• 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.

A striking strength revision project?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Head Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat
Administrator
167,703
76,308
Hello.

Summer vacation is getting closer for most of us, so I just thought that it might be a good time to start making plans for a striking strength revision project.

As you probably know, the names of the current system are based on prefixes signifying different exponential values from the number 10.

To say the least, this is inaccurate, does not fit with our revised energy scale, and is hard for visitors to intuitively keep track of and understand.

As such, I think that it would be best if we switched to the same descriptions/names/titles for striking strength as for we use for attack potency.

Of course, given that the striking strength values do not perfectly overlap with this scale, we would need to figure out a system for how we should handle the conversions, especially in more confusing cases for characters that do not have the same physical power as, for example, energy projection, and are listed with lower levels of striking strength than attack potency.

Help would be very appreciated.
 
In addition, we likely need to get rid of the "Small Island level" tier, and strictly call it "Large Mountain level" instead, as the former brings to mind a tiny island with one house in an archipelago.
 
Hizack123 said:
Should do the same to lifting strength too.
Click to expand...
The lifting strength scale still makes sense, as the values have not been revised.
 
I can't say I'm against this. But this is a big revision. The profiles that might need changing. Oh boy.

Should we also do something about the 7-A tier? Large City level makes more sense to me than Mountain level. But I agree with you on High 7-A being Large Mountain level.
 
Well, it is necessary to handle this at some point, as it is the most glaring flaw of our wiki, but as many staff members as possible would need to help out, and all edits from regular members likely be forbidden while it is going on.

I do not think that it would be necessary to change tier 7-A, but am open for changing my mind regarding the subject.
 
There would be a lot of revisions, but this might be for the best. I always found the Striking Strength system confusing anyways. I wouldn't mind seeing this go through.

As for revision schedules I'd be available for certain for this week and the following week, but my connectivity may be limited for a month afterward since I don't know how my internet connection is going to be affected by my upcoming study abroad session.
 
Well, first we need to plan an easily referenced structure for how the changes should be performed.
 
Here is an idea

  • Revise the smallest tiers like Tier 0 as that can be done easily.
  • Organise groups into alphabetical order.
    • A group of people takes A-C
    • A sub group/individuals takes A, B or C respectively.
  • Start from tier 0 and work the way down ending at tier 11
 
@Hizack123

I know your comment was deleted, but just to inform you quickly. The lifting strength scale is based off the Tons mass unit, So Class K is Class Kilotons and Class G is Class Gigatons. Albeit, I'm not quite sure which form of Tons it uses.

I always found the values for SS to be a tad arbitrary myself. Class TJ is supposed to start at high end MCB+, yet Terajoules are only a few hundred Tons of TNT for example, so I'd be okay with a revision. How would we format the new system? Would we just use plain City level for 7-B SS or would we do something like Class MT (MT = Megaton) to signify they hit at Megaton grade damage? Personally, I'm partial towards the ladder option.
 
@Darkanine

How about just using our numbered tier system for striking strength?

For example:

City block level striking strength = Class 8-B

Small Town level striking strength = Class Low 7-C
 
@Kru

Tier 0 does not need to be revised. The striking strength is still..."True Infinity".

Striking strength should not change for anything above measurable energy, if that's what we'e going for, just like attack potency.

Personally, I support Darkanine's suggestion but I'm open minded.
 
I would greatly prefer if we simply give City level striking strength to characters at this level, with the same system as for attack potency. It is far more convenient and easily understood for all of our visitors.
 
How about for those levels "Town Class", "City-Block Class", "City Class", etc.?
 
@Ryukama I suppose that could work as well.
 
I'm fine with whichever most people want.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
@Kru

Tier 0 does not need to be revised. The striking strength is still..."True Infinity".
Click to expand...
@Sera I know this, but I meant like tier 0 (Not tier 0 itself) So basically the tiers that have only page of revisions to make. Tier 11 is another example.
 
Ryukama said:
How about for those levels "Town Class", "City-Block Class", "City Class", etc.?
Click to expand...
Question:

Would just plain old "Class 7-C", "Class 8-B", "Class 7-B" just be simpler?

Or would you prefer to go with your suggestion so as to make it simpler for new visitors?
 
My apologies, but no, I am not going to allow naming the striking strengths after the tiers.

For consistency with the durability and attack potency ratings, we should either use, for example, "City level" or "City class".
 
However, this was not supposed to be a discussion about what we should call the striking strength values, but rather how we should handle converting the ones that do not perfectly overlap with the attack potencies, or are uncertain where to place, due to containing several tiers.
 
I prefer the use of "City Class". Using "level" too many times ''could'' make things confusing.
 
It's quite illogical to possess striking strength greater than your attack potency. So there's that. I believe we should always judge feats.

In most cases if a character physically beat up someone with mountain level durability, their striking strength should be at least mountain level, the reason being said feat. However their attack potency could be much higher, like country level due to having rather powerful energy blasts or something of the sort. Striking strength should be understood as "physical-based", physical attacks and so forth, otherwise, it's just another form of attack potency.

