Superman and Supergirl vs. Wonder Woman and Orion

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Am interested in your viewpoint, pillow b.

What do you mean by excessive realism?

For example, Spidey vs Firelord (as a named example of PIS).

This would be a pretty lengthy discussion that I might not have time for at the moment.

But the best way to deal with Spidey vs. FL is to just accept it since it is one data point among so many. It basically doesn't matter. If Spider-man started beating up Heralds with any degree of regularity, then we'd have to go more in depth about what it means for comics in general.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
That may true with respect to some misbehavior, but I feel the rules themselves encourage excessive realism. There's no need to mention PIS or CIS in the rules. These concepts add nothing to comic analysis, IMO.

I would argue that what you're painting as a negative is actually necessary to fill in the gaps. Without PIS and CIS, debates descend in to a mess.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
This would be a pretty lengthy discussion that I might not have time for at the moment.

But the best way to deal with Spidey vs. FL is to just accept it since it is one data point among so many. It basically doesn't matter. If Spider-man started beating up Heralds with any degree of regularity, then we'd have to go more in depth about what it means for comics in general.

He's done the same to Masterson Thor. Titania (iirc). Juggernaut was unable to KO him, Colossus with Cyttorak amp AND the Phoenix Force, together with Magik (a Hell Lord with the Phoenix Force who doesn't hold back) were unable to KO/kill him.

Then we have Batman.....

Hmmm...then we'd have to look at each situation in more detail, case by case. And at each hero, in more detail.

But as a genera trend, feats tend to scale with power level more exponentially while actual ability to hurt and beat one another only scales geometrically.

For all its flaws, the old Marvel Super Heroes system did in some ways capture this quite well.

Thor would be at say Unearthly (100) strength, while Spider-man was at Incredible (40) and Cap was at Excellent (20--would be Remarkable (30) these days). So Thor's damage output is 2.5 times Spidey's, but he could lift 100+ tons and Spidey only 10. And powers at Unearthly might be allowed a global range of effect, while Incredible-ranked powers would have like 10 blocks or something.

There's no doubt that going by the comics, weaker characters are much more able to affect--and on a good day even beat much more powerful characters--than would seem at all possible or logical when looking at their feats. Yet another reason why feats don't really matter.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I would argue that what you're painting as a negative is actually necessary to fill in the gaps. Without PIS and CIS, debates descend in to a mess.

I would argue back that this is because people's approach to debate is wrongheaded. They want pseudo-scientific, empirically-provable debates where you can 'prove' you are right.

Comics don't tend to work that way. Using PIS and CIS may seem to clean up debates, but it also means that whatever it is you end up debating isn't really what's going on in the comics. I'd also argue that PIS and CIS only appear to clean up debates--if you push that logic to its natural extent, the debates actually become impossible to decide. There isn't enough consistent and good data. Can Flash beat the Surfer? Well...can we really infer super speed to the Surfer? Exactly how fast is he? exactly how fast is the Flash? If you went at it as scientifically as possible I doubt you could answer these questions.

So I'd rather just discuss it the way one would mythology or literature. There is evidence. But you rarely get definitive proof--but that's OK. You can still have great and interesting discussions that illuminate the source material.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I would argue back that this is because people's approach to debate is wrongheaded. They want pseudo-scientific, empirically-provable debates where you can 'prove' you are right.

Comics don't tend to work that way. Using PIS and CIS may seem to clean up debates, but it also means that whatever it is you end up debating isn't really what's going on in the comics. I'd also argue that PIS and CIS only appear to clean up debates--if you push that logic to its natural extent, the debates actually become impossible to decide. There isn't enough consistent and good data. Can Flash beat the Surfer? Well...can we really infer super speed to the Surfer? Exactly how fast is he? exactly how fast is the Flash? If you went at it as scientifically as possible I doubt you could answer these questions.

So I'd rather just discuss it the way one would mythology or literature. There is evidence. But you rarely get definitive proof--but that's OK. You can still have great and interesting discussions that illuminate the source material.

As interesting as that is, I just don't see how it would be feasible on a vs board. What you're talking about sounds more like debating the merits of a character to me, not their actual abilities.

