2-C and 2-B Tier merge

[PrinceofPein]

Can see the reason for this thread, but why make a distinction between 1 and 2, what’s the reason? Both are finite

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know if you've noticed, but we've been suggesting to enforce specifying the maximum number of universes that characters can destroy in their AP description to go along with this tier fusion. You know, like what we already do for 1-B and the number of levels of transcendence in many cases? Or hell, even everything below tier 2 with joule values?

I may misunderstand your intentions due to my serious available time limitations, but we do have tiers Low 1-C, 1-C, and High 1-C in-between 2-A and 1-B. We do not just throw all specification out of the window and compress it all into a single "6-dimensional infinity to any finite degree of infinity" tier.

 

[Antvasima]

Can see the reason for this thread, but why make a distinction between 1 and 2, what’s the reason? Both are finite

1 and 2 universes? Because the 5-dimensional distance between them needs to be breached as well, but I do not think that this thread wants to merge tiers Low 2-C, 2-C, and 2-B, just 2-C and 2-B.

 

[KLOL506]

You called my perspective asinine and unworthy of being taken seriously.

I didn't call them that without pointing out why they were so.

How is wanting greater specifics/accuracy illogical, and how is creating a merged tier for 2 to near infinity not anymore arbitrary than what we have now?

Except you're not wanting greater specifics or accuracy here, otherwise you would have actual arguments for your claims.

So tell me, what actual basis do you have to enforce more tiers other than "Massive AP difference between the two"?

We end up with largely arbitrary borders no matter what we do, and have such a system for a lot of the lower tiers as well, in lack of better options, as DontTalk has argued for in the past.

The tiers that we ended up with the arbitrary borders for don't involve Tiers 5, 4 or 3, those we had used actual celestial bodies for our basis.

Again, the number 2 is just as arbitrary as the number 1001.

Elaborate.

If you want to modify the 1001 number to something higher, or add an extra tier range in-between, that seems far more reasonable to me.

Why? That's just peak redundancy at its finest.

Anyway, I am very behind with my work, and currently have 38 other discussions to respond to, as well as my daily edit-patrolling after that, and a for me important real world meeting tomorrow, so I cannot spend several hours wasting time here. My apologies.

Ant, friend, don't get me wrong, but you are not the only one with responsibilities to uphold here. There are dozens of staff members who are just as busy as you are if not busier, and yet they're more than willing to pitch in to help out with this. I get your contributions and everything you have done for this wiki but to deny this revision because of this is... just wrong.

 

[Antvasima]

There is literally no difference from what this CRT is suggesting to what 3-A and 1-B already do. If you don’t have a problem with those, there’s no logical reason to have a problem with this.

Tier 2-B already does what tier 3-A and 1-B do, but in each case we have several lower tiers for greater specification available

 

[PrinceofPein]

1 and 2 universes? Because the 5-dimensional distance between them needs to be breached as well, but I do not think that this thread wants to merge tiers Low 2-C, 2-C, and 2-B, just 2-C and 2-B.

If this about merging all finite universes, then there is no ned for any distinction between them, as 1 and 2 is not enough gap for a tier separation if 2 and 1090920282028 is not enough gap.

Also the entire 5-D gap thing would be addressed later, as realistically speaking it should not be so

 

[KLOL506]

I may misunderstand your intentions due to my serious available time limitations, but we do have tiers Low 1-C, 1-C, and High 1-C in-between 2-A and 1-B. We do not just throw all specification out of the window and compress it all into a single "6-dimensional infinity to any finite degree of infinity" tier.

Pretty sure those are a lot more complicated than your typical rudimentary 4-D timelines. Those are a literal step up the chain of existential superiority that Tier 2 simply can't fathom by its very nature.

It gets even worse when you get to 1-B. Unless you want to give more sub-tiers to that even and further complicate things?

 

[Planck69]

You called my perspective asinine and unworthy of being taken seriously.

He called your perspective asinine Ant, not you. That's not an ad hominem.

How is wanting greater specifics/accuracy illogical, and how is creating a merged tier for 2 to near infinity not anymore arbitrary than what we have now?

It isn't because it clearly defines a tier for multiple universes of any finite tier.

We end up with largely arbitrary borders no matter what we do, and have such a system for a lot of the lower tiers as well, in lack of better options, as DontTalk has argued for in the past.

Again, the number 2 is just as arbitrary as the number 1001.

This is just silly. 2 is the minimum amount of universes one can destroy that are more than a single space-time continuum.

If you want to modify the 1001 number to something higher, or add an extra tier range in-between, that seems far more reasonable to me.

No more reasonable than adding idk, Mid 1-B for 1,000 to 1,000,000,000 dimensions.

