Comic Battle >> View Thread

Author
Kadaj




1. Fights
2. Feats
3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
4. The lettercolumn
5. The writer him/herself


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Public Enemy #1





Fights >>>>>>>>>>> Feats > the writer him/herself (this depends on whether what s/he says is consistent with what is shown in the books) > Handbooks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lettercolumn = covers.


> 2. Feats
> 3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
> 4. The lettercolumn
> 5. The writer him/herself



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
rc




To me, both fights and non-fight demonstrations of power are "feats," and I treat them equally. The rest is moot to me, though I once cared deeply about writers' input. Nowadays, I only care about what gets published. Not what was "off panel," what was "intended," what the writer was "trying to get across," or what the comic was "supposed to show," etc. That sort of stuff is food for thought and fun to discuss, maybe, but useless. The final product is all that matters, in my opinion, and I do my best to go by that as much as possible when evaluating characters' powers or engaging in fantasy fight debates.

_rc


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
dave




> 1. Fights
> 2. Feats
> 3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
> 4. The lettercolumn
> 5. The writer him/herself

All of these things vary greatly over the years. I think that fights are the most consistent and that s basically what it boils down to. Feats are cool but very inconsistent. The top tiers are the worst at inconsistent feats and the mid levels are the most inconsistent with fights. I don't put much stock in the letters column. I remember years back it said that Venom was in the 11 ton class, just above Spidey. A couple years later he is up in the 20-30 range. The writer, on the other hand, depends. If the writer is commenting on something somebody else did then I don't put much weight on it. However, if they are clarifying something they wrote because fans are arguing over the art or dialogue being confusing then I think it is very important. Can Wolverine's claws not cut Sentry's hands? Did Hulk stop Juggernaut or was it a test of strength? Did Hulk pull tectonic plates back together or...I think that the author has the authority to describe what his/her intent was but the opinions of other writers are just like ours.

So...

Fights..author...feats..column...other writers


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Olympian




> 1. Fights
> 2. Feats
> 3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
> 4. The lettercolumn
> 5. The writer him/herself

You have them pretty much in the correct, order. I would likely switch the lettercolumms for last, since its only dependable from the editor of a particular book, nothing else.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.2 on Windows XP
Olympian




> 1. Fights
> 2. Feats
> 3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
> 4. The lettercolumn
> 5. The writer him/herself



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.2 on Windows XP
Braugi




First, there are two types of guaging...absolute power levels and relative power levels. Absolute power levels pretty much HAVE to be based off of feats, statements, etc while relative power levels can be clearly and easily shown by just pitting the guys against each other...but can also be inferred by comparing estimated absolute power levels.

There's another category thats not quite a fight or a feat, and thats a direct comparison...if Thor and Hercules or Superman and Captain Marvel armwrestle to a draw, its THE best comparison of strength possible.

Likewise, if Gladiator's eyebeams are locked up with Cyclops, and they're showing dead even, thats a good indicator that their EP is equal.

These feats have almost 0 uncertainty, and thus are an excellent guage of relative power levels

I'll weight that as a 10.

Fights:
depend on how the fight is depicted, but DO give direct comparison of characters so its usually pretty clear how they stack up powerwise...you can see that Joe Fixit is stronger than Spidey when they fight, and that Spidey has almost no shot at taking down the Juggernaut, even though he won. Some fights CLEARLY show where they stand, others are more inconclusive, and there is some variability introduced because you can be weaker or less powerful and still win a fight...

Weighting is typically about an 8

Feats:
Not all feats are created equal. In guaging absolute power levels, they're often the only real information you have, but there's SO much uncertainty....a writers given aesthetic, a writer's understanding of physics and how much mass is involved in a feat, whether a writer even CARES about consistency in feats, etc...so usually they're weak evidence, especially when trying to guage relative power levels.

As such, typically, if you see a direct comparison or fight and are able to guage two characters as equals in strength, THAT showing has far less uncertainty than feats, so you can use one characters strength feats to show that the other is capable of a similar feat.

Further, if a company has STRICT editorial control of power levels, feats begin to mean more, but where strict editorial control of power levels is not enforced, feats become less meaningful. The larger the company, the more characters, writers, and editors you have, the more difficult it is to have editorial control of such things...and really, strict editorial control can significantly stifle writer creativity, so its probably not a good thing on a large scale anyway (past a certain point).

That said, if you're comparing feats, there are a few ways that feats can be pretty good evidence.

If a specific writer writes all characters you're comparing within a relatively short time frame, then feat comparisons between characters (provided he wrote them all for a similar length of time with similar amounts of screen time) mean more, and maybe have a weighting of a 3.

If both characters are shown attempting the same feat in the same story arc, then their performance is VERY telling, so this could be weighted at an 8 or better.

Failure to succeed at a feat actually gives us more information...successful completion puts a low end and gives us little information about a characters top end level, while failure to complete a feat gives us a cap. Still, the variability involved in any feat keeps this ambiguous, so it would still be rated somewhere in the 2 range.

Many feats give us little to no information, so would be weighted in the 1-2 range

IN CHARACTER STATEMENTS:
are very similar to feats...some make it VERY clear and explicit, while others are throwaway statements.

They can range from a weighting of 1 to 10...in the case of Superman telling Captain Marvel he considers CM his equal in every way, I'd say its in the 9 range, as the ENTIRE point of the issue was that Superman was awed by CM's power when he received it...it wasn't a throwaway with Superman going into battle saying 'this guy is as strong as me'


Official Bios: often contradict continuity and aren't that strictly editorially controlled. Probably better than feats to some degree, but really shouldn't be rated at more than a 3-4

lettercolumns and writer statements are often contradictory. They HAVE to carry some weight, IMO, but its low, maybe a 0.5





Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
A




Fights and feats are equal. Everything else is meaningless.

> 1. Fights
> 2. Feats
> 3. Official bios, such as from the encyclopedia or the back of an action figure's packaging
> 4. The lettercolumn
> 5. The writer him/herself



Posted with Google Chrome 0.2.149.30 on Windows Vista

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software