Tiers Through State/Size

[Jin2188]

Now, to extend an olive branch here: I agree that Attack Potency very much is based around external effects, right now, the title alone makes it obvious and the page even calls it an alternate name for Destructive Capacity. My point overall is that nevertheless there's a fairly important sense of "power" that's not reducible to this alone, and which can't really be relegated to Durability or something of the like, because that's objectively an even poorer place to fit it in than AP. And since I assume we don't exactly feel like making a new section for profiles titled just "Potency," or something like that, I say AP is the most appropriate (Or least inappropriate, same thing in my eyes) spot to feature it in.

We do have the Tier section, although we currently use that as a summary of Attack Potency.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The thing is, I feel like accepting contradictions as valid would necessarily involve either accepting variance in the power of a Tier 0, or allowing a Tier 0 to actualize contradictions and manipulate the space of all possible worlds, for reasons stated in above replies. The former makes Tier 0 basically irrelevant, so the latter option is preferred imo.

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

The latter ofc ends up being the case if contradictions are by default valid, yeah. There's an interesting discussion to be had on whether this means Tier 0s who can't actualize contradictions are somehow lesser than ones who can. I think they aren't, really, but that depends on other discussions (The present one about what constitutes "power" being one of them).

I don't really see how that's an issue. That just means they're beyond the scope of traditional human experience. The External Reality Hypothesis (which most normal people consider completely valid) posits a reality outside human experience that is equally unknowable, because you can only experience that reality via your own sensory framework.

Saying that a thing is "unknowable" is by definition to already know something about it (Same way as "No predicates apply" is itself a predicate, or "Has no characteristics" is itself a characteristic, i.e. It's a judgement that is true of the thing). You in particular mention that kantian positions end up saying that even the law of non-contradiction is just a mental principle which we use to organize reality, without thereby applying to reality itself, which is true. Thing is that the law of non-contradiction in its strictest sense is just "A proposition is distinct from its negation" (Or equivalently, defined in relation to identity, the affirmation that "A ≠ ~A." A thing is not what it is not). Positing a thing to which the PNC simpliciter doesn't apply isn't just "Contradictories can be true of it." It's just to abolish discourse about that thing outright, because you can't say either that it is, or that it is not, anything at all. (And ofc, "The PNC doesn't apply" is itself to be seen as opposed to "The PNC applies" to even be a meaningful statement)

But I reckon this discussion is better left off for another occasion.

My point is that these bolded parts are factually incorrect. We couldn't have 1-A characters that are physically 3D if that were the case. You can't equate their power and their level of existence, you can only tie them together (Which is why I've been saying that their state of existence is what gives them their power), because you can have 1-A power without being on a 1-A level of existence, while the vice versa is (usually) not possible.

Technically you can only be 3-D and have 1-A power in a very specific sense. Obviously it's not in the sense of some cumulative material force continuous with lower levels of strength (Which is the same as, say, "A number of dimensions so high that it breaks through into 1-Aspace"). More like it's some metaphysical endowment (however conceived) that lets you contend at that level.

Because that's the definition we use for literally every tier other than 1-A and High 1-A. If a character can destroy/create a mountain, then they're Mountain level. If they can destroy a planet, they're Planet level. If they can destroy a multiverse, then they're Multiverse level. Changing our standards on this for a single tier is pretty ridiculous imo.

Not ridiculous at all, because by nature that just is how these tiers work (See the hypothetical of the character who has power over arbitrarily big 1-A realms, for an explanation). Natural consequence of the very idea of qualitative superiority, and if you say that's ridiculous, I likewise say it's ridiculous to relegate that to just durability, since it's not some obtuse abstract quality of the character but imo about as concrete as it gets (It's literally their equivalent of size).

We do have the Tier section, although we currently use that as a summary of Attack Potency.

Yeah. And it's not really our practice to have parentheses explaining this or that in the Tier section. Tier and Attack Potency are basically just correlatives (The latter being where the former is explained) as is.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa and Ultima:

Have you two reached any agreements here, and if so, can you summarise them in a relatively easily overviewed manner please?

 

[DontTalkDT]

There is much meaning insofar as we want to index the power of the character. "Capacity to deal damage" doesn't exhaust that spectrum, as you yourself agree, and listing that under "Durability" just needlessly sidelines it (Especially given that the usual procedure is explaining the tier in the AP). So given that and the identity between the potency of the character and their physiology, I'd say it's fair to give it a significant spot somewhere, and AP seems to be the closest analogue unless we feel like making a new section titled just "Potency." Imagine if we had a Tier 12 rating for qualitatively inferior levels and a character who is 0-D (Think the Monarch of Pointland and give him the power to dream up lower worlds or something) gets put there instead of 11-C because "Technically, it can't attack on its own level." How strange would that be.

I have to disagree. Attack Potency has a defined practical purpose. That purpose is to signify whether we believe some character can harm another character.
Giving a character an AP level when they are unable to meet that basic requirement (harming characters up to a certain durabilty value) is misleading.

We already don't list power in every sense for lesser tiers. E.g. a character having a battery containing infinite energy is not reflected as AP, if that character can only draw upon 5 Joules per attack.
Another great example are stabilization feats, where we have a rigurous process regarding when a characters state of existence majorly influencing reality may be listed as Attack Potency.

And it's not like the notion of power is actually lost. The characters still have the Tier as indicator of "power" in that metaphysical abstract sense. In fact, one might say that this would for the first time make the pairing of Tier and AP not redundant. It would make tier a signifier of level of existence, while having AP as a signifier of capability of harm, at high tiers.
That seems overall much more reflective of the considerations involved.

