• 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.

2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Agnaa

I know, I'm saying "what's above baseline" is part of an individual's rhetoric, and not the site's standards or a issue with our tiering. We don't even write "this is above baseline" in AP descriptions. That is quite literally only a forum thing. And sorry, we can't force people to agree with us on that minute detail. It's out of our jurisdiction.

On paper, 2-A is 2-A. 2x 2-A is still rated as 2-A. Etc.

If in a debate, which is open to interpretation, someone is allowed to believe "Archie Sonic blah blah above baseline 2-A" all they want. That does not change that it is 2-A, no higher, no less.

I said a long time ago that this obsession over what's above baseline would get out of control one day, even when our ratings don't even imply it. We're arguing about opinions.
 
Well, we do enforce rules on forum-only interpretations of profiles. We decide what's a valid votecount, what's a valid wincon, what's a valid one-shot, etc. I don't know why we shouldn't dictate whether 2-A can go above baseline or not. It seems worse to leave it up to the whims of individual threads since that would lead to wide inconsistency across the site.
 
I have to agree with King here. Multiple verses like DC and Marvel treat the "megaverse" or "metaverse" (infinite multiverses) and other weird ass names like that as much larger than a sole infinite multiverse.
 
@King All that proves is that fiction if it so wishes can ignore the real life principles of infinity, something which I never claimed it couldn't. And fiction isn't a single entity, pulling up some examples to show infinity not abiding by real life logic does not establish how infinity functions in fiction as a whole, which is why asserting that "infinity doesn't work in fiction like it does in real life" doesn't work unless you believe these examples to be representative of all of fiction, rather than just a few specific examples

I have absolutely no problem accepting that infinity doesn't work like real life in a verse where it's demonstrated to not work like real life, but I don't think that verse speaks for something completely unrelated where there's no in universe reason to believe infinity works in a different way than reality
 
@Agnaa

That's true but we still don't even rank anything as being above baseline on paper. This is an issue worthy of discussion of course but I feel this is a "define our standards" thread and not a "general discussion about why people think this" thread.

We can convince others with our logic without changing our standards every time someone disagrees with us.
 
@Andy

>"And fiction isn't a single entity, pulling up some examples to show infinity not abiding by real life logic does not establish how infinity functions in fiction as a whole"

By that same token, I could say that "examples of fiction ignoring conservation of energy aren't indicative of fiction as a whole", which would be equally...misguided? (that doesn't seem like the correct word to use, but it's the closest one I can think of right now)

>"I have absolutely no problem accepting that infinity doesn't work like real life in a verse where it's demonstrated to not work like real life"

Which is exactly what a setting that contains "two or more infinite multiverses" would fall under.
 
Regardless, Pritti answered the question of "Do above baseline 2-A feats exist?" and offered the appropriate standard for it anyway. Even Andy says he doesn't disagree with her.
 
I think "We don't officially make any comment on baseline or being above it" has a stark difference from "Some people assert that this feat cannot be above baseline". In that we should be debating how two verses compare to each other in a thread, but if we can't agree on whether feats above baseline can exist we can't even start to have that conversation.

Sure but many things on here are purely opinion based without one prevailing logical answer. In these cases all we can really fall back on are the regulations. And creating regulations is more acceptable to people than having inconsistency across the site due to lack of them.
 
@King So you're saying there's a rule of infinity that dictates two infinite structures cannot exist within reality? That's what your last point implies
 
Logic and fiction interaction is assuming that logic works until it's contradicted.

A childs cartoon might rapresent being shot as leaving a hole in you that disappears the next scene, but we don't assume that for every fiction.

Assuming that multiple infinities is superior to destroying a single one would need in-verse reason. Because there being two multiverses doesn't automatically mean it was created to make a bigger infinity, it very well could be a reason for plot (say, someone changes a fundamental law of every universe, but another multiverse is unaltered. Or multiverses are divided by timelines, so one multiverse contains eevery possible outcome of a "base" timline, while another contains all the possibilities of a different base timeline).


