There seems to be a gross misunderstanding of one of the points I made going by quite a handful of people. That being the multiplier chain having been overshot by feats at two specific instances, which would somehow imply the stacking is actually underselling it so it's fine, so, while a slight bit run on
also I'm tired, ain't proof reading this one, I am going to take this time to elaborate and clarify said point in a way that people can no longer misconstrue or misunderstand.
A part of my post above was how the AP feats don't actually corroborate the multiplier chain at all despite some people's claims they do. Some people seem to have missed the point I was making, which wasn't "the multiplier chain/stacking is bad because a later feat is higher".
My argument was that a later feat does
NOT validate the multiplier chain leading up to it despite people suggesting they do.
If the chain says the verse gets to some random arbitrary value, and then the next actual feat is like 823x higher than it, that doesn't remotely prove the chain was secretly good or "conservative", a low-end, etc. It merely proves the chain was simply just wrong, failed to predict, or even line up with anything.
Calling such a thing "conservative" is just hiding the fact it
doesn't fix anything. Yeah sure, you can go and say the chain is a "low end". But don't immediately turn around and say the feats support the multipliers.
They don't in the slightest, like not even a wee tiny bit
Now, if chain is full of arbitrary unknown ">>>" gaps, those gaps
aren't evidence of the chain low-balling them
. They're unknowns. You can't argue to use unknown gaps as evidence, then act like every in-between value is justified? Especially in DBZ where microscopic gaps can at times lead to massive stomps (see Vegeta), it's just one of many unquantifiable factors.
Like yeah okay, Frieza's Planet Vegeta feat is high. That's cool, imagine that, actually using the feats. But how does that prove Jeice is where the multiplier chain puts him?
It doesn't.
Jeice could be higher. He could be lower.
We don't know, because the
only thing actually being used is one big feat way later, that is completely
detached from said chain, then ya'll just assume every step before it neatly fits under that feat?
A high feat from Frieza doesn't retroactively prove the whole ludicrous stacking from Roshi to Goku to Raditz to Nappa to Goku again to Vegeta to Zarbon to Recoome to Jeice to Goku again to Ginyu to Goku again, ft. a few dozen other dudes, all lined up correctly and are actually
consistent. It only proves
Frieza has that feat. Same with Cell.
Now, if the stacking chain only gets to 50% SSJ Goku, then Cell's statement is over 1,000x higher than that. That doesn't mean "wowza, the chain was just super conservative, they're secretly higher, so it's fine". What it would actually entail is the multipliers were full of it and don't actually align with anything.
You can attempt to patch that over with unknown gaps, that may be true, but hell, I mean you can attempt to patch anything over if you really wanted to that doesn't mean a whole lot, yet once you attempt to do that, you're
not proving the multipliers anymore. You're just slapping on random excuses to justify why it's wrong but should still be allowed
despite that. If the multiplier chain needs cool secret hidden ">>>" memes to reach the next actual feat, then the actual feat in question isn't supporting the multipliers. The chain is being stretched and tweaked to fit the feat
after the fact.
That's not consistency my dudes, it's simply going:
"Well, somewhere in the middle there MUST be a huge unquantified gap, so the chain is fine".
Nuh uh, that means the multipliers ain't even doing the sole thing you're all arguing they're doing, that being showing and proving statistical progression properly.
The feat is what's doing any semblance of work here, and the in-between placements are effectively being guessed, or "vibed", by stacking random slop to make it
seem like there's actual quantifiable progression (not to say there isn't progression, obviously there is, but you get what I mean).
And yet, the same logic applies both ways. After Cell, the chain
doesn't stay allegedly conservative. It starts escalating
millions of times above the last feat with no new feat validating the alleged "conservative approach". So the issue isn't even just "the chain is low". The issue is that the chain is disconnected
both ways.
Before Frieza and Cell, it undershoots the next feat by massive amounts.
After Cell, it overshoots the last tangible showing by massive amounts.
That doesn't implicate a validated multiplier chain. It shows a funny chain that selectively picks the best possible examples, ignores
everything in between that may or may not complicate it's alleged consistency or conservative status, and in fact may even contradict it at times, and handwave the rest because?
Like really now, "the chain has unknown gaps it's conservative", isn't justifying the use of multipliers. That's quite literally one of the problems I'm pointing out here.
Unknown gaps
do not validate exact scaling.
A later high feat
does not prove every previous step.
