• 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 "+" symbol in Attack Potency (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugarik

Ugarik

VS Battles
Calculation Group
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
407
The "+" is currently used when the Attack Potency has been calculated to be greater than the arithmetic mean of the high end energy level and low end energy level of a particular tier.

However since in fiction we're usually dealing with multipliers geometric mean of the high and low ends would probably make more scence than the arithmetic mean.

For example we have 15000 J as the 9-B baseline and 9-A tier starts from 20920000 J. Using the arithmetic mean the "+" starts from (15000+20920000)/2 = 10467500 J. That mean in order to reach "+" a baseline Wall level character needs to become 697.8333... times stronger but a Wall level+ character only needs a 2x power up to become 9-A.

That's why I think geometric mean as "+" baseline would be better to use. Using the geometric mean the Wall level+ would start from sqrt(15000*20920000) = 560178.54 J. That makes Wall level baseline 37.345 times "weaker" than Wall level+ which is 37.345 times "weaker" than 9-A.

TLDR: Geometric mean works better with multipliers because it keeps the same low end to high end ratio for both halfs
 
Does this affect any notable profiles? We still consider the revised Attack Potency chart to be relatively new, so with the exception of the attack potency baseline examples thing we have going on, the universe level revision by yours truly, and the dimensional tiering adjustment by Ultima Reality, I don't think we should meddle too much with so many things at once. The results can be catastrophic.
 
Yes, in fact this will probably affect most of them. This will aslo repeal the rule that + symbol needs a calc that places a certain character in the upper half of the attack potency chart since both halfs will be the same size.
 
As Antvasima mentioned, the plus sign is often misused still anyway. I would rather, should we implement this, wait until after the above mentioned revisions are complete, before we start The Hunt. Unless we can knock this out in a day or two.

Basically, I partially support this, but again so many different revisions for Attack Potency going on all at once would cause stress on an already staff-deprived community.
 
I "highlighted" the thread due to its importance.
 
I don't usually like making this argument, but this is too minor of a thing to make a revision for. I completely agree that geometric means make more sense for splitting a tier than arithmetic mean, but in the end who gets a plus and who doesn't hardly makes much of a difference.
 
I'm against it. This change make the plusified levels that cover a small gap look silly. Human level covers the range from 40 to 100 joules. So, Human level+ starts at ~63.25 joules. I know that most normal humans can do 60-65 joules feats. And an average visitor would assume that Human level+ is something above average.
 
Skalt711 said:
I'm against it. This change make the plusified levels that cover a small gap look silly. Human level covers the range from 40 to 100 joules. So, Human level+ starts at ~63.25 joules. I know that most normal humans can do 60-65 joules feats. And an average visitor would assume that Human level+ is something above average.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
That is a good point salt711 as well as omnytrenad make. This could affect an unknown amount of profiles and would give many people who are not even that high end for their tier + ratings as well as requiring quite a few assumptions for people in lower tiers. It is not like the current plus rating has a majorly negative effect anyway. + if anything is a better indication for them being close to the next tier more than anything. A change like this would likely unnecessarily overcomplicate quite a number of things.
 
Ranking characters by multipliers is still a relatively rare case, though.

More importantly this is a change that has no actual payoff. It doesn't make things easier, more accurate or better readable. As a tiering revision this would need a large project to implement, which it just isn't worth in my opinion.
 
Skalt711 said:
I'm against it. This change make the plusified levels that cover a small gap look silly. Human level covers the range from 40 to 100 joules. So, Human level+ starts at ~63.25 joules. I know that most normal humans can do 60-65 joules feats. And an average visitor would assume that Human level+ is something above average.
Click to expand...
Okay talking from a average visitor perspective. I think an average visitor would be confused that characters like Toei Majin Buu are not Multi-Solar System+. I mean why isn't he + he didn't just destroy multiple solar systems he conpletely oblitarated a good portion of a galaxy? And well the reason for that is that the first half of the 4-A level is 131 million times bigger than the second one.

Besides I have never seen human level+
 
Don't worry, I'll make one. Because he isn't quite strong enough. On an absolute scale, a character has to gain about as much strength to become 4-A+ from 10-C as they do in order to go from 4-A+ to 3-C.
 
