Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?
Both.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?

Whichever allows Superman to win the debate.

Combat related feats easy

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Whichever allows Superman to win the debate.
If u really live in Brooklyn I'm gonna drive over there and Superman Punch you. I'm over at Queens.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
If u really live in Brooklyn I'm gonna drive over there and Superman Punch you. I'm over at Queens.

I am the LORD of Brooklyn, of course I live there.

Take your car and meet your doom!

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I am the LORD of Brooklyn, of course I live there.

Take your car and meet your doom!
lamo

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?

I generally use "hard" feats(lifting, breaking/knocking stuff away, throwing, ect for strength, surviving in stars, black holes, really big explosions, ect) for comparison for who should be stronger, tougher, ect when you've got characters with a good number of feats. For example, I'd compare strength feats for Superman with Thor or Hulk, because they have a lot and pretty good ones, but not so much Orion or Captain Marvel, because they have few and most aren't much to write home about.

But I put as much, if not more importance in combat showings, in context, especially for those characters with few if any "hard" feats. But also feats often don't quite translate into a fight. For example, Surfer going through stars should mean just about no non-mystical or especially exotic form of energy should harm him, including kinetic energy(which means getting hit), if it doesn't destroy the planet, but we know that's not the case at all.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
If u really live in Brooklyn I'm gonna drive over there and Superman Punch you. I'm over at Queens.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I am the LORD of Brooklyn, of course I live there.

Take your car and meet your doom!

YouTube this shit for us!!

Planet destroying or planet lifting feats wins every single time. Combat feats can and HAS fell under pis. Surfer and firelord have a good fight in the comics ( has happened ) Thor and firelord have a good fight ( has happened ) Spiderman comes along and beat firelord in a fight, Now using combat feats, i can claim that spiderman can stand up to both thor and surfer going by his BS combat feat. Superman benches the earth weight, gladiator destroys a planet but combat wise they both have lost to characters they should outright destroy with their powerset. You can go back and forth all day with combat feats where A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. We know that superman benched the earths weight and gladiator destroyed a planet with his fists, But do you see them using that kind of strength in combat??? No you do not, and when people make threads about characters at their best, superman will use that STRENGTH feat to send someone into outer space or to the grave and so will gladiator.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Both. Both with some common sense added to the mix.

Originally posted by JBL
Planet destroying or planet lifting feats wins every single time. Combat feats can and HAS fell under pis. Surfer and firelord have a good fight in the comics ( has happened ) Thor and firelord have a good fight ( has happened ) Spiderman comes along and beat firelord in a fight, Now using combat feats, i can claim that spiderman can stand up to both thor and surfer going by his BS combat feat. Superman benches the earth weight, gladiator destroys a planet but combat wise they both have lost to characters they should outright destroy with their powerset. You can go back and forth all day with combat feats where A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. We know that superman benched the earths weight and gladiator destroyed a planet with his fists, But do you see them using that kind of strength in combat??? No you do not, and when people make threads about characters at their best, superman will use that STRENGTH feat to send someone into outer space or to the grave and so will gladiator.

So I guess since say, Kurse is lacking in strength feats, it's bad writing every time he fights Thor? Orion and Captain Marvel have almost no strength feats, I guess it's bad writing every time they give Superman a fight.

Originally posted by Delta1938
I generally use "hard" feats(lifting, breaking/knocking stuff away, throwing, ect for strength, surviving in stars, black holes, really big explosions, ect) for comparison for who should be stronger, tougher, ect when you've got characters with a good number of feats. For example, I'd compare strength feats for Superman with Thor or Hulk, because they have a lot and pretty good ones, but not so much Orion or Captain Marvel, because they have few and most aren't much to write home about.

But I put as much, if not more importance in combat showings, in context, especially for those characters with few if any "hard" feats. But also feats often don't quite translate into a fight. For example, Surfer going through stars should mean just about no non-mystical or especially exotic form of energy should harm him, including kinetic energy(which means getting hit), if it doesn't destroy the planet, but we know that's not the case at all.

Hmmm....I really dont see the relevance. Ive seen characters who can punch a planetyo death get beaten consistently by inferior opponents who can't/couldn't replicate the feat.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Hmmm....I really dont see the relevance. Ive seen characters who can punch a planetyo death get beaten consistently by inferior opponents who can't/couldn't replicate the feat.

The reason for this is that mainstream toons tend to lose more than plot based or obscure ones. Simply due to the fact that if they couldn't be beaten or challenged from time to time, no one would like them. The Hero has to have adversity, or he/she just becomes stale.

Originally posted by Stoic
The reason for this is that mainstream toons tend to lose more than plot based or obscure ones. Simply due to the fact that if they couldn't be beaten or challenged from time to time, no one would like them. The Hero has to have adversity, or he/she just becomes stale.

U know u know that. Im just saying in reference to forum battles and the way we judge them

well take this in to consideration. Are you familiar with Kyle Rayner? you know his feats are legendary and beyond cosmic belief right. well look at this http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/72524/2451486-deathstroke_vs_kyle.jpg
This is the reason why combat related feats are PIS. THIS ONE SCAN JUST OOZES PIS

Originally posted by Sin I AM
U know u know that. Im just saying in reference to forum battles and the way we judge them

Ok I gotcha. However, inept or absent minded writers often make mistakes. Look at Wendigo, and the Abomination for example. Under some writers they seem to be very powerful, and under others they seem like class A wimps. If we look at Superman for example, his reason for appearing to have a tough time with many of his arch enemies seems to be due to his fear of letting loose... therefore he's constantly pulling his punches.

I see a huge flaw in using any characters best feats to make a solid argument without first arguing that characters state of mind. Superman and the Hulk both suffer from the same thing in many of their fights. They aren't murderers.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.

bless



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats? hulk did both at the same time as well as separately, therefor hulk wins

Originally posted by iscaremonkeys
well take this in to consideration. Are you familiar with Kyle Rayner? you know his feats are legendary and beyond cosmic belief right. well look at this http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/72524/2451486-deathstroke_vs_kyle.jpg
This is the reason why combat related feats are PIS. THIS ONE SCAN JUST OOZES PIS
Lol...

I'll see your Slade> Kyle and raise u a Spidey>Firelord

http://longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/firelord-01.png

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/12/123441/3578637-3073135-2987236-2659634-spider_man_vs._firelord__11.jpg

Both count.

But I find combat Feats that have repetition (i.e.- not "one off" showings, but repetitive CONSISTENT performance) are the Gold Standard for really placing a character.

A big reason for me to pick this as my preferred weighing mechanism is based in the visual style variations of (primarily) Marvel and DC.

Note: The following is my opinion based on my view of industry "averages"; and I know that exceptions certainly apply.