 

[Flashlight237]

Call me ignorant on the matter, but I'm pretty sure we put omnipotence back on the table when the Tier 0 revision changed the tier to basically "this character is omnipotent." It's a little odd to apply omnipotence to a simple concept such as size.

 

[Jin2188]

The latter ofc ends up being the case if contradictions are by default valid, yeah. There's an interesting discussion to be had on whether this means Tier 0s who can't actualize contradictions are somehow lesser than ones who can. I think they aren't, really, but that depends on other discussions (The present one about what constitutes "power" being one of them).

I think we could have two types of Tier 0, one that's basically how we have it now, with it being the "ground" of existence, and the other being my version, one that's the active creator of existence.

We already kinda differentiate between types anyways:

With all of that said, however, it is important to also make a few concessions: A verse might very well have a cosmology in which something perfectly fits with all of the aforementioned characteristics, but it does so not by transcending existing essences, but, rather, by being part of a cosmology in which the idea of "essence" itself is actually illusory and nonexistent, and only the Tier 0 of the setting actually exists. Such are verses taking inspiration from Buddhism, or perhaps even some rather specific forms of process philosophy. Ultimately, they are rated the same way as verses with cosmologies in more alignment with the above.

I agree with you that neither type should necessarily be more powerful than the other, since both transcend differentiation and potentiality, and are immutable and changeless, and all that good stuff, and they'd both be at least in theory capable of manipulating the space of all possible worlds, it's just that one doesn't because of their nature, while the other may actively do so.

I think this sufficiently addresses my concerns without shaking up the status quo too much.

Saying that a thing is "unknowable" is by definition to already know something about it (Same way as "No predicates apply" is itself a predicate, or "Has no characteristics" is itself a characteristic, i.e. It's a judgement that is true of the thing). You in particular mention that kantian positions end up saying that even the law of non-contradiction is just a mental principle which we use to organize reality, without thereby applying to reality itself, which is true. Thing is that the law of non-contradiction in its strictest sense is just "A proposition is distinct from its negation" (Or equivalently, defined in relation to identity, the affirmation that "A ≠ ~A." A thing is not what it is not). Positing a thing to which the PNC simpliciter doesn't apply isn't just "Contradictories can be true of it." It's just to abolish discourse about that thing outright, because you can't say either that it is, or that it is not, anything at all. (And ofc, "The PNC doesn't apply" is itself to be seen as opposed to "The PNC applies" to even be a meaningful statement)

But I reckon this discussion is better left off for another occasion.

I agree that this is probably a topic for a different thread, but my point with bringing up Kantianism was to show that there are many ideas and philosophies that exist which explicitly reject this notion of "No contradictions, ever!!! And if there are any, then they aren't real contradictions!" Some other examples of such philosophies include Hume's skepticism and Descartes's modal voluntarism, the latter of which is explicitly mentioned on the Omnipotence page. Additionally, I want to say that Kantianism is far from a "fringe theory" in any sense, plenty of philosophers still stand by it, and there are even some scientific theories which contain elements of it.

It's also the case that any problems you bring up with Kantianism can also be applied to the External Reality Hypothesis, since it's kind of the same story there, with the external world being "unknowable" due to us only being able to process it with our senses.

Technically you can only be 3-D and have 1-A power in a very specific sense. Obviously it's not in the sense of some cumulative material force continuous with lower levels of strength (Which is the same as, say, "A number of dimensions so high that it breaks through into 1-Aspace"). More like it's some metaphysical endowment (however conceived) that lets you contend at that level.

Well yes of course, but I don't see how this invalidates my point.

Not ridiculous at all, because by nature that just is how these tiers work (See the hypothetical of the character who has power over arbitrarily big 1-A realms, for an explanation). Natural consequence of the very idea of qualitative superiority, and if you say that's ridiculous, I likewise say it's ridiculous to relegate that to just durability, since it's not some obtuse abstract quality of the character but imo about as concrete as it gets (It's literally their equivalent of size).

The consequence of having qualitative superiority is higher attack potency. I can accept that. My problem is that it feels like you're trying to equate 1-A causal influence with 1-A level of existence, when they are not the same thing:

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

Even if this isn't the context he said this in, the point still stands. All characters with 1-A level of existence have 1-A attack potency, but not all characters with 1-A attack potency have 1-A level of existence. Therefore, you can't equate the two.

Yeah. And it's not really our practice to have parentheses explaining this or that in the Tier section. Tier and Attack Potency are basically just correlatives (The latter being where the former is explained) as is.

That doesn't mean we can't change our practices if it's beneficial to do so. I agree with DT here:

And it's not like the notion of power is actually lost. The characters still have the Tier as indicator of "power" in that metaphysical abstract sense. In fact, one might say that this would for the first time make the pairing of Tier and AP not redundant. It would make tier a signifier of level of existence, while having AP as a signifier of capability of harm, at high tiers.
That seems overall much more reflective of the considerations involved.

I think this is an acceptable compromise, but I have a different idea on how to implement it. I think Tier should take into account both AP and Durability, and we could put whatever is stronger on there. If a character's AP is greater than their Durability, then we would list their AP on their Tier, like we do now, but if their Durability is greater than their AP, we list that instead. This would give a more accurate "overview" of a character's general capabilities instead of kind of just sweeping Durability under the rug like we do now.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, and one last thing.