I can agrew with feats existing above baseline, but that doesn't mean that every fiction with two infinities is superior to one. Because destroying one or two infinite mass objects shouldn't be superior to one-another, unless the verse plays it like that.
 
People can assert whatever they want. It's called "free-flowing debate". Yes we need regulations but mostly when they involve our indexing side of the wiki or affects what tries to get pushed in CRTs due to indexing being downstream from CRTs. However 2-A is still 2-A. A battle between two 2-As is nothing objective. It's solely based on whoever has the most compelling argument.

If we make regulations that discuss "because this person and a bunch of other people believe 2x2 infinite multiverses is/isn't above baseline 2-A" and practically force people to stay within those regulations of someone's else's opinion, that creates an echo chamber or a hive mind. At that point...we aren't really debating now are we?

Some regulation is needed, but not always. People disagree. We have to get over it.
 
>"So you're saying there's a rule of infinity that dictates two infinite structures cannot exist within reality? That's what your last point implies"

Having "two groups of an infinite number of X" contradicts the definition of "A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number". It implies that you can divide infinity in two, which you can't.

Having two groups of an infinite number of universes would be no different.

EDIT: I'm about to shower and go to bed. Whether I actually come back to this or not will depend on my mood when I wake up.
 
@Sera Yes but that leads to contradictory results. One match a character resists mindhax because we equalize mindhax resistance to work on other methods of mindhax. One match a character wins because those mindhax resist isn't equalized. If one match is considered a one-shot due to an 8x AP gap and another isn't then that is an issue. If one match has low-godly save a character from petrification and another doesn't then that is an issue.

How is it an echo chamber if everyone can express their opinions together to come to a conclusion on that regulation, and that regulation can be changed any time if the site's opinion on it changes? Hell, having a regulation seems less inclined to biased thinking since you won't have a group of 7 hivemind opinions steamrolling a thread with a result that the majority would disagree with.
 
It's just not relevant indexing wise. I personally don't think matches should be added anyway. Tiers change all the time so it creates uneeded extra work. That however, is an entirely different discussion.
 
Fair take.
 
@Sera

VS Matches are the only reason this site got as popular as it did, if they didn't exists Vs Battle Wiki would be MUCH smaller

So give them they respect they deserve
 
Overlord775 said:
@Sera

VS Matches are the only reason this site got as popular as it did, if they didn't exists Vs Battle Wiki would be MUCH smaller

So give them they respect they deserve
Click to expand...
No.
 
Is it normal, for a lot of the bigger posts seem to arrive whenever I'm either at work or asleep?

Anyway, I also think Mr King is making good points. And Sera is making sense that being above baseline 2-A is starting to make sense when you compare the in depth details of mathematics. And as for Vs Threads, we technically should keep them as they are indeed a major attraction, but I will say they're probably the most chaotic threads here. And of course it's annoying how many people want a quantity over quality debate. Spamming FRA over the fan favorite character is the definition of a popularity contest rather than an actual Vs debate.

And I'm not a big fan of adding and Vs Thread results either, but the Others section is still there for a reason.
 
@Overlord

Want a real argument? Ok...

The reason our site is so popular is due to the credibility of our statistics. Not our vs. matches. Our viewers recurrently visit to read our profiles, not our debate threads. Vs. Debating is an attraction for our community and is not a testament to our popularity in any significant way.

Also, I never said get rid of the Vs Thread board. I said I personally feel like we shouldn't add their results to profiles.

There, we just wasted more time with more derail.
 
I wouldn't use the "people think we're reasonable" argument since there's no valid measurement for that and there are large amounts of people off wiki that think we suck, but I digress.
 