Marvel tends to be more "combat feat" rooted for its higher end Feats. Sure, there are "Splash Page Moments" from time to time, but planet pushing is not a typical means for a Marvel Write/Artist to express the power level of their Earth-Bound Herald Class characters.
Or put simply- A character does not need to literally "push a planet" for me to know that they are capable of pushing a planet. Simply (repetitively) matching strength with other foes that themselves have pushed planets is enough to make the basic deduction.
Hulk rarely (for example) blows up a planet. But he has a VERY long history of "consistently" matching well in combat against foes that are obvious planet poppers (such as Thor, Gladiator, Hyperion, etc).
Thus I could deduce that Hulk was a Herald Class Striker waaaaaay before Pak had him pop a planet.
Marvel just tends to be more combat oriented, IMHO, when it comes to showing how its "Supermen" size up against each other.

DC, by contrast, seems far more liberal with its over the top "Splash Page" non-combat visuals.
Wonder Woman, MM, and Supes tugging a planet using a giant chain... this is more of a DC medium than a Marvel medium. Again- I get that exceptions apply.
But overall; we are far more likely to see Superman push a planet than, say, Sentry or Gladiator. This doesn't mean that Gladiator is not capable of pushing a planet (Gladiator matched up almost identically with Hyperion in a grapple, and Hyperion is now famous for planet catching).

As long a character shows me consistent ability to match up with Planet Pushing Star Smashers in combat, then I don't require a separate Splash Page Picture of them also pushing a Planet of their own.

Common sense and repetitive comparative combat analysis are a better indicator for me.
After all... both Superman and Black Adam can push a planet. But it's not until you see them lock up with each other a few times that one can truly tell which of them is stronger than the other.

Nice thread!

Lolz at the Firelord and GL owning.

PIS is indeed a constant issue. But PIS also applies to non-combat Feats. I've seen characters that are well below Class 100 lift things that they have no business trying to budge.

That's why I always go with "consistent" or "repetitive" as a precursor for gauging what is PIS, and what is simply part of a character's power set. If they do something idiotic once, it is likely PIS. If they do something idiotic several times... then it probably isn't as idiotic as I thought, and I may need to re-assess just where on the "comic food chain" said character truly sits.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
Combat related feats easy
Yup, but....

Originally posted by JBL
Planet destroying or planet lifting feats wins every single time. Combat feats can and HAS fell under pis. Surfer and firelord have a good fight in the comics ( has happened ) Thor and firelord have a good fight ( has happened ) Spiderman comes along and beat firelord in a fight, Now using combat feats, i can claim that spiderman can stand up to both thor and surfer going by his BS combat feat. Superman benches the earth weight, gladiator destroys a planet but combat wise they both have lost to characters they should outright destroy with their powerset. You can go back and forth all day with combat feats where A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. We know that superman benched the earths weight and gladiator destroyed a planet with his fists, But do you see them using that kind of strength in combat??? No you do not, and when people make threads about characters at their best, superman will use that STRENGTH feat to send someone into outer space or to the grave and so will gladiator.
Excellent points.

And this is why this is the best of both worlds :
Originally posted by Zack Fair
Both with some common sense added to the mix.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?

Generally me thinks a little bit of everything said character is capable of.

As a mod, this is how I view things:

Both count, but at the end of the day, how you do against your peers is always going to count more than any single feat.

You destroy a planet? Great; let's see how you do in combat against the other heralds in your tier. Combat rankings are a much easier, more exact line of reasoning imo, and they, when taken over time, give us a far better idea of how powerful a character is.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Lol...

I'll see your Slade> Kyle and raise u a Spidey>Firelord

http://longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/firelord-01.png

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/12/123441/3578637-3073135-2987236-2659634-spider_man_vs._firelord__11.jpg
Well Firelord is a chump.

Guys, the Firelord stuff is already invalid on the board.

Originally posted by jaxthejester
Both count.

But I find combat Feats that have repetition (i.e.- not "one off" showings, but repetitive CONSISTENT performance) are the Gold Standard for really placing a character.

A big reason for me to pick this as my preferred weighing mechanism is based in the visual style variations of (primarily) Marvel and DC.

Note: The following is my opinion based on my view of industry "averages"; and I know that exceptions certainly apply.

Marvel tends to be more "combat feat" rooted for its higher end Feats. Sure, there are "Splash Page Moments" from time to time, but planet pushing is not a typical means for a Marvel Write/Artist to express the power level of their Earth-Bound Herald Class characters.
Or put simply- A character does not need to literally "push a planet" for me to know that they are capable of pushing a planet. Simply (repetitively) matching strength with other foes that themselves have pushed planets is enough to make the basic deduction.
Hulk rarely (for example) blows up a planet. But he has a VERY long history of "consistently" matching well in combat against foes that are obvious planet poppers (such as Thor, Gladiator, Hyperion, etc).
Thus I could deduce that Hulk was a Herald Class Striker waaaaaay before Pak had him pop a planet.
Marvel just tends to be more combat oriented, IMHO, when it comes to showing how its "Supermen" size up against each other.

DC, by contrast, seems far more liberal with its over the top "Splash Page" non-combat visuals.
Wonder Woman, MM, and Supes tugging a planet using a giant chain... this is more of a DC medium than a Marvel medium. Again- I get that exceptions apply.
But overall; we are far more likely to see Superman push a planet than, say, Sentry or Gladiator. This doesn't mean that Gladiator is not capable of pushing a planet (Gladiator matched up almost identically with Hyperion in a grapple, and Hyperion is now famous for planet catching).

As long a character shows me consistent ability to match up with Planet Pushing Star Smashers in combat, then I don't require a separate Splash Page Picture of them also pushing a Planet of their own.

Common sense and repetitive comparative combat analysis are a better indicator for me.
After all... both Superman and Black Adam can push a planet. But it's not until you see them lock up with each other a few times that one can truly tell which of them is stronger than the other.

Nice thread! Most combat feats are PIS. There is no gold standard for the most part. Thing has went toe to toe with Namor as almost peers but Namor has went toe to toe with Hulk, Thor, etc.

Characters power levels fluctuate in comics depending on the story and plot. Hulk matching Gladiator doesn't mean he has the strength to push or destroy a planet. This is because Gladiator didn't have planet pushing or destroying power when he fought Hulk. The same goes with other characters. Characters who can move and react at speeds greater than light have problems with beings who are not even bullet fast. And that is very consistent thing in comics, a gold standard.

So for the most part, the power levels in a forum fight can be different than the ones in a particular comic. This is because we don't allow PIS.

Originally posted by h1a8
Most combat feats are PIS. There is no gold standard for the most part. Thing has went toe to toe with Namor as almost peers but Namor has went toe to toe with Hulk, Thor, etc.

Characters power levels fluctuate in comics depending on the story and plot. Hulk matching Gladiator doesn't mean he has the strength to push or destroy a planet. This is because Gladiator didn't have planet pushing or destroying power when he fought Hulk. The same goes with other characters. Characters who can move and react at speeds greater than light have problems with beings who are not even bullet fast. And that is very consistent thing in comics, a gold standard.

