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

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

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

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

Tier 2 hotfix.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wankbreaker

Wankbreaker

VS Battles
Translation Helper
818
593
Currently, this wiki treats the strength of tier 2's by the amount of "universes" or space-time continuums they can destroy or survive having exploded in their face.
While it may seem sound or even obvious that a character that can exert "Infinite-multiversal" levels of power is stronger than a character who can "only" exert power over 2 universes, such difference is an illusion..

How, you may ask? It's simple. All "multiversal" characters are still affecting an infinite amount of points on a 4D scale, this is the same reasoning as why adding or multiplying anything by infinity, even itself, is still infinity. It's still the same level of infinity, not a "higher" one. The logic behind this should be simple to grasp, so i dont think i need to go any further into this.

What does this mean? All sub-sections of tier 2 should be unified.

basically turning this:

Low 2-C: Universe level+​

Characters or objects whose power is uncountably infinitely greater than the prior tiers. That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that exceed lesser objects by an uncountably infinite margin. An example of this is 4-dimensional spacetime continuums of universal size, but this can be generalized to any 4-dimensional structure of a similar scope.

into this:

2: Multiverse level​

Characters or objects whose power is uncountably infinitely greater than the prior tiers. That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that exceed lesser objects by an uncountably infinite margin. An example of this is 4-dimensional spacetime continuums of universal size, but this can be generalized to a 4-dimensional structure of any arbitrary "size".

Agree:
Neutral: @Agnaa
Disagree: @DarkDragonMedeus
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
Cons:
  • It goes against how a lot of fiction operates.
  • It makes Tier 2 ridiculously huge.
When I weigh all of that, I'm neutral.
Click to expand...
A lot of fiction treats finite multipliers in strength to infinite characters as superior (see: DB), yet the tier rating itself stays the same, as far as im aware.
The same concept here: multiplying infinities does not give you a higher result.

Obviously there will be cases above baseline, in the case of finite or even infinite direct power multipliers afterward, but nothing that deserves different subtiers, as they are technically affecting constructs of the same size.
 
Wankbreaker said:
A lot of fiction treats finite multipliers in strength to infinite characters as superior (see: DB)
Click to expand...
unless they're not meant to be infinitely strong
Wankbreaker said:
Obviously there will be cases above baseline, in the case of finite or even infinite direct power multipliers afterward, but nothing that deserves different subtiers, as they are technically affecting constructs of the same size.
Click to expand...
That does improve the concept a bit.

Sadly, I also realised that this would give Tier 2 a very different formatting from the rest of our system, which may be confusing for visitors, which does worsen the concept a bit. Best remedy would probably be shifting some of Tier 1 down, since it's currently a bit overcrowded, but that also increases the workload.
 
Wankbreaker said:
A lot of fiction treats finite multipliers in strength to infinite characters as superior (see: DB), yet the tier rating itself stays the same, as far as im aware.
The same concept here: multiplying infinities does not give you a higher result.

Obviously there will be cases above baseline, in the case of finite or even infinite direct power multipliers afterward, but nothing that deserves different subtiers, as they are technically affecting constructs of the same size.
Click to expand...
In fairness, I doubt that the intention within the work itself is that this happens, rather than just a consequence of how verses like Dragon Ball fit into our system.

I do not mind this in concept, given it is technically correct but it's a fairly large workload that like Agnaa said, also makes the formatting and tiering look off. That said, I'm rather leery of shifting Tier 1 down to compensate.
 
Agnaa said:
unless they're not meant to be infinitely strong
Click to expand...
dont wanna get into that can of worms
Agnaa said:
That does improve the concept a bit.

Sadly, I also realised that this would give Tier 2 a very different formatting from the rest of our system, which may be confusing for visitors, which does worsen the concept a bit. Best remedy would probably be shifting some of Tier 1 down, since it's currently a bit overcrowded, but that also increases the workload.
Click to expand...
0 is also a tier without any subtiers, is it not? It's way different conceptually, but the idea exists.
I would actually say the contrary though: Wouldnt packing everything up into one unified tier actually be easier to understand? (especially off site, i see some people say that multipliers would get you higher into tier 2.)

Tier 1 has an entirely different concept, being the tier of higher infinities and such, and would actually be harder to implement than what i'm proposing.
 
