• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Tier 2 characters CRT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sera is basically the one who brought up "Entire Universe" being Tier 2 in a general case.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Sera is basically the one who brought up "Entire Universe" being Tier 2 in a general case.
Click to expand...
I disagree with Sera, then. As Tago said, destroying something entails damaging it to a point where it can no longer function or be recognized. You wouldn't say that snapping a ruler in half means that you destroyed the ruler unless you were being hyperbolic, would you? And again, saying that "destroying the universe" =/= "destroying the entire universe" is essentially arguing semantics- I dare say it's similar to the logic that says "destroying the planet just means destroying the core/surface of the planet."
 
Last edited:
I pretty much agree that there should be more elaborate details than "Entire universe". But stuff like "Alternate universe" or "Parallel universe" typically mean alternate timeline since Quilted multiverses and bubble multiverses are actually much less common than actual multiverses. But hakai'ing universes or "Reducing them back into the void" are also described as Low 2-C based on things DragonMaster and Ryukama said. Though, Using EE on a universe wouldn't quite scale to striking strength or durability by default.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Technically, destroying the present would result in the future being a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Destroying a Universe = reality obliteration. If all of space-time is destroyed, there would be nothing but void. No space, nor time. Which means no future.
 
I disagree with a ton of this.

3-A is based on the energy to destroy all matter within the observable universe with a single attack (such as Goku and Beerus' super dense energy ball). There's no Multi-Galaxy level+, in this case.
  • Universe level: Given that the universe's actual size is unknown, we do not know the amount of energy that would be required to destroy all matter within it. As such, the bare minimum value for the observable universe was calculated as a lower border instead (The PSRJ0348+0432 was used as a base). Any greater finite number is also included within this tier, whereas countably infinite numbers are included under High Universe level.
If you destroy all of space (space still exists if matter doesn't) as a concept, that's considered High 3-A in universes where space and time are considered separate, like Her Tears Were My Light. It's true that they're the same IRL, but fiction and real life are two separate things. For reference, one the definition of space is:
  • a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
  • the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
  • position (two or more items) at a distance from one another.
By this same token, I don't get why Low 2-C isn't destroying a universe's space-time, but erasing literally every single moment of its existence throughout history. I could get this in a universe where space-time are the same, but even then we portray things like the Big Bang as Low 2-C.

I personally think this is just really picky and unnecessary, but that we should review these profiles with more scrutiny.

Edit: Apparently there is absolutely no space without matter, IRL (I thought there'd just be a completely and totally empty infinite void that would technically be considered "space"). However, many universes in fiction don't work this way. It also doesn't alter the fact that our 3-A rating is based on destroying matter within the universe, meaning that value would need to be changed if your revisions go through.

Edit 2: It says matter and energy, so, Idk. I've also heard that space as a thing would exist, but only in the sense that there's no technical frame of reference. For example, time itself isn't real, we just use it as a frame of reference, so it would "cease" if the universe was destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Tago238 said:
"KingPin's latest proposal seen the most correct and accurate to be honest."
It has been all but shown to very much not be correct or accurate (whatever the supposed difference is) whatsoever at a very basic level, BY KINGPIN'S OWN ADMISSION!
Click to expand...
Yeah i only notice it later, which why i delete my post.
 
ByAsura said:
I disagree with a ton of this.

3-A is based on the energy to destroy all matter within the observable universe with a single attack (such as Goku and Beerus' super dense energy ball). There's no Multi-Galaxy level+, in this case.
  • Universe level: Given that the universe's actual size is unknown, we do not know the amount of energy that would be required to destroy all matter within it. As such, the bare minimum value for the observable universe was calculated as a lower border instead (The PSRJ0348+0432 was used as a base). Any greater finite number is also included within this tier, whereas countably infinite numbers are included under High Universe level.
If you destroy all of space (space still exists if matter doesn't) as a concept, that's considered High 3-A in universes where space and time are considered separate, like Her Tears Were My Light. It's true that they're the same IRL, but fiction and real life are two separate things. For reference, one the definition of space is:
  • a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
  • the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
  • position (two or more items) at a distance from one another.
By this same token, I don't get why Low 2-C isn't destroying a universe's space-time, but erasing literally every single moment of its existence throughout history. I could get this in a universe where space-time are the same, but even then we portray things like the Big Bang as Low 2-C.

