Comic Battle - Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght?

Post By

thorfan

Subj: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght?
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:56:16 am EST (Viewed 40 times)

We've seen the hulk way above class 100 showings, im sure that others have showings high above that also(probably anyone who's ever held up a building) in your opinion is It a good way to rank strength? In other words why not class 500, class 1000?

Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7

NewEmailPrintRSSIndex

Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · thorfan · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:56:16 am EST
- The adjective rankings from the role playing game was much better. (no text) · Anima Spiritia · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:00:59 am EST
  - Expecially combined with Green Yellow & Red results giving some variance · Incriptus · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:42:14 am EST
    - Re: Expecially combined with Green Yellow & Red results giving some variance · bd2999 · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:31:01 pm EST
      - With the way Extra Effort and Power Stunts work, Mutants and Masterminds is amazing... · RodimusPrime · Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:39:25 am EST
- On a Scale of Potential or Limitless Strength, the numbers should be used as percentiles not tons.... · THUNDERER! · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:52:57 am EST
  - WTF is "below limitless"? · Would be Watcher · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:29:41 pm EST
    - any conceivable weight is below limitless, 100% means being capable or strong to be considered that strong.... · THUNDERER! · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:01:21 pm EST
      - Re: any conceivable weight is below limitless, 100% means being capable or strong to be considered that strong.... · Would be Watcher · Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:10:06 am EST
        
        wow..now your just being difficult. (no text) · THUNDERER! · Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 03:44:20 pm EST
        
        How am I just being difficult? · Would be Watcher · Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:14:03 pm EST
      - Re: any conceivable weight is below limitless, 100% means being capable or strong to be considered that strong.... · Fifthchild · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:00:55 pm EST
  - Re: On a Scale of Potential or Limitless Strength, the numbers should be used as percentiles not tons.... · Fifthchild · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:26:42 am EST
- It used to be OK, but not in terms of actual tonnage... · Braugi · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:25:52 am EST
- It's a ridiculous system... · Would be Watcher · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:25:57 am EST
  - It's actually rather brilliant · Ragnarok · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:30:37 am EST
    - Re: It's actually rather brilliant · Would be Watcher · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:17:49 pm EST
- Yes & No...and yes · Fifthchild · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:30:03 am EST
- I've always liked using... · fearcalypse · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:21:25 pm EST
  - Re: I've always liked using... · JesusFan · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:07:41 am EST
- Just don't limit yourself to 100 tons and just treat it as a scale, you should be fine. (no text) · Thor_The_Mighty · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:03:20 pm EST
- but 100 is a good place to stop counting (no text) · Incriptus · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:03:52 pm EST
- Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · Toe Rag · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:46:17 pm EST
  - No Its Meaningless · Volstagg jr · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:07:05 pm EST
    - I assume that if Class 100 doesn't mean 100 tons, then "Class 95" doesn't mean 95 tons... · The Real Lance Eason · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:38:44 pm EST
- I've always liked the "Incalculable" rating for the mega-heavyweight strongmen... (no text) · Sir PoetTree · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:21:06 pm EST
  - ^This... (no text) · fearcalypse · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:29:44 pm EST
    - ^^No, this! (no text) · Sir PoetTree · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:08:38 am EST
- Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · bd2999 · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:00:13 pm EST
- Considering how Thor and Hulk, casually toss about a hundred or so tons like nothing, I'd say so... · THUNDERER! · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:02:53 am EST