Regarding Upscaling

[Damage3245]

The topic of this staff-only thread is to discuss our current policy of upscaling between characters who show clear superiority, and what exact guidelines are required if this policy is going to be allowed to continue.

Overview

All the tiers are just terms that encompass a range of values to keep things simple on the wiki. They should not be treated like targets, or checkpoints, or benchmarks for characters to reach. If you have two characters in the upper regions of Island level and one of them one-shots the other, we shouldn't say "Might as well upscale them to Large Island level because they're not that far off anyway." This kind of mindset leads to an inflation of values and ratings on the wiki.

At the moment, with upscaling we’re basically treating it as if it is okay to apply a 1.5x multiplier to somebody's AP so long as it brings them within the boundaries of the next tier.

Example 1

If Character A one-shots Character B - and Character B is rated as 700 Gigatons, then it would be treated as okay for Character A to scale to the next tier which begins at 1 Teraton.

There isn’t any guideline on why this would be okay on any of our pages, just a generally accepted notion that if you can multiply Character B’s tier by 1.5 and it is within the next tier, then Character A can be upscaled to the next tier.

The problem is that it is no better than giving them a random value.

Example 2

If for example the next tier began at 1.5 Teratons instead, then scaling Character A to 1 Teraton just for one-shotting Character B is not allowed. It would be an arbitrary, weird increase of 300 Gigatons because at the moment we don't currently grant characters multipliers just for one-shotting characters.

In both Example 1 and Example 2, Character A should simply scale to 700 Gigatons instead of the value of 1 Teraton, regardless of whether the next tier up begins at 1 Teraton or not. If we think that there is a good chance that the character could be stronger than that value then instead of assigning a random number like 1 Teraton or 1.1 Teratons or 1.2 Teratons, etc, we can amend their rating to include "possibly/likely higher" or "far higher", or say that is "at least 700 Gigatons". We have those qualifiers for a reason. We don't need to upscale to arbitrary values.


Conclusion

If you don't want to prohibit arbitrary upscaling, then upscaling needs to be allowed for all cases of superior powerscaling. Not just if it leads to the next tier. Every time characters one-shots each other, give them a 1.5x multiplier, no matter what the result is. Otherwise we're being deliberately inconsistent just to rate characters higher than what the feats and calcs suggest. And we need to acknowledge this on our pages somewhere.

Our current page on Powerscaling says this:

So if Character A is capable of lifting a car. And Character B has proven to be stronger than Character A, then it is safe to say that Character B can also lift a car.

Although a misuse or over extrapolation of powerscaling can lead to grossly inaccurate ratings, a logical and moderate use can be both helpful and essential to properly determining one's power.

My proposal is simply that we adhere to this principle and stop upscaling characters just because they’re stronger and a higher tier would look neater on their profile. We don’t need to say; “Character B can lift a truck because Character A lifted a car.”

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Sera_EX @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @MrKingOfNegativity @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura

What do you think about this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Unless we're changing the guidelines, I'm with Damage.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Of course it’s staff only...

100% vehemently disagree with Damage on this, while I understand the logic, there is nothing wrong with the concept of upscaling someone to a next tier when they are close to it and there is an implied huge gap of power

In a scenario where Guy A is 900 Gigatons and Guy B One-Shots Guy A and is implied to be far stronger, it would be completely acceptable to upscale Guy B to 1 Teraton, there’s nothing wrong with upscaling and I refuse to just get rid of it because of the logic that “higher tiers aren’t better”

 

[AKM sama]

I believe upscaling can be logical in select cases where there is a massive scaling chain and extreme power gap between two checkpoints, and we need to fill the empty spaces with arbitrarily assumed tiers. Although, due to lack of proper guidelines regarding this, it can be easily misused in cases where it is not required just for the sake of jumping tiers.

 

[Damage3245]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; the issue isn't that "higher tiers aren't better".

It's that it is currently being applied inconsistently and there are no written guidelines for it anywhere on our wiki.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think I need to disagree with the statement that it's no better than a random tier. We can reliably say they are possibly x tier for being that far superior. It isn't arbitrary due to the fact that it relies on the next lowest tier- so I think in general there's a soft disagree from me. Upscaling can exist.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; the issue isn't that "higher tiers aren't better".

It's that it is currently being applied inconsistently and there are no written guidelines for it anywhere on our wiki.

We established quite a bit ago that a gap less than 1.5x and an implied huge gap of power would be fine for upscaling, It’s really not an unreasonable method of power scaling

I’m fine with adding an explanation guideline somewhere on a page about upscaling

 

[Damage3245]

I think I need to disagree with the statement that it's no better than a random statement. We can reliably say they are possibly x tier for being that far superior. It isn't arbitrary due to the fact that it relies on the next lowest tier- so I think in general there's a soft disagree from me. Upscaling can exist.