So for the most part, the power levels in a forum fight can be different than the ones in a particular comic. This is because we don't allow PIS.

We DO however use CIS. So Gladiator, not being a killer, doesn't go around shattering every opponent he faces like he did that planet. Ditto with Superman. Were they incapable during that fight? Yes, because their mental states act as a limiter. They hold back. Bloodlusted is another matter.

Superboy Prime, however? Does.

I lean toward combat feats. I have a definite bias against planetbusting (goes along with surviving supernovas and black holes). Although I know it's ridiculous to apply RL physics to comics, whenever I see a character bust a planet (especially with a single punch or blast), I take it as an over-the-top, done-for-effect feat because of the sheer amount of power required to explode a planet (minimally, 500x what the Sun puts out per second). Unless it's been well established that a character (eg, Galactus) has that much power, planetbusting is an outlier feat, imho (same with surviving supernovas or black holes).

Both are valid with enough logic and common sense.

Wow. Respectfully, a lot of you don't seem to 'get' comics.

You can't try to filter the PIS out of comics. Comics ARE PIS. The relative rankings of characters are much more important and ingrained in comic 'reality' than what characters 'should' be capable of based on their powers and feats.

Remember, without PIS, most of the physically-based characters would be very low on the food chain. But comics has always been about extolling physical characters whose powers resemble augmented human abilities.

Essentially, feats are virtually 100% irrelevant with respect to their objective or empirically measured magnitude. Writers don't really care much about the implications of their space cheese and other big feats. The only time a feat tells you much is when one character is able to do something that another character cannot. And only then when it is happening under the same writer in the same arc.

Relative showings, combat results, comparative comments, etc. tell you where characters stand. Feats don't matter.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Wow. Respectfully, a lot of you don't seem to 'get' comics.

You can't try to filter the PIS out of comics. Comics ARE PIS. The relative rankings of characters are much more important and ingrained in comic 'reality' than what characters 'should' be capable of based on their powers and feats.

Remember, without PIS, most of the physically-based characters would be very low on the food chain. But comics has always been about extolling physical characters whose powers resemble augmented human abilities.

Essentially, feats are virtually 100% irrelevant with respect to their objective or empirically measured magnitude. Writers don't really care much about the implications of their space cheese and other big feats. The only time a feat tells you much is when one character is able to do something that another character cannot. And only then when it is happening under the same writer in the same arc.

Relative showings, combat results, comparative comments, etc. tell you where characters stand. Feats don't matter.

So if you can't/don't filter it out.....

Where would you stand on Firelord/Spidey, Panther/Surfer et al?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So if you can't/don't filter it out.....

Where would you stand on Firelord/Spidey, Panther/Surfer et al?


Panther/Surfer didn't happen...the Firelord and Spiderman showing has happened too many times for anyone to call it PIS. It's what Spiderman does. Look at the Masterson showing, look st his showing against a pissed Absorbing man. It's too consistent. Spiderman strength fluctuates anyways. The guy was punching holes in Ironman armor as if he was punching through paper.

Comics are inconsistent--even when just dealing with relative showings, comments, etc. (Although these are a model of consistency compared to empirical measurements of feats)

Spidey vs. Firelord is just an outlier. This stuff happens. You can average them out, or just kind of ignore the outliers the way figure skating used to drop the highest and lowest scores.

But what makes Spidey vs. Firelord an outlier is not the fact that Firelord has incinerated continents, but rather that Firelord has typically and normally shown strength and raw power in Thor's league.

So Spidey is a herald buster?

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Comics are inconsistent--even when just dealing with relative showings, comments, etc. (Although these are a model of consistency compared to empirical measurements of feats)

Spidey vs. Firelord is just an outlier. This stuff happens. You can average them out, or just kind of ignore the outliers the way figure skating used to drop the highest and lowest scores.

But what makes Spidey vs. Firelord an outlier is not the fact that Firelord has incinerated continents, but rather that Firelord has typically and normally shown strength and raw power in Thor's league.

See Masterson Thor/Spidey as per carver's comments, additionally note his showing against Phoenix 5 Colossus and Magik (he got beaten, sure, but he wasn't smeared into paste).

Ignoring it as an outlier throws up further problems, though. Flash, for example, has only thrown an IMP once. Twice, if you count his 'I'm hitting with the mass of a white dwarf star' comment. Do we ignore that as well?

Am just curious.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So Spidey is a herald buster?

Not a Herald buster, I just think his powerset allows him to hang with most and sometimes beat them, in time. It's like a child vs a grown man. Of course the hits from a kid will not drop someone at his prime but if it's consistent and coming at that person at a rapid/fast pace...it will take it's toll and that is what happened during every scene I brought up....Spiderman speed blitzed them until he wore them out.

Look at Wolverine...his powerset allows him to do better against bricks that teams/Heralds are having fits against. It's just how it is and it honestly makes sense imo.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
See Masterson Thor/Spidey as per carver's comments, additionally note his showing against Phoenix 5 Colossus and Magik (he got beaten, sure, but he wasn't smeared into paste).

Ignoring it as an outlier throws up further problems, though. Flash, for example, has only thrown an IMP once. Twice, if you count his 'I'm hitting with the mass of a white dwarf star' comment. Do we ignore that as well?

Am just curious.

Colossus was holding back and admitted he didn't want to kill Spiderman. The stuff you are naming have circumstances.

It's not a science. But yeah, things that only happen once or twice and don't get picked up by multiple writers tend to disappear from a character's repertoire. Superman, for example, can't really be expected to whip out T-Vo anymore, etc.

Originally posted by carver9
Not a Herald buster, I just think his powerset allows him to hang with most and sometimes beat them, in time. It's like a child vs a grown man. Of course the hits from a kid will not drop someone at his prime but if it's consistent and coming at that person at a rapid/fast pace...it will take it's toll and that is what happened during every scene I brought up....Spiderman speed blitzed them until he wore them out.

Look at Wolverine...his powerset allows him to do better against bricks that teams/Heralds are having fits against. It's just how it is and it honestly makes sense imo.

True....but the Firelord example is different, as he's not just a brick. He has his own superspeed as well, right? Plus, durability showings far far above being punched by the proportional strength of a spider.

Originally posted by carver9
Colossus was holding back and admitted he didn't want to kill Spiderman. The stuff you are naming have circumstances.

Even holding back, this is a guy who has 1/5th of the power of the Phoenix. And Cytorrak. Was Magik holding back? Etc etc. Like I said, he was beaten, but not smeared into a bloody paste. Had it been a forum fight, in character (so Colossus would still hold back) Spidey would be killed by Magik.

PIS saved him from Magik, and CIS saved him from Piotr.

To Pillow Biter:
Fair enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. There are far too many examples to use that will disappear from battle boards if we tried that, though (T-Vo being one example. WBH would be another. Hawkman's Claw of Horus, Flash's IMP, Reed's Celestial killing gun etc).

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
True....but the Firelord example is different, as he's not just a brick. He has his own superspeed as well, right? Plus, durability showings far far above being punched by the proportional strength of a spider.

