2-A and higher current standards

[ThanatosX]

I am planning on making a revision for our standards regarding baseline 2-A and higher since I don't agree with the current ones.

However, to start making it I need a comprehensive summary of how our standards are right now.

So, can someone make a summary in the replies of this post?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I think baseline 2-A is for characters able to destroy/create one infinite multiverse...

 

[ThanatosX]

I think baseline 2-A is for characters able to destroy/create one infinite multiverse...

That was before the revision.

Now, from what I know, even destroying an infinite amount of 2-A structures is still baseline, which is something I don't agree with.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

That was before the revision.

Now, from what I know, even destroying an infinite amount of 2-A structures is still baseline, which is something I don't agree with.

Me too

 

[Delta333]

However, to start making it I need a comprehensive summary of how our standards are right now.

They say that infinity multiplies with anything will still be infinity so there is no higher than baseline 2-A in term of AP,I have tried to explain why at least range should be higher than baseline before but still don't have the answer lol

 

[ThanatosX]

They say that infinity multiplies with anything will still be infinity so there is no higher than baseline 2-A in term of AP,I have tried to explain why at least range should be higher than baseline before but still don't have the answer lol

Thank you for the answer. I honestly doubt that a revision will change anything, but at least I want to try.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Now any more 2-A structures is still baseline because "is still infinite timelines all the same"

Despite there being high 3-A scalings, where we have infinite joules already.

Low 1-A literally being one dimension above high 1-B, which has infinite dimensions.

Range should be the bare minimun increased wih more structures, since hitting infinite timelines in one place doesn't mean your attack can travel to another 2-A structure and destroy it

 

[Dir333]

They say that infinity multiplies with anything will still be infinity so there is no higher than baseline 2-A in term of AP,I have tried to explain why at least range should be higher than baseline before but still don't have the answer lol

No more above baseline Anos???

 

[Delta333]

No more above baseline Anos???

I think his AP is still above baseline because the verse treats it like that,don't know about the range with current standard

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

here you will find the information you're searching for.

Or you should search the old threads for 2-A standards, I think Ultima and DT explained it in a more simplified way there.

 

[ThanatosX]

Thanks to everyone for the answers!

I am starting to work on the revision and it will probably take a while to complete it considering that I also have to give mathematical examples and such.

It will probably be useless and nothing will change, but trying is better then nothing in this situations.

 

[Delta333]

Good luck with your CRT,if it gets accepeted then my two fav verses will be upgraded as well lol

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Low 1-A literally being one dimension above high 1-B, which has infinite dimensions.

Not really how it works mathematically.

 

[Thelastmlg]

And yet the page says "one transcedence above infinite transcendences"

 

[Guardian_Doge]

And yet the page says "one transcedence above infinite transcendences"

Yes and notice how I said mathematically. If you add one layer to high 1-B, it isn't the equivalent to same transcendence. You can multiply infinity x infinity, it wouldn't equal Aleph 1 (Low 1-A here), plus there are different ways it's treated, under the continuum hypothesis, aleph 1 can be gotten by 2^infinity, since well the product would be an order of infinity higher than aleph null, which is the cardinality high 1-B represents here.

TL;DR You can't get a higher order of infinity by adding a single higher layer. Which is why I explicitly said mathematically too.

Edit, You should really read the FAQ, I have no idea where you got "one transcendence" from.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Alternatively, this tier can also be assigned to characters who transcend High 1-B structures when no further context regarding the nature of such transcendence is given.

the FAQ and aleph stuff really doesn't matter as long as this exists

 

[Guardian_Doge]

the FAQ and aleph stuff really doesn't matter

aleph stuff really doesn't matter

Also me: explicitly says mathematically
It's beyond me why you're still arguing this, when I have explained twice my position in this, I am very clearly speaking from the aleph sense.

 

[deonment]

Alternatively, this tier can also be assigned to characters who transcend High 1-B structures when no further context regarding the nature of such transcendence is given.

the FAQ and aleph stuff really doesn't matter as long as this exists

yes, transcend, in an ontological/qualitative manner, which unlike dimensions and their quantitative transcendence, also low 1-A is equivalent to a higher dimension for each real number (R-D) where high 1-B is just a higher dimension for each natural number (N-D)

 

[Sus]

Low 1-A literally being one dimension above high 1-B, which has infinite dimensions.