Upscaling can exist, but not in its current state.

We need guidelines for it, and we need it to be acceptable in all cases in order not to be inconsistent with how we apply this.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

This argument of yours entirely relies on a false premise.

"arbitrary Upscaling"

Definition of Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Most Upscaling Chains will either have a reason based on contextual information that allows us to Inform our Decision or work based on Logical Progression of the scaling chain within the wiki. The Reason you think it's Arbitrary is that you disagree with the reasoning. it's for this reason why we have CRT's that encourages discussion so that we can agree or disagree with the scaling.

Our rules are Guidelines that help us analyzing a variety of forms of Fiction they not meant to be shackles that bind us from making logical deductions because we cant sum something up with a specific number.

For example, if we had to take the Strict definition of an Outlier then goodluck arguing that Pre Crisis Superman is above 8-C because his building level feats observably outnumber any of his other feat thus by definition making it his most consistent portrayal of strength. but nobody is going to argue that because we have the context to inform us what the Fiction is trying to showcase. it's why even the most ambiguous elements of a feat can be argued with the right amount of context hence the terms of LIKELY and Possibly existing within our system.

We don’t need to say; “Character B can lift a truck because Character A lifted a car.”

Of course, we can. If the person lifted the car hundreds of feet into the air with his Pinky, the first argument is an extremely logical one.

Context is King.

So Yes I disagree heavily. The problem isn't rooted in upscaling itself.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I agree with providing guidelines. I disagree with the notion that it is all arbitrary and can't possibly be used to apply the next tier. I realize that the boundaries for the tiers themselves are somewhat arbitrary (depending on the tier), but being able to logically say "this character is probably breaching into the next tier" isn't.

But yeah, guideline away, maestro.

 

[Damage3245]

The Reason you think it's Arbitrary is that you disagree with the reasoning.

I haven't brought up any specific examples here that I disagree with. How can you say I think it is arbitrary because I disagree with the reasoning?

Of course, we can. If the person lifted the car hundreds of feet into the air with his Pinky, the first argument is an extremely logical one.

That's a completely different situation to what I quoted. That is an actually measurable feat. In which case no upscaling is needed.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Upscaling can exist, but not in its current state.

We need guidelines for it, and we need it to be acceptable in all cases in order not to be inconsistent with how we apply this.

I would be 100% fine with applying guidelines and universally applying this all profiles, upscaling to me is a perfectly fine practice that does make profiles better IMO

My rule has always been this, if the gap is less than 1.5x, and the reasoning is a one-shot or implied huge gap of power, then upscaling is completely acceptable, whether the implied gap of power is huge would have to be debated in a CRT of course

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with providing guidelines. I disagree with the notion that it is all arbitrary and can't possibly be used to apply the next tier. I realize that the boundaries for the tiers themselves are somewhat arbitrary (depending on the tier), but being able to logically say "this character is probably breaching into the next tier" isn't.

But yeah, guideline away, maestro.

Sure. I agree with you there. Saying a "character is possibly/probably in the next tier" though is different to saying "This character is definitely jumping up to the next tier."

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

I haven't brought up any specific examples here that I disagree with. How can you say I think it is arbitrary because I disagree with the reasoning?



That's a completely different situation to what I quoted. That is an actually measurable feat. In which case no upscaling is needed.

The entire argument that it's possible for a character to scale to something that is 1.5x stronger because he one shot the other character is highlighted within your OP. that within itself is a Valid argument that you're dismissing as Arbitrary.

 

[Damage3245]

I would be 100% fine with applying guidelines and universally applying this all profiles, upscaling to me is a perfectly fine practice that does make profiles better IMO

My rule has always been this, if the gap is less than 1.5x, and the reasoning is a one-shot or implied huge gap of power, then upscaling is completely acceptable, whether the implied gap of power is huge would have to be debated in a CRT of course

The entire argument that it's possible for a character to scale to something that is 1.5x stronger because he one shot the other character is highlighted within your OP. that within itself is a Valid argument that you're dismissing as Arbitrary.

Can you explain why a gap of 1.5x would be more accurate than a gap of 1.4x? Or 1.6x?

In what way is 1.5x not an arbitrary measurement for "one-shotting someone" or a "huge gap of power"?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Then I can agree with your core idea, yes. I agree that stamping them in 100% to the next tier could be problematic. With that said, I'm gonna post something from a normal user that reached out and asked me to post it, the following ain't my own opinion.

"The example of the LS is faulty imo since the gap between lifting a car and a truck is pretty big, like if someone is near the top of the tier and there's someone who stomps them/is considered way stronger then them I see no reason to have them in the next tier, heck this can be used to go the opposite extreme where there're scaling chains of being superior by a good amount but still in the same tier because we can't upscale by a decent amount"

Said user is Tllmbrg, if that matters. Told him I'm only posting one thing from him on here so... this was that.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Can you explain why a gap of 1.5x would be more accurate than a gap of 1.4x? Or 1.6x?