What showings of durability are you talking about that would allow him to tank an ongoing assault at super speed from a character who's strength fluctuates during stressful moments? Are you talking about space cheese fts?

Exactomundo. I am of the camp that both space cheese and combat feats should be taken into account.

You have to ask yourself what it is exactly that you are trying to argue on a battle board.

I'm typically trying to argue for how a fight would likely go down if written by the average writer tomorrow. Or sometimes by an average writer during a certain period in history.

If you start trying to make comics and power sets logical and consistent, and take all the PIS out of them, your results will soon bear little resemblance to what actually usually happens in comics.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Even holding back, this is a guy who has 1/5th of the power of the Phoenix. And Cytorrak. Was Magik holding back? Etc etc. Like I said, he was beaten, but not smeared into a bloody paste. Had it been a forum fight, in character (so Colossus would still hold back) Spidey would be killed by Magik.

PIS saved him from Magik, and CIS saved him from Piotr.

To Pillow Biter:
Fair enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. There are far too many examples to use that will disappear from battle boards if we tried that, though (T-Vo being one example. WBH would be another. Hawkman's Claw of Horus, Flash's IMP, Reed's Celestial killing gun etc).

That's where strength control come into place. Even though Pete was crazy at times, even during his Cyttorak and Phoenix moment, he still had control. And again, it was stated he was holding back. Also, I think you are underestimating Spiderman durability just a bit.

I dont know about Magic, can't tell if she was holding back or not but neither of us can so us talking about her is irrelevant.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Exactomundo. I am of the camp that both space cheese and combat feats should be taken into account.

So you agree that Thor shouldn't be able to hurt Terrax since a weakened Terrax survived in a black hole with no issues for months? You know it doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by carver9
So you agree that Thor shouldn't be able to hurt Terrax since a weakened Terrax survived in a black hole with no issues for months? You know it doesn't work like that.

Firelord also took a punch from an enraged Thor, if you merely want to focus on combat feats...

http://img132.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-27951/loc87/79958_thethor2.jpg

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Firelord also took a punch from an enraged Thor, if you merely want to focus on combat feats...

http://img132.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-27951/loc87/79958_thethor2.jpg

I don't understand what you are trying to say but what I'm saying is, Spiderman has enough fts to justify him being able to pull off the firelord ft and the way it happened doesn't mean it's PIS. There are better showings than this that you ca use. Batman would be a good example of walking PIS.

Lets not forget that during the time Spiderman pounded on Firelord, he was exhausted.

Originally posted by carver9
Lets not forget that during the time Spiderman pounded on Firelord, he was exhausted.
I don't know about exhausted, but he for sure was holding back. He admitted he could vaporize Spider-Man and the entire city with one nova blast but he said there would be no honor in that.

EDIT :
What I do find stupid is the fact that he was able to hurt Firelord and Masterson Thor at all. Considering he damaged his hands trying to punch Loki and Loki wasn't even fazed by the attack.

Classic Drax is a great example of planet busting/combat feats.

He couldn't harm Thanos at all yet has busted 2 planets(1shared) a ripped a star in half .

Originally posted by zopzop
I don't know about exhausted, but he for sure was holding back. He admitted he could vaporize Spider-Man and the entire city with one nova blast but he said there would be no honor in that.

EDIT :
What I do find stupid is the fact that he was able to hurt Firelord and Masterson Thor at all. Considering he damaged his hands trying to punch Loki and Loki wasn't even fazed by the attack.

He was holding back. I also think it was stated that he wasn't 100% during the end of the battle but I could be wrong.

Yeah, Spiderman has some up and down showings when it comes to his strength. That's why I am looking at everything as a whole.

Originally posted by zopzop
I don't know about exhausted, but he for sure was holding back. He admitted he could vaporize Spider-Man and the entire city with one nova blast but he said there would be no honor in that.

EDIT :
What I do find stupid is the fact that he was able to hurt Firelord and Masterson Thor at all. Considering he damaged his hands trying to punch Loki and Loki wasn't even fazed by the attack.

He hurt his hands against Tombstone as well.

Essentially, Spiderman hung with Firelord and Colossus etc because they were holding back. Because the plot called for it.

Would you give Spidey dynamic strength, carver?

Originally posted by Insane Titan
Classic Drax is a great example of planet busting/combat feats.

He couldn't harm Thanos at all yet has busted 2 planets(1shared) a ripped a star in half .

And an enraged Drax was unable to KO Firelord. He got pretty damn close though. But couldn't seal the deal.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He hurt his hands against Tombstone as well.

Essentially, Spiderman hung with Firelord and Colossus etc because they were holding back. Because the plot called for it.

Would you give Spidey dynamic strength, carver?

Yeah, his strength showings are up and down.

Yeah, they did hold back...I never argued against that. I just said using that showing isn't a good example.

No...I think he is like every other character. During stressful moments, they can do the unknown. Spiderman, Thor, and Superman are known for this. When they are stressed, they can do the impossible. Spiderman has supported 10 to 20 floor buildings before, thrown tanks, tossed trains with his finger tip, and damaged/dropped Heralds. People can clearly make arguments that he is outside of the 20 ton class (the fts are there).

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats?

planet busting is a RIDICULOUS way to decide who wins. it COMPLETELY and utterly goes against forum rules regarding IN CHARACTER. it is truly meaningless. if it's a 'good guy' they will very likely NEVER destroy a planet as it is ooc. that by NO MEANS means they can NOT do so. i've rarely seen it happen around here, thank goodness, but anyone who says someone who broke a planet wins because they broke a planet and their opponent hasn't, but said opponent has fought and won against others in that tier is....an idiot. i recommend placing them on ignore. we use characters, NOT power sets in this forum. it's embarrassing how many people forget that little fact on a daily basis.

Originally posted by carver9
I don't understand what you are trying to say but what I'm saying is, Spiderman has enough fts to justify him being able to pull off the firelord ft and the way it happened doesn't mean it's PIS.
jawdrop

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
jawdrop

You've encouraged him.

I hold you directly responsible.

Originally posted by h1a8
Most combat feats are PIS. There is no gold standard for the most part. Thing has went toe to toe with Namor as almost peers but Namor has went toe to toe with Hulk, Thor, etc.

Characters power levels fluctuate in comics depending on the story and plot. Hulk matching Gladiator doesn't mean he has the strength to push or destroy a planet. This is because Gladiator didn't have planet pushing or destroying power when he fought Hulk. The same goes with other characters. Characters who can move and react at speeds greater than light have problems with beings who are not even bullet fast. And that is very consistent thing in comics, a gold standard.

So for the most part, the power levels in a forum fight can be different than the ones in a particular comic. This is because we don't allow PIS.

I disagree. The statement that "most" combat Feats are PIS is pretty far off base.

Some are. Not all. Certainly not most. That is a self defeating concept. Give it some thought.