I personally think this is just really picky and unnecessary, but that we should review these profiles with more scrutiny.

Edit: Apparently there is absolutely no space without matter, IRL (I thought there'd just be a completely and totally empty infinite void that would technically be considered "space"). However, many universes in fiction don't work this way. It also doesn't alter the fact that our 3-A rating is based on destroying matter within the universe, meaning that value would need to be changed if your revisions go through.

Edit 2: It says matter and energy, so, Idk. I've also heard that space as a thing would exist, but only in the sense that there's no technical frame of reference. For example, time itself isn't real, we just use it as a frame of reference, so it would "cease" if the universe was destroyed.
Click to expand...
This CRT was casually discussed/ planned on the VS Central discord and related discord servers for some time, mainly involving Zamasu asking questions to Ultima/KingPin and KingPin saying that verses were being wanked. The part of the op that says "destroying matter isn't 3-A, destroying an infinitesimal portion of space time is" was not anything like what had been discussed previously on discord and is wrong for two very obvious reasons, one of which you mentioned (I'll get to the second later). Zamasu himself has admitted to these mistakes, at least somewhat ("I made a slight mistake in the OP kek.". I realise that I might be taking this out of Zamasu's original intention though, so I will edit accordingly if I am given reason to believe this is the case obviously).

At this point it should more be Ultima's comment which should be considered as the main point of this thread (after all it's what people are contending with/ agreeing with the most and Zamasu said "I’ll edit the OP with Ultima’s proposal later.", nobody knows when later is but oh well) which was the following (in case you missed it):


"By the way, since a bunch of people both here and outside of the wiki expressed some confusion as to what exactly this thread's proposal is, I'll say this just for clarity's sake: We are not changing the actual definition of Low 2-C, just applying some stricter standards so characters have to meet the actual requirement to qualify for it, that being destroying all of spacetime, and thus the entire universe across past, present and future. So, if you destroy the universe, but there is no evidence that it was destroyed across past and future, then you are not Low 2-C.
3-A will remain unchanged, too, since the original post was written under the idea that you can destroy spacetime at a single point in time, which is just completely wrong and born from a misdirection: A single point in time isn't 4-D, it's a 3-dimensional cross-section of the larger 4-dimensional structure of spacetime, basically a static snapshot of the universe at a single point of no time. Likewise, destroying space and matter would cause time to stop existing, yes, but this would be more of a chain reaction than an actual feat: Low 2-C is explicitly about directly destroying the spacetime continuum"

this seems to not be susceptible to your former criticism. Ultima's further arguments/ clarifications can obviously be seen as addendums to this point so "By this same token, I don't get why Low 2-C isn't destroying a universe's space-time, but erasing literally every single moment of its existence throughout history. I could get this in a universe where space-time are the same, but even then we portray things like the Big Bang as Low 2-C." seems to present a view aligned with Ultima's later comment of "Can you substantiate these statements, at least? I already explained why destroying spacetime at a single point in time is nonsensical and just an oxymoron (Which Greenshifter already pointed out up there), and I am fairly sure this goes against our standards on the matter. To extend the argument I made up there: If a character says they are going to destroy a planet, we don't really assume it'll be done through a chain reaction unless there is some good basis for that."
 
I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate. Even then, you both agreed Zamasu's point about destroying the universe was wrong. At most, our standard should be moderately stricter. It's also still entirely susceptible, as I explained with our standards on the Big Bang.

Also, this is our exact justification for Universe level+. Even if you guys were right, destroying or affecting time in some capacity is not 3-D, it's 4-D. Destroying a continuum on a universal scale (likely meaning size), is just an example.
  • Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

    A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.

    B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
Plus, there's many universes where every moment of a universe's history has totally ceased to exist and the characters still exist. Doctor Who is a good example, even if you discount the Time Lords' resistance to being erased from history.
 