In what way is 1.5x not an arbitrary measurement for "one-shotting someone" or a "huge gap of power"?

Because I personally think 1.5x is an extremely reasonable increase to suggest when there is an implied gap of power, it just means you need less than a 50% increase in power to get to the new tier and in series where characters get massively stronger and have huge scaling chains, it's extremely reasonable to bump them up to the next tier, it means you've already passed the arithmetic mean between tiers as well

Yeah it may be arbitrary, but IMO it's a perfectly fine guideline that I feel is acceptable

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

"A One-Shot is a self-explanatory term, referring to defeating an opponent in a single attack.

Take two hypothetical opponents. We'll call them Fighter A and Fighter B.

In a normal fight, Fighters A and B can exchange several attacks with each other. When one of the fighters can one-shot, Fighter A can incapacitate, if not outright kill Fighter B with a single attack.

In order for a one-shot to happen, Fighter A's attack must have an Attack Potency that's quite above Fighter B's Durability."

1.5x times barely counts as "quite above" anything in most measurements that isn't sound-based. we have larger gaps between Athletes in real life that are still comparable to one another yet the argument for 1.5x is Arbitrary?.

 

[Damage3245]

@Mr._Bambu; I can see why people wouldn't like the idea of scaling chains being stuck within the same tier. But most of the time characters either have supporting feats to get them to higher tiers or valid multipliers to increase their ratings.

In cases where they don't, it might be better if we stick with "At least X" and "likely higher", "likely far higher", if there's no way for us to give an accurate value.

Which verses currently use upscaling (without supporting feats or multipliers) in order to jump up multiple different tiers? (I know this isn't your opinion. Just figured I'd ask)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I can't think of any verse that uses upscaling to such effect personally, could ask the user if you're interested in hearing their insight or, with your blessing, o mighty thread creator, I could just give the lad permission to speak himself.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I understand this is a staff thread, but i’m on topic and this is a legitimate suggestion, so I should be fine.

If we make standards for upscaling, we need standards for downscaling as well. Downscaling is a very similar idea with the same logic behind it, just negative instead of positive.

 

[Antvasima]

So would we need to modify any of our official instructions pages to accommodate this?

 

[Damage3245]

@Axxtentacle; I'll allow your comment because yes, downscaling is also relevant to this.

I just kept the OP focused on upscaling because that's what I see in the majority of CRT threads where this topic comes up.

 

[Damage3245]

So do we need to modify any of our official instructions pages to accommodate this?

If we're going to be keeping it, then we definitely need to do modifications in order to acknowledge it and officially recognize when it should be done.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

That's a completely different situation to what I quoted. That is an actually measurable feat. In which case no upscaling is needed.

The problem with your example is that it forces us to agree based on a lack of context.

who is lifting the car and the truck?
are they lifting it a few meters off the ground or a few feet.
are they lifting it with their hands or with an instrument like a jack
were they healthy, were they sick?
what car is it and what truck.

This example doesn't work because it fails to address what an actual upscaling feat looks like.
feats in series don't happen in a vacuum-like your trying to argue.

 

[Damage3245]

@Shadowbokunohero; it wasn't meant as a specific example. Apologies.

Just that based on what our current powerscaling page says "If B is stronger than A, and A lifts a car then it is reasonable that B could lift a car too". That's all that quote is meant for.

Could B be stronger than that? Absolutely. But the powerscaling page makes a point of stating that we scale B to A's feat. Not that we can scale B to some point above A's feat.

Hence why we either need to stop arbitrary upscaling, or acknowledge it somewhere in our pages.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

A regular user reached out to me and asked me to post this on behalf of them

"I’m in agreement with setting guidelines for upscaling, but I 100% disagree with nuking it as upscaling can help to form a concrete placement for some far stronger characters rather than just slapping on “at least” or “far higher”"

I mean I know that isn't much, but I know many regular users who are vehemently against nuking upscaling and are mad that this is staff only

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

@Shadowbokunohero; it wasn't meant as a specific example. Apologies.

No worries.

Could B be stronger than that? Absolutely. But the powerscaling page makes a point of stating that we scale B to A's feat. Not that we can scale B to some point above A's feat.

yes but this what i meant by saying before we can make judgements like this we need to look at the context. we can't have a universal standard because works of fiction don't themselves have a consistent standard across the board.

There are two wooden boards. Board Z can broken with 1000 newtons and Board X can be broken with 1075 Newtons.

Character A can Break board Z. and Character B can Match Character.

The Logical Conclusion here is that Character B can also break Board Z.

