• 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.

Usage of "likely/possibly higher" for tiers

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
164,616
71,093
Hello.

Here is what our Attack Potency page currently says:

"Higher

This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

Furthermore, higher may also be used to denote a case where the character is possibly or likely a higher tier, but to what degree is not specified. This is specifically referring to cases such as “At least 4-B, likely higher” or “At least Solar System level, likely higher”."

It can currently be used for both being higher within the same tier, or in a higher tier, but unknown which one.

I am concerned that this will cause confusion for our visitors in cases where we use "High 1-C, likely higher" for example, since they might think that a character is many degrees of infinity stronger than it actually is, even though this is not what was intended.

Input would be very appreciated.

STAFF ONLY
 
Do we have examples of this currenlty in use on the profiles that we could look at?
 
Well, this is a reaction to a Gurren Lagann (Verse) revisions thread that suggested adding "likely higher" to High 1-C characters. I am not sure where it is used elsewhere.
 
Well the "possibly/likely far/higher" rating without another specific tier associated with it, doesn't actually carry any weight in vs threads, or much of anything really. It's mostly there for novelty's sake so I don't think this is much of an issue.
 
I don't really see what else can be done besides explaining what makes the character higher with the specific technique.

Interpreting the technique as being infinitely above the character's base stats, when that's not the case, and it's not explained as such, is just a lack of attention on the readers part i think.
 
Well the "possibly/likely far/higher" rating without another specific tier associated with it, doesn't actually carry any weight in vs threads, or much of anything really. It's mostly there for novelty's sake so I don't think this is much of an issue.
^This. Any misunderstandings would take, like, 30 seconds to clear up, assuming the asker isn't trolling or extremely young.
 
Ant, with all due respect, this concern is kind of exaggerated, no? Nobody will get confused by this as long as it's explained properly in the page.
 
Okay. Perhaps I am being a worrywart for limited reason then.
 
I'd avoid At least, and likely higher once we gent to 3-A and above in most cases and avoid it outright if there's nothing beyond standard upscaling. Some universal feats may have possibly Low 2-C if there are hints of possible timeline shenanigans. But in TTGL's case; the are "Transcendent" statements of being above the High 1-C multiverse, and Aeyu and Ultima implied some possibilities of 1-B and the like. While I'm uncertain, they tend to have a good sense of judgement regarding the tier.

But regardless, adding an "At least" and "possibly/likely higher" to Tier 2 or Tier 1 ratings should only be given if there are hints of higher dimensional planes that may not be entirely concrete. And I'd avoid it if there's nothing being characters just being above baseline via scaling chains.
 
You generally don’t get “likely/possibly higher” after Tier 2 without some kind of scaling chain anyway.
 
I'd avoid At least, and likely higher once we gent to 3-A and above in most cases and avoid it outright if there's nothing beyond standard upscaling. Some universal feats may have possibly Low 2-C if there are hints of possible timeline shenanigans. But in TTGL's case; the are "Transcendent" statements of being above the High 1-C multiverse, and Aeyu and Ultima implied some possibilities of 1-B and the like. While I'm uncertain, they tend to have a good sense of judgement regarding the tier.

But regardless, adding an "At least" and "possibly/likely higher" to Tier 2 or Tier 1 ratings should only be given if there are hints of higher dimensional planes that may not be entirely concrete. And I'd avoid it if there's nothing being characters just being above baseline via scaling chains.
These are my concerns as well. Thank you.
 
Things like these should be properly explained in the page to avoid any kind of confusion, but I also don't think this is that big of an issue.
 
Honestly I don't think this is that confusing IMO

I don't think we need to change anything as long as the "Likely higher" is clearly explained on the profile
I also agree. Likewise, as other stated above, the profile usually have the proper explanations.
 
Okay. So should any of this be better clarified in our Attack Potency page, or is it fine the way it is?
 
Okay. What do the rest of you think?
 
Yes it should. On the higher section of the page, it doesn’t say that it could be used as a way to note a character might be higher within the same tier
This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

It says that though.
 
This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

It says that though.
It doesn’t say anything about it being applied to situations where a character is likely/possibly higher within the same tier. All this implies is that this can be used to note a character being 100% higher within the same tier, rather than likely/possibly
 
Talking about notes like this, shouldn't the notes about possibly/likely be just a bit more different? They litteraly only have two words of difference.
 
Talking about notes like this, shouldn't the notes about possibly/likely be just a bit more different? They litteraly only have two words of difference.
Honestly, it doesn’t take too much effort to be more specific on how it can be used. Besides, higher is already being used like this
 
I'm fine with those terms being used within the same tier, even for higher-tiered characters, and think it should be adequately explained in the profiles themselves to minimize confusion.
 
So what do we need to do here? Should any attack potency page expanation text be expanded upon?
 
So what do we need to do here? Should any attack potency page expanation text be expanded upon?
The “higher” part of the page should be revised to say something like “Furthermore, higher may also be used to denote a case where the character is possibly or likely a higher tier/higher within the same tier, but to what degree is not specified. This is specifically referring to cases such as “At least 4-B, likely higher” or “At least Solar System level, likely higher”.
 
What do the rest of you think?
 
The “higher” part of the page should be revised to say something like “Furthermore, higher may also be used to denote a case where the character is possibly or likely a higher tier/higher within the same tier, but to what degree is not specified. This is specifically referring to cases such as “At least 4-B, likely higher” or “At least Solar System level, likely higher”.
Does anyone else have any thoughts about this suggestion?
 
IMO, we should only use it for attacks that are higher than a character's normal statistics, not for characters who aren't close to higher tiers.
 
Thank you for the input ByAsura.
 
What are the conclusions here so far?
 
Last time I replied on this thread was 2 months ago, and my thoughts on this have changed since. The Attack Potency's higher rules should stay as they are. If we ever do get something like, a likely rating, but it's within the same tier as the certain rating, then an explanation for the Attack Potency of the rating would have something like this for example

Solar System level (Reasoning, reasoning, more reasoning; likely higher, reasoning, and yeah yeah yeah). They are likely/possibly higher within the same tier, nevertheless, still the same tier as the certain rating
 
Back
Top