Being able to slap a silly lil ">>>" between characters
does not mean the multiplier chain is supported.
If ya'll trying to say "well, the gaps are unknown", then don't act like the result is precise, consistent, or proven by the multipliers
or feats in the first place, like "the multipliers line up with feats" is outright false, like it or not, the feats
don't corroborate the multipliers, and
never do.
They either show up way above where the stacking got, meaning the chain didn't corroborate them, or the chain later inflates way past what can be proven or corroborated, meaning it no longer has a feat to use as an excuse.
Saying it's conservative, low-ending, whatever, essentially just admits the chain has giant unquantified problems, then acts like that somehow makes it valid.
Another thing too: the "it's just conservative" justification is
only even possible to mention at all because of cherry picking the biggest feats to use as some sort of "anchor" or "benchmark", if that makes sense, in the first place.
Yep, Frieza and Cell have insanely good slop. Frieza destroying Planet Vegeta is the most important and shown feat in the entire franchise. Cell's solar system shit exists too. Yet once again, the issue is acting like those two high-end points
magically validate every random in-between placement made through multiplier stacking.
Does anyone honestly think Toriyama was writing this like:
"Ah yes, that [REDACTED] Raditz is exactly this many thousands of times weaker than Frieza, so he should land at about here".
Hell no, obviously not.
The logic was more akin to:
"DB dudes can blow up a moon (Roshi, Piccolo, Budokai Goku)".
"Vegeta/Spirit Bomb can blow up a planet".
"Frieza can easily blow up a bigger/more impressive planet".
"Cell threatens the solar system".
That's it. The escalation is point A to point B, not a perfectly exact datasheet as if this were D&D where every character between those points has consistent "yeah def around here" intent (
even worse because Toriyama himself has stated his own multipliers were exaggerated relative to what he felt they were actually at but that's not relevant to this specific point).
And to be clear, don't get me wrong here, this isn't me saying calcs are bad. The feats are legit. They exist. They happened. If Frieza has a high feat, then Frieza has that high feat, can't really deny that. If Cell has his statement, then Cell has his funny lil statement too. That's all cool, poggers, you get it, if someone where to argue against them, I would be first to bat, hell I have
literally done so before.
That's besides the point though; the problem is using those isolated detached high points and acting like
the entire multiplier stacking leading to them was somehow accurate or validated by it.
Frieza's feat is insanely high. Neat.
How does that prove Guldo, Jeice, Recoome, Saiyan Saga Goku, Raditz, or anyone else is exactly where the chain places them? Or the upscaling chain for that matter?
Either or. Either way. The problem stays the same.
It doesn't prove a thing.
You can stack 50 multipliers backward from Frieza if you want, or 50 forward from Roshi, but that doesn't mean the result is actually corroborated by the material. It just means ya'll took one exceptional anchor and wormed a bunch of characters into positions beneath it or above it, and then acting like it's all valid and true instead of just excessive extrapolation stretched far beyond what the material actually indicated.
And this gets even worse, just look at the actual feats those characters are doing around those points. They're not consistently whipping out shit that lines up with Frieza's feat or Cell's statement (or to be more exact, around the level that the multipliers off said feats would suggest they'd be). A lot of their actual feats are way, way below that too.
Obviously, to expect every feat to be on similar scale is unrealistic, but follow me here for a sec, this isn't always just "casual wall Superman feat, it doesn't implicate his actual stats". A lot of these are high-powered attacks, desperate moves, hyped techniques, stuff with guide-backed statements
this one is a bit notable, or major plot relevant showings. They're not all irrelevant throwaway bit feats. Unfortunate as it might be, the verse has tons of showings that
don't line up with the idea that the multiplier chain is secretly conservative or low-balling so "it's fine". There will be many times in the chain when the feats
undershoot what they're meant to be by amounts that are impossible to rectify.
Which, is to say, the chain is conservative because Frieza/Cell overshoot it, or the stacking is fine because some stuff is higher, is incoherent with the actual argument being made, nor does it justify the usage of them regardless.
It only
looks conservative at those two
exact points because they're the cherry-picked main feats.
Out of hundreds of feats and showings, the chain just so happens to get overshot twice, and then people
restructure the entire chain around those
after the fact. That's very much
not the same thing as validation.
