- 15,431
- 7,856
Yes, I know this is controversial and I don't care. We need to settle this.
What we need is a definitive baseline for how much stronger a character needs to be in order to one-shot another character. I suggest 5x stronger. It makes reasonable sense (you name someone in real life who can survive getting hit by something 5x stronger) and is widely regarded among other users as an understandable baseline and even considered by some to be an official rule. Under our current rules, one can go "oh, he's 5x stronger, he one-shots" and then go to a different thread and go "oh, there's no agreed on baseline for one-shot. Just because he's 5x stronger doesn't mean he one-shots."
Also, many of our profiles use one-shots for scaling. Rose Quartz is High 6-B for one-shotting a baseline High 6-B. If we use 5x as our baseline, then this makes sense. But, if we have no baseline one could just as easily argue that the baseline is 10x then she should be 6-A instead. Note that she's not listed as "At least High 6-B, likely 6-A". Having no baseline can easily lead to characters with inconsistent ratings and nonsensical statistics. Say character A one-shots character B. Character B is far enough into 7-C that Character A gets brought up to 7-B, as the assumption used for that instance was a 6x gap. However, Character C one-shots Character D and does not get upgraded, as the gap was assumed at 5x. This is despite the fact that D and B are comparable, if not nearly equal, to each other in durability. See the issue?
Counter arguments
"Someone could easily make a thread where they put they're favorite character up against a haxless character they don't like who is 4x weaker and call it decisive." We judge on a case by case basis. For example, Saitama versus someone 4x stronger would be a stomp as Saitama likely has no hax or skill necessary to bridge such a gap. Batman vs someone 4x stronger is decisive as he is both decently varied (tasers, ice grenades, and smoke bombs) and incredibly skilled. This assuming the opponent as few or no hax of course.
"It would make a mess of scaling" Case by case basis. If a character is consistently shown to be the tier that they gain from a scaling chain, then they keep their tier. If a character is given a bunch of anti feats suggesting that they aren't, then it's an outlier. It's better to know definitively that someone is 4-A from a scaling chain then to go "oh, he's 4-B to 4-A ish" due to not having a baseline.
"Fiction is inconsistent in this regard" Fiction is inconsistent in a lot of areas, doesn't mean we make exceptions. DC and Marvel are beyond inconsistent and we can still agree on where they stand. If a character has consistently shown they can take hits from someone 5x stronger then we adjust durability correctly. We already do this for characters like Kharn and Frisk so this shouldn't be an exception.
At the very least debunk my arguments before you close this.
What we need is a definitive baseline for how much stronger a character needs to be in order to one-shot another character. I suggest 5x stronger. It makes reasonable sense (you name someone in real life who can survive getting hit by something 5x stronger) and is widely regarded among other users as an understandable baseline and even considered by some to be an official rule. Under our current rules, one can go "oh, he's 5x stronger, he one-shots" and then go to a different thread and go "oh, there's no agreed on baseline for one-shot. Just because he's 5x stronger doesn't mean he one-shots."
Also, many of our profiles use one-shots for scaling. Rose Quartz is High 6-B for one-shotting a baseline High 6-B. If we use 5x as our baseline, then this makes sense. But, if we have no baseline one could just as easily argue that the baseline is 10x then she should be 6-A instead. Note that she's not listed as "At least High 6-B, likely 6-A". Having no baseline can easily lead to characters with inconsistent ratings and nonsensical statistics. Say character A one-shots character B. Character B is far enough into 7-C that Character A gets brought up to 7-B, as the assumption used for that instance was a 6x gap. However, Character C one-shots Character D and does not get upgraded, as the gap was assumed at 5x. This is despite the fact that D and B are comparable, if not nearly equal, to each other in durability. See the issue?
Counter arguments
"Someone could easily make a thread where they put they're favorite character up against a haxless character they don't like who is 4x weaker and call it decisive." We judge on a case by case basis. For example, Saitama versus someone 4x stronger would be a stomp as Saitama likely has no hax or skill necessary to bridge such a gap. Batman vs someone 4x stronger is decisive as he is both decently varied (tasers, ice grenades, and smoke bombs) and incredibly skilled. This assuming the opponent as few or no hax of course.
"It would make a mess of scaling" Case by case basis. If a character is consistently shown to be the tier that they gain from a scaling chain, then they keep their tier. If a character is given a bunch of anti feats suggesting that they aren't, then it's an outlier. It's better to know definitively that someone is 4-A from a scaling chain then to go "oh, he's 4-B to 4-A ish" due to not having a baseline.
"Fiction is inconsistent in this regard" Fiction is inconsistent in a lot of areas, doesn't mean we make exceptions. DC and Marvel are beyond inconsistent and we can still agree on where they stand. If a character has consistently shown they can take hits from someone 5x stronger then we adjust durability correctly. We already do this for characters like Kharn and Frisk so this shouldn't be an exception.
At the very least debunk my arguments before you close this.