And non-combat Feats can be just as varied. Some (again, not all) Splash Page non-combat Feats are likewise PIS.

The water flows both ways on this one.

The kicker is to use good judgment and look for "repetition" of said Feats.

Repetition. THAT is the Gold Standard.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Both are valid with enough logic and common sense.

This sums things up nicely.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Wow. Respectfully, a lot of you don't seem to 'get' comics.

You can't try to filter the PIS out of comics. Comics ARE PIS. The relative rankings of characters are much more important and ingrained in comic 'reality' than what characters 'should' be capable of based on their powers and feats.

Remember, without PIS, most of the physically-based characters would be very low on the food chain. But comics has always been about extolling physical characters whose powers resemble augmented human abilities.

Essentially, feats are virtually 100% irrelevant with respect to their objective or empirically measured magnitude. Writers don't really care much about the implications of their space cheese and other big feats. The only time a feat tells you much is when one character is able to do something that another character cannot. And only then when it is happening under the same writer in the same arc.

Relative showings, combat results, comparative comments, etc. tell you where characters stand. Feats don't matter.

Actually, many of us 'get' far more than you may realize.
Comic book debate is a game. We are aware of this. We make up rules for it. House rules, if you will. And we play.

These "rules" include coming up with a way to turn a chaotic medium into an acceptable (enough) weighing mechanism for our game to work.
Threads like this help us to define our Rules.
Terms like PIS, CIS... even the term "Feat" (in the context we use it), are truly more of a "Rule Book" for our verbal competitions, than an actual critique of comic book literature as a quantifiable science.

Granted- there are threads designed to tackle the actual "value" (or lack there of) of comic book showings.
But you are far more likely to find those in "General Discussion" Threads, rather than Vs. Forum threads.

Though, as always, exceptions do apply.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Hmmm....I really dont see the relevance. Ive seen characters who can punch a planetyo death get beaten consistently by inferior opponents who can't/couldn't replicate the feat.

They can't replicate the feat because they're not strong/durable/whatever enough to, or because they're not a character that really has much if any "hard" feats?

Outside of fights(and sometimes narration), what have Kurse or Mangog ever done to be stronger than Thor?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I often-times read post that proclaim character "A" should be able to stomp character "B" simply because "A" has destoyed a planet and "B" has not (even though they are within the same tier/peer group). This line of reasoning imo needs to be verified.



Which is more valid? Planet destroying (Planetoids, moons, giant asteroids, etc) or actual combat feats? Your question doesn't seem to have anything to do with your initial trepidation over the comparison between character's careers (or lack thereof) of planet-busting.

In any event, planet-busting vs. combat feats doesn't strike me as meaningful distinction. The reason being... almost all planet-busting occurs during combat. Surfer busted planets when fighting Korvac, Morg and Ravenous. Hulk busted a planet when fighting Red She-Hulk. Thor busted a planet when fighting Gorr. Beta Ray Bill busted a planet when fighting Stardust. Thanos and Drax busted a planet when fighting. Etc.

The presence of collateral damage is meaningful. Its absence isn't.

truuuu

Originally posted by ODG
Your question doesn't seem to have anything to do with your initial trepidation over the comparison between character's careers (or lack thereof) of planet-busting.

In any event, planet-busting vs. combat feats doesn't strike me as meaningful distinction. The reason being... almost all planet-busting occurs during combat. Surfer busted planets when fighting Korvac, Morg and Ravenous. Hulk busted a planet when fighting Red She-Hulk. Thor busted a planet when fighting Gorr. Beta Ray Bill busted a planet when fighting Stardust. Thanos and Drax busted a planet when fighting. Etc.

The presence of collateral damage is meaningful. Its absence isn't.

Those weren't the issues I was referring to....

Untruuuu

Originally posted by leonidas
planet busting is a RIDICULOUS way to decide who wins. it COMPLETELY and utterly goes against forum rules regarding IN CHARACTER. it is truly meaningless. if it's a 'good guy' they will very likely NEVER destroy a planet as it is ooc. that by NO MEANS means they can NOT do so. i've rarely seen it happen around here, thank goodness, but anyone who says someone who broke a planet wins because they broke a planet and their opponent hasn't, but said opponent has fought and won against others in that tier is....an idiot. i recommend placing them on ignore. we use characters, NOT power sets in this forum. it's embarrassing how many people forget that little fact on a daily basis. What does good guys not going around destroying planets have to do with this thread???? People can and HAVE used strength, striking power and speed feats to judge a battle. If someone can hit hard enough to destroy a planet or bench the earths weight, they sure as hell can be used by the characters respective fans to gauge a battle. What do you think speed, strength, weapons and the such fall under??? POWERSET.... Every time a battle takes place, POWERSETS gets used ( how can you fight without using your powerset ). THATS WHAT AT YOUR BEST MEANS.... YOU WILL USE EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO WIN AND YOUR HIGHEST SHOWINGS COME INTO PLAY. And as for your ( idiot comment ) Reported.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
Untruuuu

lol

Originally posted by jaxthejester
I disagree. The statement that "most" combat Feats are PIS is pretty far off base.

Some are. Not all. Certainly not most. That is a self defeating concept. Give it some thought.

And non-combat Feats can be just as varied. Some (again, not all) Splash Page non-combat Feats are likewise PIS.

The water flows both ways on this one.

The kicker is to use good judgment and look for "repetition" of said Feats.

Repetition. THAT is the Gold Standard.

I agree with you. I just see a lot of inconsistent combat showings though. There are some repetitive combat feats that still contradict other repetitive combat feats. For example, Thing has been written mostly as a peer to Namor in all of their battles. Yet Namor hangs well with Hercules, Hulk, etc. Thing doesn't do so well against them.

My main point was not really power levels but rather becoming dumb when fighting certain characters. Most speedsters become dumb as hell when fighting someone popular. Look at Glads and Surfer's career. WTF

Originally posted by JBL
What does good guys not going around destroying planets have to do with this thread???? People can and HAVE used strength, striking power and speed feats to judge a battle. If someone can hit hard enough to destroy a planet or bench the earths weight, they sure as hell can be used by the characters respective fans to gauge a battle. What do you think speed, strength, weapons and the such fall under??? POWERSET.... Every time a battle takes place, POWERSETS gets used ( how can you fight without using your powerset ). THATS WHAT AT YOUR BEST MEANS.... YOU WILL USE EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO WIN AND YOUR HIGHEST SHOWINGS COME INTO PLAY. And as for your ( idiot comment ) Reported.

There are characters with powers, not walking powersets that you get to use as if you were in their shoes.

Please use the distinction correctly and abide by the rules.

Originally posted by -Pr-
There are characters with powers, not walking powersets that you get to use as if you were in their shoes.

Please use the distinction correctly and abide by the rules. Their powers are their powerset. Anytime a character uses his/her powers we see what they are capable of. If superman never uses his powerset in battle, then we would not know about freeze breath, heat vision, super strength or super speed. All of that is used in combat and ALL feats consists of a certain ability or abilities ( powerset ) used.

only if the combat feat is above planetery busting.

