Are Baseline AP for Tiers done in one shot?

[Motomotodedede]

Would a character qualify for Low Multiversal if they can destroy two universes in a couple of hits? Or would it be unquantifiably high into Universal+?

Same with Planet level. Would destroying a planet after 10 hits be planet level, or small planet level?

What if it was a laser that destroyed something in a few seconds? Does the laser scale to the total destruction, or what it did in one second?

 

[Antvasima]

1) Universe level+

2) Small Planet level

3) Preferably one second, but it is not always possible to be consistent regarding this.

 

[Motomotodedede]

So in order for it to be low multiversal and planet level, it would have to be in one attack?

I was asking about this for someone I know, he doesn't want to believe this is how the system works because this isn't explicitly stated on the page. And while I myself accept your answer, he was looking for DarkLK's response, which was why I asked on his wall.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

Well, DarkLK has traditionally been our main expert, but he is usually busy with managing his own wiki.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Are these true for every tier other than Planet Level (5-B) and Low Multiverse Level (2-C)? Since I could ask questions like that about almost all tiers

 

[Antvasima]

Generally, yes. Unless we are talking about the highest tiers.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

So, I can still ask if a character dedtroys 1001 (Baseline 2-B) universes in 10 hits, would it be 2-B or 2-C, but asking the same question, but changing the number of universes from 1001 to infinite is meaningless?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Same goes for durability, if a character hit by another character who is for example, City Level+, and would survive the hit unharmed, does the hurted character's durability would still be City Level+? Or would it actually be Mountain Level or so for surviving it unharmed? (Since the gap between City Level+ and Mountain Level is only 2 times)

 

[Antvasima]

1) It would be 2-C, yes.

2) Splitting 2-A in 10 would still be 2-A, yes.

3) Probably Mountain level, since the other character would be close to the higher tier, but I am not sure about our standard practices for this.

 

[Motomotodedede]

Going off of being confirmed for my two examples, destroying baseline 2-B in a few hits would be almost borderline 2-B, but it would still be considered 2-C. Everything from 1001 universes and up to noninfinite would all be 2-B.

As for your second question, I personally think that would be an okay tier bump to do if they no-sell the attack, but I'm not sure if the wiki would allow it. Edit: ninja'd


Either way, @Antvasima, would it be possible for you to edit it in the Tiering System that the destruction has to be in one attack, or will you have to discuss it among your peers first?

 

[Antvasima]

Don't the Attack Potency and Tiering System pages already clarify that a single attack is necessary?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

1) It would be 2-C, yes.

2) Splitting 2-A in 10 would still be 2-A, yes.

So the question of destroying something with 1 or 10 hits is meaningless when dealing with characters who are ranked as 2-A or higher. The durability question is also meaningless to them.

3) Probably Mountain level, since the other character would be close to the higher tier, but I am not sure about our standard practices for this.

So based on your answer, I assume it would indeed be Mountain Level Durability, and if their striking strength scales to their durability (which I guess most character who attack physically have their striking strength scales) that would make their tier be 7-A too, instead of really high into 7-B.

 

[Motomotodedede]

Don't the Attack Potency and Tiering System pages already clarify that a single attack is necessary?

I thought so too, but apparently not. Honestly, when rereading, it obviously is implied, so I don't understand the confusion. Replacing one of the phrases "the attack" with the phrase "a single attack" should be enough of an edit to prevent others from asking the same question.

 

[Antvasima]

So the question of destroying something with 1 or 10 hits is meaningless when dealing with characters who are ranked as 2-A or higher. The durability question is also meaningless to them.

If I recall correctly, yes.

So based on your answer, I assume it would indeed be Mountain Level Durability, and if their striking strength scales to their durability (which I guess most character who attack physically have their striking strength scales) that would make their tier be 7-A too, instead of really high into 7-B.

Yes regarding the durability, but the striking strength does not always scale to it.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought so too, but apparently not. Honestly, when rereading, it obviously is implied, so I don't understand the confusion. Replacing one of the phrases "the attack" with the phrase "a single attack" should be enough of an edit to prevent others from asking the same question.