It basically jut amounts to:
1. Stack multipliers while ignoring what's happening in-between until we reach some value.
2. Find a later feat that's way higher.
3. Say "see, the chain was just conservative" or "it's fine the stacking is actually downplaying".
4. Then use that later feat to justify all the in-between placements retroactively.
That's a thinly veiled circular justification chat.
And it's hypocritical too, if you actually used that logic backward without restraint in the same way it's being abused forward, you'd get insane contradictory results. You'd end up with stuff like 5-A+ Red Ribbon Saga Goku or absurd planet-busting humans, depending on how hard you backscale. But nobody accepts that
I say knowing damn well many of you accept that, as just about everyone on some whimsical level gets that you can't just stack indefinitely from a huge later point and pretend every earlier character would land neatly where said stacks would indicate especially once you factor in the actual showings.
So why is it suddenly valid when doing it for the lads people want to upscale?
That ain't being conservative with multipliers. The verse just happens to have two major AP feats that overshoot the chain at
two specific points. But fails or is suspect at
every other single point in-between.
And after Cell, what happens?
You guessed it, the manga fails to overshoot the chain.
So the chain just keeps inflating.
It shoots
millions of times above the last neat lil anchor because there's no new Frieza or Cell feat to hide behind anymore. Which in reality, simply goes to show what was
already happening without a miracle occurring to use as an excuse: the multiplier chain was
never truly being corroborated by the feats or "close enough" to matter. It just got lucky that Frieza and Cell had two big statements/feats that could be used as new anchors
and only sometimes, let's not forget there's about 30 ways to calc Planet Vegeta being destroyed, from multiple showings/adaptions of it, and some of them are even further off, and some are even lower.
So why we pretending this is some secretly lowballed, feat-supported chain?
It's not.
It's a multiplier chain that fails to line up with most of the actual showings, gets miraculously saved twice by cherry-picked high-end "benchmarks", then fails completely once nothing new
above it happens.
And that's
just AP.
Speed is even worse, speed
never gets that lucky.
For speed, our Z-boys are basically stuck with the early 0.54c moon bust feat for an absurd amount of time, while every later speed rating comes from just stacking multipliers higher and higher. In Z, this gets exploited into the millions, billions, or trillions depending on who we talking about. In Super, it gets so absurd to the point it's actively beyond human comprehension.
But where are the actual speed feats that line up with that?
They aren't there.
The dudes keep performing beam feats and movement feats way below what the multiplier chain says they should be doing. You'll have something like Gohan's attack coming out around a few c (best case), while the multiplier chain says he should be hundreds of millions of c at that point, as just one of many examples.
That's
not a small gap.
That's
not "conservative".
That's the multiplier chain being so utterly detached from the actual speeds to a mind boggling degree.
And I really don't want to be this dude but...
Movement speed too is a thing.
Yes, movement speed and combat speed
is different, that's acceptable imo,
but, even if movement and combat isn't 1:1 (with combat/reactions being generally higher), movement
still gets higher with power
too, yet why is it the absolute best high-end god tier movement feats are like sub-rel, some of which aren't even casual either, yet when going by the multipliers if actually applied uniformly like implied, they should easily be well into MFTL+? Buu Saga Goku going by the multipliers would be 5 digit MFTL off just his mach 20 movement feat in Saiyan Saga, for example.
But they aren't, there's straight up anti-feats and showings to these things, they aren't even subtle. Irreconcilable even, it's why there's a split to begin with.
It's just hiding the outlier at that point, except the outlier
doesn't even exist because it stems entirely from stacking a few hundred to thousands of multipliers
instead of a real feat.
Anyway, "the chain undershoots Frieza and Cell, ergo, it's conservative" thing only works if one ignores
all the other feats, cherry-pick two points out of thousands, act like every in-between placement is validated retroactively, and then refuse to apply that same logic backward when it would obviously break the verse, and even sometimes forward when it misses the mark.
tldr ig:
A high Frieza feat proves Frieza has a high feat.
A high Cell statement proves Cell has a high statement.
Neither of those prove every multiplier stack or chain leading to them is accurate.
Neither of those prove every in-between character lands about where the chain puts them..
And none of those justify, let alone prove, stacking multipliers ten frugtillion hundreds of times until the result is bafflingly incoherent and supported by literally nothing is ok.
Also yes I'm arguing all the multipliers bar a few strict notable cases suck and lead to absurd contradictory or baseless inflation for every canon bar Toei (and I suppose the DBH/Xeno stuff), or to be more exact "stop abusing and stacking multipliers into infinity".