Do you have a reference point for that? I don't recall such an exchange happening at all. What I remember happening is:

You: Hey, what do we do if a Tier 0 is stated in-verse to be unable to actualize contradictions? Would that be an anti-feat due to them having some stated limitation?

Me: Well, "Contradictions are nothing at all" is effectively the go-to explanation for why being unable to do impossible things doesn't detract from omnipotence, so if a verse goes out of its way to mention that the big character described in omnipotent terms can't do those, it seems safe to assume it's operating under that logic rather than trying to outline an actual limitation. And either way it seems eminently reasonable to say that a contradiction is just a flatus voci by default.

So it was more a discussion about what we, by default, treat contradictions as. The last point can be debated, ofc, and I don't think the probabilistic argument I raised before that is necessarily rock-solid. But I genuinely don't think I ever justified anything by "A lot of philosophers disagree," lol.

On the specific point of actualising contradictions, that was the general flow of discussion, yeah.

But on the idea UltimateGod brought up of how this is just one philosophy, and other philosophers have brought up other ideas, there was both a longer discussion with Deagon about whether this was actually true for properties relevant to battleboarding, and a brief aside with me about negative theology in particular and the use of monads at all.

Funny. I see "omnipotence" and "holding all truth values" as closest to synonymous (omnipotence is the ability to do anything, holding all truth values is holding every quality/potentiality; for every "thing" such a being's state of "ability to do {thing}" is "true").

"Not being describable" is more gesturing at negative theology. And since omnipotence, divine simplicity, etc. can be described, it would be beyond that. But I believe that you've said above that such an idea is above the scope of how you're interpreting it for Tier 0, in a previous thread...

Which ig is fine, dismissing it as a way of extending the system due to being contradictory, but I think it adds a bit of weirdness to this whole enterprise. I only see such negative theology as being a few more steps away from acceptance (among philosophers, and in terms of logical coherence) than this view of a monad is, and that the view of monads put forward isn't immune to similar arguments.

It's a sufficient amount of steps away from such things, as I'd argue (And as I've done so, above).

We were both gesturing here at that earlier discussion with Deagon; me by bringing up "among philosophers", and you by saying you've already addressed that above.

But I did also mention logical coherence; sticking to that part would've been a more generous way to frame that discussion point, alas I forgot.

My point is that these bolded parts are factually incorrect. We couldn't have 1-A characters that are physically 3D if that were the case. You can't equate their power and their level of existence, you can only tie them together (Which is why I've been saying that their state of existence is what gives them their power), because you can have 1-A power without being on a 1-A level of existence, while the vice versa is (usually) not possible.

1-A characters that are 3-D need to have their 1-A power come from a thing on a 1-A level of existence. They can only wield this power as long as the 1-A source actively decides to pretend to be influenced by its wielding. The power is still equated to the level of existence, but the thing on the 1-A level of existence is simply blessing a weaker character; doing things on their behalf.

So I don't think this line of argument is a good approach.

Agnaa and Ultima:

Have you two reached any agreements here, and if so, can you summarise them in a relatively easily overviewed manner please?

I'm not too fussed between a lot of the options we have, so there is room to make both of us happy.

But I think we should let these trains of discussion peter out a bit more before I write up simple summaries.

And it's not like the notion of power is actually lost. The characters still have the Tier as indicator of "power" in that metaphysical abstract sense. In fact, one might say that this would for the first time make the pairing of Tier and AP not redundant. It would make tier a signifier of level of existence, while having AP as a signifier of capability of harm, at high tiers.
That seems overall much more reflective of the considerations involved.

If you're suggesting making Tier and AP distinct, so that Tier can indicate "power" in this abstract way, while AP still reflects causal influence, I think that's a bad idea since that doesn't leave us a good place for the justification of that Tier.

Unless we make Tier the highest of AP and Dura, which I think might be a bit confusing to visitors and new editors (who already slip up about the equivalence between tier and AP), and which seems difficult to square with different durability ratings for different equipment/forms/states/conditionals.

I'd really prefer just having a "via size" conditional.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

But on the idea UltimateGod brought up of how this is just one philosophy, and other philosophers have brought up other ideas, there was both a longer discussion with Deagon about whether this was actually true for properties relevant to battleboarding, and a brief aside with me about negative theology in particular.

Oh yeah, that I remember. That exchange you quote wasn't an appeal to philosophers so much as the whole "opting to argue the proposed tier just doesn't have any logical contradictions (In the sense of fragrantly breaking either identity or excluded middle or non-contradiction) as opposed to biting the bullet on that." Given the current direction things are taking, this previous caution of mine might not end up mattering. We'll see, I guess.

And it's not like the notion of power is actually lost. The characters still have the Tier as indicator of "power" in that metaphysical abstract sense. In fact, one might say that this would for the first time make the pairing of Tier and AP not redundant. It would make tier a signifier of level of existence, while having AP as a signifier of capability of harm, at high tiers.
That seems overall much more reflective of the considerations involved.

Yeah, put that way, I like the idea. Though I'll mull over it a bit.

 

[Jin2188]

1-A characters that are 3-D need to have their 1-A power come from a thing on a 1-A level of existence. They can only wield this power as long as the 1-A source actively decides to pretend to be influenced by its wielding. The power is still equated to the level of existence, but the thing on the 1-A level of existence is simply blessing a weaker character.

So I don't think this line of argument is a good approach.

Is this really the case? I haven't really heard about this anywhere else, and who said anything about "pretending"? With respect, this feels like another baseless assertion to me.