 

[LordTracer]

Tier 2-B already does what tier 3-A and 1-B do, but in each case we have several lower tiers for greater specification available

Then why exactly do you have a problem with changing the lower border of 2-B to a number that isn’t completely arbitrary?

 

[KLOL506]

If this about merging all finite universes, then there is no ned for any distinction between them, as 1 and 2 is not enough gap for a tier separation if 2 and 1090920282028 is not enough gap.

This is indeed about merging the number of finite universes involved.

Also the entire 5-D gap thing would be addressed later, as realistically speaking it should not be so

Nothing related to 5-D is for this discussion. This is just a naming discussion and merge that is not meant to affect anything else in the long run.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I am in agreement with the general consensus, Ant.

It might be a bit over my head, but even I can see that the whole point of this is to make labelling tiers easier in the long run, instead of picking some random number and saying "Yeah, that's far enough to get into <infinity univeral power."

Please don't be stubborn due to the stress you obviously have of being overworked. If you look at the math of it, it's very simple and logical.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This is indeed about merging the number of finite universes involved.

So why the distinction between 1 and 2?

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

So why the distinction between 1 and 2?

Because of the apparent gap between 2 Universes being substantial enough to suggest a jump in tier

 

[Antvasima]

I didn't call them that without pointing out why they were so.

No, you seemed to use the accusations to get greater leverage through a degree of dismissive hostility, even though we are discussing a rather subjective topic.

Except you're not wanting greater specifics or accuracy here, otherwise you would have actual arguments for your claims.

I have offered the option for you to add more tiers rather than decrease them, so of course I want as great accuracy as possible. I am thoroughly obsessed with verifiable truth and accuracy. Why do you think that I organised the massive growth of this wiki in the first place?

So tell me, what actual basis do you have to enforce more tiers other than "Massive AP difference between the two"?

That is the entire point of this entire wiki. To provide structure, organisation, and distinctions. Lessening it is antithetical to that.

The tiers that we ended up with the arbitrary borders for don't involve Tiers 5, 4 or 3, those we had used actual celestial bodies for our basis.

It doesn't matter. Mashing together characters that are almost infinitely weaker than others into the same tier when it isn't necessary, doesn't sit right with me at all. Accuracy should always be the greatest goal for us to strive towards as a community.

Elaborate.

We have to set the lower border somewhere no matter what we do, and I am open for adjusting the 1000/1001 numbers, but reduced accuracy goes against the entire inherent point of our wiki, no matter how much you try to dismiss it here.

Why? That's just peak redundancy at its finest.

Because again, no matter what we do, the borders will be chosen from subjective personal preference, and I tried to throw you a compromise solution peace offering, but you seem to be in a very hostile mood today.

Ant, friend, don't get me wrong, but you are not the only one with responsibilities to uphold here. There are dozens of staff members who are just as busy as you are if not busier, and yet they're more than willing to pitch in to help out with this. I get your contributions and everything you have done for this wiki but to deny this revision because of this is... just wrong.

One of my greatest responsibilities is to ensure that we constantly strive for increased accuracy as a community, not to reduce it, so what is suggested here largely goes against my belief system in that regard, unless I have misunderstood what you are arguing for.

In addition, I am easily the member who has invested the most hard work into this community itself, but other members, such as Medeus, obviously have other additional real world responsibilities, so I am definitely not dismissing that. However, I still need to keep up with ALL of my work and not focus entirely on spamming repetitive bickering posts in a single thread alone, and also get sufficient amounts of sleep and exercise, so my health does not significantly suffer in the process.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Because of the apparent gap between 2 Universes being substantial enough to suggest a jump in tier

but 2 and 103002093803082 is not enough?

 

[Antvasima]

Then why exactly do you have a problem with changing the lower border of 2-B to a number that isn’t completely arbitrary?

Because, again, we have many lower tiers as buffers between the finite and the infinite values before either tiers 1-B and 3-A.

In the case of tier 2, I think that 1000 universes were suggested by DarkLK due to it being quite uncommon to go beyond that within fiction.

I am of course open for other borders or adding another tier for extra distknction, but I find it extremely unspecific to use the border 2 and infinity - 1. I do not understand why several of you seem to have such a hostile reaction to this.

 

[Antvasima]

I am in agreement with the general consensus, Ant.

It might be a bit over my head, but even I can see that the whole point of this is to make labelling tiers easier in the long run, instead of picking some random number and saying "Yeah, that's far enough to get into <infinity univeral power."

Please don't be stubborn due to the stress you obviously have of being overworked. If you look at the math of it, it's very simple and logical.

