Smurf hax: Either defining or killing it

[Mr. Bambu]

I disagree with the OP conflating all higher tiers as spatial dimensions- we have long since moved past that being the core justification of tiershit. Largely agree with Mori.

 

[Theglassman12]

So is there anything left to discuss here? So far we have Demii, Planck, me, Moritzva, Celestial, KLOL, and Bambu for disagreeing with the thread for staff members and a lot more normal users don’t agree here.

 

[Agnaa]

In fact this is such a ridiculous thread to me that I have to comment again to further express my disbelief. A smurf is a lower dimensional character with higher dimensional hax (paraphrased). Bob's suggesting that it isn't treated as any stronger than lower-dimensional hax anymore, to which I have to ask, the **** does that mean? Does higher-dimensional hax just no longer exist anymore? Characters who aren't smurfs also use higher-dimensional hax, that's the entire reason they aren't a smurf. By this logic, do they just not have good hax anymore? Can Umineko characters be mind controlled by ******* Hitoshi Shinso as long as they are in the same room? What?

Seriously, what the hell am I looking at.

I don't know how much of this I should go over again, how much of the thread have you read?

This post seems to be largely based on the OP, asks questions that are already answered in the thread, and doesn't really present arguments.

It still would exist, but would be mostly relegated into a way to consistently affect characters with Higher Dimensional Existence or similar (as there's also some discussion on some abilities working independently of HDE or not, such as inflicting Mind Manip with subliminal messages as DT exampled),

This is incorrect; that goes father than what people agreed with in the thread.

First off, if you are saying that tier 0 mindhax is no longer tier 0 mindhax, this is not a thread about smurfs anymore. This should be renamed and done in a different thread, because the title and OP is extremely misleading with that in mind. You are suggesting something far, far more impactful to the wiki as a whole that expands well beyond smurfhood in all regards.

Having a slightly inaccurate title isn't that bad, since we got to that point really quickly. If you want the title changed, sure, that can be done. But we shouldn't recreate the thread because of that. If you think someone looked over this thread because of the title, we can leave it open for longer with the new one, no need to remake it.

Second off, you have not made a distinction between hax. Even if you can make a really solid argument for, say, mindhax, you are using this point to universally purge the idea from all hax whatsoever. As Ultima pointed out, this is not the case with ideas like spatial hax and the like, and you have made no clear formal separation between the two. You're just getting rid of "smurf hax" altogether, and by association, removing the entire of higher-dimensional hax.

This should be incorporated into Bob's draft, but that isn't a reason to reject the entire thread, it's a reason to rewrite the draft.

To put it bluntly, this thread is a mismanaged travesty. A thread of this heavy implication should not be obfuscated by a misleading title and original post, and proposals of this magnitude require significantly more input as a whole. Even assuming that you are correct, your way of going about it is so heavy-handed that it is inevitably striking the wrong targets anyways.

I don't think it was particularly mismanaged, and don't mind waiting for more input.

Also, yes, smurfs do work like that. For someone who literally cited the definition of a smurf (characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies), you really could've checked the definition before saying that they don't work by having higher-dimensional abilities. For someone bold enough to say I am making an argument from incredulity, you really do like getting your facts wrong.

I don't know what part of Bob's post you're referring to here, I don't seem him saying that in the post you're responding to.

It could be a debate when talking about spatial/geometric dimensions, you can say they are just big, there isn't anything special to their existence, so you just need range to affect them, which I think is what was being argued before, no expert on that topic.

But when you're talking about a being like Shallow Vernal where you can't resist her hax cause her existence is fundamentally different, of a higher rank, range alone can't explain haxing such a being.

If the character is ontologically superior, then sure, that's what DT, myself, and others said earlier on in this thread.

Being of infinite scale than their physical bodies implies potency, plus that's what everyone on this site universally agrees smurf hax to be, higher potency on a bigger scale than just normal layers, so if anyone has misconceptions on how smurf hax is used, it's you.

Currently that's what we accept it as, but it isn't necessarily true, and so we should probably change that.

Not possible, as it isn’t even entirely clear what is being voted on.

It definitely is, you can read posts where people explained exactly what their position was, and then count people who agreed with those.

I disagree with the OP conflating all higher tiers as spatial dimensions- we have long since moved past that being the core justification of tiershit. Largely agree with Mori.

That's not what the OP did. I just reread it, and that doesn't occur there.

So is there anything left to discuss here? So far we have Demii, Planck, me, Moritzva, Celestial, KLOL, and Bambu for disagreeing with the thread for staff members and a lot more normal users don’t agree here.

I think it's incredibly disingenuous to only count people that agreed with you.

It's a disgrace that we had multiple staff members agreeing on a change, Bob ignoring what we agreed on to suggest applying something different, then a different group of staff members saying "Bob's wrong so lets not change anything". I'm sad I wasn't here to stop this spiraling earlier, but life stuff came up.

I guess to keep this going I'm going to type out a proper tally of the votes, next.

But I'd strongly urge everyone who just disagreed with Bob without reading the thread, to go back and read the posts DT and I made.

 

[Agnaa]

Disagree with Bob: 6 (4 with "official voting rights") (@DemiiPowa, @Moritzva, @Celestial_Pegasus, @KLOL506, @Mr._Bambu, @Theglassman12)

Neutral on Bob's view: 1 (0 with "official voting rights") (@AbaddonTheDisappointment)

Ontology almost always resists/bypasses resistances, HDE/size is range and often resists/bypasses resistances: 3 (2 with "official voting rights") (@Agnaa, @Ultima_Reality, @DontTalkDT)

Only dimensionality matters: 1 (1 with "official voting rights") (@LordGriffin1000)

Rereading through these posts, I think I'd say I'm far more willing to give out immunity to lower-tiered hax, than to say that higher-tiered hax bypasses resistances.

A character that can raise the temperature of all space in a 1-A realm by 1 degree wouldn't have such an ability instakill a 10-B because it's "1-A hax", since it can't be particularly focused, and so a character who resists any EE should be able to resist similar 1-A EE. If it could be channeled into a beam of energy, then sure that'd one-shot the 10-B. But a lot of abilities don't indicate that they can be focused that way.

While on the other end, being able to erase an infinite 3-D volume would remove roughly 0% of a being whose size lands in tier 2 or higher, so while they would technically be "affected" it'd be on such a small scale that it wouldn't matter.

Consider that a brief summary of my position.

 

[Moritzva]

A character that can raise the temperature of all space in a 1-A realm by 1 degree wouldn't have such an ability instakill a 10-B because it's "1-A hax", since it can't be particularly focused, and so a character who resists any EE should be able to resist similar

To be fair if a 1-A realm is still operating on common, three-dimension, calculable levels of temperature, that's an entirely different problem lol.

