High 1-A+ should be its own tier

[Jin2188]

What the title says.

There are a few reasons why I think it would be better if High 1-A+ was its own tier.

1. It just makes more sense for the literal apex of powerscaling (aside from Tier 0 of course) to be it's own separate tier. I don't like that something so significant is relegated to a mere + modifier.

2. It's more organized and coherent. We already have Low 1-A as all dimensional spaces, instead of having that be High 1-B+, so why have all possible worlds as High 1-A+?

3. It makes searching easier. What if someone only wants to look for characters who can affect all possible worlds, without having to dig through all the other High 1-A characters? With the way things are set up now, you're out of luck. If all possible worlds was its own tier, people could easily just click on the link to that tier, and search up all of those characters.

How exactly this is accomplished is up to staff, but I can spitball a little bit and provide suggestions.

I obviously don't want a massive reorganization of the tiering system, as that would affect far too many profiles. As it stands, I see two options:

1. Add it to Tier 0.

2. Add it to Tier 1.

The latter seems far more appealing to me, as a "Low Tier 0" would be very bizarre, contradict the very premise of Tier 0, and would probably require edits to the Omnipotence page. Maybe we could take a page out of CSAP's book, and add a 1-S tier to the tiering system; perhaps it could be called "Archverse level" or something. Perhaps you could have different versions for the two types; 1-S for Type 1 (manipulation of arbitrarily large worlds) and High 1-S for Type 2 (manipulation of the framework of all possible worlds). Alternatively, you could have Type 2 as a + modifier for baseline 1-S.

This would not affect very many profiles at all, since very few characters are High 1-A+ on this wiki, so I think this is quite feasible.

Votes:

My proposal:

Agnaa's 1st proposal: @FinePoint

Agnaa's 2nd proposal:

Make a {{High 1-A+}} category:

Do nothing:

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I kind of agree, and think this could be a good idea. While not a lot of characters are High 1-A+, it would be easier for regular visitors to discern character scales. For example, I have seen plenty of people on reddit, tiktok, and youtube not realize Akuto is High 1-A+ at first, or not realize it at all. Its not really a big change either. And, also, no need for Low Tier 0 or 1-S, just {{High 1-A+}} as it's own tier (even {{High 1-B+}}) would suffice, IMO.

 

[TheTenno07]

Shouldn't this be a staff thread?

 

[Vietthai96]

Move this to staff discussion since this thread is about tiering system, even though it is just about naming

Everyone who isn't staff need to ask for permission to comment

I'm currently on phone so can't ping too many staffs

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Ultima_Reality

Sorry for the ping

 

[Jin2188]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12 @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @RatherClueless @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

Sorry for ping

 

[Vietthai96]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12 @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @RatherClueless @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

Sorry for ping

Normal member can't ping others, i already pinged some staffs who are knowledgeable about tiering system, let not ping too many who aren't interest in the topic, we can ping them later when the discussion progress

 

[Antvasima]

@Just_a_Random_Butler @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Dereck03

Would any of you be able and willing to construct a {{High 1-A+}} template patterned after our preexisting/current tier templates, if this suggestion is accepted?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Just_a_Random_Butler @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Dereck03

Would any of you be able and willing to construct a {{High 1-A+}} template patterned after our preexisting/current tier templates, if this suggestion is accepted?

I'm neutral on this change. If we were to make it, I'd prefer it if 1-A+ became its own tier too.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems reasonable, yes.

 

[Vietthai96]

@Just_a_Random_Butler @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Dereck03

Would any of you be able and willing to construct a {{High 1-A+}} template patterned after our preexisting/current tier templates, if this suggestion is accepted?

If we are going to construct template for High 1-A+, we should also do that for 1-A+ and High 1-B+ i think

 

[Jin2188]

I'm neutral on this change. If we were to make it, I'd prefer it if 1-A+ became its own tier too.

As in give it its own tier template? Yeah I'm fine with that.

I'm not really satisfied with just giving High 1-A+ its own category though, I was thinking more like an entirely new tier. Adding a {{High 1-A+}} template would solve my 3rd issue, but not the first two.

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree. I hold a similar problem, but due to my problem being slightly different, it has much better solutions.

Adding a new tier like "Low Tier 0" or "Tier 0-C" or "Tier 1-S" seems like a very unnecessary format break, to simply give a few characters more visibility.

Similarly, having a {{High 1-A+}} tier template would entail putting the "+" in the tier section, which would either be a significant format break likely to cause confusion, or would be a tremendous workload as every page on the site needs to be checked for "+"s in their attack potency section, on top of requiring us to rename Low 2-C.

We can't simply shift tiers around, since the groupings we already have make quite a degree of sense; we don't have the space to expand or rearrange things to put it on its own without more letters.