Well, I mainly have a strong aversion to very misleading and unspecific lack of accuracy, and I am very unlikely to change my mind in this regard not matter what is said here, as that is part of how I and our wiki are both built to function.

 

[KLOL506]

No, you seemed to use the accusations to get greater leverage through a degree of dismissive hostility, even though we are discussing a rather subjective topic.

No Ant, those were genuine concerns. To see this coming from someone who has done so much for this wiki, I am actually terribly disappointed.

I have offered the option for you to add more tiers rather than decrease them, so of course I want as great accuracy as possible. I am thoroughly obsessed with verifiable truth and accuracy. Why do you think that I organised the massive growth of this wiki in the first place?

And somehow you still fail to see how adding more tiers here would actually be less accurate than the proposal we have right now.

That is the entire point of this entire wiki. To provide structure, organisation, and distinctions. Lessening it is antithetical to that.

Redundancy and arbitrations from this supposed increase you are proposing, are tenfold worse.

It doesn't matter. Mashing together characters that are almost infinitely weaker than others into the same tier when it isn't necessary, doesn't sit right with me at all. Accuracy should always be the greatest goal for us to strive towards as a community.

You do realize that this problem would still persist for 2-B characters as a whole, right? And 1-B?

We have to set the lower border somewhere no matter what we do, and I am open for adjusting the 1000/1001 numbers, but reduced accuracy goes against the entire inherent point of our wiki, no matter how much you try to dismiss it here.

There is no reduced accuracy here at all, it's literally just the merging of plural number of universes into one single tier.

Because again, no matter what we do, the borders will be chosen from subjective personal preference, and I tried to throw you a compromise solution peace offering, but you seem to be in a very hostile mood today.

In with the accusations already, huh?

But very well, since you asked, you want to talk about subjectivity? Your proposals are even more subjective and even less based on actual logic other than "hurr durr character power difference" than what OP is actually providing. Let's not even pretend for a second that this doesn't affect 3-A or 1-B and yet people are fine with that.

One of my greatest responsibilities is to ensure that we constantly strive for increased accuracy as a community, not to reduce it, so what is suggested here largely goes against my belief system in that regard, unless I have misunderstood what you are arguing for.

By that logic you are going against your own work ethic by suggesting something even less accurate and even more redundant than what we have proposed.

In addition, I am easily the member who has invested the most hard work into this community itself, but other members, such as Medeus, obviously have other real world responsibilities, so I am definitely not dismissing that. However, I still need to keep up with ALL of my work and not focus entirely on spamming repetitive bickering posts in a single thread alone, and also get sufficient amounts of sleep and exercise, so my health does not sigbificantly suffer in the process.

Look Ant, we get it. We know your contributions to the wiki has been undeniable to the point where it wouldn't be where it is today without you.

That is still not an excuse to show this kind of level of stubbornness based on personal preference for characters and their power-level differences.

Also, if stuff like this genuinely affects your IRL activities, then you really need to take a break from it every once in a while and let the other staff handle it for once. You've earned this rest more than anyone else, and I'm pretty sure the wiki's not going to erupt into chaos if you took a day or two off.

 

[KLOL506]

but 2 and 103002093803082 is not enough?

Because those are plural. 1 universe is singular.

 

[Arceus0x]

LMAO

you're laughing yet your counters are funnier. Bet you don't even know how we use countless on this wiki.

Let me ask u a better question, is -
1. countless > 1000 or < 1000
2. countless > googol or < googol
3. countless > googolplex or < googolplex
4. countless > graham number or < graham number
5. countless > any finite higher number or < any finite higher number

countless can be something that cannot be counted by humans. We don't need math for this one. Just count how much a human could count if he spent his life counting. You could also use the amount of stars in the sky since people refer to them as countless all the time.

Do u see the problem now. U have basically made the most redundant tier as even u can't be sure as to who would qualify. Just tell me any popular character that would even qualify for ur version of 2-B

Ahem
Every Pokemon 2-B, every Maou Gaukin 2-B, every Sonic 2-B, every Mario 2-B, every Monster Strike 2-B, Every Cookie Run 2-B and more.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Not gonna lie, I kinda agree with the OP, no need to arbitrarily separate destroying a finite amount of universes into 2 Tiers IMO

 

[Arceus0x]

Countless isn't a quantifiable value beyond just being "a very large amount" so this isn't particularly something that needs focus on it.

We could use a more philosophical approach as in my reply above

 

[Antvasima]

KLOL506:

Well, maybe I have misunderstood, but I do not understand how reducing our number of tiers by mashing them together would not lessen our specifics and accuracy/make our problems even worse than they already are in that regard. Please elaborate.

