• 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.

New Tier Addition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugarik

Ugarik

VS Battles
Calculation Group
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
415
We need a new tier (Low 10-C) of characters with AP of 0 joules. There are 3 reasons for that

1. Their level is negative infinity on the Attack Potency scale. The power difference between 10-C and Low 10-C would be the same as the power difference between 3-A and High 3-A
2. They are unable to harm any character no matter how low their durability is
3. If their durability is at that level they will get one-shotted by any 10-C character, no matter how weak they are
 
Wouldn't this would be like best for beings made of data like Gene, Rumble McSkirmish and GIFfany?

These are like the only 10-Cs I could think of that could apply to this rating

Also I'm curious how you'd call this tier if this would be applied, since 10-C is already called "Below Average Human level"
 
Tier 11 is less than harmless without hax, and low 10-C wouldn't even touch them without hax.
 
I feel this is kinda unnecessary and not sure how this can be properly squeezed into the system.

Technically, all of our 11-A and below already have 0 Joules on 3-D scale; as even 2-D entities with the slightest bit of 3-D energy would still be 10-C similar to how it's possible for 3-D entities to be Tier 2/1. And technically, having the slightest amount of 4-D, 11-D, ect energy doesn't land someone a Tier, but just some notable limited levels of higher dimensional affection. A character needs to be outright infinite on a 5-D and beyond scale to be Low 1-C and beyond; which is the opposite of the Tier 11 stuff where the rule is they have to be 0 on what ever the next dimensional level is.

As for 3-D objects with 0 joules, I'm really unsure how that can be incorporated; as long as you have mass, you have durability. And I doubt the profile for lifeless statues are going to be seen as characters; though they have 0 AP but some durability. Or is this for characters made of Data and have 0 3-D feats like those of the Emoji movie? Having a Low 10-C seems really weird and while I can sort of see it working for AP, I have doubts how that even works durability wise. Most of these characters are kinda intangible against physical characters without their buttons and such.

Also, the way you said Negative Infinity would actually be High 3-A. Since negative energy and positive energy are equally potent.
 
My take on this:
Low 10-C should be everything "less than 1 joule but more than 0 joules".
Technically digital characters are made of electrons, and stuff like bacteria and viruses can damage cells, so both of them can have AP, it'll just be sub-1 joule.
"0 joules" is just above baseline 11-A or something.
 
I do think that this would work as a tier, but I disagree with it being only characters with 0 Joules or whatnot. Like has been brought up, this is essentially impossible if you're 3-D, and would need actual evidence, which I doubt any verse actually gives, making it obsolete.

I believe Low 10-C should be closer to Jaftens proposal, with characters / entities who are artificial or negligible in most cases on a 3-D scale. This would be programs, viruses (Both computer viruses and biological viruses), and probably cell scale stuff.

However there's still the fact that programs and such, don't actually have energy. Sure, they are composed of electrons and such, but the electrons do not define the character. They still pose no threat to anything other than what is on their level. A cell has infinitely more of a chance of killing you with striking strength than a computer virus does, because it can actually affect and interact with you...
Due to this, these digital/artificial beings would be somewhere even lower, somewhere below the previously defined Low 10-C, but above 11-A, as they are still 3-D.
Perhaps High 11-A is in order too? Characters like this would include the likes of Programs, Computer Viruses, Drawings, Artwork, and more imo, as these all share the same traits of only being notable threats on their own level, but still exist on a 3-Dimensional Axis.

TL;DR: I think it should be along the lines of
  • Low 10-C: Closer to what Jaften Proposed, however I'm not sure whether to draw the line at 1 Joule. This would include Cells, Biological Viruses, Bacteria, and anything actually capable of interacting with other 3-D objects.
  • High 11-A (Or whatever it could be called): Digital/Artificial Beings such as Computer Viruses, Programs, Drawings, Paintings, etc. That cannot interact with the 3-D world around them as they're bound to their own world, but are still bound to the 3-D world. (If that makes sense...)
 