Last edited:
Why does it seem like all the other staff, except Derp, either disagreed with Ultima or clashed with his argument? I have a big problem with that.

As I learned from Ultima, the space-time continuum as it is defined in general relativity merely indicates a framework where space and time are continuous (duh), and the word timeline already implies as much.
Yes, and that's exactly what a dimension of time is: It's another direction in which the individual states of the universe at any given moment ("Snapshots," as I called them up there) are lined up in succession, think of the frames of a film, except there are infinitely-many of them.
Low 2-C is effectively destroying uncountably infinite snapshots of the spatial universe, so, yeah, it isn't the same thing as 3-A anyway.
Click to expand...
Despite Ultima saying multiple times "space time is all of the past present and future (PPF), and can't be destroyed in one point in time," Matthew said this:

Assuming "I'm going to destroy this universe in all past, present and future" as a default assumption when someone says "I'm going to destroy this space-time" is ridiculous. It definitely needs more complete proof.
Click to expand...
Not only did this get a crap ton of like from both regulars and staff, but there were still people contesting Ultima's premise. This makes me wonder why so many people thought one thing but Ultima is the only one that said otherwise. Isn't this supposed to be common knowledge, especially among staff? This leads into my next problem.

It's indeed quite a strange standard that we've held since the beginnings of the wiki, way before I even got to revise the Tiering System, I think. Of course, saying that destroying any amount of spacetime is enough for Low 2-C sets an extremely bad precedent and is bound to inflate a bunch of feats, and that is exactly why I am going to make a thread regarding feats like this in the near future: This is also a response to anyone who is asking about feats where spacetime is destroyed locally, but not universally, by the way.
Click to expand...
First off, inflation doesn't answer my question. Second, you said space time is the PPF, it can't be destroyed in one era, only all of the PPF, which is infinite range. On the wiki, destroying a universal space time continuum is the equivalent of destroying infinite 3-A universes right? However, when destroying the entire PPF of a pocket dimension with anything less than 3-A, say a planet or star, this "infinite snapshot" thing is completely forgotten about. So why is destroying all of the time and space of a star sized dimension not equivalent to destroying infinite stars? The only difference between 3-A and 4-C is the size, both of them are still finite.

From what I see:
4-C sized (finite) dimension + all of time and space = finite.
3-A sized (finite) dimension + all of time and space = infinite.
 
ByAsura said:
I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate. Even then, you both agreed Zamasu's point about destroying the universe was wrong. At most, our standard should be moderately stricter. It's also still entirely susceptible, as I explained with our standards on the Big Bang.

Also, this is our exact justification for Universe level+. Even if you guys were right, destroying or affecting time in some capacity is not 3-D, it's 4-D. Destroying a continuum on a universal scale (likely meaning size), is just an example.
  • Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

    A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.

    B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
Plus, there's many universes where every moment of a universe's history has totally ceased to exist and the characters still exist. Doctor Who is a good example, even if you discount the Time Lords' resistance to being erased from history.
Click to expand...
"I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate"
So this is arguing in favour of stricter standards because we don't know if space and time are separate? I'm not sure what you mean and therefore I don't feel comfortable responding.

"Also, this is our exact justification for Universe level+. Even if you guys were right, destroying or affecting time in some capacity is not 3-D, it's 4-D."
Eh? Time in a 4-D universe is just, a single temporal dimension, but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following (also ig you could say destroying time would reduce the size of a space time continuum to a single 3-D cross section but so would destroying any dimension whatsoever, which would mean hax that "destroys a dimension" would be ranked as either 11-B or 1-B taking into consideration the composite cosmology o f t h e v s m a t c h):

"Destroying a continuum on a universal scale (likely meaning size), is just an example."
The thread isn't saying "You have to destroy the past, present and future to get low 2-C", it's just saying "all these profiles that get low 2-C based on feats of just destroying the universe without explanation that it destroys the cosmos across the past, present and future are wrong and should be downgraded". The other means of achieving low 2-C that don't relate to a space time continuum at all hasn't even been a topic mentioned in passing on this thread.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I pretty much agree that there should be more elaborate details than "Entire universe". But stuff like "Alternate universe" or "Parallel universe" typically mean alternate timeline since Quilted multiverses and bubble multiverses are actually much less common than actual multiverses.
Click to expand...
While I can agree to treating universes as spatio-temporally separate by default unless proven otherwise, I don't think that an attack that encompasses multiple universes should necessarily be tier 2. It'd still be subject to the burden of proving that those universes were affected across time as well as space, I'd say, although I think that you could possibly get Interdimensional Range out of it.