I agree with DontTalk for reasons I already mentioned from the start, though I appreciate the consideration nonetheless.

We've just been through a lot of changes since the end of 2018. I feel like we need to slow down. There's been many changes (such as the "overly long powers and abilities section" warranting tabbers that actually make profile creation take even longer than necessary now), powers and abilities getting all kinds of different types, incoming revisions regarding AP, all three of which are actually very important, etc. This will just leave the community and especially the common visitor desensitized with the frequent changes we're doing, most of which ultimately have no payoff whatsoever, just personal satisfaction from those that actually agreed at the time - most who tend to not look at the bigger picture.
 
How can a revision I propose be important. Sera likely has a point, changes can be a good thing but we shouldn't go too overboard with trying to improve things that we just end up wasting precious time and energy without gaining any significant benefits.
 
The God Of Procrastination said:
On an absolute scale, a character has to gain about as much strength to become 4-A+ from 10-C as they do in order to go from 4-A+ to 3-C.
Click to expand...
And that's the reason why I think geometric mean is better. On the arithmetic sequence the power gap between those tiers is the same. However first one is countless times larger on a geometric sequence.

But yes I do agree with DontTalk overall
 
The God Of Procrastination said:
+ is supposed to mean "within this tier, they are strong."
Click to expand...
It doesn't, that's what "At least" is for. The attack potency page gives a clear definition of what it means. The + sign just means the start of the high-end of that level.
 
Nah. "At least" doesn't really mean that, any Saitama thread is proof of that.
 
That's what it means. Saitama is a very poor example. Lucemon and YHVH on the other hand are perfect examples.

We literally went over this on the other thread. At least is often used to denote a level far above baseline in addition to simply being there because they may be a higher tier.
 
Being above baseline is only a big deal in tiers high 3-A and higher, anything below, you would need to scale off of a high end feat to be strong within your tier.

Tho this may not be all that relevant to the thread.
 
I'll deal with you on Playstation

Anyway, I suppose more are leaning towards disagreement but we may need to wait for more input. Things always change direction when the G-Squad shows up.
 
I agree with DontTalkDT and Sera EX that there is no actual payoff for this change; that it would require us to go through all profiles that use a + sign and as such demand lots of work; and that there have been a lot of changes in our system recently, so we should focus on the ones that are genuinely necessary.

In addition, the current system is easier for any member of this wiki to use and understand.
 
Well it might pay pay off because + symbol would be a better AP stomp indicator

For example currecntry one Small Building level character can be 25.5 times stronger than the other while maximum AP gap between two Small Building level+ characters is onlu 1.98 times. However if we split 9-A with geometric mean both halfs can only have 7.07 times AP gap
 
The AP stomp indication can be easier identified we outright state the degree of AP like we often do for speed.
 
I probably wouldn't have minded this change if we had followed it from the start, but at this point we simply do not have the time to handle this for so little payoff.
 
Same, plus I just strongly believe we are meddling too much with Attack Potency as well as powers/abilities in general, most of which comes from personal feelings like "I really don't think it should be this way" and without the common visitor in mind. We're nearing 19k pages, so we certainly need to slow down before eventually even we can't keep up.

Proposal > Discussion > Organization (if accepted) > Implementation. That should be the process for these kinds of things.
 
As usual, I agree with Sera.
 
Sera EX said:
Same, plus I just strongly believe we are meddling too much with Attack Potency as well as powers/abilities in general, most of which comes from personal feelings like "I really don't think it should be this way" and without the common visitor in mind.
Click to expand...
I doesn't really have anything to do with how I feel because geometric mean is mathematically correct average for the AP chart. Because the size of a a particular tier is high end to low end ratio not subtraction of high and low ends. If you want to split something into 2 equal parts those parts need to be the same size = have the same high end to low end ratios (since size is ratio).

But since this will affect several thousand profiles I can agree it is to late to make a revision
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ArachDusa
Would destroying Jupiter be a 5-A+ feat?
Replies
1
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Finiznot
  • Locked
Tier 10-B to 9-B Gap Revision
Replies
20
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ednaxel2
Question about the + symbol for attack potency
Replies
1
Views
744
TheRustyOne
TheRustyOne
The Blue Whale: Possibly Small Building Level?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Monsters_fight
Monsters_fight
Back
Top