Upscaling Guidelines

[Lilybitdun]

Current consensus seems to be Qawsedf's wording with 1.2x, I know Agnaa suggested rewording it with rating/statistic instead of tier here

Is 6-2 enough to move forward? The upscaling to + of a tier part is technically 6-3
Couldn't find anything for the ruling of agree/disagree ratio for a thread to pass, unless it's done the same as versus threads?

 

[Antvasima]

It is normally sufficient to pass, but this time there are divergent opinions regarding how to pass it.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Weekly Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have helped out in this thread, so I can ping them?

 

[Lilybitdun]

Which staff members have helped out in this thread, so I can ping them?

There isn't any staff members who have commented here and not voted, but the list of staff that interacted with the thread are:
@Agnaa, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Dalesean027, @KLOL506, @SomebodyData, @Planck69, @Qawsedf234, @Damage3245, @LephyrTheRevanchist

Not sure if pinging them again is gonna help tho

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm still the same thoughts as Agnaa regarding the open interpretation, but leaning towards the 1.2x end.

 

[KLOL506]

I'll add some new stuff.

I am against upscaling to + thresholds (Like scaling to the + of a tier via upscaling this way), but for upscaling to the next tier, I am most comfortable with a 1.05-1.1x gap and the feat has to be done/withstood with minimal-to-no effort/injury.

 

[Antvasima]

Current consensus seems to be Qawsedf's wording with 1.2x, I know Agnaa suggested rewording it with rating/statistic instead of tier here

Is 6-2 enough to move forward? The upscaling to + of a tier part is technically 6-3

It is normally sufficient to pass, but this time there are divergent opinions regarding how to pass it.

@Agnaa @Dalesean027 @SomebodyData @Planck69 @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @LephyrTheRevanchist

 

[Antvasima]

We need to reach an agreement here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We need to reach an agreement here.

Just go with majority option and replace it with the place holders I used.

 

[Dalesean027]

Basically yeah what Qaw said

 

[Damage3245]

I don't have anything else to comment on it for now, just implement what Qaws said.

 

[Lilybitdun]

So this?

It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is given the "+" rating for that tier or is otherwise under 1.2x from the next level. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. Additionally, multiple-tier jumps through this method are not allowed, and generally, a gap of over 2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Fine with me

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is fine with me as well then.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Alright, just need someone to make the edit on the Powerscaling page replacing this section with the agreed upon rewording then

 

[Antvasima]

I handled it.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Powerscaling?diff=9560867&oldid=8606167

 

[Agnaa]

Unlocking because I just noticed an issue.

The wording that was applied seems noticeably different from what was agreed upon. In particular, it explicitly says that just having the + symbol qualifies one for upscaling to the next tier, and that being outside of it (being more than 2x away) is the main disqualifier.

While our actual votes mostly required far smaller gaps.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Ah hadn't noticed that, good catch

It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above or the "+" rating of their current tier if they are 1.2x or less away from the rating. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. A gap of over 1.2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues.

Does this fix it?

 

[Damage3245]

Agnaa is right. I don't know what 2x would be mentioned if the gap already has to be less than 1.2x, and mentioning the "+" seems redundant since any gap under 1.2x means there would already be a + symbol in the tier of the value that is being upscaled.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'd just go with this:

It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above them if the latter is at or under 1.2x from the next level. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. Additionally, multiple-tier jumps are not allowed through this method to avoid potential scaling chain issues.

 

[Lilybitdun]

I'd just go with this:

The upscaling to "+" of a tier as long the character is 1.2x or less below it was accepted tho

 

[Qawsedf234]

The upscaling to "+" of a tier as long the character is 1.2x or less below it was accepted tho

Ah your right, then I think you're proposal is fine, though I'd drop the last part to this:

Additionally, multiple-tier jumps through this method are not allowed.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Ah your right, then I think you're proposal is fine, though I'd drop the last part to this:

Alright, updated the proposal

 

[Damage3245]

How many staff voted to agree with allowing upscaling to the midpoint of a tier?

 

[Lilybitdun]

How many staff voted to agree with allowing upscaling to the midpoint of a tier?

6 staff agreed on it
3 disagreed on it, 4 including KLOL but they are CGM

 

[Antvasima]

So should we update the page with the following text then?

"It's possible for a character depicted as vastly superior to another in a statistic to achieve a tier above or the "+" rating of their current tier if they are 1.2x or less away from the rating. However, such ratings ultimately require case-by-case analysis, such as consistency, the length of any/all scaling chains, and how they are portrayed within the work itself. A gap of over 1.2x would not be considered for such an upscaling to avoid potential scaling chain issues."