Usage of "likely/possibly higher" for tiers

[Antvasima]

Were my suggestions not rejected already?

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Bobsican]

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”.

This has been brought up and it has received mixed thoughts from the staff, but no proper conclusion yet.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@Damage3245 @Ogbunabali @Celestial_Pegasus @The_Wright_Way @DarkDragonMedeus @DemonGodMitchAubin @AKM sama @Elizhaa @Agnaa @QuasiYuri @ByAsura

What do you think of the suggestion that Bobsican quoted in the preceding post above?

 

[QuasiYuri]

I think the description's fine.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Okay.

@Damage3245 @Ogbunabali @Celestial_Pegasus @The_Wright_Way @DarkDragonMedeus @DemonGodMitchAubin @AKM sama @Elizhaa @Agnaa @QuasiYuri @ByAsura

What do you think of the suggestion that Bobsican quoted in the preceding post above?

I agree with that description

 

[Elizhaa]

The description also seems fine, to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, personally I find it rather pointless and misleading to use likely higher within the same tier.

 

[ByAsura]

I don't really get the point, either. Higher with weapons and stuff makes sense because it's higher than their own AP, but likely/possibly higher is completely misleading outside the context of a character who really does have a possibility of scaling to higher tiers. It's just not worth the extra confusion to give it two meanings.

 

[Agnaa]

If we actually knew for certain that they'd get a higher tier, they'd get that higher tier regardless. It doesn't really feel like two different meanings. It's just "higher" because there's ambiguity about how much higher they'd get.

 

[ByAsura]

That's some very poor justification. The point is exactly that we don't know for certain, but there's a possibility/probability of them being close to other tiers/a + rating. Tacking on a "likely higher" rating for just being stronger than a calculation is far different.

Also, how would that work? It seems like an extremely vague application. For example, would Ultron get a "likely higher" rating simply for curbstomping a character that's 1/100 millionth of baseline Multi-Solar System level? There's a thousand other characters just like him (especially anime/manga characters), so it seems like extremely unnecessary work for something that's way more confusing than the alternative.

 

[Agnaa]

If there's a possibility/probability of them being close to another tier that's within the same tier, which is the sort of thing you're arguing against.

If there's a possibility/probability of them being in another tier just give them that tier.

I don't know anything about Ultron. If he's stomping a character that's below his other feats then I wouldn't think that'd deserve a likely higher.

There's also a thousand other characters that already have likely/possibly higher for feats within the same tier. It's a tremendous amount of work either way.

 

[ByAsura]

No, I'm arguing against using it for a character who simply scales above a calculation way lower than the next tier. There's no justification for that.

That's not how it works when you can tell when they're close or not. For example, if one character is capable of one-shotting someone who's 0.0051 tons, but can't do the same with someone who's 3x as strong, we can firmly say they aren't even close to Small Building level+ / Building level. By this same token, we shouldn't just assume the gaps are massive enough to be thousands of times, that's why characters have an "at least" rating.

He doesn't have any feats, the people he scales to do, which is my point.

It's literally the system we're using right now, so it requires zero work. Using "at least" or nothing at all makes way more sense in most situations where there's no evidence that people are close to the next tier.

 

[Agnaa]

No, I'm arguing against using it for a character who simply scales above a calculation way lower than the next tier. There's no justification for that.

The justification for it is that they're above it. "Higher" than it, if you will.

And also, characters who scale above calculations that are close to the next tier can simply upscale into it. We have that enshrined as an institution in our rules.

It is possible for a character who is depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to be placed in a tier above the other, given that the other character is close to the the next tier. However, this ultimately needs to be decided through case-by-case analysis.

"likely/possibly higher" can only be used when they aren't close enough to a higher tier or for when there's too much ambiguity as to which tier they'd land in. Otherwise they'd just get the tier, like our rules say.

That's not how it works when you can tell when they're close or not. For example, if one character is capable of one-shotting someone who's 0.0051 tons, but can't do the same with someone who's 3x as strong, we can firmly say they aren't even close to Small Building level+ / Building level. By this same token, we shouldn't just assume the gaps are massive enough to be thousands of times, that's why characters have an "at least" rating.