Unless we make Tier the highest of AP and Dura, which I think might be a bit confusing to visitors and new editors (who already slip up about the equivalence between tier and AP).

This is what I suggested in my last reply. It might be somewhat confusing at first, but that can be ironed out via the Tiering System FAQ, or just straight up putting it on the Tiering System page itself, so I think we should go for it if that's your only argument.

I'd really prefer just having a "via size" conditional.

Ehhh, if we were to do this, it should be listed on the Tier section only, not on AP.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Is this really the case? I haven't really heard about this anywhere else, and who said anything about "pretending"? With respect, this feels like another baseless assertion to me.

What Agnaa's talking about is mentioned here, though NB that similar to you I'd contest his usage of "pretend" there. I don't think a metaphysically empowered lower being can only ever influence 1-A people in a fake, "playtime" way, no.

 

[Agnaa]

Is this really the case? I haven't really heard about this anywhere else, and who said anything about "pretending"? With respect, this feels like another baseless assertion to me.

What Agnaa's talking about is mentioned here, though NB that similar to you I'd contest his usage of "pretend" there. I don't think a metaphysically empowered lower being can only ever influence 1-A people in a fake, "playtime" way, no.

The metaphysical empowering is the pretending. They cannot seize that metaphysical empowerment, they only have it for as long as the being choosing to empower them decides to do so, and they have no true influence over that.

Once a High 1-A being decides to act on their behalf, they can use that to wreck 1-A beings without such 1-A beings needing to "pretend" to be affected, but I'd say that the High 1-A is still "pretending" to be wielded in that way.

okay so technically, if they have a very particular kind of madness manipulation, where them being perceived causes beings to give everything to help them, this could be taken as them influencing this sort of thing, but even this is ultimately just due to their appearance causing the higher being's brain to act in an odd way, due to a flaw in its own processing that could likely be triggered by other sensory inputs, rather than any direct harnessing going on

This is what I suggested in my last reply. It might be somewhat confusing at first, but that can be ironed out via the Tiering System FAQ, or just straight up putting it on the Tiering System page itself, so I think we should go for it if that's your only argument.

fyi, I edited in another concern about that:

Unless we make Tier the highest of AP and Dura, which I think might be a bit confusing to visitors and new editors (who already slip up about the equivalence between tier and AP), and which seems difficult to square with different durability ratings for different equipment/forms/states/conditionals.

 

[Jin2188]

The metaphysical empowering is the pretending. They cannot seize that metaphysical empowerment, they only have it for as long as the being choosing to empower them decides to do so, and they have no true influence over that.

Once a High 1-A being decides to act on their behalf, they can use that to wreck 1-A beings without such 1-A beings needing to "pretend" to be affected, but I'd say that the High 1-A is still "pretending" to be wielded in that way.

okay so technically, if they have a very particular kind of madness manipulation, where them being perceived causes beings to give everything to help them, this could be taken as them influencing this sort of thing, but even this is ultimately just due to their appearance causing the higher being's brain to act in an odd way, due to a flaw in its own processing that could likely be triggered by other sensory inputs, rather than any direct harnessing going on

Why does an entity have to bestow metaphysical power onto a lower being? Why can't they just awaken metaphysical power on their own and use that to influence 1-A entities? I'll say it again, this seems baseless to me.

fyi, I edited in another concern about that:

Unless we make Tier the highest of AP and Dura, which I think might be a bit confusing to visitors and new editors (who already slip up about the equivalence between tier and AP), and which seems difficult to square with different durability ratings for different equipment/forms/states/conditionals.

Ah, that is fair. It could be done on a key-by-key basis, but then there's the issue with certain powerups/equipment being roped into the same key.

Hmm.

 

[Agnaa]

Why does an entity have to bestow metaphysical power onto a lower being? Why can't they just awaken metaphysical power on their own and use that to influence 1-A entities? I'll say it again, this seems baseless to me.

"awakening metaphysical power" would mean something like learning how to request that their 1-A essence does something their 3-D mind desires, in a way that their 1-A essence would listen to.

The power is still rooted in the level of existence. Without a thing on a 1-A level of existence willing to act for them, a 3-D character cannot perform 1-A feats.

 

[Jin2188]

"awakening metaphysical power" would mean something like learning how to request that their 1-A essence does something their 3-D mind desires, in a way that their 1-A essence would listen to.

The power is still rooted in the level of existence. Without a thing on a 1-A level of existence willing to act for them, a 3-D character cannot perform 1-A feats.

By "1-A essence", are you talking about something like souls in the Warp? So you're essentially telling your own soul to do things for you?

So a 3D character can perform 1-A feats, but only by proxy?

I guess that mostly makes sense then, but I do have to ask how this works when we're dealing with High 1-A+. A character who is High 1-A+ Type 1 can actualize and manipulate all possible worlds (not the space itself of course) and still be physically 3D, so how does that work? What "higher essence" are they appealing to? High 1-A+ Type 2? Or is this just something we haven't thought about?

If it's Type 2 that they're appealing to, then that gives us a basis for saying that Type 2 is stronger than Type 1, because the Type 2 can just say "no".

However, if it's something that hasn't been thought about, then maybe there's a hole in this reasoning that can either be patched or used to rewrite how we treat 1-A and above.

 

[Agnaa]

By "1-A essence", are you talking about something like souls in the Warp? So you're essentially telling your own soul to do things for you?

So a 3D character can perform 1-A feats, but only by proxy?

Yeah, stuff like that.