Originally posted by jaxthejester
Actually, many of us 'get' far more than you may realize.
Comic book debate is a game. We are aware of this. We make up rules for it. House rules, if you will. And we play.

These "rules" include coming up with a way to turn a chaotic medium into an acceptable (enough) weighing mechanism for our game to work.
Threads like this help us to define our Rules.
Terms like PIS, CIS... even the term "Feat" (in the context we use it), are truly more of a "Rule Book" for our verbal competitions, than an actual critique of comic book literature as a quantifiable science.

Granted- there are threads designed to tackle the actual "value" (or lack there of) of comic book showings.
But you are far more likely to find those in "General Discussion" Threads, rather than Vs. Forum threads.

Though, as always, exceptions do apply.

That is a legitimate way to go about things, if that is what one is interested in. But in that case I think one should take this line of logic to its natural end. When you do that, you end up with entrenched rules similar to those on CBR Rumbles. People often make fun of CBR debates for bearing little relationship to the actual comics, but I respect them for doing exactly what it is you are suggesting.

But right now I find this board to be a bit confused, and muddling around in the middle between having a rule book to enable a more objectively debatable "comic book debating GAME" (CBR) and a board that is more interested in discussing how fights actually happen in comics (Herochat, Alvaro).

Originally posted by JBL
Their powers are their powerset. Anytime a character uses his/her powers we see what they are capable of. If superman never uses his powerset in battle, then we would not know about freeze breath, heat vision, super strength or super speed. All of that is used in combat and ALL feats consists of a certain ability or abilities ( powerset ) used.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Powers and how they are used still depends on the character of the person using it. Just because a character can do something, doesn't mean they necessarily will.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
That is a legitimate way to go about things, if that is what one is interested in. But in that case I think one should take this line of logic to its natural end. When you do that, you end up with entrenched rules similar to those on CBR Rumbles. People often make fun of CBR debates for bearing little relationship to the actual comics, but I respect them for doing exactly what it is you are suggesting.

But right now I find this board to be a bit confused, and muddling around in the middle between having a rule book to enable a more objectively debatable "comic book debating GAME" (CBR) and a board that is more interested in discussing how fights actually happen in comics (Herochat, Alvaro).

It's not so much confusion as it is an attempt to be fair and realistic.

Combat feats>>>>>space cheese.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Combat feats>>>>>space cheese. simply put

Originally posted by JBL
What does good guys not going around destroying planets have to do with this thread???? People can and HAVE used strength, striking power and speed feats to judge a battle. If someone can hit hard enough to destroy a planet or bench the earths weight, they sure as hell can be used by the characters respective fans to gauge a battle. What do you think speed, strength, weapons and the such fall under??? POWERSET.... Every time a battle takes place, POWERSETS gets used ( how can you fight without using your powerset ). THATS WHAT AT YOUR BEST MEANS.... YOU WILL USE EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO WIN AND YOUR HIGHEST SHOWINGS COME INTO PLAY. And as for your ( idiot comment ) Reported.

Superman/Marvel/Ultraman lifted a book with infinite pages sneer

Originally posted by -Pr-

It's not so much confusion as it is an attempt to be fair and realistic.

I don't really follow the logic here. It isn't about fair, it is about deciding what kind of debate we want to have: how fights SHOULD go or how they typically happen. Not sure there is really a middle ground.

Originally posted by JBL
What does good guys not going around destroying planets have to do with this thread???? People can and HAVE used strength, striking power and speed feats to judge a battle. If someone can hit hard enough to destroy a planet or bench the earths weight, they sure as hell can be used by the characters respective fans to gauge a battle. What do you think speed, strength, weapons and the such fall under??? POWERSET.... Every time a battle takes place, POWERSETS gets used ( how can you fight without using your powerset ). THATS WHAT AT YOUR BEST MEANS.... YOU WILL USE EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO WIN AND YOUR HIGHEST SHOWINGS COME INTO PLAY. And as for your ( idiot comment ) Reported.



who the hell are you again.....? i mean besides someone who is obviously defensive as sh!t. if this comment reflected on you personally, that's kind of funny. the 'someone' in my post was a generic Someone, not anyone in particular. but hey, if it hit the mark with you because this is how you debate, yay me.

showing someone at their highest is ALSO not the way we debate around here (no offense but you seem rather clueless on how this forum works). THAT is called.......HIGHBALLING. so, powersets and highballing are BAD. if that's the way you think things should work, well, luckily there are other forums on the interwebs. go pander your idiocy there.

using planet busting feats is teh stupid, and very rarely indicates anything of worth. it's an unfair comparison because not all characters have or would break a planet based on CHARACTER (the rule has been explained, ignore or challenge it again and YOU'LL be reported....) if you don't like it, or can't get your head around the concept, then.....gtfo of the kmc. whoever you are.

This sequence puts the question to rest IMO. Drax destroys two planets back to back and rips a star apart. Yet Captain Mar-Vell who isn't even class 100 takes his attacks to the chin and doesn't even budges after he knocked Drax out.


http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t/14079715_CaptainMarvel_43_12.JPG

Also he took two of drax's punches to the chin and didn't even move

http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t/14079720_CaptainMarvel_43_13.JPG

Drax owned planets and stars though

http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t/14079680_captainmarvel_42_13.jpg http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t/14079690_CaptainMarvel_43_03.JPG

mmm

Mar-Vell is skyfather level.

Combat feats/power level ranking matter more than feats are largely inconsistent as ****.

Originally posted by abhilegend
This sequence puts the question to rest IMO. Drax destroys two planets back to back and rips a star apart. Yet Captain Mar-Vell who isn't even class 100 takes his attacks to the chin and doesn't even budges after he knocked Drax out.

Originally posted by Evolve
Firelord vs Drax (dumb version). Takes a pounding from Drax without really wanting to fight back.

http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc211/th_79459_draxx1.jpghttp://img141.imagevenue.com/loc35/th_79465_draxx2.jpghttp://img136.imagevenue.com/loc37/th_79470_draxx3.jpg
http://img107.imagevenue.com/loc130/th_79579_draxx4.jpghttp://img45.imagevenue.com/loc130/th_79586_draxx5.jpghttp://img101.imagevenue.com/loc118/th_79591_draxx6.jpg

Firelord vs Loki and his forces.

http://img108.imagevenue.com/loc184/th_79595_loki1.jpghttp://img144.imagevenue.com/loc189/th_79601_loki2.jpg

Firelord wasn't even KOed by Drax.

Spiderman KOed him.

Spiderman is above skyfather.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Firelord wasn't even KOed by Drax.

Spiderman KOed him.

