• 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 "higher" for character statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Head Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat
Administrator
167,857
76,474
Hello.

It has been brought to my attention that a statistic followed by "higher" is recurrently not used to imply an unknown higher statistic with a certain technique or powered-up state, but rather simply being stronger within the same tier.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2812138

I am concerned that this will usually be misunderstood by our visitors to imply the former, while intending the latter.

Input would be appreciated.


NOTE: STAFF ONLY
 
I'm agree that "higher" should only be used for higher statistic of a certain attack that might be in a higher tier. If it's in the same tier I see no reason in mentioning it

I've also seen "lower"
 
There are cases where the power gap is too unknown for us to know which one it is. With that said, if there isn't any chance of it being in a higher tier, then it should not be included.
 
@TGOP

That would take far too much work to revise at this point.
 
Antvasima said:
@TGOP
That would take far too much work to revise at this point.
Click to expand...
Not staff but I feel like, I gotta put this out there:

What if we only do it for characters who a lot of other characters scale to in a particular verse?

I think that would cut down a lot of work.
 
The use of "higher" has completely changed now as I see it constantly used to show a character stronger in the same tier with a new form or attack, I think we should in fact change the usage of "higher" to fit in line with how everyone is using it, because it is literally used everywhere
 
The usage of "higher" when we know for a fact that the character is in a higher tier can't work anyway. Because if we 100% know that the character is in a higher tier, then that means we have a specific number or specific multiplier, which means we have a specific tier in mind, so no need to be vague with saying the character is just "higher".
 
Higher shouldn't be an issue of big import, I think. I'm in agreement with Saikou- the word "higher" just means that whatever it refers to is notably higher than their base tier. Whether or not it actually jumps to other tiers isn't important. Just my two cents.
 
Alright. I'll go through some pages I have made and see if I can fix any misuse of the words.
 
The at most seems not necessary as it's used far less than at least to show that the char. is higher than baseline while the higher is used as a stronger attack, powerup or transformations.
 
So should we update a text segment in some instruction/policy page, and if so, which one?
 
What I rather find helpful to distinguish two is when higher is bolded after the explanation parenthesis to imply a higher tier and a standard higher within part of the explanation parenthesis to imply being stronger but still within the same tier. It did confused me at first though.
 
Yes, we should probably define a standard in the explanation section.

Are you willing to help out Saikou?
 
I think that the definition I've described earlier and that most people seem to agree on would work.

As in, it's to be used when a different state of power that isn't major enough to get a key (Stuff with weapons, with minor buffs, etc.) is superior to an unknown extent than the base key. If the extent of the superiority is known precisely enough to warrant a tier, then said tier would be used instead.

Example: Character A and character B both have weapons that have significantly higher AP than their base AP. However...

-Character A's only feat of power with this weapon is one-shotting several characters with similar durability to their base AP. It's certainly more powerful than their base AP, but to an unknown extent, since we only know it's far higher. So they would gain "higher with [Weapon]

-Character B's weapon has shown the ability to hurt or kill characters with a higher known tier than their base AP. We know approximately how stronger the weapon is that the wielder and can assign a tier to it. Thus, the character would gain "7-C with [Weapon]" or something.
 
Shouldn't the definition include something about "At least ____, likely higher", as Andy mentioned here?

Andytrenom said:
@Dargoo I think a higher is supposed to be added if they have a strong possibility of being in another tier than their current one, but don't have enough evidence for an actual rating.
Click to expand...
I've given it to this character since she has exactly 0 non-casual feats, except against another character who was so far above their baseline that they had 0 non-casual feats. Is something like that okay and something that should be written into the guidelines?
 
Sera EX said:
Let's just say "higher should be used for instances such as Kaio-ken or similar multipliers within the same tier" or "in vague cases" similar to what Saikou suggested.
Click to expand...
I agreed with these points.

I also want to talk specific cases where higher is used for feats clearly 4- or over Tiers Higher than the rating and just not calculated. Such as this page, Mirai Kuriyama, Higher is used for a feat that is at least Tier 6. It feel like a copout to me, we should have a guideline against these usages.

Besides, since the feats is part a key tiering, it invalidated the Tiering anyway in Versus Thread and the profile key anyway, make the key invalid.

The solution could be: Please don't use Higher for uncalculated Feats, used Unknow instead.
 
How much "higher", the size of the tier and how far into it their base stat is at should all be factored into account. For instance, if one is at peak line 7-C (or 7-C+) then it would be easier to make the case of reaching into the next tier than a base line 7-C would, knowing that 7-C is 17.5x high end-low end ratio. 4-B otoh is 881.86 billion x and unless you have multipliers in the billions or at the very peak of the tier, a "higher" is highly unlikely, as with the case of Godzilla, Link and TTGL
 
I reckon whether you mean "Higher" as in "He's at least 3-C and probably higher" or "He's a high 3-C and could kick the ass of other 3-Cs" should be specified.

Or the two terms should be separated.

So now someone can be "3-C at minimum" or "High 3-C".
 
So does somebody have a suggestion for what the instruction text section should say?
 
I agree with Saikou and Sera as well.
 
I agree with Saikou's idea. It seems a lot cleaner and gives closer approximations towards a charater's tier and such.

On top of that, I propose, just like what Karter is proposing, that maybe we should inclue things like Low, Mid, and High to tier rankings such as High 7C for those who are either almost the next rank and can kick around those in their own rank with ease or slightly higher than the previous rank but can still get kicked around by others in their rank.

Also, if possible, I think skills/abilities/talents/movesets should have tiers next to them to show how strong each individual skill is so that way it is easier to argue for or against what would happen if Opponent A hit Opponet B with Skill C.
 
Well, I would appreciate help from Saikou or Sera with writing a new instruction text segment.
 
A little late, but I have some notes to share.

For characters who are rated as higher with the implication that they could have a higher up tier, I usually have a likely or possibly before higher. Example is for characters like Saitama who's tier, higher comes from being overwhelmingly stronger than Boros. But then again, it's important to have a likely or possibly before the higher note rather than just higher.

Then again, some characters do have things like higher with equipment/forms/amps/ect. But those do sound more like they would just be higher within the same tier rather than them possibly being at a higher tier like in the example in the above paragraph.
 
Tbh I never felt "higher with this thing" meant you reach another tier with this thing. Just that you're getting a power boost
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Tatsumi504
  • Locked
Maou Gakuin no Futekigousha: UES and Scaling (Part 1)
Replies
22
Views
3K
EldemadeDityjon
EldemadeDityjon
Antvasima
Usage of "likely/possibly higher" for tiers
2
Replies
64
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Small downgrade for PoE
Replies
28
Views
2K
Ywlrvl
ProfessorKukui4Life
  • Locked
Big Alien X Downgrade (Wait…haven't we been here before?)
7 8 9
Replies
349
Views
31K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Back
Top