But also stuff like "The universe itself will respond to the actions of those who act like main characters, and make their lives narratively satisfying". Not just characters, or aspects of characters, but energies, and laws of reality itself.

I guess that mostly makes sense then, but I do have to ask how this works when we're dealing with High 1-A+. A character who is High 1-A+ Type 1 can actualize and manipulate all possible worlds (not the space itself of course) and still be physically 3D, so how does that work? What "higher essence" are they appealing to? High 1-A+ Type 2? Or is this just something we haven't thought about?

I'm not familiar enough with any of those practical cases to properly comment. But my guess is that they would ultimately be appealing to a High 1-A+ Type 2 or Tier 0 thing, yeah.

I don't think we could have something's "level of existence" actually be High 1-A+ Type 1, without any more fundamental thing giving it power to get arbitrarily stronger than it is now.

If it's Type 2 that they're appealing to, then that gives us a basis for saying that Type 2 is stronger than Type 1, because the Type 2 can just say "no".

I think there might be able to be multiple Type 2 beings/constructs in a verse, so if one says no that may not matter if another grants authority. But I'm not 100% certain on this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Why does an entity have to bestow metaphysical power onto a lower being? Why can't they just awaken metaphysical power on their own and use that to influence 1-A entities? I'll say it again, this seems baseless to me.

FWIW I don't really agree that it has to be a conscious character up in the 1-A realm acting as a genie for the lower character. Can be just the lower character awakening some metaphysical potential in themselves through non-standard means (e.g. enlightenment superpowers), so long as this potential is rooted in the higher world. We have to recall that all the fuss about "non-1-A can't affect 1-A" ultimately reduces to "A bunch of non-1-As put together can't influence 1-A" (i.e. It's downstream from the indivisibility of the 1-A state). Should be circumspect wrt to what does and doesn't relate to that instead of blindly applying it wherever.

But I reckon that's not really a topic for this thread, unless you two fellas think it's an appropriate place for this? I think focusing on the merits of DT's suggestion (Giving Tier its own distinct role from AP as a profile section) is more relevant to the subject matter here.

 

[Jin2188]

Yeah, stuff like that.

But also stuff like "The universe itself will respond to the actions of those who act like main characters, and make their lives narratively satisfying". Not just characters, or aspects of characters, but energies, and laws of reality itself.

I see. I guess the language of "pretending" just bothered me a bit. I do think my previous argument still stands in that case

I'm not familiar enough with any of those practical cases to properly comment. But my guess is that they would ultimately be appealing to a High 1-A+ Type 2 or Tier 0 thing, yeah.

If it's a Tier 0 giving them that power, then, with what I'm arguing, that character would then have Tier 0 AP as well. So most likely High 1-A+ Type 2.

I don't think we could have something's "level of existence" actually be High 1-A+ Type 1, without any more fundamental thing giving it power to get arbitrarily stronger than it is now.

Yeah, Type 1 "level of existence" would probably just be Type 2.

I think there might be able to be multiple Type 2 beings/constructs in a verse, so if one says no that may not matter if another grants authority. But I'm not 100% certain on this.

I don't see any reason why there couldn't be multiple Type 2s, so yeah maybe. If anything though, that's probably even better because it could create a meaningful sense of Type 2 combat. But idk, I'm just spitballing.

FWIW I don't really agree that it has to be a conscious character up in the 1-A realm acting as a genie for the lower character. Can be just the lower character awakening some metaphysical potential in themselves through non-standard means (e.g. enlightenment superpowers). We have to recall that all the fuss about "non-1-A can't affect 1-A" ultimately reduces to "A bunch of non-1-As put together can't influence 1-A" (i.e. It's downstream from the indivisibility of the 1-A state). Should be circumspect wrt to what does and doesn't relate to that instead of blindly applying it wherever.

So it seems that even members of staff disagree on this. Hmm.

But I reckon that's not really a topic for this thread, unless you two fellas think it's an appropriate place for this? I think focusing on the merits of DT's suggestion (Giving Tier its own distinct role from AP as a profile section) is more relevant to the subject matter here.

Idk honestly, either I could make a thread with your permission, Agnaa could make one, or you could. Or we could just continue discussing it in this thread, although I do kind of agree with you that it probably deserves it's own one.

 

[Agnaa]

So it seems that even members of staff disagree on this. Hmm.

I don't think we do, Ultima just says it doesn't have to be a conscious being.

Ultimately, I'm responding to this part of your post:

My point is that these bolded parts are factually incorrect. We couldn't have 1-A characters that are physically 3D if that were the case. You can't equate their power and their level of existence, you can only tie them together (Which is why I've been saying that their state of existence is what gives them their power), because you can have 1-A power without being on a 1-A level of existence, while the vice versa is (usually) not possible.

The 1-A power is most imminently wielded by characters on a 1-A level of existence, who may then defer it to characters below 1-A, with them having ultimate authority over that transfer of power.

And this does not have to be a conscious process.

 

[Jin2188]

The 1-A power is most imminently wielded by characters on a 1-A level of existence, who may then defer it to characters below 1-A, with them having ultimate authority over that transfer of power.

And this does not have to be a conscious process.

Yes, but we still list 3D characters as 1-A, so I feel like this is a moot point. If we're tiering 3D characters as 1-A, then we're assuming that they themselves are 1-A, not some entity or realm that they're appealing to.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd just say that practically that isn't the case.

