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

lol the recent spate of threads has brought to light the sheer idiocy of lowballing. it leads to ludicrous conclusions and paints characters in unrealistic lights. using strictly high feats is nearly equally disingenuous but....the forum does use full capacity, so it can be viewed as more acceptable, especially if there are multiple examples of similar feats. outliers, as always, should be discounted out hand.

i think one thing that is left out of the equation is authorial intent. we readers should be able to determine intent, and i think intent should be taken into account--in fact, in some cases, it may be the MOST important thing, outweighing feats and battles.

looking for thoughts on this. it is sometimes (often times) hard to prove intent--usually one needs to read the whole arc to determine intent. but it is rarely if ever brought up in matches. different authors view things differently.

for example--if one author views a a supernova as the be-all-end-all of power, and has a character survive a supernova blast, but another author has a character survive a universe-busting blast, is the supernova blast any less than the universe busting blast, relatively speaking? think of the oft-cited sternity blast that was....planetary level. the INTENT was clear, but the result, and description were not what some would like. does that lessen the blast?

it is my opinion that intent should play a much larger role in the forum than it does. is this irreconcilable in a feat-based forum? i think intent can eliminate a great deal of the ludicrous lowballing--and at times, cherrypicking--that we see in the forum and lead to better, more thought out discussion.

as a tangential point--should constant lowballing come with a steeper punishment? would you like to see mods crack down on this?

curious minds want to know..... mmm

Amazing thread. I think this is based on the people that are debating tbh. Some people (dont to dish out names but it is soooooo difficult not doing it) primarily debate using high showings for one character while using low showings for the character their repping. A good example of this is Jane Thor. In an Avengers book, beating her is irrelevant because she have a couple of low showings but if you beat her outside of the book, the ft counts. This is just an example. Again, this depends primarily on the person that is debating. I've seen people say that Flash could speed steal and snatch your organs out an under the same breath call Thor low Herald. I cant wait to see the responses in here because this is interesting.

Originally posted by leonidas
as a tangential point--should constant lowballing come with a steeper punishment? would you like to see mods crack down on this? Originally posted by carver9
Amazing thread.

I died.

Not a vs thread. Closing.

Leo, 3 answers:

1). We're past the point where low-balling is something that will be punished . I haven't read any of the threads lately, but as you might know, nothing compares to around 2012-ish. I mean, we've had Thanos vs Lucifer . I find it hard to believe anything, from any side, approaches anything like that.

2). We'll all never be able to 'get along' because some of us are playing checkers, while other are playing paintball, and others are playing soccer. We each use different arguments - some use relative feats, some use high feats, some use low feats, some use combos, some don't even understand the feats, some don't even read comics, some people know they can't compete in one, so they use the other etc. Speaking past each other, basically.

3). I think the best way to analyze feats themselves is by, as you said, understanding that not all writers are the same. Each story, and each character, is scaled for what the writer wants, at that point. So, for example , if Mangog dies in the sun, it doesn't mean anything. The same way, if Mangog went through a black hole, it also wouldn't mean anything. It's just how that particular writer, at that particular moment in time, wants to 'scale' his story. Unfortunately, for the forum , it's hard to really only go by writer's intent. It's kind of a subjective cop-out that, if your 'opponent' doesn't want to engage in, you're just kind of left shrugging your shoulder. So if somebody would want to go 'literal' and argue that Mangog would get incinerated by Gladiator's heat vision, while you'd try to argue relative showings, there's not much that can be done, as you'd both be speaking in different directions. And third of it, once we assume that characters don't act stupid , then it's hard to go by relative portrayals. Because in relative portrayals, everybody acts stupid around somebody else, and we'd be left with a bunch of people screaming "No, your character is too dumb to do this! No, yours is!". So, in essence, I think the way we approach the rules is fine , but the way we approach the feats is kind of not seeing the forrest from the trees . Does that make sense?

Originally posted by carver9
Amazing thread. I think this is based on the people that are debating tbh. Some people (dont to dish out names but it is soooooo difficult not doing it) primarily debate using high showings for one character while using low showings for the character their repping. A good example of this is Jane Thor. In an Avengers book, beating her is irrelevant because she have a couple of low showings but if you beat her outside of the book, the ft counts. This is just an example. Again, this depends primarily on the person that is debating. I've seen people say that Flash could speed steal and snatch your organs out an under the same breath call Thor low Herald. I cant wait to see the responses in here because this is interesting. 2l2awXfumOU

Originally posted by One Big Mob
2l2awXfumOU


As depressed as I am, this place always cheers me up.

If Lex builds a gun that harnesses the power of a light bulb, and then uses that gun to kill Superman, I would not claim that a light bulb's worth of energy > Superman.

Point is: some authors have very different takes on what 'ultimate power' is in comics, and that authorial intent does need to be considered first and foremost in many cases. Ignoring authorial intent in favor of blindly lowballing is no bueno.

Originally posted by leonidas
lol the recent spate of threads has brought to light the sheer idiocy of lowballing. it leads to ludicrous conclusions and paints characters in unrealistic lights. using strictly high feats is nearly equally disingenuous but....the forum does use full capacity, so it can be viewed as more acceptable, especially if there are multiple examples of similar feats. outliers, as always, should be discounted out hand.

i think one thing that is left out of the equation is authorial intent. we readers should be able to determine intent, and i think intent should be taken into account--in fact, in some cases, it may be the MOST important thing, outweighing feats and battles.

looking for thoughts on this. it is sometimes (often times) hard to prove intent--usually one needs to read the whole arc to determine intent. but it is rarely if ever brought up in matches. different authors view things differently.

for example--if one author views a a supernova as the be-all-end-all of power, and has a character survive a supernova blast, but another author has a character survive a universe-busting blast, is the supernova blast any less than the universe busting blast, relatively speaking? think of the oft-cited sternity blast that was....planetary level. the INTENT was clear, but the result, and description were not what some would like. does that lessen the blast?

it is my opinion that intent should play a much larger role in the forum than it does. is this irreconcilable in a feat-based forum? i think intent can eliminate a great deal of the ludicrous lowballing--and at times, cherrypicking--that we see in the forum and lead to better, more thought out discussion.

as a tangential point--should constant lowballing come with a steeper punishment? would you like to see mods crack down on this?

curious minds want to know..... mmm

Agreed 100%.