Spiderman is above skyfather.
Two different books and two entirely different writers. Drax/Firelord was written by Starlin, Spidey/Firelord was written by DeFalco who also had Spidey put Masterson Thor on his knees with a blitz and beat the shit out of carnage amped silver surfer.

http://i.imgur.com/7WhiBVk.jpg

Originally posted by abhilegend
http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t1/15204500_feat1fight1ze9.jpg http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t1/15204501_feat1fight3sv5.jpg http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t1/15204502_feat1fight4gt7.jpg http://s4d3.turboimagehost.com/t1/15204503_feat1fight5zw6.jpg

They say surfer has super-speed..............

Suffice to say that beating Firelord is a minor feat for DeFalco's spider-man. But hey, She-Hulk is skyfather level too probably.

http://i.imgur.com/GG52y5c.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ycimIl0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LeLc5w5.jpg

Drax outright admitted that she-hulk was FAR stronger than he was.

Thor too.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e139/RageOfTheGod/Thor/ThorvsDraxIronManWaspCap4.jpg

Notice how everyone and their mothers outmuscle Drax?

Reported for attempting to lowball Peter Parker from his above skyfather status.

Originally posted by abhilegend
But hey, She-Hulk is skyfather level too probably.
She's killed TOAA on-panel. So yeah, reported for horrid lowballing of Shulkie.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Reported for attempting to lowball Peter Parker from his above skyfather status. Originally posted by Epicurus
She's killed TOAA on-panel. So yeah, reported for horrid lowballing of Shulkie.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I don't really follow the logic here. It isn't about fair, it is about deciding what kind of debate we want to have: how fights SHOULD go or how they typically happen. Not sure there is really a middle ground.

It is about being fair. Being fair to the characters.

We want the characters to fight not just how they can, but also how they can without those moments when they suddenly forget their powers.

We lean more towards how they should go. We just don't pretend that these characters are user avatars.

Yes, but sometimes is hard to say what is CIS and what is PIS.

Some guys have so many powers that they almost never use that. But if you say it is "CIS", then we have to assume the guy is just DUMB. Sometimes he really is, but others time, we know he is not. Then, it is PIS.

But in some threads in this forum, if you say a guy will use his powers in a PIS less fight, some say it is "out of character".

Lets say...there is really no reason at all to Thor dont use Godblast against his enemys. Even against enemys who are close to destroy the earth or kill a lot people, he dont use. The main reason is the plot. Thor comes and one shot a villan is no fun. If he use a godblast in a forum fight, it is "out of his character"

@ abhilegend...

That scan of Mar-Vell and The Stranger is utterly horrifying.

Namely the bottom panel where Mar-Vell appears about to be subjected to an oral violation by Stranger. Followed by Stranger dropping a monologue bomb about spanning the universe for exotic stimulation.

http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/14079680/captainmarvel_42_13.jpg.html

Originally posted by eaebiakuya
Yes, but sometimes is hard to say what is CIS and what is PIS.

Some guys have so many powers that they almost never use that. But if you say it is "CIS", then we have to assume the guy is just DUMB. Sometimes he really is, but others time, we know he is not. Then, it is PIS.

But in some threads in this forum, if you say a guy will use his powers in a PIS less fight, some say it is "out of character".

Lets say...there is really no reason at all to Thor dont use Godblast against his enemys. Even against enemys who are close to destroy the earth or kill a lot people, he dont use. The main reason is the plot. Thor comes and one shot a villan is no fun. If he use a godblast in a forum fight, it is "out of his character" Godblast would straight kill most enemies.

Thor ain't no murderer.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It is about being fair. Being fair to the characters.

We want the characters to fight not just how they can, but also how they can without those moments when they suddenly forget their powers.

We lean more towards how they should go. We just don't pretend that these characters are user avatars.

Some characters typically forget most of their powers. Are you okay with rating characters higher in fights than than the writers normally do?

Should a Martian Manhunter actually be the number one stunner? Should Flash be a heavyweight instead of the middleweight he normally is?

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Some characters typically forget most of their powers. Are you okay with rating characters higher in fights than than the writers normally do?

Should a Martian Manhunter actually be the number one stunner? Should Flash be a heavyweight instead of the middleweight he normally is?

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Some characters typically forget most of their powers. Are you okay with rating characters higher in fights than than the writers normally do?

Should a Martian Manhunter actually be the number one stunner? Should Flash be a heavyweight instead of the middleweight he normally is?

I would say a bit of both.

Manhunter should be considered a class A telepath. But folks should also point out that, in character, he often forgets to use this power during stressful and complex battle scenarios.

Then both sides should debate the likelihood of Manhunter remembering to use said specific power against the foe at hand.
Thus allowing for debate of both power-set and personality.

Often powers don't get used for reasons that can't be explained "in comics". CIS doesn't cover it. Surfer, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't tend to just blast and punch with the occasional use of shields because he is a lousy fighter. He does it because that is what makes for visually interesting fights--or even just interesting fights. If he transmuted people or stopped time, anyone without a cosmically versatile power set could never be a challenge to him.

The truth is that for the most part writers don't really care that much about how power sets match up in a fight. Characters have a certain pecking order and their fights tend to bear that out, regardless of whether their power sets actually match up well against another guy. Of course exceptions abound, but by and large that is how it works. When Hulk fights a speedster, or a ranged flyer, he'll find a way to tag him. When Superman beats up Martian Manhunter, he'll find a way to punch him hard despite J'onn being, in theory, pretty much immune to punching via intangibility and a completely fluid physical structure.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Godblast would straight kill most enemies.

Thor ain't no murderer.

But he wont use, even he is trying to kill it. He dont used against Death Sentry, Serpent, Gorr, etc.

Even if he is going for the kill, he wont use. In the battle against Thanos, the Titan was close to beat then and destroy the Earth. And he dont used, etc.

This is PIS, not CIS.

In not saying he should use it all times. But he could have used many times and was stoped by the plot.

defalco spider-man vs the kryptonian zombie dragon superman fought in the end of "that" comic

Originally posted by jaxthejester
@ abhilegend...

That scan of Mar-Vell and The Stranger is utterly horrifying.

Namely the bottom panel where Mar-Vell appears about to be subjected to an oral violation by Stranger. Followed by Stranger dropping a monologue bomb about spanning the universe for exotic stimulation.

http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/14079680/captainmarvel_42_13.jpg.html

Originally posted by eaebiakuya
But he wont use, even he is trying to kill it. He dont used against Death Sentry, Serpent, Gorr, etc.

Even if he is going for the kill, he wont use. In the battle against Thanos, the Titan was close to beat then and destroy the Earth. And he dont used, etc.

This is PIS, not CIS.

In not saying he should use it all times. But he could have used many times and was stoped by the plot.

Reading this reminds me of how Russians speak in the initial stages of trying to become fluent in english. Are you from over that way?

Im from Brazil, sorry for bad english.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Some characters typically forget most of their powers. Are you okay with rating characters higher in fights than than the writers normally do?

Should a Martian Manhunter actually be the number one stunner? Should Flash be a heavyweight instead of the middleweight he normally is?