 

[KLOL506]

KLOL506:

Well, maybe I have misunderstood, but I do not understand how reducing our number of tiers by mashing them together would not lessen our specifics and accuracy/make our problems even worse than they already are in that regard. Please elaborate.

You do realize that even with this merger you would still have to detail how many universes they destroyed, right? Why is everyone forgetting that?

Literally what this merger is is a name change and merging the aspects of busting multiple universes into one precise tier, which removes the arbitrary limit, the redundancies and makes it significantly easier to properly index and explain. It'd be no different than 3-A accounting for all higher possible finite joule values or 1-B counting for all higher possible finite dimensions accounting for existential superiority. Except Tier 2 is still within the realms of 4-D so it's just that much easier to handle.

2-C is singular for one universe.

2-B is finite plural to any higher finite number.

2-A remains as is, infinite plural.

 

[Arceus0x]

You do realize that even with this merger you would still have to detail how many universes they destroyed, right? Why is everyone forgetting that?

Literally what this merger is is a name change and merging the aspects of busting multiple universes into one precise tier, which removes the arbitrary limit, the redundancies and makes it significantly easier to properly index and explain. It'd be no different than 3-A accounting for all higher possible finite joule values or 1-B counting for all higher possible finite dimensions accounting for existential superiority. Except Tier 2 is still within the realms of 4-D so it's just that much easier to handle.

2-C is singular for one universe.

2-B is finite plural to any higher finite number.

2-A remains as is, infinite plural.

Goku finally gets 2-C....

 

[KLOL506]

Goku finally gets 2-C....

Not in the way you hoped but yes

With the derailing out of the way, did you get permission to comment on this thread?

EDIT: NVM I DID CARRY ON

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

Goku finally gets 2-C....

̶Y̶e̶a̶h̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶I̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶ ̶̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ is ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶K̶a̶k̶a̶r̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶2̶-̶C̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶

 

[KLOL506]

̶Y̶e̶a̶h̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶I̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶ ̶̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ is ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶K̶a̶k̶a̶r̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶2̶-̶C̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶

You can rest easy knowing it's not about Kakarot.

Also, you get permission to comment on this thread? Defeats the purpose of it being Staff-Only if you haven't.

 

[KLOL506]

Not in the way you hoped but yes

With the derailing out of the way, did you get permission to comment on this thread?

NVM SKILL ISSUE IGNORE THIS COMMENT I GAVE YOU PERMISSION

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

PFFFT

 

[KLOL506]

Low 2-B and High 2-B Tier when?

This one I definitely do not remember giving permission to.

Aight, fun time's over, let's wait for further staff evaluations. I remember @Wokistan being eager to join this discussion but then he went to sleep.

 

[Arceus0x]

NVM SKILL ISSUE IGNORE THIS COMMENT I GAVE YOU PERMISSION

KLOL caught lacking twice in a row in 4k?

 

[KLOL506]

KLOL caught lacking twice in a row in 4k?

At least I admit my Ls

 

[Ayewale]

We already noted on the AP page which specific tier values were based on arbitrary bullshit and those range from 9-A to High 6-C, and then the tiers Low 6-B and High 6-B. Everything else we re-did ourselves, everything from High 5-A to 3-A.


You would run into the same problem within 2-B itself, a character with only 10K universes vs another character with 10 billion universes would be no less stupid than it already is right now.


Yeah no, the latter option's not happening, this proposal has been rejected countless times since even before I joined the wiki.

1. So you agree with me saying that a lot of the tiering system is arbitrary.
2. I acknowledged in my original post that having no distinction just because the system is somewhat arbitrary isn't any smarter than including some form of distinction. A Low/High 2-B just makes a decent amount of sense. If you were really hunting for a numbers.
   
   The distinction being arbitrary =/= Having nothing is better. It isn't.
3. A proposal being rejected often =/= the proposal cannot be accepted in the future.

I also don't agree with the idea that because something is somewhat arbitrary, it should be deleted. To reiterate my original post, the concept of a multiverse at large is completely arbitrary; the definition of a universe is literally to be "everything" or "all-encompassing", and multiverse theory is about as provable as religion (not even my opinion: multiple physicists have said this, and the scientific consensus in general is that there is no evidence for a multiverse existing, nor could it be proved). You could make a solid argument for collapsing most tiers above 3-A due to them being arbitrary, but we don't, because even though those distinctions are pure malarky, they're still pretty convenient for tiering. Some people will try to bring up that higher tiers are partially based off other concepts like String Theory or the Many-Worlds Interpretation, but the central tenet of anything above 3-A is arbitrary (and the MWI is just as wacky, too).