I don't think the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Also

We already have Low 1-A as all dimensional spaces, instead of having that be High 1-B+

We already have a High 1-B+. And Low 1-A is being beyond all dimensional spaces, placing it beyond common/typical quantitative systems, so it lines up quite well with the other A's (Ultima initially described it as a meta-quantitative superiority).

 

[FinePoint]

Same as Agnaa basically.

This makes complete sense in principal, but would require the entire tiering system to be shifted over to allow it without some strange changes to the formatting or potentially breaking things.

The marginal benefit just doesn't seem worth the tremendous work that would be.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I also think that Agnaa makes sense here.

 

[Vesxpura]

Theres a simple fix to this. Why not call it "higher outer" or something of the sort. if we follow through with it being a new/seperate tier. this fixes the + issue and it gives the benefits of having a seperate tier for those characters only.

 

[FinePoint]

Theres a simple fix to this. Why not call it "higher outer" or something of the sort. if we follow through with it being a new/seperate tier. this fixes the + issue and it gives the benefits of having a seperate tier for those characters only.

Because we need to assign it a shorthand number.

 

[Vesxpura]

Because we need to assign it a shorthand number.

My bad, completely forgot about that part.

 

[Vietthai96]

Theres a simple fix to this. Why not call it "higher outer" or something of the sort. if we follow through with it being a new/seperate tier. this fixes the + issue and it gives the benefits of having a seperate tier for those characters only.

This is just the same as making tier Low 0, 1-S, etc.....with different wording

Also, non-staff aren't allowed to comment on staff thread except OP, since you are new, you should ask staffs for permission to comment

 

[Jin2188]

We already have a High 1-B+. And Low 1-A is being beyond all dimensional spaces, placing it beyond common/typical quantitative systems, so it lines up quite well with the other A's (Ultima initially described it as a meta-quantitative superiority).

From the description of Low 1-A on the Tiering System:

Characters whose power is on the level of the Von Neumann Universe. That is, they either encompass, or can affect structures which encompass, the collection including all possible dimensional spaces.

Which is essentially the same thing as High 1-A+ for possible worlds.

My point is that it doesn't really make sense for Low 1-A to be its own tier, and not High 1-A+. High 1-B+ is for uncountably infinite dimensions, but this could just as easily be made congruent with High 1-A+, with Low 1-A being subsumed into High 1-B+ (As it stands, very few characters are High 1-B+ on the wiki anyways). If you don't want "format breaks", as you call them, then the only options are to completely redo Tier 1, or bite the bullet and add 1-S. Or you can just ignore the discrepancy, which is fine I guess, but, with respect, seems a bit hypocritical if you're worried about formatting congruence.

 

[Agnaa]

My preferred solutions would be to either:

1. Merge current 1-A and High 1-A, move current High 1-A+ Type 1 to High 1-A, and leave current High 1-A+ Type 2 as the only form of High 1-A+
2. Move current 0 to 0+, move current High 1-A+ Type 2 to baseline Tier 0.

I think these work better structurally, but they don't fix the concerns you have.

 

[Vietthai96]

Merge current 1-A and High 1-A, move current High 1-A+ Type 1 to High 1-A, and leave current High 1-A+ Type 2 as the only form of High 1-A+

I'm against merging 1-A and High 1-A, since we also have qualitative layers in 1-A as well, with infinite layers and upward having "+" modifier.

Move current 0 to 0+, move current High 1-A+ Type 2 to baseline Tier 0.

0+ is even more absurb since character already boundless in this tier, getting "+" modifier seem kind of defeating the meaning of boundless

Probably the solution i could think of is making tier Low 0, we have Low 1-A for beyond dimensionality, but in quantitative sense. So Low 0 could be for characters who "boundless" in a sense of embodies all possible worlds, and tier 0 for true boundless which is devoid of all quality, indescribale, etc........

Or you could make new 1-A+ being the current High 1-A, but still High 1-A have layers too

 

[Jin2188]

I did a thing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:TheUltimateGod4/TieringSystemSandbox

It would require modification of the 1-B levels too, but I think this is a pretty good option. Solves all three of my issues.

 

[Agnaa]

0+ is even more absurb since character already boundless in this tier, getting "+" modifier seem kind of defeating the meaning of boundless

Probably the solution i could think of is making tier Low 0, we have Low 1-A for beyond dimensionality, but in quantitative sense. So Low 0 could be for characters who "boundless" in a sense of embodies all possible worlds, and tier 0 for true boundless which is devoid of all quality, indescribale, etc........

I think Low 0 is worse in that regard.

Or you could make new 1-A+ being the current High 1-A, but still High 1-A have layers too

That's what I meant, sorry.

I did a thing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:TheUltimateGod4/TieringSystemSandbox

It would require modification of the 1-B levels too, but I think this is a pretty good option. Solves all three of my issues.