The old Marvel system was what people can press over their head iirc, which is way above picking up that same weight. Simply going by that and saying feats don't matter do not tell the whole tale. It also assumes the handbook writers are absolutely 100 percent correct, and it basically deletes almost every Namor feat.

What if Spider-Man overhead presses 30 tons for example? What are we allowed to use?

I merely meant that the under the Marvel system, the relationship between a character's ability to affect the environment and his or her ability to affect other heroes was somewhat analogous to the comics.
By no means do I think that handbooks or RPG stats are definitive in any way, including with respect to maximum lifts and power output, etc.

Originally posted by -Pr-
As interesting as that is, I just don't see how it would be feasible on a vs board. What you're talking about sounds more like debating the merits of a character to me, not their actual abilities.

I think of it as debating them within the paradigms and conventions set by the comics themselves. Try to see things as the writers and and editors have seen, and would be likely to see, such battles play out. Quips aside, it's not really true that writers can 'do whatever they want' . Sometimes a writer goes off the reservation, but there are typically some general consensuses that can be observed with respect to how characters rank against one another with respect to a wide variety of qualities.

Inter-company comparisons are harder than intra-company ones, but similar principles can still be applied.

There's a wealth of data with respect to the relative rankings of characters within a universe that have nothing to do with trying to measure and compare feats of any kind. This is the goldmine and what can and should be focused on, virtually to the exclusion of feats.

It gets... difficult to say what counts and what doesn't imo.

I like going by a good base, and throwing out the odd high feat depending on what the opposition uses. It's pretty fair to me. Handbooks are completely ignored for power levels. I don't care if Luke Cage is listed as a class 40 if he can go fist to fist with a Celestial for instance.

Some people go exclusively high. Some people go exclusively low. Some people combine the two. Best to combat that when it comes up though as opposed to making blanket statements about everyone.

I question what people's goals or aims are.

Mine is to elucidate the actual source material to better understand what is going on and what the writer is trying to convey. It's not like power levels and relative ability don't matter to these stories; they are often integral. But try to understand each story on it's own merits first. Individual arcs by single writers are essentially the basic units of coherence. Often they contradict, but understand them on their own merits, and then see what the trend is.

For example, in some stories Superman is being presented as a poor combatant, and little credence is given to him having seriously dynamic power, like in Rucka's fight of Superman vs Wonder Woman. You can clearly see that, unleashed, Superman has a significant power edge over Wonder Woman; but it's not so overhwhelming that Diana has no chance.

In a story like OWAW, when Superman is unleashed, he's far more powerful than Wonder Woman, and she would get destroyed if she faced him, virtually regardless of his skill level. (Though he is credited with competent combat skills in that arc.)

Figuring out the power relationships in a story help one understand that story better. Similarly, talking about the overall trends in all stories helps one understand the characters better and what our expectations should be when next our hero--though we should never be surprised when a writer defies consensus and our expectations. It's comics!

We can never just have a thread with Superman where the Superman team loses and moving on.

We have to have like 5 pages of "WELL, if the Sun was really bright and his opponent was nursing a hangover after a heavy night of drinking, Superman's team, and maybe even Superman alone, could possibly, probably, maybe, just might, hopefully even solo. Not often, but it's possible!"

*5 pages of why this unlikely possibility is possible*

EVERY TIME. I've never seen this phenomenon with any other character aside from maaaybe the Sentry but that motherf*cker's average fluctuates more than the TSX.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I question what people's goals or aims are.

Mine is to elucidate the actual source material to better understand what is going on and what the writer is trying to convey. It's not like power levels and relative ability don't matter to these stories; they are often integral. But try to understand each story on it's own merits first. Individual arcs by single writers are essentially the basic units of coherence. Often they contradict, but understand them on their own merits, and then see what the trend is.

For example, in some stories Superman is being presented as a poor combatant, and little credence is given to him having seriously dynamic power, like in Rucka's fight of Superman vs Wonder Woman. You can clearly see that, unleashed, Superman has a significant power edge over Wonder Woman; but it's not so overhwhelming that Diana has no chance.

