Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Yes & No...and yesPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:30:03 am EST (Viewed 70 times)
Reply 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)
Quote: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?
Basically as others have said if you divorce the idea of 100, 90 etc from anything to do with actual tonnage then it works ok-ish - a 100 is roughly equal to a 100 and a 90 is roughly 90% as strong as a 100. However even then it breaks down - A Class 100 character is not 100 times as strong as a guy a little bit stronger than Daredevil or 10 times as strong as SpiderMan (though many maintain that Spidey should never have been ranked at 10 tons in the first place).
As someone else has pointed out before the scale is somewhat non-linear therefore - while a class 9 guy is very close to a Class 10 guy and a CLass 90 guy is fairly close to a Class 100 guy its probably more like a linear scale....which is hardly intuitive.
If you try to tie it to actual numbers then its completely broken.
His Holiness The Pope
The Church of HulkSt Jones Church, New Mexico
Posted with Google Chrome 32.0.1700.107 on MacOS X
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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