Actually ig that'd work too, yeah. I forgot we had space at Low 1-B.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Looking back on this, I'm not particularly convinced that this kind of change is really that necessary.

Or you can just ignore the discrepancy, which is fine I guess, but, with respect, seems a bit hypocritical if you're worried about formatting congruence.

I do care about formatting congruence, but in this case, I'm not convinced that the benefits of making your formatting congruency change are worth the downsides or that any "hypocrisy" exists here. Looking at your latest proposal, this would require us to shift all of our tiers down by one from Low 1-B up, which, besides being a lot of work, would cause a great deal of confusion for everyone who's used to how it was before. There is no actual logical problem with having High 1-A+ not be its own tier, and absent that kind of properly tangible issue like what prompted the most recent tiering revisions, I maintain that this change is in no way worth the effort involved.

 

[Agnaa]

I think one of my two solutions, or Ultimate's latest proposal, would be good, simply because we don't have a nice way to represent the difference between the two types of High 1-A+ right now, and both of those types seem to have enough characters were differentiating them seems necessary.

 

[Jin2188]

I think one of my two solutions, or Ultimate's latest proposal, would be good, simply because we don't have a nice way to represent the difference between the two types of High 1-A+ right now, and both of those types seem to have enough characters were differentiating them seems necessary.

What's that proposal? I don't know about it.

 

[Agnaa]

My preferred solutions would be to either:

1. Merge current 1-A and High 1-A, move current High 1-A+ Type 1 to High 1-A, and leave current High 1-A+ Type 2 as the only form of High 1-A+
2. Move current 0 to 0+, move current High 1-A+ Type 2 to baseline Tier 0.

I think these work better structurally, but they don't fix the concerns you have.

 

[Vietthai96]

I would rather not make new Low 1-A being the current 1-A, of course it is just my preference

Probably just make new 1-A+ being current High 1-A

 

[Jin2188]

I meant this:

I think one of my two solutions, or Ultimate's latest proposal

Probably just make new 1-A+ being current High 1-A

That's worse in my opinion. High 1-A is about an ontological framework which transcends the qualitative framework of 1-A. Merging that into 1-A would mean having to explain how that works and how regular Outerversal works in one tier. It just adds way to much bloat in my opinion.

 

[Vietthai96]

That's worse in my opinion. High 1-A is about an ontological framework which transcends the qualitative framework of 1-A. Merging that into 1-A would mean having to explain how that works and how regular Outerversal works in one tier. It just adds way to much bloat in my opinion.

I mean yes, but making Low 1-A being the start of qualitative superior is weird to me, i prefer keeping Low 1-A being beyond dimensions in quantitative sense and 1-A is the start of qualitative superiority

If we must separate High 1-A+ Type 1 and High 1-A+ Type 2 into their own tier then i prefer the Low 0, being kinda psuedo-boundless and 0 being true boundless

Hmm, 0+ could be good solution though

 

[Agnaa]

I meant this:

I was referring to this:

I did a thing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:TheUltimateGod4/TieringSystemSandbox

It would require modification of the 1-B levels too, but I think this is a pretty good option. Solves all three of my issues.

 

[Jin2188]

I was referring to this:

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were referring to my username lmao.

 

[Jin2188]

I mean yes, but making Low 1-A being the start of qualitative superior is weird to me, i prefer keeping Low 1-A being beyond dimensions in quantitative sense and 1-A is the start of qualitative superiority

If we must separate High 1-A+ Type 1 and High 1-A+ Type 2 into their own tier then i prefer the Low 0, being kinda psuedo-boundless and 0 being true boundless

Hmm, 0+ could be good solution though

Low 0 or 0+ is at least equally as weird, quite a bit weirder in my opinion. I do kinda think it works though, at least for Type 2 High 1-A+, although I still prefer my proposal.

 

[FinePoint]

Merge current 1-A and High 1-A, move current High 1-A+ Type 1 to High 1-A, and leave current High 1-A+ Type 2 as the only form of High 1-A+

I support this, actually. There's more of a logical difference between High 1-A and High 1-A+ than there is between 1-A and High 1-A.

It would also solve the problem of High 1-A+ having types which is currently a massive diversion from the rest of the tiering system.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Jin2188]

I support this, actually. There's more of a logical difference between High 1-A and High 1-A+ than there is between 1-A and High 1-A.

It would also solve the problem of High 1-A+ having types which is currently a massive diversion from the rest of the tiering system.

Ehhh, I still prefer my proposal. I know it's a bit more effort with adjusting profiles and all that, but I don't like the idea of mashing tiers together when we already have free space in Low 1-B.

I don't know if I'm exactly allowed to do this, but I suggest we hold a vote between my proposal, @Agnaa's two proposals, making a High 1-A+ category, and not doing anything at all. I could put you down as voting for Agnaa's 1st proposal.