- 13,231
- 21,049
Some people, unfortunately some of our own staff, don't read the things they're agreeing with. FRA trains exist even amongst staff, and bad threads can get accepted. You oughta know that's the case, so no, a thread being accepted doesn't automatically mean it was goodI do not have any more control over how a thread goes than any other thread mod on the forum. If my points made no sense it would have simply been overruled by enough people voting against it and yet this has not happened. It may happen some day, clearly some people don't view powerscaling the way I do but if it was just objectively stupid it would have never passed to begin with.
Shit man I'd give up too if I just kept getting walled by something I've tried to repeatedly address but to no avail because staff votes go brrr, at that point just do whatever you want since it's clearly not gonna matter either way
This might shock you, but you kinda just proved my point. You agree that "going all the way" is literally impossible, and that we need to do certain things despite anti-feats existing. Problem though: at a certain point, it doesn't matter anymore. A High 6-A character and a 6-C character should be equally unthreatened by a Tier 9 or even Tier 8 attack. You can talk AP values and shit, but in practice, there's no real distinction because either way they should be utterly unaffected. So it's very strange to me to apply the anti-feats against High 6-A but not against 6-CThis may shock you but "going all the way" in powerscaling is literally impossible. Fiction is not made to be 100% consistent. You cannot come to a solution that is objectively correct and attempting to do so will not lead to any kind of results. Claiming that I am objectively a hypocrite because by my logic Mario should be 9-B is incorrect because there is a pretty nebulous amount of feats and anti-feats all across the range from there to mid tier 8 and because ultimately power-scaling is a game of compromises, and I was OK with "since there is a decent amount of feats backing up this 6-C rating, let's go for it even though there are anti-feats disproving it" as a compromise. Whether you agree or not with that does not mean that the logic behind it was objectively fallacious, and it definitely does not mean that any proposal for a higher tier is automatically equally valid.
I think both situations are problematic because we're literally ignoring feats. Like, how much ignorance do we need to build up to be satisfied? Is the verse just forever capped here because any higher feat will just automatically get brushed aside? This sets an incredibly bad precedent. I kinda prefer how things were before because it was just "going with the highest feat" as opposed to this little dance of "let's use Mario's feats, oh but not all of them for some reason; let's make Mario this tier in spite of anti-feats, oh but not for any tier higher"I would have care about the accusations I just described because they would have been fair and correct. I did not care about the accusations of downplay that I did receive with how I did handle things because I do not believe that those were fair or correct.
Feel free. In the exact same vein, I'm tired of pretending this isn't some ridiculous way to go about it no matter how it's attempted at being rationalized. Like I said, at some point the severity of an anti-feat becomes redundant because a Tier 9 anti-feat is just as damning to a Tier 6 character as it is to a Tier 4 characterThe issue is that the High 6-A calc is 216611 times higher than the 6-C one, it's like saying a 9-A feat is support for a 7-C rating, or like if my highest support for the 6-C rating was 7-C. I'm not being arbitrary and if you continue to fail the difference between the situation you're proposing and the one that already happened I frankly do not have the time or energy to waste trying to explain it to you again and again.
I'm not gonna respond any further than this. Whatever happens, happens