Also, a small correction: a bubble multiverse would still be an "actual multiverse" by our standards because the different universes under this model would have different values tied to physical constants and be causally independent of each other.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
But hakai'ing universes or "Reducing them back into the void" are also described as Low 2-C based on things DragonMaster and Ryukama said. Though, Using EE on a universe wouldn't quite scale to striking strength or durability by default.
Click to expand...
The first part sounds wrong for reasons that have already been explained: reducing the universe into a perfect vacuum is something that you can do just by destroying all matter and energy in the universe. That would not necessarily be a Low 2-C feat without specifically mentioning or, better yet, showing that space-time is being affected. The second part should be obvious to anyone who is even somewhat familiar with power scaling, I'd reckon.

-----

I'd also appreciate if people read through the thread more carefully and didn't jump to conclusions after seeing a few posts, because as both Zamasu and Tago explained, that's what a lot of people here are doing: skimming through the thread and forming half-baked conclusions based on misinformation. I'll admit that it is partially Zamasu's fault for not updating the OP even after realizing his mistakes, but that doesn't really excuse what I just mentioned.
 
Tago238 said:
So this is arguing in favour of stricter standards because we don't know if space and time are separate? I'm not sure what you mean and therefore I don't feel comfortable responding.

Eh? Time in a 4-D universe is just, a single temporal dimension, but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following (also ig you could say destroying time would reduce the size of a space time continuum to a single 3-D cross section but so would destroying any dimension whatsoever, which would mean hax that "destroys a dimension" would be ranked as either 11-B or 1-B taking into consideration the composite cosmology o f t h e v s m a t c h):

The thread isn't saying "You have to destroy the past, present and future to get low 2-C", it's just saying "all these profiles that get low 2-C based on feats of just destroying the universe without explanation that it destroys the cosmos across the past, present and future are wrong and should be downgraded". The other means of achieving low 2-C that don't relate to a space time continuum at all hasn't even been a topic mentioned in passing on this thread.
Click to expand...
As I said in the previous post, there are fictional universes where that's the case. But there's also tons more (Dragon Ball, Doctor Who, etc) where it isn't.

You aren't being very clear on how this actually relates to what you're saying.

Yeah, and I'm saying that's b.s. You can do far less to pass for Universe level+, like explicitly destroying space-time without erasing every trace of that continuum having existed in the past, just that part of the present. I believe Flowey or Asriel reduces the universe to a timeless void and then obliterates save flies (basically saved timelines).
 
Last edited:
"As I said in the previous post, there are fictional universes where that's the case. But there's also tons more (Dragon Ball, Doctor Who, etc) where it isn't."
Right, well if space and time are separate in the verse we would act accordingly...... which doesn't seem to be much more than assuming gravity doesn't exist. I don't see how some verses having a space which is separate from its time really matters whatsoever or works as a contradiction.

"You aren't being very clear on how this actually relates to what you're saying."
Touché, that's why I said " but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following". If you were saying what I know thing you were saying then respond to my third paragraph.

"Yeah, and I'm saying that's b.s. You can do far less to pass for Universe level+, like explicitly destroying space-time without erasing every trace of that continuum having existed in the past, just that part of the present. I believe Flowey or Asriel reduces the universe to a timeless void and then obliterates save flies (basically saved timelines)."
I suppose I was taken off guard by your quoting of the entire tier description. If you are seriously just saying that "destroying the space-time of the universe" is low 2-C and that's why you made the point about affecting time mentioned in the prior paragraph then that is the point I responded to with my very first reply to you. My argument was that Ultima clearly said "affecting space-time" wouldn't just be assumed to affect a single point in space time as it would be an oxymoron and therefore (from my perspective and the perspective I feel thread newcomers should be drawing from this) explicitly destroying the space-time of the universe should qualify as low 2-C.
 