If you take, say, Val Armorr vs Batman, one could lowball the crap out of Val with examples of struggling against thugs Phantom Girl easily takes, for example. Or on the other side, seriously argue Batmans durability lets him tank Damage and Wonder Woman.

Strip away the bs, and it becomes obvious someone who can punch away a literal mountain of ice and snow with a punch, or dodge Superman class speed from Ultra Boy, should one shot Batman, every single time.

That's when feats kick in I assume.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I definitely see where you're coming from and can agree with your supporting of relative portrayals, and I think it largely works when confined to a single setting, but what about when the match-up is cross-company? How can relying on relative portrayals work when there's no in-universe relation between the characters, i.e., what does Galactus' relative power level in Marvel matter when he's put up against something from a different setting like, oh, Oa for a completely random and not at all topical example? In that case, I'd combine both feats and relative portrayals. For example, you'd need a baseline to agree upon - what are the Guardians generally portrayed as? Let's say somebody like Ganthet, for example, is a skyfather-type . In GL: Rebirth it was even implied to be above Spectre . The rest, maybe lower. How did they look against SCW Anti-Monitor? Eh. Not that great. But one of them did manage to temporarily restrain, warp and power-up Prime. So they'd, generally, be in a trans-skyfather area. Galactus is generally above skyfathers, but they have numbers. And he's even more so than that with the multiple-planets, with which he could contend with multiple "Galactus" beings. So that's at least the 'baseline' that you'd lean for Galactus. And then you get into general range of feats, and maybe even the prior assumptions prove to be incorrect . You start looking at Parallax, at the entities, at how powerful they are, how the Guardians interact with them, etc.

It's different, because if you don't start with at least a bigger picture, it's just throwing stuff. "Prime took a Universe wiping explosion to the face! A Guardian restrained and warped him in the multiverse! Galactus wiped out a galaxy!" etc. It's disjointed, and random, since everybody's grabbing the biggest thing they can find.

this just my personally opinion,i think these problems is main at writers and readers relationship
i mean a characters how powerful essentially is part of a story.and writers has authority to decide story.
but in other side,a story i think when writer writting and give it to other persons read,this story is not only just belongings to writer's,reader also ineracts with these fictional stuffs（i partially support the death of author theory）.like writers could decide story,readers also have authority interpretation it or accept/support it or not
and in comics,this is more complicate,because there have so many writers,and have been pubilished so long.
so i think most important is respect you debater,and don't take it too serious,after all,we reading comics just for fun,here in fictional stuffs(especially in comics)haven't absolutely axiom,just like people most acceptable range(like if superman no more powerful than a ordinary man,then i think most people couldn't accept it,right?)

Originally posted by carver9
Amazing thread.

A part of leo just died.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
A part of leo just died. Leo is well on his way to looking completely defeated and only reaching for blind hope in the darkness.

Patient Leo incoming

Originally posted by One Big Mob
2l2awXfumOU

Well for arguing characters across companies we need a baseline which comes from quantifiable feats. Such feats should be averaged with outliers thrown out. That establishs an approximate baseline.

Characters in the same company we can use more of relative portrayals (unless characters fought stupidly enough)with some quantifiable feats.

My take is that feats against other characters hold no water if that character didn't fight near to the best of his abilities.

And many of us are extremely bias. Here is a prime example.
Thanos, who has absolutely no grade A super speed (or grade B) can beat Surfer in a forum within moments (a short fight). Yet when Surfer fights Superman in a forum (both are operating at full capacity) then Surfer can keep up with Superman's speed. This is a contradiction, unless one views Superman speed is Thanos level or below.

My take is if Surfer, at full capacity, can keep up with Superman, at full capacity, then Surfer should view Thanos in super slow motion and make any fight with him a very long fight (unless Surfer spams black holes all day).

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
A part of leo just died.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Leo is well on his way to looking completely defeated and only reaching for blind hope in the darkness.

Patient Leo incoming

pfft. you're both just p!ssed that carv didn't call you amazing.

Carver wanks the hell out of me. Even moreso when I align with his agenda accidentally.

I don't need to look for Carver wank, Carver wank finds me like Carver wanks on 9 year olds.

here's an example of what i've sort of been getting at:

https://imgur.com/a/NtF8lw3

now, what do you think the intention of the author was when designing this scene? do you think he was looking for readers to say--or those are just alternate ultimate nullifiers!1! they are weaksauce and shouldn't be compared to the 616 nullifier!1! and that galactus isn't the real galactus either, so he must be weak! and his surfers suck too!!

do you think the author expects to hear: what feats does that galactus or surfer have??

maybe you do. i don't think i'm going out on a limb though when i say i think he wanted you to look at the council of reeds, see the weapons they use, see the threats they kill and be like, DAYUMMM.....

later reed grows larger than a sun via dimensional manipulation, etc... these things need to be looked at on their OWN merit imo and seen the way the author intended for them to be seen. /shrug

I heard that the Ultimate Nullifier can make even Leocules fall.