Besides, what would even be the name of these tier levels? High 11-A would have most assume Large Plane level or High Plane level and Low 10-C is even worse. Small Below Average Human level? or Low Below Average Human level? I know neither of those were suggestions but those would be examples of tier lineups. A double low for the latter just sounds awful.

And Data level and Particle level, Cell level or Insect level also sound pretty ehh too.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Besides, what would even be the name of these tier levels? High 11-A would have most assume Large Plane level or High Plane level and Low 10-C is even worse. Small Below Average Human level? or Low Below Average Human level? I know neither of those were suggestions but those would be examples of tier lineups. A double low for the latter just sounds awful.

And Data level and Particle level, Cell level or Insect level also sound pretty ehh too.
Click to expand...
Why would they need to be named like that? 5-A to High 5-A goes from Large Planet level to Dwarf Star level, they don't have to directly relate to the name of each other.

Low 10-C could be along the lines of Microscopic or such. Or if we want to go even lower it could be something like Quantum.

High 11-A would likely be along the lines of Planar or something similar.
 
Names of Tiers can also change, such as 9-A being called "Small Building level" instead of "Room level" like it was known previously
 
But either way, I feel this might be unnecessary and we'd need input from people like DontTalkDT or Ultima Reality.
 
I personally believe it's a good idea, as 10-C currently includes a large amount of different subjects that I don't think should be considered comparable. Moreso the digital/artificial stuff imo. But I also believe that stuff like cells and baceria, etc have a reason to be separated too.
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
How would they get joule ratings with no mass? Sure they can and do have actual speed as long as they're at least 1D, but their mass by 3D standards will always be 0, meaning no matter how fast they move, their kinetic energy output is always 0 or just ouright in a lower-dimensional range
Click to expand...
Mass can be generalized to bodies of both more and less than three dimensions. In 3-dimensional space, it is spread over a volume, so it is naturally measured as density * volume, but it can also be expressed as density * length, or density * area (Or density * any unit of space). This shows up in a lot of problems in real analysis, for instance, where we restrict the universe to a framework with less than three dimensions because it's far easier to deal with problems involving less variables, so you'll often see a rope or a spring being treated as a 1-dimensional object, a lamina as a 2-dimensional object, and so on. None of this prevents calculations of mass or energy from being applied to them.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Mass can be generalized to bodies of both more and less than three dimensions. In 3-dimensional space, it is spread over a volume, so it is naturally measured as density * volume, but it can also be expressed as density * length, or density * area (Or density * any unit of space). This shows up in a lot of problems in real analysis, for instance, where we restrict the universe to a framework with less than three dimensions because it's far easier to deal with problems involving less variables, so you'll often see a rope or a spring being treated as a 1-dimensional object, a lamina as a 2-dimensional object, and so on. None of this prevents calculations of mass or energy from being applied to them.
Click to expand...
Isn't what you described just 1D or 2D mass? Like I would describe 1D and 2D mass as density * length and density * area respectively. However even if in their 1/2D mass they have a positive value, it'll still be 0 in terms of our regular 3D mass, since they have 0 length in the 3rd dimension.

Also 4D volumes are literally uncountably infinitely larger than anything 3 dimensional, so since mass is denisty * volume, their mass would also be uncountably infinitely larger than anything 3 dimensional. That is even written in the Lifting Strength page in the wikia

Also with the rope example, it isn't actually 1D, it's just treated as such since the width and height of the rope are neglible in comparison to the length of the rope
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
Isn't what you described just 1D or 2D mass? Like I would describe 1D and 2D mass as density * length and density * area respectively. However even if in their 1/2D mass they have a positive value, it'll still be 0 in terms of our regular 3D mass, since they have 0 length in the 3rd dimension.
Click to expand...
Not really. Mass is a quantity that's denoted solely by numerical values, so you could say that it is defined primarily in relation to 0-dimensional space, and can apply to any amount of dimensions whatsoever. It's like I explained in the FAQ page linked above: Whether it's spread over an area or a volume just tells us about the portion of space in which it is distributed, not about the quantity itself. So, density changes, yes, but mass doesn't.