That was my original point when responding to Zamasu. I addressed it in the previous argument since you brought it up again. The point of it was also that fiction doesn't work like reality does, which the OP and many of you seem to be treating it as.

I was saying you weren't exactly being clear, and you still didn't give a reason as to what "4-D universe is just, a single temporal dimension, but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following" related to, exactly. Regardless, I responded to the third paragraph.

Firstly, I was responding to that argument, not restating what I said before. Secondly, that's wrong because the two are portrayed as separate and were explicitly separated by the wiki. An example of this is Korvac, whom even Ant agreed to be Universe level+ in the past for affecting the entire fabric and function of the universe in one universal portion of space-time to the point where the future would be different (basically, he changed time on a universal scale without altering the past). You can destroy a Universe level+ space-time without having to destroy its entire history.

These whole arguments for the changes do not have a shred of proof behind them. If you're making the claims, actually give some substantial proof. Until then, I'm mostly (like I said, we should review vague Universe level+ feats with more scrutiny) against this.

Edit: I've been spending way too much time on this wiki to the point where it's getting more difficult to balance this and work/other stuff (odd as it seems, I do have some modicum of a life), so I'm going to unwatch this thread to focus on that and the other CRTs that I'm currently doing/have planned in the near future.
 
Last edited:
"That was my original point when responding to Zamasu. I addressed it in the previous argument since you brought it up again. The point of it was also that fiction doesn't work like reality does, which the OP and many of you seem to be treating it as."
I.... what. Of course fiction doesn't work like reality, nobody is saying it is. I don't see how space and time not constructing a single manifold in one verse means anything at all. You can use the "fiction doesn't work like reality" argument to dispute site wide revisions if (said site wide revisions generally having the imposed standards alleviated if the verse outright doesn't work within the system) 1) The deviation fiction has from reality is so absolute, usually to the level where it is written into the fabric of how author's write fiction, that imposing real life logic on it would likely be contradicted by 95% of verses (so, for instance, KE standards and not making physical attack potency scale to speed) and 2)The provided examples of "fiction not working like reality" are actually relevant. So for 1)You mentioned one verse that worked like this in regards to space and time being separate and for 2)space and time being separate in the sense of not being part of the same topological space would, to me, only mean that the 4-D Lorentzian manifold in general relativity wouldn't exist and therefore it would just be that gravity doesn't exist or work the same. If this was a response to Zamasu's post about 3-A requiring the destruction of a snapshot of space... fine, whatever, but you said we agreed that Zamasu was wrong in that area so I don't know why you also said "I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate", although maybe to get that answer I need to ask what "that way" is.


"I was saying you weren't exactly being clear, and you still didn't give a reason as to what "4-D universe is just, a single temporal dimension, but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following" related to, exactly. Regardless, I responded to the third paragraph."
Well, I think it was pretty clear I was asking what you didn't think was clear, not "could you explain to me what not being very clear means". Oh well, it doesn't seem to matter. Firstly, please don't take my quote out of context from the beginning to make it seem nonsensical, as of course a 4-D universe is not just a single temporal dimension- time in it is (which is what I said). Secondly, My argument which has clearly caused quite a lot of confusion, it was in response to "Also, this is our exact justification for Universe level+. Even if you guys were right, destroying or affecting time in some capacity is not 3-D, it's 4-D.", basically saying "I have no ******* clue what you think this means but if are actually of the opinion that feats of affecting time (not space, just time) are 4-D then I'd have to say that is nonsensical since time is only a single dimension"

"Firstly, I was responding to that argument, not restating what I said before. Secondly, that's wrong because the two are portrayed as separate and were explicitly separated by the wiki. An example of this is Korvac, whom even Ant agreed to be Universe level+ in the past for affecting the entire fabric and function of the universe in one universal portion of space-time to the point where the future would be different (basically, he changed time on a universal scale without altering the past). You can destroy a Universe level+ space-time without having to destroy its entire history."
Well there we go, the source of my own confusion appears to be your repeated use of "separate" without directly specifying what things are separate. My apologies, I should have realised. Well, while I don't think Korvac being approved by Ant is a good argument (despite my inclination to agree with your assertion itself) it appears to be the subject of a separate thread as was brought up before.