Stop me now if you meant something else by "striking strength overlapping with attack potency".
 
I mean cases when the striking strength is lower than the attack potency, and several tiers are possible from the rating.

Perhaps we have to place links to all such profiles in lists, that we then assemble in a forum thread after the main revision, in order to discuss them?

In worst case, we would simply have to give these characters unknown striking strength values
 
Well...obviously there's a distinction Sera. But yes, no one can have higher striking strength than attack potency.
 
That seems to be the best course of action. Unless, someone has a better idea?
 
Okay. Thank you. You can copy the conversion list here if you wish, but preferably make it a bit more structured and easy to refer to first.
 
I like the look of the proposed revision. @Dark

I am also willing to volunteer myself when then the revision arrives.
 
Dark's suggestion looks good, and I will be available to assist when the revision starts.
 
Thank you. The problem is that Kavpeny is not available to organise this, and I am tired, distracted, and busy, so I need help to set up an easily referred and understood structure.
 
The only thing i forgot to tell is that it would be more appreciated to write at which degree (towards the end) of energy from a calc is required to apply the plus in order to avoid confusion, also the example of Large Island Class is better than Class EJ+.
 
I have now created a conversion chart for the revision:

Class BH -> Below Average Class (10-C)

Class H -> Human Class (10-B), or Athlete Class (10-A)

Class H+ -> Athlete Class (10-A)

Class KJ -> Street Class (9-C), or Wall Class (9-B)

Class KJ+ -> Wall Class (9-B)

Class MJ -> Room Class/Small Building Class (9-A)

Class MJ+ -> Room Class/Small Building Class (9-A)

Class GJ -> Building Class (8-C), Large Building Class (High 8-C), City Block Class (8-B), or Multi-City Block Class (8-A)

Class GJ+ -> Multi-City Block Class (8-A)

Class TJ -> Multi-City Block Class (8-A), Small Town Class (Low 7-C), Town Class (7-C), or Large Town Class (High 7-C)

Class TJ+ -> Large Town Class (High 7-C)

Class PJ -> Small City Class (low 7-B), City Class (7-B), or Large City Class/Mountain Class (7-A)

Class PJ+ -> Large City Class/Mountain Class (7-A)

Class EJ -> Large Mountain Class (High 7-A), Island Class (6-C), or Large Island Class (High 6-C)

Class EJ+ -> Large Island Class (High 6-C)

Class ZJ -> Small Country Class (Low 6-B), Country Class (6-B), or Large Country Class/Small Continent Class (High 6-B)

Class ZJ+ -> Large Country Class/Small Continent Class (High 6-B)

Class YJ -> Large Country Class/Small Continent Class (High 6-B), or Continent Class (6-A)

Class YJ+ -> Continent Class (6-A)

Class NJ -> Large Continent Class/Multi-Continent Class (High 6-A), or Moon Class (5-C)

Class NJ+ -> Moon Class (5-C)

Class XJ -> Moon Class (5-C), Small Planet Class (Low 5-B), or Planet Class (5-B)

Class XJ+ -> Planet Class (5-B)

Class XKJ -> Planet Class (5-B), or Large Planet Class (5-A)

Class XKJ+ - > Large Planet Class (5-A)

Class XMJ -> Large Planet Class (5-A)

Class XMJ+ -> Large Planet Class (5-A)

Class XGJ -> Large Planet Class (5-A), Dwarf Star Class (High 5-A), Small Star Class (Low 4-C), or Star Class (4-C)

Class XGJ+ -> Star Class (4-C)

Class XTJ -> Large Star Class (High 4-C), or Solar System Class (4-B)

Class XTJ+ -> Solar System Class (4-B)

Class XPJ -> Solar System Class (4-B)

Class XPJ+ -> Solar System Class (4-B)
 
Just asking, but is this going to be an immediate revision or a gradual change?

I ask because we have something between 8,000 and 10,000 profiles to revise with this.

Regardless of which one it is, I don't know if I'd be able to assist that much. I'm at the tail end of the school year with finals in two weeks, then I'm thinking of picking up a job over summer and I'm generally going to aim at getting more sleep as I've ruined my sleep cycle recently, and the taking a soft leave from this wiki to relax, actually read some books, and do whatever.

That's not even counting a possible vacation I'll be going on in June.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M3X_2.0
  • Locked
Reinforcing the idea of using Striking Strength.
Replies
27
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Lifting Strength, Tier 11, & Tier 0
Replies
16
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Digital_Franz
Misconceptions about UES and Multipliers
Replies
15
Views
2K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
IGunProFan2341
A 7-A character vs Sukuna in full power
Replies
2
Views
442
IGunProFan2341
IGunProFan2341
IGunProFan2341
1 low-end 7-A Character vs 600+ low-end High 7-C characters
Replies
2
Views
407
IGunProFan2341
IGunProFan2341
Back
Top