What part of which page are you talking about?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Doesn't most characters who attack physically should at least be able to hurt themselves to a cretain degree? Like even regular humans are able to inflict pain to other humans who are comaparable to them

 

[Antvasima]

Not automatically. In fiction certain characters are more durable than they are able to hit. They tend to be called stone walls.

 

[Antvasima]

See here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Stone_Walls

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

So in order for it to be low multiversal and planet level, it would have to be in one attack?

I was asking about this for someone I know, he doesn't want to believe this is how the system works because this isn't explicitly stated on the page. And while I myself accept your answer, he was looking for DarkLK's response, which was why I asked on his wall.

Does he believe it, yet?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Saw it. But is it ok to apply the higher tier (7-A) for characters who aren't stone walls?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

If they have feats of harming characters who can harm them, then yes. Otherwise, it's durability and nothing else.

 

[Motomotodedede]

I thought so too, but apparently not. Honestly, when rereading, it obviously is implied, so I don't understand the confusion. Replacing one of the phrases "the attack" with the phrase "a single attack" should be enough of an edit to prevent others from asking the same question.

What part of which page are you talking about?

Attack Potency Page: Change "The attack potency depends upon the energy output of the attack, not the area of effect of the attack" to "The attack potency depends upon the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack."

Striking Strength Page: Change "Striking Strength is the amount of physical force an individual can deal out" to "Striking Strength is the amount of physical force an individual can deal out in one strike."

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I'd prefer "an attack."

 

[Motomotodedede]

So in order for it to be low multiversal and planet level, it would have to be in one attack?

I was asking about this for someone I know, he doesn't want to believe this is how the system works because this isn't explicitly stated on the page. And while I myself accept your answer, he was looking for DarkLK's response, which was why I asked on his wall.

Does he believe it, yet?

I haven't got a response yet.

 

[Antvasima]

Is there anything left to do here, or can I close this thread?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Aside from maybe making the explainations in the tiering system / AP / Striking Strength pages a bit more clear? Not really

 

[Antvasima]

Which sentences would need to be modified, and to what?

 

[My_area]

I dont think the page needs to be changed though I suppose its clear that 1 shot would be required in order to scale it in any tier

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

The examples from motomoto's last comment are good for that purpose

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

I dont think the page needs to be changed though I suppose its clear that 1 shot would be required in order to scale it in any tier

I don't think it was clear to everyone since as we all see, this thread exists

 

[My_area]

Sometimes misunderstanding can happen so its fine but I guess its clear to most of the people then? If its not clear then it can be updated otherwise its fine as it is because its usually generally understood that in order to be baseline of any tier you need to one shot that specific requirement of the tier

 

[My_area]

I thought so too, but apparently not. Honestly, when rereading, it obviously is implied, so I don't understand the confusion. Replacing one of the phrases "the attack" with the phrase "a single attack" should be enough of an edit to prevent others from asking the same question.

What part of which page are you talking about?

Attack Potency Page: Change "The attack potency depends upon the energy output of the attack, not the area of effect of the attack" to "The attack potency depends upon the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack."
Striking Strength Page: Change "Striking Strength is the amount of physical force an individual can deal out" to "Striking Strength is the amount of physical force an individual can deal out in one strike."

This works I suppose

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that the suggested sentence changes seem fine, but we preferably need some more staff input.

 

[Motomotodedede]

Is there anything left to do here, or can I close this thread?

There's nothing else to do other than the minor sentence tweak.

 

[Antvasima]

You can ask a few administrators to comment here: VS Battles Staff

 

[Motomotodedede]

okay

 

[DarkLK]

In my opinion there should be a single attack, or at least a combination attack (Luffy's gatling gun or something). But honestly, I don't even know about such rules on the VSB.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If we assume that in 10 hits, and they're destroying 1/10th of the structure pure hit, I suppose it would stimply be 1/10th the tier, but those do sound like uncommon examples. But for things of higher infinity, multiple hits probably wouldn't matter. Destroying a Space-Time Continuum is Low 2-C regardless of it being a one-shot, a consumption over time, or someone simply being a living space-time continuum. Same with 2-A, infinity/10 is still infinity.

 

[Crzer07]

I don't think we have yet established a policy on sustained feats, which isn't like chain reaction feats at all. Perhaps sustained feats can be a variation of overtime feats.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we perform the suggested wording changes in the Attack Potency and Striking Strength pages?