CrimsonStarFallen asks: "Out of curiosity, if someone destroys the present and the past, but not the future (or vice-versa really), would it still not be Low 2-C?"
Ultima responds: "I am actually planning to make a thread regarding that and similar feats, so, ask afterwards, I suppose."

So yeah, your previously stated position of "I personally think this is just really picky and unnecessary, but that we should review these profiles with more scrutiny." is completely aligned with the leading proposal of this thread, at least so far as it's possible you'll have different conclusions in the later thread. Just ignore ppf talk for now.

Edit: Welp rip, I guess that's some sunk cost for me trying to get another staff on board.
 
XSOULOFCINDERX said:
I'm kind of amazed this wasn't just closed outright considering how much of a Hot Take I assumed this was at first.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is a hot take. It's just applying basic logic that many people seem to gloss over.

-----

I have to admit, this thread is moving painfully slow. I know some of you guys would rather wait for Sera to make her thread and then have the arguments there, but with all due respect, Sera isn't very fast at doing things she wants to do when it comes to this site. Between experiencing burnout sometimes, having children to raise, and just not being attentive to VS Battles in general (for perfectly good and understandable reasons), I don't expect her to make that thread any time soon. I think it would be more prudent to knock this issue out while we have the opportunity rather than allow it to fester any further.
 
SunDaGamer said:
High 3-B for characters able to destroy all the physical matter in a universe 😛
Click to expand...
sigh

If this is a joke, it's not funny. If it's serious... no, we're not doing that anymore. We already agreed later on that 3-A and tier 2 are staying as they are- we're just tightening our standards on what counts as tier 2, is all.
 
I am torn about this issue.

On the one hand, I agree about the premise that regular universal spacetime is knit together into a single unit, and that destroying it on a universal scale is conceptually far less impressive than erasing an entire timeline, and should also be a default interpetation for such feats. I have thought about this several times myself over the years.

Our current standards also create lots of ongoing confusion regarding pocket universe creation and destruction feats, with ongoing demands to consider them as more impressive than they are, due to spacetime being involved even if they are just the size of a city or less.

On the other hand, we do need to be able to distinguish destroying several universes from destroying a single universe, even if their entire timelines were not destroyed.

Essentially, we enter the problem with a tiering system with linear progression in terms of terminology, given that the progression from universe to timeline and universe to universes go in two different directions, and in addition we would need to distinguish destroying several timelines from destroying several universes in a more "standardised" manner.

One solution might be to involve the signs alpha and omega, or something similar, with the feats that involve simply destroying universes receiving either no extra sign or the alpha sign, whereas the ones that can destroy one or multiple timelines in a single strike receive an omega sign, but it would be much harder to compare characters in terms of powerscaling via this method, so it is likely a bad idea. Perhaps @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Sera_EX, or our bureaucrats and administrators can come up with better alternative ideas in this regard?

Anyway, as Medeus and Mitch mentioned, we would have to put such a revision on hold for quite a while, as there is too much going on in the wiki right now, both in terms of several unfinished important structural revisions for the wiki as a whole, general controversy, and our members being too busy to help out due to work and studies. As such, the summer would be a better fit, but we have an extremely important massive wiki revision project planned for then as well.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, Ant, while I agree that destroying/creating multiple universes shouldn't be equalized to doing the same thing to multiple timelines without further context, I kind of feel like you glossed over some of what was said later on in this thread, particularly this post from me:
As I learned from Ultima, the space-time continuum as it is defined in general relativity merely indicates a framework where space and time are continuous (duh), and the word timeline already implies as much. Furthermore, a space-time continuum doesn't need to change- remember Einstein's famous quote that time is just a persistent illusion of three-dimensional space? My previous definition of a timeline would be more in line with how spacetime is described in Newtonian mechanics, wherein spacetime is just a stage where all physical phenomena occur and is uniform throughout the universe. Under general relativity, spacetime "changes," but not in the sense of its causal structure constantly evolving, rather in the sense that mass distorts spacetime, causing gravity.