It's kind of hard to say "what if someone could raise the temperature of a higher realm" or similar levels since it largely depends on how the verse treats it. Given hotness and coldness are just concerning the movement of particles, if someone is moving 1-A particles, depending on the details it is entirely possible that they can instakill a 10-B. Not necessarily a given, but it's definitely not as clear-cut as you say.

 

[Agnaa]

To be fair if a 1-A realm is still operating on common, three-dimension, calculable levels of temperature, that's an entirely different problem lol.

There's nothing actually barring something like that from working for most verses.

(At least, if it's phrased as something like, "made every cubic meter of the 1-A realm 1 degree hotter", that'd do roughly nothing when measuring the temps of 1-A spaces in it)

It's kind of hard to say "what if someone could raise the temperature of a higher realm" or similar levels since it largely depends on how the verse treats it. Given hotness and coldness are just concerning the movement of particles, if someone is moving 1-A particles, depending on the details it is entirely possible that they can instakill a 10-B. Not necessarily a given, but it's definitely not as clear-cut as you say.

Yeah; the requirement is that they can concentrate that energy into a smaller volume. That's something we have for environmental destruction feats, and even comparing different levels of hax within the same tier (as can be seen in the Hax page's second note).

But we don't currently have that for higher-tiered abilities. That's one issue I see.

Plus, we don't currently do much to distinguish between different kinds of abilities, and different ways of reaching higher tiers, when it comes to granting higher-tiered characters immunities/the ability to bypass resistances. Some abilities are usually just a range/targeting issue (plot manip, concept manip, soul manip, mind manip, information manip, supernatural luck) while some are usually just a scale issue (spatial manip, poison manip, disease manip, existence erasure), and some abilities don't have either issue (madness manip type 3 and other abilities that function like it).

 

[Moritzva]

There's nothing actually barring something like that from working for most verses.

(At least, if it's phrased as something like, "made every cubic meter of the 1-A realm 1 degree hotter", that'd do roughly nothing when measuring the temps of 1-A spaces in it)

Yeah; the requirement is that they can concentrate that energy into a smaller volume. That's something we have for environmental destruction feats, and even comparing different levels of hax within the same tier (as can be seen in the Hax page's second note).

But we don't currently have that for higher-tiered abilities. That's one issue I see.

Plus, we don't currently do much to distinguish between different kinds of abilities, and different ways of reaching higher tiers, when it comes to granting higher-tiered characters immunities/the ability to bypass resistances. Some abilities are usually just a range/targeting issue (plot manip, concept manip, soul manip, mind manip, information manip, supernatural luck) while some are usually just a scale issue (spatial manip, poison manip, disease manip, existence erasure), and some abilities don't have either issue (madness manip type 3 and other abilities that function like it).

Yeah, no, I get what you mean. If an ability can and is shown in a way such as the theoretical 1-A temperature example, then sure, but I feel like that's a pretty case-by-case scenario that can be argued. Same with the range/targeting issue. The issue I have with this thread is that it insists that every single example is null and void, simply because people like Jimbob the Temperature Changer probably can't one-shot 10-Bs.

I can get your concerns, I just don't agree with Bob's way of going after it, and I also don't think the thread addressing it should have a name and opening post that have little to nothing to do with that subject.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it has a lot to do with the subject, really.

The stuff I'm suggesting would be "defining" smurf hax, limiting it to only certain cases, giving it more detailed standards. But it'd also effect the resistances of higher-tiered beings, so the title's a bit incomplete.

And the actual contents of the OP seem appropriate as well:

As some may be aware, currently we deem hax that can affect qualitatively superior characters/structures as having basically uncountably infinite "layers" or so in relation to qualitatively inferior characters, with that being the characteristic trait of smurf hax, even there being a whole side thread for ranking characters without this in relation to their tier out of how centralizing it is.

This is accurate.

Regardless, we're not the balancing police or anything, but some concerns have been brought up off-site and in here:

- The whole reason smurf hax is assumed to be this way comes from seemingly correlating its range to potency, except that as of some hax revisions I did, not only range can't inherently correlate to potency, such potency can't inherently correlate to proper layers either, and so this remains as the exception for no reason so far.

This is true. Range often, but not always, correlates to potency.

- Concerns have also been raised on if a character that's physically stat-wise 4-D or above but isn't qualitatively superior (case in point, most tier 2 characters aren't of the size of a universe or above) are immune to "normal" hax relative to their existencial level (for example, if DBS Goku can be haxed by Sans), which seemingly has mixed reception, but in the end it seems we'll need a consistent answer for the sake of keeping quality on vs threads.

This seems largely resolved nowadays, but may still merit a conclusive answer. And tackles the "immunity" of higher-tiered characters, something which is kind of the flip side of smurf hax questions (higher-tier character against lower-tier hax, instead of lower-tier character against higher-tier hax).

I'll note that even if we remove smurf hax in terms of "ignoring" resistances and whatever, stuff like higher-D type 8 or 9 immortality would still be as effective, even if now out of the semantic of being beyond the range of a "non-smurf".

This also seems reasonable.

I think some other takes Bob presented in the thread were wack and not substantiated in reason. But I can't see how the OP is so wildly inaccurate that we need to recreate this thread, after its only gone on for 130 posts.

 

[Moritzva]

What Bob is suggesting in his more recent posts is not the same as his OP, nor is it the same as what you are suggesting, and has significantly more reach than just affecting smurfs. What you say about his original post being "accurate" is only accurate to the point it is presenting.

If we're sticking just to what you are suggesting, e.g. not removing the entire concept of higher-dimensional hax across all characters like Bob later suggested, then yeah. Sure. But if we are doing what he later suggested, then we do probably want a thread dedicated to that.

So, it has a lot to do with what you are talking about, but Bob outright seeks to remove smurf hax (and, by extension, all higher-dimensional hax as a concept) from existence. A thread bringing up some complaints about some misconceptions and definitions should not directly lead into "oh yeah higher-dimensional hax as an idea doesn't exist anymore," that's a bit far-off.

That's about all I have to say. Either way, I disagree with what Bob is proposing for the reasons I, and others, have given.

 

[Agnaa]

Meh, I think Bob's later suggestions are still an extension that makes sense, but I can understand drawing a different line on that.

To clarify (since I don't wanna take a "sure" like that as a vote), you disagree with Bob's stuff, but what are your thoughts on the stuff DT, Ultima, and I are proposing?