I don't understand what you're arguing against here. No shit someone who's equal to or weaker than 0.015 Tons shouldn't be given a rating where the minimum is 0.125 Tons.

He doesn't have any feats, the people he scales to do, which is my point.

Whatever, same thing. A 4-A stomping an 8-C shouldn't give them a likely higher rating.

It's literally the system we're using right now, so it requires zero work. Using "at least" makes way more sense in most situations.

It's the system we have in writing but not the system we have in practice. There are profiles that use "possibly/likely higher" in situations that you seem to disagree with, which would need to be changed.

 

[ByAsura]

No, what I'm talking about is what we predominately use on profiles at this time (although I do see both). Wait, what are you arguing for exactly? I'm just saying that someone who effortlessly beats a character 100th of baseline Wall level shouldn't get a likely higher rating, but I agree with someone who beats a character 1/2 baseline getting that rating. I really don't really get what you're blabbering about.

Whatever, same thing. A 4-A stomping an 8-C shouldn't give them a likely higher rating.

You're not getting what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Ultron curbstomped Thor, who's 100 millionth baseline 4-A, so Ultron (a 4-B) shouldn't get a likely far higher for that.

 

[Agnaa]

No, what I'm talking about is what we predominately use on profiles at this time (although I do see both). Wait, what are you arguing for exactly? I'm just saying that someone who effortlessly beats a character 100th of baseline Wall level shouldn't get a likely higher rating, but I agree with someone who beats a character 1/2 baseline getting that rating. I really don't really get what you're blabbering about.

I am arguing for "Higher" to be used even in cases where characters won't reach other tiers off of it. Because if they would reach other tiers off of it, they should just get those tiers listed instead.

You're saying it's misleading to give "Higher" because it's implying they'd get a higher tier off of it, I'm saying that's fine since "Higher" is used when the evidence isn't good enough to give them a different tier.

Hell, half of another tier's baseline is what some people have seemed to consider valid for upscaling.

You're not getting what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Ultron curbstomped Thor, who's 100 millionth baseline 4-A, so Ultron (a 4-B) shouldn't get a likely far higher for that.

I don't get what you're saying because this is incredibly dependent on verse-specific context. Even saying "Ultron curbstomped Thor" doesn't tell me nearly enough. Does Ultron have other feats against 4-B beings who are stronger/have better feats than Thor? Was Ultron curbstomping Thor when Ultron was serious or casual? How hard did Ultron curbstomp Thor? Did Ultron curbstomp Thor purely physically, or were abilities/speed potentially involved?

 

[Antvasima]

I strongly agree with ByAsura, and maintain what I said in the first post of this thread. Thank you for helping out.

 

[ByAsura]

I still have to disagree with your logic. It also seems very picky choosy, imo.

He knocked out Thor with one blow using all of his might, basically.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies for accidentally writing Starter Pack instead of ByAsura above. I have corrected it.

 

[ByAsura]

Looking at more pages, we really do tend to use both despite the written rule, but the predominant use is definitely cases where their power is likely massive enough to completely eclipse the scope of other people in that franchise, such as Frisk and Undying Undyne. I'm fine with that, too, but there definitely are cases where gaps are too unreasonable—Undertale just isn't one of those cases.

Personally, I think what we have is fine for the most part, just with some narrowing. Such as "likely/possibly far higher ratings can be applied if <xx> can reliably be scaled to the next tier".

 

[Agnaa]

I still have to disagree with your logic. It also seems very picky choosy, imo.

He knocked out Thor with one blow using all of his might, basically.

What is the issue that makes you disagree with it?

You only want them getting higher when they can "reliably be scaled to the next tier", when we already have rules that say we give the higher tier in those cases.

I haven't seen you acknowledge how that rule conflicts with your proposed one.

 

[ByAsura]

I thought you were saying something else because you tried to point out something that conflicted with what I was saying.

 

[Antvasima]

Do we need to do anything here, or should we close this thread?

 

[Bobsican]

Do we need to do anything here, or should we close this thread?

The discussion appears to still be going.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it does not seem likely to lead anywhere, but alright then.