If a character had an ability that let them seal off other characters from the rest of reality, a 3-D character with a 1-A AP rating would cease to have 1-A AP upon being placed in there, while a 1-A character with a 1-A AP rating would retain it.

They need that connection for that rating, while inherently 1-A characters don't.

 

[Jin2188]

I'd just say that practically that isn't the case.

If a character had an ability that let them seal off other characters from the rest of reality, a 3-D character with a 1-A AP rating would cease to have 1-A AP upon being placed in there, while a 1-A character with a 1-A AP rating would retain it.

They need that connection for that rating, while inherently 1-A characters don't.

Well I think that's weird. How the hell do you justify Hulk breaking chains made from The First Firmament then? Afaik neither Hulk nor the chains were in any kind of "abstract" or "higher" realm when he did that. You could say that he was drawing power from gamma/The One Below All, but that doesn't explain how he was seemingly able to exert "1-A force" in a 3D space.

Maybe I'm just stupid or missing something critical, but that doesn't add up.

 

[Agnaa]

Well I think that's weird. How the hell do you justify Hulk breaking chains made from The First Firmament then? Afaik neither Hulk nor the chains were in any kind of "abstract" or "higher" realm when he did that. You could say that he was drawing power from gamma/The One Below All, but that doesn't explain how he was seemingly able to exert "1-A force" in a 3D space.

Maybe I'm just stupid or missing something critical, but that doesn't add up.

That rating should be removed. We generally agreed that a bunch of Marvel characters should be downgraded for 1-A due to contradictions like that, but no-one knowledgeable enough to implement it was invested enough to actually push that change through.

 

[Jin2188]

That rating should be removed. We generally agreed that a bunch of Marvel characters should be downgraded for 1-A due to contradictions like that, but no-one knowledgeable enough to implement it was invested enough to actually push that change through.

I dunno, maybe you're right, or maybe it's our standards that need to change. I feel like we should just drop this conversation and go back to discussing DT's idea and stuff about making Tier distinct from Attack Potency.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Idk honestly, either I could make a thread with your permission, Agnaa could make one, or you could.

I'll probably make one when I'm disposed at one point if necessary, but I'll have to look over the topic and see if it really is. Otherwise I think this is a bit of a derailment of the main subject of this thread, no?

 

[Jin2188]

I'll probably make one when I'm disposed at one point if necessary, but I'll have to look over the topic and see if it really is. Otherwise I think this is a bit of a derailment of the main subject of this thread, no?

Eh, I'd say it's still kinda relevant, but it's definitely hogging up room for other, probably more important and relevant discussions.

I'll end it here for now by saying this:

At the end of the day, I stand with @FinePoint's sentiment:

We shouldn't be shoving fiction into a box, we should be building a box around fiction.

That means that when something contradicts our standards, that's not fiction's fault for failing to meet our qualifications, it's a failure of our standards in not being able to properly index and categorize that edge case.

Therefore, whenever something contradicts our standards, it's our standards that should change.

That's my stance on the matter.

 

[Vietthai96]

I disagree with making tier distinct from AP, unless we have an entirely new section for justification that explain the reason for their tier, or alter AP section entirely. Writing justification in Durability make no sense, since it is only for "durability" of the character, changing Durability section is just no better than changing AP section

As i and Ultima have said before, AP section is currently used as all-catching term for statistics except durability and speed

 

[Jin2188]

I disagree with making tier distinct from AP, unless we have an entirely new section for justification that explain the reason for their tier, or alter AP section entirely. Writing justification in Durability make no sense, since it is only for "durability" of the character, changing Durability section is just no better than changing AP section

My proposal was to have Tier be the highest of Attack Potency and Durability, on a key-by-key basis:

I think Tier should take into account both AP and Durability, and we could put whatever is stronger on there. If a character's AP is greater than their Durability, then we would list their AP on their Tier, like we do now, but if their Durability is greater than their AP, we list that instead. This would give a more accurate "overview" of a character's general capabilities instead of kind of just sweeping Durability under the rug like we do now.

Which would solve the problems you put forward here, but @Agnaa pointed out an issue:

Unless we make Tier the highest of AP and Dura, which I think might be a bit confusing to visitors and new editors (who already slip up about the equivalence between tier and AP), and which seems difficult to square with different durability ratings for different equipment/forms/states/conditionals.

So we're kind of stuck there.

As i and Ultima have said before, AP section is currently used as all-catching term for statistics except durability and speed

And as I've said before, it doesn't have to be that way if there's a better way of doing it, which I argue there is.

 

[Vietthai96]

Durability is simply "the capacity to withstand attacks" of a character. Tier justification encompasses almost every statistics at once, it explain why they get X tier. Of course in some cases where we have character A with Low 2-C durability, 1-B with X then sure you can tiering said character via the durability, i'm fine with that, but for character with their state of existence, their tier justification, still write in AP section, which is currently the best way, and i disagree with distinct it from Tier, unless we revise AP section entirely or making a new section

 

[Jin2188]

Durability is simply "the capacity to withstand attacks" of a character. Tier justification encompasses almost every statistics at once, it explain why they get X tier. Of course in some cases where we have character A with Low 2-C durability, 1-B with X then sure you can tiering said character via the durability, i'm fine with that, but for character with their state of existence, their tier justification, still write in AP section, which is currently the best way, and i disagree with distinct it from Tier, unless we revise AP section entirely or making a new section

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that it should be okay to tier characters by their Durability in cases where it greatly exceeds Attack Potency? I'd appreciate it if you clarified this.