 

[Moritzva]

I don't think there's an issue with clearly defining it overall, I'd just like to know whose proposal, exactly, I'd be agreeing to. This is Bob's thread, but Bob's OP doesn't exactly propose much definitively and my stance on his later comments are known. It's late and I don't really want to search the thread again just to figure out which opinionated comment is actually a proposal.

For what you have said recently, I can agree that defining our standards a little better so that Jimbob the Temperature Changer doesn't annihilate people without proper evidence makes sense. I don't think our current standards are particularly wrong, but it does seem like people don't fully understand or agree upon what they mean, if this thread is anything to go by.

 

[Agnaa]

Fair enough, it would be better to make a whole writeup about it.

 

[Moritzva]

Fair enough, it would be better to make a whole writeup about it.

Hence why I suggested another thread, though if we are willing to stop juggling debates on re-defining things and also deleting said thing at the same time, a single large writeup could let us progress from here.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, lets get started.

This taking me an hour to write explains why no-one bothered to do so before in this thread

First, some points I'm fairly confident on:

• Characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, will only be immune to abilities that don't involve causing direct damage, partially ignoring/lowering durability, manipulating energy, etc. Most dura neg, attack reflection, stuff like elemental manip and energy manip.
• Abilities that have worked on characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, won't be interpreted as particularly more potent, unless they cause direct damage, partially ignore/lower durability, manipulate energy, etc.
• Characters that are high-tier, and at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will be immune to a lot of abilities. The abilities I wanna talk about largely fall into four categories:
  1. Abilities that need scale and range to work. EEing a living timeline doesn't just require the ability to erase a person at any point in a timeline, it requires the ability to cover all of the being at once. Most abilities that run into issues with high-tier but finitely large characters run into this one as well. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect the physical substance of a character, such as disease manip, poison manip, matter manip, and space manip.
  2. Abilities that just need range to work. If you could locate and crush the soul of any creature in a timeline, you could presumably do the same for a creature the size of a timeline, since their soul shouldn't have a different size. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect a non-physical substance of a character, such as information manip, soul manip, and certain kinds of mind manip.
  3. Abilities that affect reality, not the target. These kind of work and kind of don't. If you can modify the laws of reality, an opponent who extends a tendril into that reality in order to whack you would be affected by those laws, but the parts of them that extend outside of it won't be. Oftentimes they can just nuke the reality from outside of it, and no non-infinitesimal portion of them could be incapacitated by this. This applies to most abilities that manipulate reality itself, such as reality warping, plot manip, fate manip, and supernatural luck.
  4. Abilities where the target affects themselves. If seeing a certain object drives you mad, not because it has innate magical energy that's reaching out and twisting your mind, but purely because a human brain processing it naturally ends up doing that, simply being large wouldn't be enough to bypass this. However, there'd be a lot of other ways to avoid this; on top of typical resistances, one could simply be outside of the ordinary reference class for the ability (i.e. not being human if it has only worked on humans), or not be able to perceive it. I can only think of stuff that operates like type 3 madness manip getting this, but maybe there is something else.
• Abilities that affect characters which are high-tier, at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will:
  1. Be interpreted as more powerful only if that scale can be concentrated for a more potent effect on smaller targets, such as through a Universal Energy System. And regardless, be interpreted as having higher range.
  2. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  3. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  4. Not be interpreted as more powerful or a higher range.
• Characters that aren't high-tier, but still have most of their body outside of attacks that can cover an entire universe at one point in time (such as Scion (Worm) and a lot of characters with Acausality Type 3) would be treated largely the same as previously-mentioned characters, unless they have anti-feats indicating they don't function in that way, and with the exception that abilities like durability negation, attack reflection, and so on would still ordinarily effect the parts of their body that exist within the universe at that point in time.

I'd also want to note that for any obvious objections (you say higher-D beings won't have larger souls, but what if the verse says they do?) that a verse's own established context that goes against these assumptions would generally take precedence, particularly in the defensive direction.

And some points I'm less confident on:

• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered and ontologically superior should be treated. I feel like they should be more difficult to affect than characters who are just higher-D, but I'm not sure which specifics this would involve.
• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered through "higher realms" that aren't ontologically superior should be treated. My gut instinct leans towards treating them as finitely large or infinitely large (only to a 3-D extent; a 1-C higher realm wouldn't require 1-C range, just High 3-A range) depending on the verse's context.
• Exactly how to make sure that high-tier vs high-tier fights aren't shitstomps. Should we say that verse equalisation lets all these characters hit each other? What does that do to extreme cases like Goku vs a living timeline, or someone who sees reality as fiction?

 

[Antvasima]

@Moritzva @Agnaa

What are the conclusions here so far in summary.

 

[Agnaa]

Earlier in the thread, Ultima, DT, and I started fleshing out some ideas.

Bob then wrote a suggestion which directly contradicted some of the conclusions we reached.

Then, Mori and some others found the thread, and disagreed heavily with the new things Bob said.

After I explained that I disagree with Bob, but still think some changes are necessary, Mori seemed willing to hear that out, but wanted a writeup explaining my position first.

I just posted such a writeup. It includes many suggestions for changing our rules on this topic, as well as some areas that I think still merit discussion.

Which is all to say, that there's no conclusion yet; we'll need staff members looking over my most recent post, and discussing a few of its points, before we can finalise any changes.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, lets get started.

This taking me an hour to write explains why no-one bothered to do so before in this thread

First, some points I'm fairly confident on:

• Characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, will only be immune to abilities that don't involve causing direct damage, partially ignoring/lowering durability, manipulating energy, etc. Most dura neg, attack reflection, stuff like elemental manip and energy manip.
• Abilities that have worked on characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, won't be interpreted as particularly more potent, unless they cause direct damage, partially ignore/lower durability, manipulate energy, etc.
• Characters that are high-tier, and at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will be immune to a lot of abilities. The abilities I wanna talk about largely fall into four categories:
  1. Abilities that need scale and range to work. EEing a living timeline doesn't just require the ability to erase a person at any point in a timeline, it requires the ability to cover all of the being at once. Most abilities that run into issues with high-tier but finitely large characters run into this one as well. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect the physical substance of a character, such as disease manip, poison manip, matter manip, space manip.
  2. Abilities that just need range to work. If you could locate and crush the soul of any creature in a timeline, you could presumably do the same for a creature the size of a timeline, since their soul shouldn't have a different size. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect a non-physical substance of a character, such as information manip, soul manip, certain kinds of mind manip.
  3. Abilities that don't affect reality, not the target. These kind of work and kind of don't. If you can modify the laws of reality, an opponent who extends a tendril into that reality in order to whack you would be affected by those laws, but the parts of them that extend outside of it won't be. Oftentimes they can just nuke the reality from outside of it, and no non-infinitesimal portion of them could be incapacitated by this. This applies to most abilities that manipulate reality itself, such as reality warping, plot manip, fate manip, supernatural luck.
  4. Abilities where the target affects themselves. If seeing a certain object drives you mad, not because it has innate magical energy that's reaching out and twisting your mind, but purely because a human brain processing it naturally ends up doing that, simply being large wouldn't be enough to bypass this. However, there'd be a lot of other ways to avoid this; on top of typical resistances, one could simply be outside of the ordinary reference class for the ability (i.e. not being human if it has only worked on humans), or not be able to perceive it. I can only think of stuff that operates like type 3 madness manip getting this, but maybe there is something else.
• Abilities that affect characters which are high-tier, at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will:
  1. Be interpreted as more powerful only if that scale can be concentrated for a more potent effect on smaller targets, such as through a Universal Energy System. And regardless, be interpreted as having higher range.
  2. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  3. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  4. Not be interpreted as more powerful or a higher range.
• Characters that aren't high-tier, but still have most of their body outside of attacks that can cover an entire universe at one point in time (such as Scion (Worm) and a lot of characters with Acausality Type 3) would be treated largely the same as previously-mentioned characters, unless they have anti-feats indicating they don't function in that way, and with the exception that abilities like durability negation, attack reflection, and so on would still ordinarily effect the parts of their body that exist within the universe at that point in time.

I'd also want to note that for any obvious objections (you say higher-D beings won't have larger souls, but what if the verse says they do?) that a verse's own established context that goes against these assumptions would generally take precedence, particularly in the defensive direction.

And some points I'm less confident on:

• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered and ontologically superior should be treated. I feel like they should be more difficult to affect than characters who are just higher-D, but I'm not sure which specifics this would involve.
• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered through "higher realms" that aren't ontologically superior should be treated. My gut instinct leans towards treating them as finitely large or infinitely large (only to a 3-D extent; a 1-C higher realm wouldn't require 1-C range, just High 3-A range) depending on the verse's context.
• Exactly how to make sure that high-tier vs high-tier fights aren't shitstomps. Should we say that verse equalisation lets all these characters hit each other? What does that do to extreme cases like Goku vs a living timeline, or someone who sees reality as fiction?

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Moritzva Thoughts?

 

[Antvasima]

Earlier in the thread, Ultima, DT, and I started fleshing out some ideas.

Bob then wrote a suggestion which directly contradicted some of the conclusions we reached.

Then, Mori and some others found the thread, and disagreed heavily with the new things Bob said.

After I explained that I disagree with Bob, but still think some changes are necessary, Mori seemed willing to hear that out, but wanted a writeup explaining my position first.

I just posted such a writeup. It includes many suggestions for changing our rules on this topic, as well as some areas that I think still merit discussion.

Which is all to say, that there's no conclusion yet; we'll need staff members looking over my most recent post, and discussing a few of its points, before we can finalise any changes.

Well, lets get started.

This taking me an hour to write explains why no-one bothered to do so before in this thread

First, some points I'm fairly confident on:

• Characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, will only be immune to abilities that don't involve causing direct damage, partially ignoring/lowering durability, manipulating energy, etc. Most dura neg, attack reflection, stuff like elemental manip and energy manip.
• Abilities that have worked on characters that are high-tier, but still finitely large in 3-D space, won't be interpreted as particularly more potent, unless they cause direct damage, partially ignore/lower durability, manipulate energy, etc.
• Characters that are high-tier, and at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will be immune to a lot of abilities. The abilities I wanna talk about largely fall into four categories:
  1. Abilities that need scale and range to work. EEing a living timeline doesn't just require the ability to erase a person at any point in a timeline, it requires the ability to cover all of the being at once. Most abilities that run into issues with high-tier but finitely large characters run into this one as well. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect the physical substance of a character, such as disease manip, poison manip, matter manip, space manip.
  2. Abilities that just need range to work. If you could locate and crush the soul of any creature in a timeline, you could presumably do the same for a creature the size of a timeline, since their soul shouldn't have a different size. This applies to most abilities that manipulate/effect a non-physical substance of a character, such as information manip, soul manip, certain kinds of mind manip.
  3. Abilities that don't affect reality, not the target. These kind of work and kind of don't. If you can modify the laws of reality, an opponent who extends a tendril into that reality in order to whack you would be affected by those laws, but the parts of them that extend outside of it won't be. Oftentimes they can just nuke the reality from outside of it, and no non-infinitesimal portion of them could be incapacitated by this. This applies to most abilities that manipulate reality itself, such as reality warping, plot manip, fate manip, supernatural luck.
  4. Abilities where the target affects themselves. If seeing a certain object drives you mad, not because it has innate magical energy that's reaching out and twisting your mind, but purely because a human brain processing it naturally ends up doing that, simply being large wouldn't be enough to bypass this. However, there'd be a lot of other ways to avoid this; on top of typical resistances, one could simply be outside of the ordinary reference class for the ability (i.e. not being human if it has only worked on humans), or not be able to perceive it. I can only think of stuff that operates like type 3 madness manip getting this, but maybe there is something else.
• Abilities that affect characters which are high-tier, at least infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume, will:
  1. Be interpreted as more powerful only if that scale can be concentrated for a more potent effect on smaller targets, such as through a Universal Energy System. And regardless, be interpreted as having higher range.
  2. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  3. Not be interpreted as more powerful, but as of having higher range.
  4. Not be interpreted as more powerful or a higher range.
• Characters that aren't high-tier, but still have most of their body outside of attacks that can cover an entire universe at one point in time (such as Scion (Worm) and a lot of characters with Acausality Type 3) would be treated largely the same as previously-mentioned characters, unless they have anti-feats indicating they don't function in that way, and with the exception that abilities like durability negation, attack reflection, and so on would still ordinarily effect the parts of their body that exist within the universe at that point in time.

I'd also want to note that for any obvious objections (you say higher-D beings won't have larger souls, but what if the verse says they do?) that a verse's own established context that goes against these assumptions would generally take precedence, particularly in the defensive direction.

And some points I'm less confident on:

• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered and ontologically superior should be treated. I feel like they should be more difficult to affect than characters who are just higher-D, but I'm not sure which specifics this would involve.
• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered through "higher realms" that aren't ontologically superior should be treated. My gut instinct leans towards treating them as finitely large or infinitely large (only to a 3-D extent; a 1-C higher realm wouldn't require 1-C range, just High 3-A range) depending on the verse's context.
• Exactly how to make sure that high-tier vs high-tier fights aren't shitstomps. Should we say that verse equalisation lets all these characters hit each other? What does that do to extreme cases like Goku vs a living timeline, or someone who sees reality as fiction?

