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

How would you personally rank the following attributes of a character in order to determine their overall formidability in terms of how they stand in the Versus Forum when debating against other characters? Which is the most important and least important?

-Non-combat feats
-Fights against other characters
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

Is there any "right" formula which can be applied across the board to all characters, or is it a case by case basis depending on the nature of the character(s) being discussed?

If there are any other aspects I glossed over or that you think should be taken into account, feel free to add them.

non-combat feats and opponents battles are more important when comparing and measuring up how a character stacks.
The others such as character portrayal aren't important because each gen. of writers either adds or take from a character like thor he was once tough but now his at savage hulk strength level and based on fights hulk shows to be the victor. Narrative statements are like jobbings they're used to build up a character. case in point sentry was said to be as strong as a billion exploding stars yet from battles it shows to be not true since he lost to weaker opponents like hulk. also character statements aren't good either when you factor in non-canoncal,inconsistancy and multiverse.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
How would you personally rank the following attributes of a character in order to determine their overall formidability in terms of how they stand in the Versus Forum when debating against other characters? Which is the most important and least important?

-Non-combat feats
-Fights against other characters
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

Is there any "right" formula which can be applied across the board to all characters, or is it a case by case basis depending on the nature of the character(s) being discussed?

If there are any other aspects I glossed over or that you think should be taken into account, feel free to add them.

-Fights against other characters
-Non-combat feats
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
-Fights against other characters
-Non-combat feats
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

1.- Non combat feats as they do not suffer form the jobber effect unless is a recognized destructible item, like a established planet.

2.- Combat feats vs established characters, take into account shock value for first appearances and the jobber effect. RULK is the perfect example.

The other have pretty much the same value to me, maybe I will give more weight to character statements but that's it.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
-Fights against other characters
-Non-combat feats
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

I'd move writer portrayal up to 3rd. I think it's silly when, often times, we ignore clear discrepancies in power levels of characters simply because of limited showings.

Because if you actually adhered to this hierarchy of importance, for example, Iron Man is >>> dozens of characters that the boards consider above him, because of his number of showings and occasional narrative hyperbole.

Otherwise, agreed.

Originally posted by biensalsa
1.- Non combat feats as they do not suffer form the jobber effect unless is a recognized destructible item, like a established planet.

2.- Combat feats vs established characters, take into account shock value for first appearances and the jobber effect. RULK is the perfect example.

The other have pretty much the same value to me, maybe I will give more weight to character statements but that's it.



Sounds reasonable to me.

I've always used the formula in no particular order of feats/fights, power set and portrayal. For me they are of equal importance because when looked at separately they can each be abused to a degree. The other things such as character statements etc play a supplemental role to those.

Originally posted by biensalsa
1.- Non combat feats as they do not suffer form the jobber effect unless is a recognized destructible item, like a established planet.

2.- Combat feats vs established characters, take into account shock value for first appearances and the jobber effect. RULK is the perfect example.

The other have pretty much the same value to me, maybe I will give more weight to character statements but that's it.



Non-combat feats by themselves are tops.

Combat vs established characters can be considered as weighty, but ONLY when its consistently combined with narrative/character statements and general writer intent/portrayal.

E.G. Captain Marvel being Superman's equal.

The only thing that matters in a VS forum is fights. All else is secondary.
Otherwise you have even herald level guys with non combat feats that would make them high abstract.

Examples :
Thor/Mjolnir absorbing a bomb that would have destroyed 1/5 of the universe. Thor/Dargo/Bill/Thunderstrike's Godblasts shoring up the fabric of the multiverse. Sersi shielding the Avengers from a universe wrecking effect. Etc....

Originally posted by zopzop
The only thing that matters in a VS forum is fights. All else is secondary.
Otherwise you have even herald level guys with non combat feats that would make them high abstract.

Examples :
Thor/Mjolnir absorbing a bomb that would have destroyed 1/5 of the universe. Thor/Dargo/Bill/Thunderstrike's Godblasts shoring up the fabric of the multiverse. Sersi shielding the Avengers from a universe wrecking effect. Etc....

Fights in and of themselves are the cause of all kinds of whacky abc logic though. They have to be anchored by other measures such as portrayal. Thor >Surfer>Hulk>Thor.

^This is flawed. Because this would imply that a hypothetical character where he's the only superhuman in his verse, could not be matched up with others. So long as you have feats to use, you can be compared to someone.

You know the ridiculous things we could say if we somehow reverted to saying fights themselves are all that matters, right?

