• 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-C and 2-B Tier merge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pain_to12 said:
Not really tbh, it does nothing much and there are way worse redundancy in the pages.
My point is that it adds nothing to the accuracy.
What does is actually naming the number of universe destroyed or created
Click to expand...
"Way worse redundancy" means... we fix the redundancy

We don't leave uselessness cause there's more uselessness
Pain_to12 said:
Not a valid distinction, putting one feat of equal size in a whole tier, while putting uncountable in the next one cramping them into a single tier.
Click to expand...
How is "a single one vs more than a single one" not a valid distinction
Pain_to12 said:
A better distinction would be.
1
2-1000
Click to expand...
Why is 1000 the cut off?
Why isn't it 500?
Why isn't it 100?
Why isn't 10?
 
The distinction is arbitrary, it must be accepted, there shouldn't be any denying over it. Either choose one over the reasons specified above by others or the other specified by others above. That's the whole thread is about.
 
KingTempest said:
"Way worse redundancy" means... we fix the redundancy

We don't leave uselessness cause there's more uselessness
Click to expand...
Not what I means but it’s fine.
I agree it is redundant and arbitrary like I said, but instead of turning 2-B into a cluster fvck, we can separate it better
KingTempest said:
How is "a single one vs more than a single one" not a valid distinction
Click to expand...
that’s not enough distinction to put a single feat with a single value in a tier while putting the rest in a single tier
It’s like putting 1 joule in a single tier then putting 2joules tilll infinite joules in the next tier.
We broke it up did we not?
From tier 11 to High 3-A.
We can do the same here to the best of our abilities
KingTempest said:
Why is 1000 the cut off?
Why isn't it 500?
Why isn't it 100?
Why isn't 10?
Click to expand...
Well we can’t exactly accommodate all numbers now can we?
But we at least group them by the category they fall into
 
Tanin_iver said:
Because 1 universal space is only 4-D (3 spatial, 1 time), while to affect two or more universes require atleast 5-D range (3 spatial, 1 time universe, an another spatial dimension to separate them) to affect so u kind of need 5-D power for this, however in this wiki we still take this as 4-D because reasons.
This is why we kind of get Low 2-C = 2-A bcos we take it as 4-D instead of 5-D.
Click to expand...
Tf where are you seeing you need 5-D range to affect two universes?
In fact this is totally wrong.
You don't need 5-D, in fact like I already explained the distance between 2 universes are usually voids.
Also a larger 4-D space would contain thousands of smaller one, so you don't need 5-D for anything, your here point is invalid.
if a 5-D space is stated to be in between universes and a character can affect it thats low 1-C, so this thing about 5-D is really pointless here and not a distinction
Tanin_iver said:
The problem here is that there is no difference between a character who can bust 1000 universes and a character who can just bust 3 universes, they both stomp a character who can bust 2 universes in the same way regardless. This is what everyone fails to see regarding Tier 2.
The cap is unnecessary and redundant clutter in all honesty. Anyone who can bust one universe more than the cap already crushes the character who only bust the same number of universes as the cap in the same way as some other character who can bust like 10000 times more universes than the cap.
Also, if u are suggesting sub-tiers and caps, please justify why that cap should exist in the first place and give examples of characters who reach the baseline of said cap.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you last point here mean, can you explain better? why is that necessary
but based on what you said before that, you agree that 1001 stomps 1000 and any gap is a stomp correct? cause if you are worried about is that the difference in tier causes everything to be a stomp, then I can assure you that in tier 2, aside hax, any significant gap in AP is a stomp
 
Anyway, as distinction or whatnot is tier 2 revision thing so let's leave it for that. OP is arguing that 1001 number is arbitrary and doesn't makes sense (which everyone agrees with) but regardless they have their reasons to agree or disagree with it, so let's keep it just to that only and straightforwardly give our opinion on this matter. Agree, disagree or neutral (with reason).
 
I got permission from Antvasima to speak in this thread.

Personally, while i can see why the limit between 2-C and 2-B may be a bit arbitrary, it isn't necessarely redundant in my opinion. It does allow the users to more easily understand the scale of power of the characters instead to just put everyone in one single tier, it make things less confusing.

Like, isn't that the reason why we have multiple speed tiers between Hypersonic to Sub-Relativistic/Relativistic or speed tiers above FTL, with "fanmade" terms based on no scientific terms? Or are we also to consider the possibility to delete them as well?

Same can be apply to Attack Potency, there is a reason why we apply terms like Small/Low and Large/Multi as sub-tiers to Building level, City Block level, Town level, City level, Mountain level, Island level, Country level, Continent level, Planet level, Star level, Solar System level and Galaxy level.
 
Last edited:
Stefano4444 said:
Like, isn't that the reason why we have multiple speed tiers between Hypersonic to Sub-Relativistic/Relativistic or speed tiers above FTL, with "fanmade" terms based on no scientific terms?
Click to expand...
High Hypersonic is actually a very real term that is used IRL.

Stefano4444 said:
Same can be apply to AP, there is a reason why we apply terms like Small and Large as sub-tiers to Building level, Town level, City level, Mountain level, Island level, Country level, Planet level or Star level.
Click to expand...
No, that only applies up from 9-A to High 6-C, and then the tiers Low 6-B and High 6-B.

Tiers from 5-B and above are not based on fanmade reasonings, there's legitimate reasonings to pick the objects of reference for them because they actually exist for us to correlate to. If you read Assalt's Revised Tier 5, 4 and 3 blog, you'd understand.
 