Also, destroying space itself isn't necessarily going to destroy time in a way that matters. A single point in the timeline/space-time continuum would be 3-D in the same way that a single point on the real number line would be 0-D, while the line itself would be 1-D. Thus, the Dragon Ball analogy doesn't exactly work, not that it matters since DBS would get downgraded either way.
Click to expand...
Basically, there is no real distinction between "destroying a space-time continuum" and "destroying a timeline", and me saying otherwise was misinformation. While destroying all matter and energy in the entire universe would logically lead to the destruction of time as well, it would do so as a chain reaction, and as such, it isn't enough to grant a Low 2-C rating. To be Low 2-C, you obviously have to directly destroy the space-time continuum/timeline at all points, not just the universe at one point in time. This extends to 2-C through 2-A as well- no one should be tier 2 just because their attack covered multiple universes, we need to require context that those universes were destroyed at every point in time, and even then, if there is evidence suggesting that they are contained under the same space-time continuum, then the feat would be Low 2-C at most unless higher dimensions are involved for some reason.

In any case, your proposal sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if we'll have enough characters affected by this revision to make it relevant. I'll contact Ultima and see what he thinks.
 
No disrespect towards anyone, but advancing on the tiering system just got a lot more difficult.
 
KingPin:

Okay. My apologies about not reading and remembering everything in the thread.

Anyway, I am still concerned about that our current standards create confusion regarding feats that create or destroy miniature pocket universes.

In addition, we currently consider destroying several universes at once as 2-C to 2-A regardless if spacetime or timelines were specified or not.
 
Antvasima said:
Anyway, I am still concerned about that our current standards create confusion regarding feats that create or destroy miniature pocket universes.
Click to expand...
Ultima plans to address feats regarding small space-time continua in the future, so don't worry.
Antvasima said:
In addition, we currently consider destroying several universes at once as 2-C to 2-A regardless if spacetime or timelines were specified or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I said, that is a problem that ought to be handled. Destroying multiple universes doesn't necessarily entail destroying multiple space-time continua, despite what our current standards say. For example, we treat Dragon Ball Super's shared feat between Beerus and Champa as 2-C overall, despite a lack of indication that the two universes they would have destroyed would have been destroyed on a spatio-temporal level. Whether or not universes in Dragon Ball are separate space-time continua, this feat lacks the context for actual 2-C.

---

I contacted Ultima, although I'm still waiting to hear back from him.
 
So question...

What would this do about tier 1 characters? Wouldn't they specifically need to be shown to be superior to timelines as opposed to universal space-times?

This puts everything above tier 3 into question.
 
KingPin:

Okay. Thank you for the information.
 
YungManzi said:
So question...

What would this do about tier 1 characters? Wouldn't they specifically need to be shown to be superior to timelines as opposed to universal space-times?

This puts everything above tier 3 into question.
Click to expand...
Universal space-times are timelines. I literally just showed how there is no distinction, and Ultima has also said that no tiers would need to be changed- it seems that Ant has a different idea in mind involving 3-D multiversal stuff, but other than that, I'm pretty sure there will be no modifications made to the tiering system itself.

-----

Anyway, if we are going to close this thread, we ought to do it soon, preferably after Ultima gives his input on Ant's proposal. We don't need to clutter this thread more than necessary.
 
KingPin0422 said:
Anyway, if we are going to close this thread, we ought to do it soon, preferably after Ultima gives his input on Ant's proposal. We don't need to clutter this thread more than necessary.
Click to expand...
Okay. I suppose that seems reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reiner04
  • Locked
Dragonball: 1-B Timeline
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Cosmology Upgrade
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
William_Joee
William_Joee
Kaiou1991
  • Locked
Saint Seiya High 1-B Upgrade (Manga)
5 6 7
Replies
254
Views
10K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
UchihaLik
Question about 3-A and L2-C.
Replies
1
Views
245
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
(DB Tier 1) We must imagine a DB scaler happy.
13 14 15
Replies
587
Views
46K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Back
Top