Gilad_Hyperstar said:
Also with the rope example, it isn't actually 1D, it's just treated as such since the width and height of the rope are neglible in comparison to the length of the rope
Click to expand...
Sure, but for the purposes of the problem itself, it is a fully 1-dimensional object, and is thus treated as such. You could frame the same problems over some arbitrary lower-dimensional object that doesn't actually correspond to a reduction of anything in 3-D space, too.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Not really. Mass is a quantity that's denoted solely by numerical values, so you could say that it is defined primarily in relation to 0-dimensional space, and can apply to any amount of dimensions whatsoever. It's like I explained in the FAQ page linked above: Whether it's spread over an area or a volume just tells us about the portion of space in which it is distributed, not about the quantity itself. So, density changes, yes, but mass doesn't.
Click to expand...
So... What you said in the FAQ is that higher dimensional structures aren't necessarily infinitely stronger than lower dimensional structures, so would that implies that an 11-A would be able to affect someone 3D physically?

I know that 3D characters can hurt and affect higher dimensional characters if they're Tier 2/1, but normally a 2D character that doesn't have some special powers that allow him to affect higher dimensions wouldn't be able to harm 3D structures
 
Also, if Joule output can be proportionally the same regardless of dimensional level, wouldn't it be a good idea to also list the tier X character holds within its dimensional level?
For example, a Low 1-C character destroying stars that are also of its dimensional level, but that if they were "simply 3-D" would translate into an High 4-C tier, ending up like "Low 1-C [High 4-C in its perspective]" tier or so.
This would help for cases like Umineko where characters are "simply tier 10" in their dimensional level, but overall are, well, tier 1, and maybe open gates for Reality Equalization being more open-ended for match-ups.
 
Bobsican said:
Also, if Joule output can be proportionally the same regardless of dimensional level, wouldn't it be a good idea to also list the tier X character holds within its dimensional level?
For example, a Low 1-C character destroying stars that are also of its dimensional level, but that if they were "simply 3-D" would translate into an High 4-C tier, ending up like "Low 1-C [High 4-C in its perspective]" tier or so.
This would help for cases like Umineko where characters are "simply tier 10" in their dimensional level, but overall are, well, tier 1.
Click to expand...
That is actually a really good idea
 
It also would make AP gaps far easier to measure in some cases regarding match-ups on those tiers.
 
Ugarik said:
We need a new tier (Low 10-C) of characters with AP of 0 joules. There are 3 reasons for that

1. Their level is negative infinity on the Attack Potency scale. The power difference between 10-C and Low 10-C would be the same as the power difference between 3-A and High 3-A
2. They are unable to harm any character no matter how low their durability is
3. If their durability is at that level they will get one-shotted by any 10-C character, no matter how weak they are
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Bump.
@Ultima what do you think should be done regarding the new Tier addition?
Should it be accepted? Or perhaps those presented throughout the thread should be used instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Omni-Man (TV-Series) Update and Upscaling?
Replies
24
Views
3K
GodlyCharmander
GodlyCharmander
Horde of low-tier characters whittling down a high-tier character?
Replies
26
Views
2K
Arkenis
Arkenis
WindyAttack
Ha Dowan's 3x Charge Shot Multiplier
Replies
30
Views
1K
WindyAttack
WindyAttack
ArachDusa
What's the difference between Low 2-C and 2-C?
Replies
6
Views
1K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
Gobta is getting a new key, his new tier will be 10-C, wait what? (Tensura Light Novel)
Replies
31
Views
2K
Dark_Soul20189
Dark_Soul20189
Back
Top