Good lord what has this thread gone to....like i've literally spent like 2 hours carefully reading through this. Makes me hate the word "Infinite" now because of how sick I am of seeing it here lol. Anyway, its too early in the day for me to go through Algebra class, so im not equipped to reply to much of anything here. The one thing I WILL reiterate here just so my point of making this thread isn't missed:

Sera EX said:
Regardless, Pritti answered the question of "Do above baseline 2-A feats exist?" and offered the appropriate standard for it anyway. Even Andy says he doesn't disagree with her.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with Pritti's explanation, like Sera does. Just so people aren't confused here, I never said anything about characters above baseline being completely non-existent and I even said this in my OP. Obviously, there are other methods to determine if something is above baseline besides destroying an x amount of something. Like the method on how a feat is performed as Pritti explained perfectly. Like if you casually destroy a 2-A structure or use up all your strength to barely pull off the same feat. Or as said before, scaling chains to determine one characters superiority over another. Above baseline feats do exist and I was never against that.

The only problem I have with this standard was that we rate destroying a [insert number here] number of 2-A multiverses as being above baseline 2-A. Which, as people already explained themselves, is flawed. In terms of the feats in and of themselves, destroying 5 2-A multiverses should not be better than destroying 1. Not quantifiably better anyway. Being honest, the number of universes that a character destroys should become completely irrelevant once you hit 2-A. And like Pritti and DMB said before, power-scaling chains and the method of how the feats were performed should be the only way to determine whats above baseline 2-A.
 
That's correct.
 
I heavily disagree with what Sera said. As much as people like to say otherwise, our name is vs battles for a reason, and as much as Ant and others try to shift the focus, it's not going to change. You could make an argument that the profiles are the most important thing butversus threads are undoubtably at least a close second. People don't get introduced to the site because they're like "hmm I wonder how strong Kirby is." They're here because they want more than just what Death Battle gives them or who would win in a fight between Thor and Vegeta or something like that.
 
I disagree with you on that Cal. People debate vs matches all over the internet exponentially more than they do here. People get introduced to the site because they want to check how strong a character is and that's what the site is widely used for...by far.
 
Guys could you take that discussion to your message walls or something please?

This has gotten derailed enough as it is.
 
Antvasima, the most knowledgeable person on the wikia when it comes to our viewership and what's popular on our site, confirms it as such.

Look at our popular and trending pages and then look at our vs threads. There's little to no connection. How many Thanos threads are even being made nowadays? Yet, he's still a highly trending character due to Infinity War.

Again, our visitors care about the statistics because they're some of the most reliable on the site. Whereas our members care about vs threads. You have to be a Fandom user to even debate in a vs thread to begin with.

We have over a couple hundred active users last time I checked, but millions of viewers. It's clear what should be prioritized.
 
I worded it the way I did on purpose. I said ''introduced''. Whatever makes them stay is not what I was talking about.
 
Yobo Blue said:
Yes, but people come here primarily to change those statistics and stay to debate.
Click to expand...
A lot more people just use/view the info in our pages for other uses without signing up. Only a fraction of people actually join up.

Anyway, back to the topic. I agree with Kukui's last post.
 
They use it because they google "character vs" without deciding the opponent and that leads to this site getting many results. True story of how I discovered this site
 
Are we going to keep derailing or are we going to wrap this up?

You can debate with Antvasima about stats vs forum threads all you'd like.
 
I feel like this thread is going in circles, with the same arguments just being repeated over and over on both sides
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Low 2-C(Universal+) and 2-C(Low multiversal)
Replies
14
Views
531
Gp972
MightyFrogBeyond
How can I make a 5D atom beyond 2-A?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
DavidTPPM
DavidTPPM
TheUnshakableOne
Is this uncountably infinite whatever lol?
Replies
19
Views
979
TheUnshakableOne
TheUnshakableOne
Ezaru
Curled Up Strings
Replies
0
Views
403
Ezaru
Ezaru
HakutoRei000
  • Article Article
Is this HDE?
Replies
1
Views
118
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Back
Top