Ultimately, the idea that every sub-tier needs to fall into some exact definition for a multiverse count is extremely odd. Although if you really wanted an arbitrary number for an arbitrary definition of a multiverse, you could take anything above 10^10^16 as High 2-B.

Also here's my original post because this thread is zooming and I don't want it to get buried.

TL;DR arbitrary =/= no distinctions are better, and this website already agrees because we still index multiverses. I STILL AGREE WITH MERGING 2-C AND 2-B, I just think 2-B should have a Low/High denotation. Please don't quote me thinking I don't want any merge I'm begging you

 

[KLOL506]

1. So you agree with me saying that a lot of the tiering system is arbitrary.

Maybe so, but at least those have actual reasons and some reference object to grasp upon. The arbitrary starting cap for 2-B doesn't.

1. I acknowledged in my original post that having no distinction just because the system is somewhat arbitrary isn't any smarter than including some form of distinction. A Low/High 2-B just makes a decent amount of sense. If you were really hunting for a numbers.
   
   The distinction being arbitrary =/= Having nothing is better. It isn't.
2. A proposal being rejected often =/= the proposal cannot be accepted in the future.

Way to completely ignore the point of OP I guess.

1. This isn't having nothing. OP has clearly given a much better solution that cuts down the redundancy and arbitration and actually makes the indexing and understanding much easier, less convoluted, more precise and more to the point.

2. Not sure how that relates here but I guess you do you.

I also don't agree with the idea that because something is somewhat arbitrary, it should be deleted. To reiterate my original post, the concept of a multiverse at large is completely arbitrary; the definition of a universe is literally to be "everything" or "all-encompassing", and multiverse theory is about as provable as religion (not even my opinion: multiple physicists have said this, and the scientific consensus in general is that there is no evidence for a multiverse existing, nor could it be proved). You could make a solid argument for collapsing most tiers above 3-A due to them being arbitrary, but we don't, because even though those distinctions are pure malarky, they're still pretty convenient for tiering. Some people will try to bring up that higher tiers are partially based off other concepts like String Theory or the Many-Worlds Interpretation, but the central tenet of anything above 3-A is arbitrary (and the MWI is just as wacky, too).

Where did we ever propose deletion?

As for the rest of the arbitrary parts, might as well just axe Tier 2 and 1 then and every other unrealistic aspect of fiction but we both know where this is going so let's not derail further with this.

Ultimately, the idea that every sub-tier needs to fall into some exact definition for a multiverse count is extremely odd. Although if you really wanted an arbitrary number for an arbitrary definition of a multiverse, you could take anything above 10^10^16 as High 2-B.

It's still a finite number to speak of. 2 universes to any higher finite number.

A multiverse's definition varies wildly between fiction, so already that value is a non-factor in these regards.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Because those are plural. 1 universe is singular.

That is not enough for a distinction tho, it is the same tier literally the same thing

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.

And how does this relate to my posts or question?
In a verse it is logical to assume that it is the same distance or is what you are saying the distance between the first 2 universes in a verse is always greater than the distance between any other universes in a verse, the distance between universes mean nothing here

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally I'm against it.
I could see how that might have been a nice way to put borders initially, but now we already have this distinction. And you have to know how many universes the characters can destroy anyway for ranking and stuff.
So I just see no objective advantage in the change. It neither makes profiles more accurate nor reduces workloads. Not like the border is any amount of hard to understand either. Hence the disadvantages of it being lots of work and changing what we are used to kinda outweigh for me.

 

[Duedate8898]

I got no issue with the OP

 

[CloverDragon03]

Personally I'm against it.
I could see how that might have been a nice way to put borders initially, but now we already have this distinction. And you have to know how many universes the characters can destroy anyway for ranking and stuff.
So I just see no objective advantage in the change. It neither makes profiles more accurate nor reduces workloads. Not like the border his any amount of hard to understand either. Hence the disadvantages of it being lots of work and changing what we are used to kinda outweigh for me.

The advantage is getting rid of the very arbitrary 1001 universes border. Like, can anyone actually explain why that's what was decided on as a boundary?

 

[Reiner04]

The advantage is getting rid of the very arbitrary 1001 universes border. Like, can anyone actually explain why that's what was decided on as a boundary?

DT is saying that it's unnecessary, even if the border is arbitrary, It's Given that 2B itself is greater feat than 2C and so distinction is defined in terms of power scaling in this case but what advantage it'll bring to merge them aside from making unnecessary workload? We always knew that 2B and 2C are divided over number of universes, there is no advantages of it as nothing about the character will change, 2B character has been a stomp over 2C character and will be regardless being merged or left as it is.