That's wrong

 

[Darksmash]

Pick your favourite pseudoscience, the thread

 

[Nehz_XZX]

"Note 1:

Due to the fact that the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A." (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System#Notes)

I guess this would also be part of the standards in regards to 2-A due to the mention of it at the end. There is also this note it shares with 2-C and 2-B:

""Significantly affect" is here used as an umbrella term for feats that don't involve direct creation or destruction but are comparable to them in power, such as warping and distorting the entirety of the structure in question, sustaining its existence with one's own, merging the structure with another one, etc." (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System#cite_note-SA2-2)

This page (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Multiverse) mentions infinite universes but doesn't really say much about it.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Also me: explicitly says mathematically
It's beyond me why you're still arguing this, when I have explained twice my position in this, I am very clearly speaking from the aleph sense.

Literally cherry picked parts of my argument while missing the entire quote i put

 

[Catzlaflame]

God why do you all have to turn everything single little thing into a debate

 

[Qawsedf234]

, even destroying an infinite amount of 2-A structures is still baseline

Its not baseline. We have a handful of franchises that are above baseline 2-A because they destroy multiple multiverse style objects.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Which verses, exactly? The only I recall are DnD, everything else is baseline even if they destroyed multiple multiverses.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Which verses, exactly? The only I recall are DnD, everything else is baseline even if they destroyed multiple multiverses.

PMMM

 

[Rikimarox2]

When was that? From every thread I saw, we assume it's baseline even for its range.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Which verses, exactly?

SMT is above it and some franchises have large scaling chains where they go above baseline 2-A like FEH.

 

[Rikimarox2]

When I meant above baseline, I meant destroying more multiverses stuff. Sure, you can be above baseline with scaling chains and multipliers, but the matter of fact is that a dude who destroys an one infinite multiverse from one verse is the same as a dude destroying an infinite amount of infinite multiverses from another verse.

 

[Qawsedf234]

one verse is the same as a dude destroying an infinite amount of infinite multiverses from another verse.

Because in that case its the same level of infinity. To get above baseline there needs to be some degree of separation between the multiverses.

Though that can probably be spelled out better somewhere.

 

[ThanatosX]

Its not baseline. We have a handful of franchises that are above baseline 2-A because they destroy multiple multiverse style objects.

Than I need a clarification regarding this question.

"For example if I had an infinite multiverse (2-A) that was contained within a timeline in which there are an infinite amount of, what tier would that be?"
Basically, an infinite amount of timelines with each one of them containing an infinite amount of Universes.

To me, this seems a lot higher than a baseline 2-A structure. Yet, most answers seemed to say that it still is baseline. Why? How much into 2-A would that be?

 

[Qawsedf234]

How much into 2-A would that be?

It would be at least one higher degree above standard 2-A

 

[ThanatosX]

It would be at least one higher degree above standard 2-A

Then I have to say that there is a lot of misinformation regarding the 2-A Tier, considering that many consider it to be only baseline.
Thanks for the clarification!

 

[theultimate5105]

Because in that case its the same level of infinity. To get above baseline there needs to be some degree of separation between the multiverses.

Seperation on its own is not enough
IDK what is even needed to get beyond baseline other then maybe infinite infinite multiverses

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Literally cherry picked parts of my argument while missing the entire quote i put

I didn't cherry pick anything, nor was I interested in the main topic of this thread.
I directly said to your low 1-A statement, "that's not how it works mathematically", you are not to shift a sense of burden on me, your quote is irrelevant because I directly explained in the mathematical sense how in terms of functionality, aleph 1 is not "one higher dimension" (your words by the way, not mine) then aleph null.
By your logic, countable infinite dimensions + 1 is uncountable infinite dimensions, when literally everyone who made low 1-A and up knows that not true.

Also, why don't you list an example of a character whose just "one layer" above high 1-B and is low 1-A, because clearly you're going to make this a circular argument considering how you are misinterpreting a basic amount of research done on cardinality of the continuum. I never denied that one layer above high 1-B can't be low 1-A, since layers can vary across fictionality's, but I explicitly have made my premise clear, one dimension above high 1-B cannot suddenly become low 1-A, because low 1-A to high 1-B is considered inaccessible in regards to the context of cardinality and set theory.

 

[Planck69]

Now any more 2-A structures is still baseline because "is still infinite timelines all the same"

Despite there being high 3-A scalings, where we have infinite joules already.

Not really the same since most High 3-A scaling is just multipliers and chains, which are allowed for 2-A. If some verses use multiple High 3-A objects as scaling for being higher into the tier then that just means the tier is due a revision.

Low 1-A literally being one dimension above high 1-B, which has infinite dimensions.

Not quite? Low 1-A is still uncountably infinite levels of transcendence over standard 3-dimensional beings. The only other case for assigning it is to compromise when a character is transcends a High 1-B structure but doesn't have enough evidence for 1-A.

Range should be the bare minimun increased wih more structures, since hitting infinite timelines in one place doesn't mean your attack can travel to another 2-A structure and destroy it

Wasn't this addressed in the FAQ?