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mentioned in my reply that the OP did not address, to my satisfaction, cases not decided by mathematics but rather transcendence (or at the very least less physical levels of higher dimensional existence); I don't think Agnaa's compromise addresses that, as they solely address 3-D vs Higher-D: what of reality-fiction differences? We have taken these, in the past, to be equal to a higher tier ("transcendence"), but the logic for the above compromise would need to be really quite forced to apply to them, and I think it could only be arbitrary. Agnaa himself doesn't have an answer for this and most of my verses' higher-tiered characters fall into this latter category, so without an answer, I'd rather not force this through.

Frankly I don't think how we've been handling smurf shit all along is too terribly offensive.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah not sure how Agnaa's points really address the smurf stuff, it just sounds more like "how to affect someone far larger than you".

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah not sure how Agnaa's points really address the smurf stuff, it just sounds more like "how to affect someone far larger than you".

It's not that he's wrong, at least I don't think so. It's just these changes would leave very large gaping holes in our current system and I don't think it grants much in terms of actual benefit.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not trying to discredit or argue Agnaa's perception of things, as its probably as grounded in as much logic as can be applied to the theoretical topics our wiki peddles. I just think that in the void of a better system, it's not worth it.

 

[Theglassman12]

I can get the feeling that it would leave holes given this feels very very situational and not covering all other basis so I agree with you there.

 

[Deonment]

• Exactly how characters who are higher-tiered and ontologically superior should be treated. I feel like they should be more difficult to affect than characters who are just higher-D, but I'm not sure which specifics this would involve.

I agree that they would be harder to affect given the nature of ontology in general, but that would likely come down to the nature of the transcendence and how it compares between verses rather than an attempt at a one size fits all standard.

I mentioned in my reply that the OP did not address, to my satisfaction, cases not decided by mathematics but rather transcendence (or at the very least less physical levels of higher dimensional existence); I don't think Agnaa's compromise addresses that, as they solely address 3-D vs Higher-D: what of reality-fiction differences? We have taken these, in the past, to be equal to a higher tier ("transcendence"), but the logic for the above compromise would need to be really quite forced to apply to them, and I think it could only be arbitrary. Agnaa himself doesn't have an answer for this and most of my verses' higher-tiered characters fall into this latter category, so without an answer, I'd rather not force this through.

Agnaa's suggestions do just cover transcendence and reality fiction differences, however, it speaks about it using the term ontology instead, as that is the term that covers not just those but other similar transcendences such as those found in Platonism.
The main issue comes with the precise way in which we should treat these in relation to those who are purely higher tiered based upon size.

 

[Agnaa]

I mentioned in my reply that the OP did not address, to my satisfaction, cases not decided by mathematics but rather transcendence (or at the very least less physical levels of higher dimensional existence); I don't think Agnaa's compromise addresses that, as they solely address 3-D vs Higher-D: what of reality-fiction differences? We have taken these, in the past, to be equal to a higher tier ("transcendence"), but the logic for the above compromise would need to be really quite forced to apply to them, and I think it could only be arbitrary. Agnaa himself doesn't have an answer for this and most of my verses' higher-tiered characters fall into this latter category, so without an answer, I'd rather not force this through.

Frankly I don't think how we've been handling smurf shit all along is too terribly offensive.

I do address that tho? As I said, I'm not confident in my answer for it; I feel like it should be harder to affect than higher-D stuff but I'm not sure about what practical changes that should entail, so rn my suggestion is just to treat it the same as higher-D stuff for this.

Hell, trying to think through the logic, the main change I can think of would be that sometimes scale wouldn't be necessary (poisoning a human who sees the timeline as fiction only requires being able to reach the plane where they exist; not an infinitely larger amount of poison), making them slightly easier to affect.

Practical ideas on this would be appreciated.

I'm not trying to force it through, I said that there were multiple points where I wanted more discussion.

Yeah not sure how Agnaa's points really address the smurf stuff, it just sounds more like "how to affect someone far larger than you".

The second and fourth main points I made were entirely about smurf stuff. With the first and third being "how to affect someone larger than you".

It's not that he's wrong, at least I don't think so. It's just these changes would leave very large gaping holes in our current system and I don't think it grants much in terms of actual benefit.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not trying to discredit or argue Agnaa's perception of things, as its probably as grounded in as much logic as can be applied to the theoretical topics our wiki peddles. I just think that in the void of a better system, it's not worth it.

What parts of it have I not covered? The first two points are about high-tier but not through physical existence. The next two points are about high-tier through sheer mathematical size. The next point is about having sheer size but not being high-tier through it. The next point is about high-tier through ontology (being more real). The next point is about high-tier through realms with qualitative superiorities that don't fall into any other categories. What am I forgetting about here? I also covered what I believe to be every category of ability on the wiki.

I acknowledge that my solutions for some of those may not be perfect, but I don't get how you can say I don't cover them at all.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Like I said: you acknowledge it and that it's different, but you're suggesting we treat it the same as any dimensional change. Under that light it's not really any better than our current system, just swapped to value the theoretical logic of dimensional differences rather than, in your words, "ontological".

Just handwaving them through was not something I had considered a solution, nor do I consider it better than our current system.

 

[Agnaa]

I asked for other suggestions, I just literally cannot think of any. I would prefer that we treat them differently, I just don't know how we should.

This still has a lot of changes from our current system!

It separates out different kinds of hax, letting some of them affect higher-tiered beings in some situations, and not others.

It gives stricter guidelines for when hax that affects higher beings is considered to bypass resistances or not.

It is absolutely not just swapping "valuing ontology" to "valuing dimensionality".

Hell, the current system already treats all characters who are high-tiered physically the same way, regardless of whether it's through dimensionality or ontology.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I was asked what I thought of your proposals above. As you've said, you don't have any good solutions regarding ontological superiority- given that, from my scope of view, most verses I have tended to fall into the ontological category rather than dimensional, I would not support your suggestions being put into effect.

For the record I also don't have any recommendations in this regard.

 

[Agnaa]

So you think that the current state of things; where physically high-tier beings are automatically immune to every ability, and all hax that works on physically high-tier beings is assumed to bypass all resistances on lower-tier beings, is preferable to my suggestion in its current state?