Out of curiosity, have you read our rules? We go in to this kind of thing in a fair bit of detail.

With the Flash, we don't treat him like a god. We do take in to account that he shouldn't trip over random rocks just because the writer needs him to, though.

Martian Manjobber? Really? Even accounting for PIS and how they love to worf-effect him as much as they do Superman, there's still J'onn himself to take in to account.

Like I said before, we don't reduce these people to powersets.

I'm in general agreement with the spirit of the rules, and with the details of most of them. But I don't see how that calls for much of a middle ground between feats and comparative references/performances. If by 'middle ground' one means that they consider everything, then sure. But the ground is far from the middle--the 'feats' should get far, far less weight than relative references and fights.

I don't think one should even bother with the term PIS. PIS = Comics. There's no point taking them out of fights.

CIS has it's uses. The problem is that many people attribute far too many things to CIS. Often, what people want to think is CIS (in order for things to make sense) is just PIS -- or the traditional conventions of comic books with respect to realism.

Thinking in terms of average or typical showing is enough to make sure that Flash doesn't trip over a rock in a debated fight. No need to even think about PIS in that respect.

As for MM, I was just taking a jab at pre-DCNU MM. He isn't really a jobber, but he is a character who did seem to underperform what his power set 'could' or 'should' have been capable of.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I'm in general agreement with the spirit of the rules, and with the details of most of them. But I don't see how that calls for much of a middle ground between feats and comparative references/performances. If by 'middle ground' one means that they consider everything, then sure. But the ground is far from the middle--the 'feats' should get far, far less weight than relative references and fights.

I don't think one should even bother with the term PIS. PIS = Comics. There's no point taking them out of fights.

CIS has it's uses. The problem is that many people attribute far too many things to CIS. Often, what people want to think is CIS (in order for things to make sense) is just PIS -- or the traditional conventions of comic books with respect to realism.

It's true that the two do get mixed up at times, and that finding an average when taking everything in to account (feats, combat showings, while removing a lot of the bad stuff etc) can be difficult, but I still believe it's a better, more "realistic" system than some of the others I've seen.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Often powers don't get used for reasons that can't be explained "in comics". CIS doesn't cover it. Surfer, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't tend to just blast and punch with the occasional use of shields because he is a lousy fighter. He does it because that is what makes for visually interesting fights--or even just interesting fights. If he transmuted people or stopped time, anyone without a cosmically versatile power set could never be a challenge to him.

The truth is that for the most part writers don't really care that much about how power sets match up in a fight. Characters have a certain pecking order and their fights tend to bear that out, regardless of whether their power sets actually match up well against another guy. Of course exceptions abound, but by and large that is how it works. When Hulk fights a speedster, or a ranged flyer, he'll find a way to tag him. When Superman beats up Martian Manhunter, he'll find a way to punch him hard despite J'onn being, in theory, pretty much immune to punching via intangibility and a completely fluid physical structure.

I don't know if this will help shed light or not, but I'll give it a go:

We understand that writers often make characters do foolish things simply to advance the story at hand.
And we also understand that as a result of this approach, writers often make no excuse/reasoning for said behaviors. Because there is none.

That's why we do it for the writers. As part of our Comic Debate game.
We come up with a feasible (enough) reason for the game to work.
And we then use the term "PIS" to define those events we choose to ignore, and "CIS" to define those that we choose to incorporate.

We know (for example) that PIS is why Surfer doesn't use transmutation more often in combat.
But we also know that said PIS happens so much, that the "norm" for Surfer is to blast rather than transmute (based on total showings).
Thus we know the "is", just not the "why"- and we need the "why" for the game to work.
Using a literal "why" breaks the game for us. We have no desire to debate writer choices. We wish to debate fictional super beings as if they were real.
As such, we choose to associate their on-panel behavior with a necessary mental quirk to make it fit into our weighing mechanisms.
We come up with our own reason. One that works for the game.

We apply the "house rule" that since Surfer "does not" transmute things more often than he blasts things, then Surfer himself must be attributed a reason for said "does not" behavior.
In the case of Vs. Board Debates- we accredit this behavior to a personality quirk. We state that this is "simply not how Surfer fights."
We know that, in reality, it is because the writer dictates his actions. But we choose to deduce a probable path of behaviors based on said actions "as if" Surfer were making these choices of his own volition.
We then, by necessity, apply what we think are the likely reasons that Surfer would "choose" to follow these pre-written actions. Or put simply- we pretend that his penchant for blasting things is due to his own personality, rather than the whims of a writer.
Then we apply a fictional probability matrix to his fictional personality, and debate the likeliness that Surfer will or will not once again "blast rather than transmute" in a given a vs. match.

So yes, we know that writers do indeed nerf characters to fit stories.
We simply have a different approach to how we filter it for our game:

1. We pretend that the character is "real" and thus responsible for their own choices.
2. Thus when we see the character perform below their own maximum potential, we accredit this to "character choice."
3. We pretend that said choice must have some explanation (outside of writer nerfing; because, for the sake of the game, we are pretending the character is not pre-written).
3. We attribute fictional psychological limitations to the character to explain these choices.
4. Then we debate how likely the character is to suffer these attributed mental quirks in a given fictional encounter.

Which is why you hear arguments such as "Surfer tends to just blast in combat..."

This is because it is true in a literal sense. If one were to look at every combat showing from Surfer in every canon 616 comic written to date, I imagine that we would see a very high percentage of "blast when I should be transmuting" behaviors.
The writer chooses to apply these behaviors to promote the story line.
But we choose to interpret the behaviors as mental limitations that can dictate how a character is also likely to behave in the future.

Thus we say that Surfer tends to blast in combat, and deduce that a foe such as Superman has a chance at knocking him out because of this tendency.
We know that Surfer "could" just turn Superman's outfit into Kryptonite.
We know that the "writer" is the only reason he doesn't.
But we choose to pretend that "his own" behavioral quirks are what drive him instead.
And we debate probable outcomes accordingly.

And if a given specific showing is so far out of line that we find it in conflict with the "norm" that we've applied to the character, then we also debate the validity of said showings existence. I.E.- we debate the validity of (what we consider) PIS.

And we define PIS as those behaviors which conflict with the norm to such a degree that they wreck the game.
This is one of the few times that we step away from the game to discuss the "real" happenings of comic behavior- when debating if something is PIS. Which, in effect, is just debating if we should allow said behavior to fall under the fictional umbrella of acceptable behaviors that we have attributed to the character at hand.

Both as long as it makes sense.

We first understand the intelligence of a character. For example, all above average iq characters have and will use common sense when fighting.
That means if Thor sees the only way to beat someone and save the day is to bfr then he will. Genius characters sometimes do stuff that goes against common sense because of the plot.

As far as power levels, they fluctuate. Characters busting planets in one comic doesn't mean they have that level of power in another comic. Surfer blasting Thanos while he was sitting in his chair was far from planetary power. In fact, I would say Surfer was using less than mountain destroying power.