• 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 and Tier-Jumping

Dargoo_Faust

Dargoo_Faust

Blue Doggo Enthusiast
VS Battles
Retired
Messages
15,637
Reaction score
5,392
This was most recently discussed on this thread regarding Pocket Reality Feats before pre-emptively ending since it was derailing the actual thread. We don't really have any proper standard on this phenomena, thus leaving many verses that rely on upscaling and chains of one-shots in a weird state of limbo.

For example, Overlord upscales characters far above 9-A+ characters into 8-C, RWBY upscales characters far above 8-C+ into High 8-C, etc.

Here are some solutions that I have seen proposed and will list them out.

  • Argument A: The gap needed to be significantly stronger than a character cannot be defined and varies from verse to verse. As a result we cannot assume any numerical advantage over characters above said character in terms of calculated feats, and that no amount of scaling can make the characters change in AP value for sake of Thread Argument or Profiles. If a 1.7 Ton character is instantly killed by a punch from another character, the second character and the first would both be rated Building level+ and nothing higher. If we agree on this a number of verses need downgrading and an even larger number of threads need to be removed.
  • Argument B: Since verses vary in regards to the gap required to be significantly stronger, each verse/character should be analyzed individually in regards to which characters can jump tiers or AP values and by what degree. There is no universal rule, but at the same time some reasonable assumptions can be made through looking at the in-verse events and coming to a consensus with other supporters/knowledgable members.
  • Argument C: We should make an arbitrarily defined multiplier or set of requirements to jump tiers through scaling/one-shots. An example would be allowing characters who show immense qualitative superiority over those calculated to be < 2x less than the next tier or halfway point to jump to an undefined value at the next tier; barring any more jumps after that due to uncertainty. A character who one shot another at 1.7 Tons would be an undefined value in High 8-C.
I can add more as people come to this thread.
 
So the argument is that characters shouldn't jump tiers from being immensely stronger than a person who is close to being in a higher tier?

If so, I believe that Argument B is the best course of action. Taking a situation and breaking it down step by step always is in my opinion.
 
I don't think there should be a set in stone hard rule, things like these should probably be evaluated on a case by case basis. But at the same time some common sense should be applied as well. I mean if character A is calced in high end 9-B with a value of 9.5 tons (I don't know the real value but let's say the cap for 9-B is 10 tons), and character B comes and completely obliterates them with one punch, they should probably be 9-A. So I guess the second one makes most sense for me.
 
Honestly, I think B should be the case. I do know for a fact that this happens with the Eversor Assassins and i'm not sure how I feel about that, but if I found the High 8-C calc and it was very close to 8-B as is i'd be okay with it.

Should this be highlighted?
 
I personally think this should be highlighted, but this is technically an offshoot of a discussion on an already-highlighted discussion, so IDK.
 
I don't like B since it basically just leaves a vaguely mysterious figure that staff/threads can change at will to downplay/wank certain verses. There will obviously still be a hard figure (a verse will never get a tier jump of 40,000x for one-shotting) but it'll be left unwritten which will allow for inconsistency between verses.

Since there will probably never be a precise statement in a verse saying "A character needs to be exactly 6x stronger to one-shot" any guesswork on how much exactly a verse requires to one-shot will be purely arbitrary and simply used to wank/downplay verses.

An actual number, as per A/C's suggestion, should be chosen so this can be consistently applied.

Ideally I'd like C, but I'd point out that using 2x would make any one-shot from a character with a calc in the + range of that tier to boost up to the next tier, which seems unsatisfactory. If I was the dictator of this wiki I'd choose some arbitrary value like 1.5x but I don't think we'll ever get a consensus on what this number should be, so this thread will sadly probably end up with a consensus of A.
 
For the record I think C is the worst. I'd prefer A over that.
 
I disagree with A: If a character is literally at the upper border of a tier and when I mean upper border I mean right next to the next tier I see no reason to rate a person who literally killed then with a single punch with no effort the same tier when they are literally bordering on the next tier.

I think B is okay.

I not going to even address C given my headache right now.
 
I was always more or less in favor of A. Though the second character would be "At least Building level+, likely higher" or something.

The way I see it currently being handled is B, though, which I can tolerate as well.

I would avoid C.
 
I'm for B.

The alternative would be downgrading Knack even though he is literally 0.19 tons away from High 8-C when he's 1) Stronger in his next form and 2) actually building sized within context
 
Either B or C

It really depends on both the context of the statement/feat aswell as the exact result of the calc and how close it actually is from the next tier
 
I cannot comprehend why people would choose B. It's just C but refusing to write the multiplier borders down, having a different border inside everyone's head. Some people may be fine if a character's 95% of the way to the next tier, some may be okay with 80% of the way, etc.

I think we'd avoid a lot of headaches when we get to those edge-cases where some people agree and some people disagree based on their own arbitrary borders, if we just write down what those borders are (argument C).
 
My hero Academia had this problem frequently. For example Hatsume is 9-A in durability for a 9-B+ feat and the Villain Bots have 8-C durability for a 9-A+ feat.