I just don't get it. Since the reason you're giving is "You don't differentiate between ontology and dimensionality", but the status quo doesn't do that either.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So you think that the current state of things; where physically high-tier beings are automatically immune to every ability, and all hax that works on physically high-tier beings is assumed to bypass all resistances on lower-tier beings, is preferable to my suggestion in its current state?

I just don't get it. Since the reason you're giving is "You don't differentiate between ontology and dimensionality", but the status quo doesn't do that either.

I'm saying that I have seen more that fit into one category than the other, and the current proposal is based on the minority rather than the majority.

Edit: to clarify, yes, I think the current system is preferable.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think it is. If I try to reengineer what ontology should give from first principles, I just arrive at mostly the same thing as dimensionality. The only differences being that "Abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character" sometimes only need range to work, and not scale. And that technically, rather than most abilities affecting an infinitesimally small slice of the character, it doesn't reach them at all, which is a distinction without a difference in practicality.

I can walk through this process again, if you wanna check my working out, I just wanted to save on space.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

I don't think it is. If I try to reengineer what ontology should give from first principles, I just arrive at mostly the same thing as dimensionality. The only differences being that "Abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character" sometimes only need range to work, and not scale. And that technically, rather than most abilities affecting an infinitesimally small slice of the character, it doesn't reach them at all, which is a distinction without a difference in practicality.

I can walk through this process again, if you wanna check my working out, I just wanted to save on space.

It would also be a NLF, to assume, that a lower D character would be able to resist an ability way beyond his dimensionality, an ability Infinitely more complex in infinite magnitudes than said lower D individual.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I believe I have the right to express my thoughts. The OP either intended to reiterate standards that were previously unsuccessful for DT in a previous discussion or completely eliminate the concept and make all aspects equal. (Bob asked me multiple times to give my own input)

Based on my understanding and the current atmosphere, it seems that the entire community disagreed with the removal of the concept.
The next logical progression would be to establish new standards.

Our current valid smurf terminology

Smurf: A fan-term that originated in MMORPG communities where a player restarts their game and is matched against newbies after having years of experience and resources. In this community it refers to characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies. For example, any characters that are physically between tiers 10-C to High 3-A with abilities that can affect tier 2 or tier 1 characters.

The notion simply referred to a fancy (or known) term for a situation where one character possesses advantageous skills while their opponent lacks such abilities, resulting in an imbalanced match.

In the past (or currently right now), I used to/believe that smurf characters were individuals whose abilities (not necessarily hax, but mostly hax) were portrayed as more impressive than what should be allowed within their own fictional verse.

For instance, Yhwach, the 3D being, possesses 2-A future manipulation, but his attack potency and durability were at a lower level, around 2-C. Nevertheless, he possessed an exceptionally unfair ability that allowed him to overpower everyone he encountered (until an arrow with plot armor arrived in the story, assuming an acausal nature) and ultimately brought the story to an end.

This particular type of smurf character falls within the category of advantageous range (or smurf range).

There are also other types of smurf characters, namely smurf resistances.

For example, imagine a 3D character who is a typical, ordinary human with a power level of 9-A but has resistances to all godly abilities (or hax), including those from higher dimensional abilities. In a match against a character with a low 1-C tier, the match's result is self-evident. However, if low 1-C character were to employ their godly higher-dimensional abilities as their opening move, 9-A being would be able to resist them. Thus, regardless of the match's outcome, the 9-A character maintains advantageous (smurf) resistances over their opponent.

Other types of smurf: hax (which is the definition of "hacks, cheats"), this is also a type of being smurf. Long talk, short story, they are also "smurf" in the sense of those abilities are giving an enormous disadvantage to characters bypassing their durability or negates their abilities for simply being TD type 2 or HDE which have immunities to abilities.

Therefore, I think smurf and hax are both different concepts, related together but have a different meaning and its disciplines.

Returning to the points regarding the involvement of layers, I hold the opinion that if we consider an infinite layered framework where there exists a 6D ability and someone possesses a baseline 7D resistance to that specific ability, I believe the latter would effectively resist the former. This resistance stems from the fact that the baseline 7D resistance surpasses all the required qualities, including dimensionality, necessary to counter the 6D ability.

We are talking within the realms of having the same characteristics and mechanics of both (ability and the resistance to that ability). So, if the ability operates in 6 dimensions (and no matter you add layers into it except uncountable infinite) and the resistance is at a baseline of 7 dimensions, it would typically suggest that the resistance should exceed or encompass the ability. Obviously, if other feats have been shown, other mechanics have been shown, it is case-to-case scenario.

To @Agnaa's draft:

---

You said that characters who are high-tier and infinitely large are immune to abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character, (like disease manipulation and matter manipulation) but also states that abilities that affect reality itself (like reality warping and fate manipulation), can affect these characters. This is contradictory because reality warping and fate manipulation can be considered as manipulating the physical substance of a character by altering the laws of reality or their fate. A bit of contradiction here.

You also stated that abilities that impact characters who are high-tier and infinitely large will not be interpreted as more powerful, but as having higher range but also states that these abilities can be concentrated for a more potent effect on smaller targets. This creates ambiguity because it is unclear how the interpretation of these abilities can simultaneously focus on range and potency.

You discussed how characters who are not high-tier but have most of their body outside of attacks that can cover an entire universe would be treated similarly to high-tier characters. However, it also mentions that certain abilities like durability negation and attack reflection would still affect the parts of their body within the universe. This is inconsistent because it implies that these characters are both immune and vulnerable to certain abilities at the same time.

Afterward you mentioned that a verse's own established context would generally take precedence over the assumptions made. While considering the context of a fictional verse is important, relying solely on it can lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistencies. It is necessary to establish clear and logical principles rather than relying solely on the context of a particular fictional verse.

(regarding ontology/dimensionality discussion)

---

Within the fictional narrative, ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of existence and the nature of reality. It involves the categorization and understanding of entities, their properties, and their relationships and encompassing various levels of transcendence. Dimensionality, on the other hand, refers to the number of dimensions required to describe a system or object.

Technically, rather than most abilities affecting an infinitesimally small slice of the character, it doesn't reach them at all, which is a distinction without a difference in practicality.

While it may be true that in practical terms, both scenarios result in no direct impact on the character, conceptually, there is a distinction. Abilities that do not reach an infinitesimally small slice of a character imply that there is a boundary beyond which the manipulation does not occur. On the other hand, abilities that affect an infinitesimally small slice suggest a more precise and localized impact within the character's physical substance.

Abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character sometimes only need range to work, and not scale.

The requirement for range alone does not necessarily negate the need for scale in abilities that manipulate physical substances. Scale could still play a role in determining the magnitude or intensity of the manipulation.