 

[Jin2188]

@Agnaa if I can run an idea by you real quick, what do you think about merging the two types of High 1-A+? Seems kind of weird at first, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Type 2 is essentially a durability-based tier. It has no greater AP than Type 1. I feel like Type 1 is in a similar situation, but with AP instead of durability. I mean, think about it. Does High 1-A+ Type 1 Durability make sense as a concept? I don't think it does. We can have a coherent idea of "arbitrarily powerful attacks" but "arbitrarily powerful resistance to attacks" seems less sensible. That kind of just seems like Type 2 durability to me.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Agnaa]

I believe I've already indicated that I disagree.

High 1-A+ Type 2 is the effective AP held by Tier 0 beings. So it's not a durability-only tier.

And High 1-A+ Type 1 durability seems fine as a concept, even if it's treated as a pretty loose one. They would not have Type 2 durability.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Durability is simply "the capacity to withstand attacks" of a character. Tier justification encompasses almost every statistics at once, it explain why they get X tier. Of course in some cases where we have character A with Low 2-C durability, 1-B with X then sure you can tiering said character via the durability, i'm fine with that, but for character with their state of existence, their tier justification, still write in AP section, which is currently the best way, and i disagree with distinct it from Tier, unless we revise AP section entirely or making a new section

Alternative proposal then: Power applications that can't be used for harm should have a separate rating in the AP section then, analogous to how we do with Environmental Destruction for lesser tiers.
I.e. If the "power" (In metaphysical sense) is different from the "power" (what can actually be used to harm an opponent), then the former should be listed with a specifier to show that it isn't directly combat-applicable and both should be listed.

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that it should be okay to tier characters by their Durability in cases where it greatly exceeds Attack Potency? I'd appreciate it if you clarified this.

I mean, personally i'm fine with indexing Durability tier in Tier section in case Durability greatly exceed AP, though you need to figure out how to write it in Tier section

Alternative proposal then: Power applications that can't be used for harm should have a separate rating in the AP section then, analogous to how we do with Environmental Destruction for lesser tiers.
I.e. If the "power" (In metaphysical sense) is different from the "power" (what can actually be used to harm an opponent), then the former should be listed with a specifier to show that it isn't directly combat-applicable and both should be listed.

If i'm not wrong, simply you want to divide AP section into two parts?

I could be fine with that, though let see the actual example on a profile first to decide

Tbf, we already divide AP section into many parts depend on character like character A have X physical force, Z via Y special power, etc... (Explanation)

 

[Vzearr]

Problem​

There are a few oddities presented by the current setup of our Tiering System.

Despite tier being equivalent to Attack Potency, and thus, apparently representing how much a character can create/destroy, there are some tiers which don't properly line up with that:

Tier 1-A & High 1-A​

1-A and High 1-A are about a character's state of existence, without requiring them to be able to physically effect lower worlds to a high degree of destruction. Although, admittedly, one could excuse this by saying that them doing anything at all involving their more-real bodies entails them exerting 1-A AP. But this defence becomes less convincing for abstract/non-physical characters.

Tier High 1-A+ Type 2​

By "Type 2" I am referring to characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds.

Such characters cannot physically exert a change across all of themselves. If there was a change they could cause upon themselves, resulting in there being different possible worlds before and after, then they were not truly embodying "all possible worlds" in at least one of those states.

In other words, such characters would have durability far exceeding the space they can effect.

Tier 0​

As such beings are changeless, a change cannot be exerted on an entity of their scale. While such characters could be the creators of a High 1-A+ Type 2 reality, they could not ever create/destroy a Tier 0.

So, on top of their durability exceeding that which they can effect, this rating is not possible to reach in terms of attack potency, if we're being strict about that only encompassing creation/destruction.

Solutions​

As far as I see it, there are three consistent solutions we could have for this:

1. Allow size/state to qualify by itself past a certain point (probably High 3-A, Low 2-C, or 1-A; but it could start at 10-C or even lower).
2. Allow size/state to qualify by itself, but place a certain conditional on that, and also rate how much they can affect. So certain profiles could be "High 1-A, 0 via size" or "4-C, Low 2-C via size".
3. Make current Tier 0 a durability-exclusive rating.

Out of these, I prefer 2>1>3

Actually 3 is the best solution here.

Tier 0 beings are fundamentally changeless, meaning that by definition (remaining the same), no amount of destructive power can alter or eliminate them. Trying to chuck Tier 0 into an Attack Potency framework creates a contradiction because It makes us rate abstract entities as having durability that wildly outweighs the force they can exert, and that kinda violates the core principle that AP should quantify a character's destructive capacity on the world. The simplest fix is to make Tier 0 a durability exclusive rating.

Yeah, I think 1 is pretty clearly the option the system presupposes currently. The general idea between the qualitative tiers is just a kind of power that fully dominates some given plurality of things while being irreducible to it, i.e. The power can't be divided down into the plurality so as to be exhausted by it, and the plurality can't be added up to itself (Or to anything else) to match the power. So for example: Low 1-A has no quantitative endpoint at all, you can just go on forever into it, hence a character that has full domain over arbitrarily big Low 1-A realms has a sort of power that can't be equated with any one of these realms nor gauged up as a "sum" of them all, thus resolved into a different sort of infinity altogether (=qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, greater). Likewise a High 1-A character would have power over any and all extensions of 1-A, while not being exhausted by any one of these potential effects.