10 years layer Character B has trained nonstop has been stated to completely eclipse his past self in strength.

would a Logical Conclusion based on deductive reasoning not be that Character B now can more than likely break Board X based on the marginal difference between Z and X?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like Damage's suggestions are not going to be accepted, but we probably need to clarify our official instructions for this a bit.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Something simple like this should be fine

"Someone can be upscaled if there exists a calculation within 1.5x of the next tier, and said character scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, for example being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack"

 

[Damage3245]

Well, it seems like Damage's suggestions are not going to be accepted, but we probably need to clarify our official instructions for this a bit.

It's been discussed for not even two hours yet. Bit premature to say that nothing will be accepted.

 

[Damage3245]

Something simple like this should be fine

"Someone can be upscaled if there exists a calculation within 1.5x of the next tier, and said character scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, for example being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack"

Sorry, but that doesn't take into account my main issue.

Being within 1.5x of the next tier should be irrelevant. Why can a character be upscaled to a higher value if they're within 1.5x of the next tier, but not if they're 1.6x away from the next tier?

Did they stop being above the other character by a wide margin just because the next tier is no longer within reach? If being above another character by a wide margin should be enough to be multiplied by 1.5x, then it doesn't matter if that changes their tier or not. It should be done either way.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Sorry, but that doesn't take into account my main issue.

Being within 1.5x of the next tier should be irrelevant. Why can a character be upscaled to a higher value if they're within 1.5x of the next tier, but not if they're 1.6x away from the next tier?

Did they stop being above the other character by a wide margin just because the next tier is no longer within reach? If being above another character by a wide margin should be enough to be multiplied by 1.5x, then it doesn't matter if that changes their tier or not. It should be done either way.

I mean you are being needlessly unreasonable if you don't think someone who can one-shot another character can't logically be 1.5x greater than them, yeah I get that's it an arbitrary number, but it's still extremely reasonable number and I will stand by that

Upscaling will and always will be fine to me, jumping to a next tier is perfectly fine when the gap is small

 

[Damage3245]

I mean you are being needlessly unreasonable if you don't think someone who can one-shot another character can't logically be 1.5x greater than them, yeah I get that's it an arbitrary number, but it's still extremely reasonable number and I will stand by that

Reasonable? Maybe, sure. It isn't a particularly outrageous multiplier.

But it needs to be applied consistently if this arbitrary value is going to be used. Not just because it can grant access to higher tiers.

It shouldn't matter whether a character is a higher or lower tier. The terms of "At least" and "Possibly/likely higher" are used throughout the wiki and aren't wrong to use to me. Most of the time I consider them more valid than just want to bump a character up or down a tier.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Reasonable? Maybe, sure. It isn't a particularly outrageous multiplier.

But it needs to be applied consistently if it is going to be used. Not just because it can grant access to higher tiers.

It shouldn't matter whether a character is a higher or lower tier. The terms of "At least" and "Possibly/likely higher" are used throughout the wiki and aren't wrong to use to me. Most of the time I consider them more valid than just want to bump a character up or down a tier.

I do apply it consistently and will support any upscaling that falls within this category, but it's not as black and white as you say it is, not every single situation of upscaling fits within the same category, when upscaling is applied is case by case to the situation, it can't be uniformly defined under one specific scenario, for some characters, the difference may be only 1.1x, for some it may be 1.3x, the level of the one-shot and how it was performed it also important

Upscaling should stay and be consistently applied, whether it does apply to the guidelines tho is case by case entirely

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

whatever we choose I agree with Damage that we should use it as consistently as we can unless otherwise specified. ( for example, a series that might allow one-shotting for characters that aren't necessarily stronger)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm with AKM Sama about case by case scenarios. But here's my take, I'm also iffy about multiplying it by things like 2x or 1.5x just from one chain of character A stomping character B. I do however have no objections to upscaling, if the gap is like very small. Example, if it's only a 1.03x gap till the next tier with a character being significantly stronger; then the stronger character should be the next tier outright. But for 2 or 1.5x things, I think they should only be used if the numerical gaps are outright stated. And some giant scaling chains between character A and Character Z with each character being stronger than the last can also by a different story.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I should clarify that by no means am I suggesting multiplying by 1.5x or 2x, I just mean to say that if the jump to the next tier is less than 1.5x, then jumping to said next tier is completely fine, but there is no multiplying of random numbers involved, it's just jumping to the Baseline Number of the next tier if there is a small gap the calc and said value

 

[Damage3245]

I get what you're saying. But let's say for example if the tier boundaries didn't exist (after all, they're only there for our convenience and to keep things simple). And let's say that characters were rated as "X Value" based on their feats/calcs instead of "X Tier".

If a character is superior to another, and now there is no "checkpoint" system, now that there is no 1.03x gap or 1.5x gap. Then what exactly is the basis for increasing that character's value to a certain level?