Transcendence can manifest in different ways. One form of transcendence is through higher tiers based on size. Characters that are infinitely large in terms of 3-D volume possess a level of transcendence that grants them immunity to many abilities that require scale and range to function effectively. This includes abilities that manipulate or affect the physical substance of a character, such as disease manipulation, poison manipulation, matter manipulation, and space manipulation. It's important to note that the size-based transcendence is limited to the physical realm and does not automatically grant immunity to all forms of hax.

Another form of transcendence is reality-fiction. Characters who have reality fiction transcendence have the ability to manipulate or alter the laws of reality within their narrative context. This includes abilities such as reality warping, plot manipulation, fate manipulation, and supernatural luck.

Ontological transcendence, on the other hand, grants characters a higher level of existence that extends beyond conventional meaning and exceeds all the qualities of below ones. These characters operate on a different ontological level and can manipulate reality, conceptualize entities, or possess qualities that surpass the limitations of lower-dimensional beings. Their abilities and resistance to hax should be evaluated based on the specific ontological context established within the narrative. Examples, author or absolute omnipotent beings.

All possible forms of transcendence I may think of which is related to the conversation:

• Size superiority (equated to higher dimensional and grants +1 n spatial dimension)
• R>F transcendence (equated to higher dimensional and grants +1 n dimension/tier, otherwise solely in the definition, it could extend to tier 0)
• Ontological transcendence (solely in the definition, it could extend to tier 0)
• Omnipotent transcendence (mostly discarded due to NLF)
• Higher-dimensional transcendence (grants +1 n spatial dimension ~ the main crux of +1 n dimension/tier principle)
• Metaphysical transcendence (it is AE type 1 but could possibly gain a higher tier if there is any qualitative supriority context)

In the context of transcendence, these aspects represent a qualitative difference that implies a corresponding quantitative gap (qualitative superiority).

Now I would like to address Bob's draft (or the rephrased part):

---

The draft stated that the scale and potency of hax that ignore durability are unrelated to users' Tier and Attack Potency but also mentions that the effectiveness of these hax can be measured by their scale against the targets' durability. This is contradictory because if the scale and potency of hax are unrelated to users' statistics, it wouldn't make sense to measure their effectiveness based on those same statistics. (biggest mistake in the thread)

You stated that higher-dimensional characters and structures are automatically immune to 3-dimensional (or lower) hax that require directly affecting their entirety. However, it also mentions that higher-dimensional characters with 3D existence are vulnerable to 3D hax. This creates a contradiction because if they are truly higher-dimensional, they should be immune to any hax that operates on lower dimensions.

You mentioned that an ability's range does not necessarily correlate with its potency. However, it also states that destroying the cosmological structure housing a being eradicates or incapacitates it by default. This implies that an ability with a larger range (encompassing the cosmological structure) is inherently more potent. This is another contradiction.

Here is the draft that I am thinking of:

Hax is a term used to describe abilities that can bypass or ignore one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant.

The most common form of hax is the ability to ignore durability. The scale and potency of these abilities are not directly tied to the user's Tier and Attack Potency. However, their effectiveness can be measured by their impact on the target's durability. It's important to note that certain hax, such as Reality Warping, Probability Manipulation, and Conceptual Manipulation, cannot be countered solely by high statistics.

Resisting certain hax can help characters withstand them, but the effectiveness of resistance depends on having sufficient "layers" that surpass the baseline resistance. A layer refers to a level of resistance beyond the initial baseline. It remains effective even if the countered hax has previously overwhelmed a baseline variant. It is worth mentioning that Resistance Negation takes priority over resistance layers, as it removes the given resistance rather than overwhelming it.

Higher-dimensional characters and structures are immune to 3-dimensional (or lower) hax that require direct interaction with their entire being. As higher-dimensional entities are uncountably infinitely larger, lower-dimensional characters cannot affect more than an infinitesimally insignificant portion of them. Similarly, higher-dimensional hax can only affect beings of equal or lower dimensionality. Any resistances attributed to higher-dimensional subjects should be based on hax of the same or higher dimensional range.

Characters that possess higher-tier statistics but are otherwise 3D beings are still vulnerable to 3D hax that specifically ignore the relevant statistic. For example, targeting a weak spot like an organ may not be effective, but erasing them from existence would bypass their defenses. The same principle applies to higher-dimensional characters with corresponding hax.

It is important to note that an ability's range does not inherently correlate with its potency. The destruction of a cosmological structure that houses a being can eradicate or incapacitate them, as it removes the context for their existence. However, the range alone does not determine the ability's overall potency, as the strength of an ability should be evaluated based on its specific effects and interactions with resistances.

 

[Bobsican]

Now I would like to address Bob's draft (or the rephrased part):

---

The draft stated that the scale and potency of hax that ignore durability are unrelated to users' Tier and Attack Potency but also mentions that the effectiveness of these hax can be measured by their scale against the targets' durability. This is contradictory because if the scale and potency of hax are unrelated to users' statistics, it wouldn't make sense to measure their effectiveness based on those same statistics. (biggest mistake in the thread)

...That was meant regarding stuff like hax layers and Resistance Negation, the early draft even went on describing what a layer is (which most that have been active in versus threads nowadays know), and separating such idea from Resistance Negation.

You stated that higher-dimensional characters and structures are automatically immune to 3-dimensional (or lower) hax that require directly affecting their entirety. However, it also mentions that higher-dimensional characters with 3D existence are vulnerable to 3D hax. This creates a contradiction because if they are truly higher-dimensional, they should be immune to any hax that operates on lower dimensions.

Only on stats in the sense of, well, look at most tier 2 characters, barely any of them are of the size of a universe or above yet can withstand tier 2 attacks and whatever.

You mentioned that an ability's range does not necessarily correlate with its potency. However, it also states that destroying the cosmological structure housing a being eradicates or incapacitates it by default. This implies that an ability with a larger range (encompassing the cosmological structure) is inherently more potent. This is another contradiction.

I recall it also explains it's a sort of exception as a being without such cosmological structure can't do much to begin with without one without feats.

 

[Agnaa]

It would also be a NLF, to assume, that a lower D character would be able to resist an ability way beyond his dimensionality, an ability Infinitely more complex in infinite magnitudes than said lower D individual.

This post is currently a bit malformed.

What do you mean by "infinitely more complex"? What do you mean by "infinite magnitudes"?

 

[ImmortalDread]

...That was meant regarding stuff like hax layers and Resistance Negation, the early draft even went on describing what a layer is (which most that have been active in versus threads nowadays know), and separating such idea from Resistance Negation.