We can get technical about this but realistically, this is not how this concept tends to be treated in fiction. I'd consider this to be a case of a worthwhile concession to make for the sake of user-friendliness and being more in line with how fiction tends to handle destroying one space-time vs. multiple. And as a minor aside, I do not like how this proposed new tier looks. And then there's the age-old matter of too much work for not enough gain

So I'd have to say I disagree with this revision
 
CloverDragon03 said:
We can get technical about this but realistically, this is not how this concept tends to be treated in fiction. I'd consider this to be a case of a worthwhile concession to make for the sake of user-friendliness and being more in line with how fiction tends to handle destroying one space-time vs. multiple. And as a minor aside, I do not like how this proposed new tier looks. And then there's the age-old matter of too much work for not enough gain

So I'd have to say I disagree with this revision
Click to expand...
Like i said earlier, finite multipliers applied to tier 2 characters are also treated as superior in fiction, yet this wiki doesnt tier them differently, because there is no quantifiable difference if you get to the root of it.

each of the other tiers have some difference between them, yet tier 2is just "affecting infinite 4D space, except we've decided somehow that this infinite space-time is somehow "bigger" than the other one.
 
I significantly disagree with this. Sure it is on the same level of infinity but it should be noted that tier 2 isn't a tier section that strictly deals with higher levels of infinities. Our tiering system has traditionally maintained 3 dividers to the 4-D system of scaling for many years, and crap tons of characters who are tier 2 notably have their scales placed on the number of universes/space-time continuums they are capable of destroying. The multiversal tiering system is more widespread and known throughout fiction and the battleboarding community, and traditionally have been scaling multiversal characters based on the number of universes they scale to; the degree of infinity isn't taken in; no one would argue that a Low 2-C and 2-A character are on the same plane of infinity -- thus, a 2-A can easily one-shot and dominate a 2-B character in tiering and that is a completely valid fact. Going by this logic, we could also merge all the tiers 10-3 into a single tier, and the possibility of that even being worth consideration is just zero.
 
GarrixianXD said:
I significantly disagree with this. Sure it is on the same level of infinity but it should be noted that tier 2 isn't a tier section that strictly deals with higher levels of infinities.
Click to expand...
I said tier 1,not 2 btw
GarrixianXD said:
Our tiering system has traditionally maintained 3 dividers to the 4-D system of scaling for many years, and crap tons of characters who are tier 1 notably have their scales placed on the number of universes/space-time continuums they are capable of destroying. The multiversal tiering system is more widespread and known throughout fiction and the battleboarding community, and traditionally have been scaling multiversal characters based on the number of universes they scale to; the degree of infinity isn't taken in; no one would argue that a Low 2-C and 2-A character are on the same plane of infinity -- thus, a 2-A can easily one-shot and dominate a 2-B character in tiering and that is a completely valid fact.
Click to expand...
Tier 1 characters? im pretty sure they do not.
What's more known isnt always the most "correct"
GarrixianXD said:
Going by this logic, we could also merge all the tiers 10-3 into a single tier, and the possibility of that even being worth consideration is just zero.
Click to expand...
the logic is entirely different. those tiers are finite, therefore adding or multiplying them would actually make a difference. false equivalence
 
Wankbreaker said:
I said tier 1,not 2 btw

Tier 1 characters? im pretty sure they do not.
What's more known isnt always the most "correct"
Click to expand...
I meant tier 1. Yeah, fuсk.
Wankbreaker said:
the logic is entirely different. those tiers are finite, therefore adding or multiplying them would actually make a difference. false equivalence
Click to expand...
Yes, those tiers are finite, however, it doesn't change the fact that they operate on the same logic as other tiers of our tiering system, and not to mention those tiers are as popular as all of the tier 2 subtiers. A 2-C one-shot a Low 2-C just like how a 3-A can one-shot a 10-B. Same logic, hope you get what I meant.

The main issue of this proposal is rather unnecessarily lessening the broadness of tier 2, as I said before, we shouldn't be dealing with higher infinities as there isn't a strict requirement for that in 4-D multiversal scaling. Also the popularity and the quantity of tier 2 characters, and how well it is widely known compared to the other hyperdimensional tier 1 subtiers.
 
Wankbreaker said:
Like i said earlier, finite multipliers applied to tier 2 characters are also treated as superior in fiction, yet this wiki doesnt tier them differently, because there is no quantifiable difference if you get to the root of it.

each of the other tiers have some difference between them, yet tier 2is just "affecting infinite 4D space, except we've decided somehow that this infinite space-time is somehow "bigger" than the other one.
Click to expand...
Tier 2 actually isn't just affecting infinite 4-D space, it can be any 4-D space as long as it's at least universal in size. There are actual problems with Tier 2, such as how we made up the whole "needing to be of significant size" thing and the fact that 2-C and 2-B have arbitrary cutoffs, but this doesn't effectively address such problems.

