234)
  • Disagree: 2
    • Entirety: 2 (Damage3245, LephyrTheRevanchist)
    • Upscaling to + Rating: 1 (Agnaa)
  • Neutral: 1
    • 1.2x or 1.4x: 1 (Agnaa)
Still hoping to get a response to this
Lilybitdun said:
Since you two disagree with there being a specific gap to upscale, would you want to establish a rule against using this unofficial multiplier gap to upscale or keep it as an unofficial rule?
Click to expand...
And bureaucrat opinion on the thread
 
Last edited:
It would be good if you list which staff members who think what here. 🙏
 
Lilybitdun said:
Bump

Here's the current votes from those with staff thread evaluation rights
  • Agree: 4
    • 1.05x: 2 (Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus)
    • 1.1x: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, SomebodyData)
    • 1.2x: 3 (DarkDragonMedeus, SomebodyData, Planck69)
    • 1.5x: 2 (Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus)
  • Disagree: 2
    • Entirety: 2 (Damage3245, LephyrTheRevanchist)
    • Upscaling to + Rating: 1 (Agnaa)
  • Neutral: 1
    • 1.2x or 1.4x: 1 (Agnaa)
Still hoping to get a response to this

And bureaucrat opinion on the thread
Click to expand...
@Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Planck69 @Damage3245 @LephyrTheRevanchist

Can you try to reach an agreement here please?

@DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @Qawsedf234 @GrathOfLux

Your input would also be very appreciated here. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Your input would also be very appreciated here.
Click to expand...
My view hasn't really changed from my original comment:
It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is given the "+" rating for that tier or is otherwise under 1.5x from the next level. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. Additionally, multiple-tier jumps through this method are not allowed, and generally, a gap of over 2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues.
Click to expand...
The details can change, but I think upscaling and the 1.5x standard is fine.
 
Ah hadn't realized that was a vote, just thought you were giving a wording suggestion

Added, mb
 
It's 5 agrees with 1.2x and 1.5x tied but yeah we need more votes personal opinion I like 1.2x more as 1.5x seems a bit high

To the two disagreeing currently, not setting a guideline makes it more arbitrary than setting one as Planck & SomebodyData have brought up

Plus it's an unnecessary knowledge check for new members that we've seen already cause people to make invalid CRT premises due to them not knowing what the upscale gap is, like I've shown in the OP. The current 1.1-1.2x unofficial rule isn't easy to find, especially if you don't already know about it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thanganimator
False R>F
2
Replies
79
Views
6K
Thanganimator
Thanganimator
Uzil-IVrei
Multipliers and logical assumptions
Replies
3
Views
620
Agnaa
Agnaa
StarShooter80
  • Locked
Transfomers (Michael Bay) High 7-C+ Removal
Replies
18
Views
899
Drite77
Drite77
A Small Question Regarding Qualitative Superiority VS Upscaling
Replies
2
Views
425
WrathTheDeath
M3X_2.0
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Z Multiplier Removal
2 3 4
Replies
144
Views
21K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Back
Top