In a story like OWAW, when Superman is unleashed, he's far more powerful than Wonder Woman, and she would get destroyed if she faced him, virtually regardless of his skill level. (Though he is credited with competent combat skills in that arc.)

Figuring out the power relationships in a story help one understand that story better. Similarly, talking about the overall trends in all stories helps one understand the characters better and what our expectations should be when next our hero--though we should never be surprised when a writer defies consensus and our expectations. It's comics!

This can often be true, but you have been personally corrected on your factually incorrect statements for years now. Either reference direct examples for your stance for this character or stop purposely conveying misinformation.

For one, you are again ignoring the factor of editorial regimes and strict continuity with the Carlin and Berganza eras, for one. Rucka also co wrote the War of NEw Krypton, where Superman absolutely displayed far beyond top tier power, and reemphasized the energy aspect of his dynamic power factor.

Editorial regimes matter, but I've never been convinced that they have ever resulted in the kind of strict and cohesive continuity that you suggest they do.

I stand by my analysis of Rucka's Superman vs. WW fight. That he may have taken a different stance later on doesn't necessarily retroactively change my interpretation of his earlier WW vs. Superman fight. Writers are not always consistent with themselves; or perhaps there is no inconsistency. In the WW/Supes fight, Supes dropping the gloves clearly had an impact--he seemed clearly more powerful than WW and the degree of his superiority had clearly increased due to his mindset. But Diana was close enough for her skills and gear to keep her in the game, in that comic. I've seen much bigger boosts in Superman's performance when he cuts loose, possibly even from Rucka.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
We can never just have a thread with Superman where the Superman team loses and moving on.

We have to have like 5 pages of "WELL, if the Sun was really bright and his opponent was nursing a hangover after a heavy night of drinking, Superman's team, and maybe even Superman alone, could possibly, probably, maybe, just might, hopefully even solo. Not often, but it's possible!"

*5 pages of why this unlikely possibility is possible*

EVERY TIME. I've never seen this phenomenon with any other character aside from maaaybe the Sentry but that motherf*cker's average fluctuates more than the TSX.

Some characters have extremely variable performance levels. It's worth noting. The ratings of most Superman, Hulk, and Sentry fights, for example, should have a note about their variability and what that could mean to the results. That's just being complete. There are plenty of fights that I think Superman is typically not favored to win, but very well might on a 'good day'. Yes, all heroes have some variability, but Superman's is greater to enough of an extent that it usually needs commenting on.

For the record, I haven't seen any signs from Bendis that he really subscribes to this view of Superman. But we'll see what happens.

Pillow Bitter, why don't you make an argument with yourself, arguing for both sides, to show what you think the debating should be like? I don't even mean this, pick something and make it short and sweet for both sides, handful of (short) arguments and counter arguments for each.

In all honesty I think the way you think they should be done is worse in convolusion than you're arguing the way things are is, but I'm willing to give you a chance.

That's too much to ask for.

Try to get back on topic, everyone. Let's not ruin the discussion any more than you have already.

Team 2 wins.

Diana handles Supergirl then teams with Orion and takes down Superman.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Editorial regimes matter, but I've never been convinced that they have ever resulted in the kind of strict and cohesive continuity that you suggest they do.

It'd not a matter of debate. We know FOR A FACT that they do, from the writer and editors own words, and in the case of Superman's Carin era, we have them ON CAMERA showing it. Period.

Denying this fact is why you are disqualifiying to pretend to be an authority of any kind. on this subject. you are asking question that have been definitively answered.

I stand by my analysis of Rucka's Superman vs. WW fight. That he may have taken a different stance later on doesn't necessarily retroactively change my interpretation of his earlier WW vs. Superman fight. Writers are not always consistent with themselves; or perhaps there is no inconsistency. In the WW/Supes fight, Supes dropping the gloves clearly had an impact--he seemed clearly more powerful than WW and the degree of his superiority had clearly increased due to his mindset. But Diana was close enough for her skills and gear to keep her in the game, in that comic. I've seen much bigger boosts in Superman's performance when he cuts loose, possibly even from Rucka.

-- Superman was also being externally influenced. This was not Superman operating at an identical mindset he was in, say, Absolute Power.