Illustrating some issues with feats only reminds us that we have to temper our interpretations in all aspects.

edit: gawd damn dmills up in this piece. sneer

-Fights against other characters is the only way to determine a accurste average of a character.

And if a character has no one to fight?

Then what?

Feats are the only surefire way to establish a level.

Fights themselves, can only mean as much as feats when they are accompanied by specific, consistent narration of some sort.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
And if a character has no one to fight?

Then what?

Feats are the only surefire way to establish a level.

Fights themselves, can only mean as much as feats when they are accompanied by specific, consistent narration of some sort. If they have no fights then they have no real place in a versus forum, as there is no real way of knowing strengths/weakness in a heated battle

1. Non-combat feats (most important as they allow us to judge a character against known values that remain consistent, for the most part, throughout stories, writers, and different fiction)

2. Fights against other characters (can be used for powerscaling)

3. Narrative statements (Can be fallible if contradicted by actual canon events, otherwise usually reliable)

4. Character statements (there is a further sub-hierarchy here, based on things like whether a character would have a reason to tell the truth, whether they would have the knowledge to know something or not, whether they could have been misinformed, etc. Generally I take statements from scientists or people with scientific knowledge who have done experiments or are reading their instruments as being pretty reliable, in absence of other factors, for example)

5. Writer intent/portrayal (completely subjective and should not be used, cannot even be determined most of the time)

What would be of Thanos without combat feats and writer intent/portrayal?

Originally posted by Nihilist
If they have no fights then they have no real place in a versus forum, as there is no real way of knowing strengths/weakness in a heated battle

If you are strong, durable, and fast, by feats, then you are clear to use in a versus thread period.

Those things simply don't disappear in a 'fight' or 'vs match', so its a moot distinction.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
1. Non-combat feats (most important as they allow us to judge a character against known values that remain consistent, for the most part, throughout stories, writers, and different fiction)

2. Fights against other characters (can be used for powerscaling)

3. Narrative statements (Can be fallible if contradicted by actual canon events, otherwise usually reliable)

4. Character statements (there is a further sub-hierarchy here, based on things like whether a character would have a reason to tell the truth, whether they would have the knowledge to know something or not, whether they could have been misinformed, etc. Generally I take statements from scientists or people with scientific knowledge who have done experiments or are reading their instruments as being pretty reliable, in absence of other factors, for example)

5. Writer intent/portrayal (completely subjective and should not be used, cannot even be determined most of the time)

This.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
^This is flawed. Because this would imply that a hypothetical character where he's the only superhuman in his verse, could not be matched up with others. So long as you have feats to use, you can be compared to someone.

You know the ridiculous things we could say if we somehow reverted to saying fights themselves are all that matters, right?

Illustrating some issues with feats only reminds us that we have to temper our interpretations in all aspects.

edit: gawd damn dmills up in this piece. sneer

Ninja'd you back boi sneer

Originally posted by Nihilist
-Fights against other characters is the only way to determine a accurste average of a character.

That's a part of the equation though. Not the whole.

Look man, we had people arguing that the Hulk was stronger then skyfathers because the former had more verifiable strength feats. Iron Man has knocked out the Surfer before. Classic Nova gave a very good showing versus Thor but was nearly beaten to death by the Sandman. We could go on and on and that's not even getting into so called high or low showings. But we can for the most part effectively navigate through that mess by utilizing all methods mentioned. Not just one.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
How would you personally rank the following attributes of a character in order to determine their overall formidability in terms of how they stand in the Versus Forum when debating against other characters? Which is the most important and least important?

-Non-combat feats
-Fights against other characters
-Narrative statements
-Character statements
-Writer intent/portrayal

Is there any "right" formula which can be applied across the board to all characters, or is it a case by case basis depending on the nature of the character(s) being discussed?

If there are any other aspects I glossed over or that you think should be taken into account, feel free to add them.

time period in which the character was written should be considered if we are trying to compare characters of different eras.....

certainly overall history needs to be examined closely--a longitudinal view usually gives the best indication of what a character will be able to do. i'd say character history would be the #1 deciding factor in determination of power level. the history ASSUMES all of these things--fights and non-battle feats should be taken together. not sure one i more important than the other. narrative/character statements don't have much place here imo. writer intent CAN supercede all the above though, at least for a short time or for a particular version of a character. wbh comes to mind. it was clear by his portrayal he was meant to be the strongest hulk ever, though an argument could be made that by feats this wasn't true.