(To be clear I say the logic holds true regardless of whether the lower tier has a determinate sum or not, hence Tier 0 is superior to High 1-A+, the latter being sort of like the differentiated "expression" of the former, by the same line of thought even as High 1-A+ is supposed to be a completed 'space.' But the indefinitely rising nature of the tiers immediately below 1-A and High 1-A helps illustrate it)

Rating the AP of that as just "Arbitrarily into Low 1-A" or "Arbitrarily into 1-A" doesn't really make sense in my eyes because it's not like their power is indeterminate (Even under a hypothetical where it has no causal influence on its own level of reality). It's an entirely determinate thing that actually, and not just potentially, encompasses and exceeds all possible lower levels (The generative "wellspring" behind all the effects they cause, so to say), which the aforementioned move fails to note, and noting that in their durability section is obviously really awkward, just off the fact that "Attack Potency" is widely viewed as just the explanatory correlative of the "Tier" stat. So the only sensible solution to my mind is modulating the definition of AP a little (At least for these tiers) such that it doesn't include just the external effects that a character dishes out but also the potency those effects emerge from. And this is especially apt given that, from 1-A and up, the "potency" in question generally just identifies itself with the "physiology" (so-to-speak) of the character, save in the odd-case where it's a 3-D character with hax or hax-adjacent amps mimicking a 1-A scope.

This is just overcomplicating it. You're conflating a character’s scope with attack potency, which is supposed to measure actual effect, not potential.

 

[Vietthai96]

Actually 3 is the best solution here.

Tier 0 beings are fundamentally changeless, meaning that by definition (remaining the same), no amount of destructive power can alter or eliminate them. Trying to chuck Tier 0 into an Attack Potency framework creates a contradiction because It makes us rate abstract entities as having durability that wildly outweighs the force they can exert, and that kinda violates the core principle that AP should quantify a character's destructive capacity on the world. The simplest fix is to make Tier 0 a durability exclusive rating.

This is just overcomplicating it. You're conflating a character’s scope with attack potency, which is supposed to measure actual effect, not potential.

This comment was granted permission from me. Though the restoration of this comment already exhausted the perm to write 1 comment from thread mod. If you want to write more, please asking for new perm, and also next time remember to ask perm from staff before making comment

 

[Jin2188]

Alternative proposal then: Power applications that can't be used for harm should have a separate rating in the AP section then, analogous to how we do with Environmental Destruction for lesser tiers.
I.e. If the "power" (In metaphysical sense) is different from the "power" (what can actually be used to harm an opponent), then the former should be listed with a specifier to show that it isn't directly combat-applicable and both should be listed.

Isn't this just Option 2?

 

[Jin2188]

I believe I've already indicated that I disagree.

High 1-A+ Type 2 is the effective AP held by Tier 0 beings. So it's not a durability-only tier.

Well, I meant that right now it's basically a durability-only tier. That might change based on the fact that you, I and I believe Ultima now consider Tier 0 to have High 1-A+ Type 2 AP.

And High 1-A+ Type 1 durability seems fine as a concept, even if it's treated as a pretty loose one. They would not have Type 2 durability.

Okay, I don't think I properly articulated my issue here. Let me try again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering how it's been described to me, the difference between High 1-A+ Type 1 and Type 2 is essentially the difference between the limit as x goes to infinity, and infinity itself. The difference between AP and Durability is that AP is active while the other is (usually) passive.

A High 1-A+ Type 1 character can never manipulate the set of all possible worlds ("infinity") but can asymptotically approach it by manipulating arbitrarily large subsets of it. If you're attacking with "High 1-A+" power, what you're really doing is essentially deciding how powerful you want the attack to be, which can be any "finite value".

There's no problem with this, because AP is active, and it would be the same story for any other active statistic. If there were a "High 1-A+" analogue for Speed or Range, such characters would essentially be able to "choose" how fast they move or how far they want their attacks to reach, but it wouldn't be "infinite", just arbitrarily high. No issue here.

The problem appears when we attempt to apply this logic to a passive statistic like Durability. How do you have "arbitrarily high" Durability? Such characters certainly aren't "choosing" how high they want their Durability to be, since it's supposed to be passive. Is it like, some kind of passive power which sets their Durability to "The enemy's AP + 1"? What's the functional difference between that and High 1-A+ Type 2 Durability? The same issue is present for all passive statistics, let's use Stamina to further bring home the point. There's no coherent notion of "arbitrarily high" Stamina, an inexhaustible supply or "however much the person needs at the time" would probably just be considered Infinite.

So essentially, I'm not really sure whether Type 1 characters should have Type 2 durability, but we need to figure out something because I don't think we can even have a coherent notion of "Type 1 Durability".

 

[Agnaa]

Durability can be active (i.e. using energy to harden one's body). If the High 1-A+ being is flinging themselves into more-real parts of possibility space, then their durability would follow along with them.

But I do agree that characters who reach that tier through statements of being able to do anything would be a lot weirder in that context.

I'm not familiar with the practicalities of the characters which actually qualify, so idk if that durability is a coherent notion for most/any or not.

I think we technically allow matches to be made between High 1-A+ characters, but I don't know how we practically treat them either.

 

[Jin2188]

Durability can be active (i.e. using energy to harden one's body). If the High 1-A+ being is flinging themselves into more-real parts of possibility space, then their durability would follow along with them.

That's why I said it's usually passive.

I looked through all the High 1-A+ characters (which took a really long time of digging through the High 1-A section, it sure would be nice if it were its own tier, wouldn't it?) and I don't think most of them function the way you're describing here.

 

[Jin2188]

Bump