To begin with, two space-time continua can absolutely be "bigger" in a sense. There are such things as one space-time continuum being countably infinitely bigger than another, for instance
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Tier 2 actually isn't just affecting infinite 4-D space, it can be any 4-D space as long as it's at least universal in size. There are actual problems with Tier 2, such as how we made up the whole "needing to be of significant size" thing and the fact that 2-C and 2-B have arbitrary cutoffs, but this doesn't effectively address such problems.
Click to expand...
time actually NEEDS to have an infinite amount of "points" in order to function, fyi. by definition, they are all "infinite".
CloverDragon03 said:
To begin with, two space-time continua can absolutely be "bigger" in a sense. There are such things as one space-time continuum being countably infinitely bigger than another, for instance
Click to expand...
a verse can indeed treat one to be "bigger" than the other, but from an indexing purpose, such difference might as well not exist.
 
Wankbreaker said:
time actually NEEDS to have an infinite amount of "points" in order to function, fyi. by definition, they are all "infinite".
Click to expand...
I mean if you wanna get technical, then sure. But that's not what tends to be referred to - rather, it's the size of the space itself
Wankbreaker said:
a verse can indeed treat one to be "bigger" than the other, but from an indexing purpose, such difference might as well not exist.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem in your proposal: it's pretty much entirely appealing to reality, regardless of how such things are treated in fictional verses
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I mean if you wanna get technical, then sure. But that's not what tends to be referred to - rather, it's the size of the space itself
Click to expand...
sure,makes sense.
CloverDragon03 said:
And that's the problem in your proposal: it's pretty much entirely appealing to reality, regardless of how such things are treated in fictional verses
Click to expand...
Obviously there will be cases above baseline, in the case of finite or even infinite direct power multipliers afterward, but nothing that deserves different subtiers, as they are technically affecting constructs of the same size.
Click to expand...
the other tiers have a "size" or "Quality" difference that seperates them. Tier 2 does not.
also not really, as this is the same reason why multipliers dont net you deeper into tier 2.
 
I am going to have to strongly disagree with this; I have seen too many threads attempting to merge certain parts of Tier 2; not to mention it would be harmful to have to think of ways to reorganize the Low 1-C and above. It would really make out system disorganized to nuke the A, B, and C's. And it's even more extreme than all those rejected attempts to merge 2-C with 2-B even. So I highly doubt staff majority is even going to agree.

And either way, fiction doesn't really follow every logic like this; inherently, destroying 2 or more timelines at once is considered unfathomably above destroying one timeline. So separating Low 2-C from 2-C is an absolute minimum that needs to stick. Likewise, an infinite number is still objectively larger; also keep in mind that even 2-C and above is actually technically limited degrees of 5-D. Which makes the proposal moot.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I am going to have to strongly disagree with this; I have seen too many threads attempting to merge certain parts of Tier 2; not to mention it would be harmful to have to think of ways to reorganize the Low 1-C and above. It would really make out system disorganized to nuke the A, B, and C's. And it's even more extreme than all those rejected attempts to merge 2-C with 2-B even. So I highly doubt staff majority is even going to agree.

And either way, fiction doesn't really follow every logic like this; inherently, destroying 2 or more timelines at once is considered unfathomably above destroying one timeline. So separating Low 2-C from 2-C is an absolute minimum that needs to stick.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this, at least
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Likewise, an infinite number is still objectively larger; also keep in mind that even 2-C and above is actually technically limited degrees of 5-D. Which makes the proposal moot.
Click to expand...
how is it objectively larger?

like i said to another user here:

If you are extending infinitely out of a universe into another space-time, you are also moving infinitely through the same axis that you need to enter another space-time.

You dont move 4th dimensionally and suddenly move 5th dimensionally. You would have to move 5th dimensionally from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Qawsedf234

Your help would be very appreciated here. 🙏
Click to expand...
I was toying around with something like the concept of this revision a while ago, but I'm pretty uninterested in it as it stands, especially with the Tiering System revisions and the leftovers from it still hanging. By consequence I'm indifferent towards this thread. (That said, I think making most of Tier 2 into a weird pseudo-5-D tier is a bad idea no matter what, but that's not a topic for this thread anyway)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Tier 2 revision: Changing Space Time Continuum Standards. (Never cook again.)
Replies
5
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
2
Replies
57
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fixxed
  • Locked
Bigger infinity should be uncountable infinity
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
MightyFrogBeyond
Is Tier 2-C/2-B/2-A, technically 5D in personal cosmology?
Replies
11
Views
749
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top