My view is this that only if the gap between one character's feat and the baseline for the next tier is negligible, and he gets stomped should the person being scaled reach the next tier.
 
Honestly, B sounds like it's always going to be affected by wank/downplay based on which staff are active and contributing. A is probably better than C since C also involves making up arbitrary standards for the scaling, which took a lot of discussion and arguments the last time something similar was brought up.
 
DontTalk, Agnaa, and Regis have points in all fairness.

Scaling chains in general are brought up abundantly in versus threads, to the point where you can reason a, let's say, 40 ton character, could easily defeat 100 ton characters, if you have enough "A > B > C > D..." to bring up. So it's certainly something being used as it is. If we land on A it would mean a lot of revisions/removals in general.

I'm personally neutral on this after discussing with Agnaa on discord about it. I see the benefit and harm in choosing any one of these.
 
I support A as well.

Arbitrary numbers from C is definitely a no. While I was reading B, I thought I might agree until I read Agnaa and Regis' comment.

Leaving it up to specific members is definitely another case of arbitrary rating and handling. It definitely can lead to cases of wank due to bias and favortism.
 
Just going for option A and sticking to the "At least (Insert tier) likely higher is better imo, that, or establishing that we only allow singular tier jumps when they scale above a calculation is very close to the next tier. something like 90/80% of the way the way through.

This is assuming the series itself doesn't clearly establish a character to be x amount of times stronger than another, in those cases I guess tier jumps are fine (within reason).
 
Yeah, I have no issue with clearly stated multipliers in-verse. This is more about vague "more powerful than X" statements/feats.
 
I disagree with A, if some dude is 99 tons and someone else kills him with a finger tap, that guy should obviously be 8-A.

B also has its problems.

I can agree with the general idea of C but I think the requirements for the jump should be strict. The difference in power should be massive between the characters and the jump miniscule.
 
C is an absolute no. A is generally fine but has its own problems on the other extreme, such as with the exemple Andy brought up.

So I'd say I'd go A with a leaning towards B
 
If this goes through this means I would have to update SAO Tabletop accordingly and that also means a 16 year old loli beating up "69 *********** Salt" would have to be removed which is bad momojojo

I should probably elaborate on why B is preferable, considering everything

Well, for one, C doesn't work because fiction is a pile of giant forks that makes no sense oftentimes. It's simply too inconsistent to just slap a multiplier onto and say "here we goooooooo", so it seems really weird to not just look at each case and think about if it should apply or not.

On the other hand, I don't think A works due to the simple fact that, while fiction is rather inconsistent, I don't see why we can't rate people stronger then other people as just... Being stronger. It doesn't take a wank and a logical leap to think that someone who can literally sigh a 1.4 Ton attack into nothing should be High 8-C.
 
DMUA said:
Well, for one, C doesn't work because fiction is a pile of giant forks that makes no sense oftentimes. It's simply too inconsistent to just slap a multiplier onto and say "here we goooooooo", so it seems really weird to not just look at each case and think about if it should apply or not.
Click to expand...
Choosing C doesn't mean you ignore the context of feats entirely. You'd have to check stuff like it actually being a legitimate one-shot, but I'm not sure if a ton more nuance than that is needed.
 
I mean, even so, we'd be putting a completely arbitrary number supported by a few verses and immensely contradicted my several others

What even would that number be? We've already talked about how that would be it's own high caliber of thread, but like, what number would we even use?
 
My point is that no matter whether we choose B or C we're putting an arbitrary number on it supported by a few verses, and immensely contradicted by others. We're just not saying it, and all secretly keeping a number in our heads.

You think taking a 1.4 ton attack like nothing should put you into High 8-C, others here have said that the maximum limit should be 80% of the next tier (1.6 Tons).

Even if it's going to be hard coming up with whatever number we choose, it's going to be even harder in the future if someone takes a 1.5 ton attack like nothing and the thread's split on whether that should be High 8-C or not. Especially the tension this could create with any accusations of wank/downplaying. It's easier to come up with an arbitrary number now even if that'd be a rough thread to avoid dozens of harsher threads in the future.
 
I mean, even so

I have no idea what numbers we would even consider for it

Like, if we're going to bring something up, we should at least also have a way to enact it
 
Something like 1.15x-1.2x (87-80% of the way to the next tier, respectively). Seems something close to what captures people's intuition.
 
90 or 95% of the way, is when I would go for a tier jump.
 
I also much prefer giving room to evaluate on a case-by-case basis without overregulating every little detail of the wiki, or forcing us to perform large scale wiki revisions without any actual benefit for the effort. Meaning, like most others here I also support option B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Accelerated_Evolution
Question about Upscaling
Replies
2
Views
252
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Bright5787
One Piece Cosmology Multiversal+?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Sebas-S.P-san
Sebas-S.P-san
SJG13673
A point of tier upscaling for each tier?
Replies
4
Views
563
SJG13673
SJG13673
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
HigashikataJobin
  • Locked
D&D Immeasurable Speed Upgrade — Second Attempt
Replies
14
Views
729
HigashikataJobin
HigashikataJobin
Back
Top