Comic Battle - It's a ridiculous system...

Post By

Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008

In Reply To

thorfan

Subj: It's a ridiculous system...
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:25:57 am EST (Viewed 79 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)

<< Prev

NewEmailPrintRSSIndex

Next >>

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?

...that people won't let go no matter what. Kind of like not being able to forgo the imperial system for the metric one I guess.

It was originally designed to be a literal system. class 10 meant 10 tons and so on up to class 100 that was 100 tons and up (what a worthless class if I ever saw one).

Fans have made all sorts of tweeking in the vain hope to make the system work with comics, but it resulted is a very subjective and arbitrary creature. Worse, people use that thing across the board as gospel truth force-fitting everything in it.

Now, if it wasn't already clear, I hate that system.

Posted with Google Chrome 32.0.1700.107 on Windows 8

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