Oh, thanks for explanation. I did not see the early draft. Do you mind quoting it?

Only on stats in the sense of, well, look at most tier 2 characters, barely any of them are of the size of a universe or above yet can withstand tier 2 attacks and whatever.

Hax and attacks are two different shoes.

I recall it also explains it's a sort of exception as a being without such cosmological structure can't do much to begin with without one without feats.

This exception makes sense because without a cosmological structure, a being would lack the necessary foundation or platform to manifest its existential traits and exert its power.

Therefore, the potency of an ability in this context is directly tied to its ability to affect or manipulate the cosmological structure itself.

 

[Agnaa]

You said that characters who are high-tier and infinitely large are immune to abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character, (like disease manipulation and matter manipulation) but also states that abilities that affect reality itself (like reality warping and fate manipulation), can affect these characters. This is contradictory because reality warping and fate manipulation can be considered as manipulating the physical substance of a character by altering the laws of reality or their fate. A bit of contradiction here.

I think you misunderstand my post.

I said that abilities that affect reality itself kind of work and kind of don't

Abilities that affect reality, not the target. These kind of work and kind of don't.

And if you'll look at the reason I gave, I mentioned that it would only affect the infinitesimal part of them which extrudes into that reality

If you can modify the laws of reality, an opponent who extends a tendril into that reality in order to whack you would be affected by those laws, but the parts of them that extend outside of it won't be.

Which can kind of work, in that it may stop such an opponent from directly punching a user of such an ability. But it wouldn't stop them from nuking the reality as a whole.

I guess this does kind of ring true for the "substance manipulation" types of abilities, but it seems less relevant there since those sorts of abilities tend to be focused on offense rather than defense.

I guess I could've been more nuanced there?

You also stated that abilities that impact characters who are high-tier and infinitely large will not be interpreted as more powerful, but as having higher range but also states that these abilities can be concentrated for a more potent effect on smaller targets. This creates ambiguity because it is unclear how the interpretation of these abilities can simultaneously focus on range and potency.

I stated different things for different kinds of abilities.

I don't get how it's ambiguous that they can simultaneously focus on range and potency. Heating every cubic meter of a 1-A realm by 1 degree would do effectively nothing to a 1-A being, effectively nothing to a 3-D being if it can't be focused, and utterly annihilate any being below 1-A if it can be focused.

You discussed how characters who are not high-tier but have most of their body outside of attacks that can cover an entire universe would be treated similarly to high-tier characters. However, it also mentions that certain abilities like durability negation and attack reflection would still affect the parts of their body within the universe. This is inconsistent because it implies that these characters are both immune and vulnerable to certain abilities at the same time.

This isn't inconsistent. They're not immune to such abilities, but they affect a tiny fraction of them, sometimes so tiny that it's practically irrelevant. Sometimes a tiny part that's irrelevant for the greater being's life, but could still be considered incapacitation for a match.

If a being exists in 1 trillion universes, you can shoot it in one of those universes without affecting the copies in every other universe. This isn't both being immune and vulnerable, it's being effectively vulnerable on one scale, and effectively invulnerable on another scale. Never truly invulnerable.

Afterward you mentioned that a verse's own established context would generally take precedence over the assumptions made. While considering the context of a fictional verse is important, relying solely on it can lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistencies. It is necessary to establish clear and logical principles rather than relying solely on the context of a particular fictional verse.

That's what I did.

The requirement for range alone does not necessarily negate the need for scale in abilities that manipulate physical substances. Scale could still play a role in determining the magnitude or intensity of the manipulation.

Obviously. If you can only erase one hair off a 3-D being, simply having the range to hit a being that sees a timeline as fiction would not let you erase more than a single hair.

Another form of transcendence is reality-fiction. Characters who have reality fiction transcendence have the ability to manipulate or alter the laws of reality within their narrative context. This includes abilities such as reality warping, plot manipulation, fate manipulation, and supernatural luck.

This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with R>F differences who can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.

Ontological transcendence, on the other hand, grants characters a higher level of existence that extends beyond conventional meaning and exceeds all the qualities of below ones. These characters operate on a different ontological level and can manipulate reality, conceptualize entities, or possess qualities that surpass the limitations of lower-dimensional beings. Their abilities and resistance to hax should be evaluated based on the specific ontological context established within the narrative. Examples, author or absolute omnipotent beings.

This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with ontological transcendences that can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This isn't inconsistent. They're not immune to such abilities, but they affect a tiny fraction of them, sometimes so tiny that it's practically irrelevant. Sometimes a tiny part that's irrelevant for the greater being's life, but could still be considered incapacitation for a match.

If a being exists in 1 trillion universes, you can shoot it in one of those universes without affecting the copies in every other universe. This isn't both being immune and vulnerable, it's being effectively vulnerable on one scale, and effectively invulnerable on another scale. Never truly invulnerable.

I guess I could not tell the usage of your wording which caused equivocation when you were using “immune to abilities" in multiple meanings, leading to a flawed communication.

This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with R>F differences who can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.
This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with ontological transcendences that can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.

I am talking generally speaking, obviously within the feats that have been shown, but those are some feats they may present through these two forms of transcendence.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think it is. If I try to reengineer what ontology should give from first principles, I just arrive at mostly the same thing as dimensionality. The only differences being that "Abilities that manipulate the physical substance of a character" sometimes only need range to work, and not scale. And that technically, rather than most abilities affecting an infinitesimally small slice of the character, it doesn't reach them at all, which is a distinction without a difference in practicality.

I can walk through this process again, if you wanna check my working out, I just wanted to save on space.

I missed this, assuming that when I edited my post is roughly when you posted and so it marked it as read? Either way, apologies.

I cannot imagine how something like a reality-fiction difference, or being a God over a given verse, gives the practical exact same list of qualities as just being higher-dimensional, so yes, I would like to ask that you walk through the process. It is currently my opinion that you would indeed require an entirely different caliber of, say, Mind Manipulation to make it work on someone who considers you to be fictional.

 

[Bobsican]

Oh, thanks for explanation. I did not see the early draft. Do you mind quoting it?

Here

Hax and attacks are two different shoes.

There were mixed responses on the site's history (as the OP somewhat mentions) on if characters that are on these conditions (4-D or above in stuff like AP and the like but still on a 3D body and similar) were immune to hax of the same dimensionality as their bodies and if not what semantics would be at play, which that tried to address.

This exception makes sense because without a cosmological structure, a being would lack the necessary foundation or platform to manifest its existential traits and exert its power.

Therefore, the potency of an ability in this context is directly tied to its ability to affect or manipulate the cosmological structure itself.

Yep.