Last edited:
The cases that can be made for lower tiers isn't as simple a case for tier 2. With lower tiers, there are many more cases of actual objects, whether on Earth or in the cosmos, that we can correlate these tier's to be. As such, we can determine if the structure they destroyed is finitely bigger or smaller than the norm for the structure. Higher Tiers, however, delve into Infinities. A Multiverse would by definition, be made of 2 or more infinitely sized spaces. What makes a Multiverse a big or small one? Nothing, really. They're all going to technically be more than 2x infinitely large in scope. As such, what's the difference between a 3 infinite going against a 2 infinite and a 4 infinite going against a 2 infinite? Nothing, really- They'll still be infinitely stronger, as has been clarified previously in the thread. As such, should every possible size of a Multiverse be granted it's own tier, due to the apparent power gap?

Avoiding confusion isn't about avoiding change- It's about communicating change. If your concerns lay in how new commers will react, I assure you, so long as people work together to clearly and concisely inform people, there will be no more confusion than we already have from Newcomers.
 
So let's remove MHS and immeasurable speed and also remove immeasurable lifting strength if we use this type of argument?

Eh, in my all honest opinion, this does not change anything at all. There is no accuracy here and it is much subjective.
 
I generally agree that the distinction between > or < than 1k universes is kinda arbitrary and pointless, so I'd agree with the change.
What worries me is the amount of workload, as I'm not sure going through all these profiles, each with their own specifics, is doable or foolproof.
 
TheKingStrategist13 said:
A Multiverse would by definition, be made of 2 or more infinitely sized spaces. What makes a Multiverse a big or small one? Nothing, really.
Click to expand...
If we are certain that a multiverse its made by millions of universes while the other multiverse has only a few universes, it pretty clear which its the bigger one, regardless of the fact that they are infinite, since infinite can exist in different levels (which its the reason why 5D > 4D if i'm not wrong).
 
SamanPatou said:
I generally agree that the distinction between > or < than 1k universes is kinda arbitrary and pointless, so I'd agree with the change.
What worries me is the amount of workload, as I'm not sure going through all these profiles, each with their own specifics, is doable or foolproof.
Click to expand...
We got the categorized Tiers now. A Script change should be able to handle most of the work, and people are willing to pitch in to help.

I doubt this should take more than a day.
 
SamanPatou said:
I generally agree that the distinction between > or < than 1k universes is kinda arbitrary and pointless, so I'd agree with the change.
What worries me is the amount of workload, as I'm not sure going through all these profiles, each with their own specifics, is doable or foolproof.
Click to expand...
We can just mass edit with a script. Or we can just do it ourselves. Some of us are willing to edit the profiles manually. It's really just changing the names.
 
Stefano4444 said:
If we are certain that a multiverse its made by millions of universes while the other multiverse has only a few universes, it pretty clear which its the bigger one, regardless if they are infinite, since infinite can exist in different levels (which its the reason why 5D > 4D if i'm not wrong).
Click to expand...
Then would you advise there be a tier for every single size of a Multiverse? A tier for 2 Universes, a tier for 3, one for 4, 5, 6, 7, etc?

If our aim on this wiki is to be accurate and concise, this frankly bizzare split is confusing and deter's from the inherent comprehendability for the tier- Heck, I even know that I myself was rather confused with the tiering (And, in the case of Tier 1, still somewhat am) back when I joined, and even before that I still frequented the site. Two options would be more accurate- Categorizing them all into different tier's, or categorizing them into one tier. Either way it seems generally agreed that the amount of Universes a character can destroy at once should be on the profiles if possible. One of these decisions leads to a bigger mess and clutter, the other does not. And splitting this into just certain ranges (2-999, 1,000-9,999, etc.) Would just lead to even more difficult to manage confusion and chaos than any other option. Inversely, changing them all to one tier is a much more explainable to the public option than any other choice, sans keeping up this arbitrary and confusing tradition. Is 1,001 as much a "Large Multiverse Level" as, say, 358,972,165, for example? This system was already ennacted on two other similar tier's. This would be easier to Apply to this tier than those tier's who had it applied already.
 
Tanin_iver said:
But in Tier 2, no amount of multiplier will help u get even one extra universe busting. A 3 uni buster absolutely stomps a 2 uni buster no matter how strong the 2 uni one is above baseline with any multipliers.
Click to expand...
Isn't that because we just simply don't know the actual distances between universes/timelines, meaning the gap its unquantificable for what we know? Its not because the distance it trully immeasurable.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
I mean, why not adjust it like I said. Just make 2-C any countable number of universes and 2-B any uncountable number.

The only tier that would notably change is 2-B.
Click to expand...
I share this opinion too. "Countless" seems like a far more notable boundary than 1001 to me. I understand that there are issues with how "countless" might be used in fiction, but context + discretion should be used to distinguish between countless as some arbitrarily high number and countless as in tending to infinity. That would be my preferred solution, but I'm not too fussed if things stay the way they currently are.
 
GyroNutz said:
I share this opinion too. "Countless" seems like a far more notable boundary than 1001 to me. I understand that there are issues with how "countless" might be used in fiction, but context + discretion should be used to distinguish between countless as some arbitrarily high number and countless as in tending to infinity. That would be my preferred solution, but I'm not too fussed if things stay the way they currently are.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem that people haven't been listening to: "Countless" is too vague of a rating to be throwing around like this without additional context.
 
KLOL506 said:
Here's the problem that people haven't been listening to: "Countless" is too vague of a rating to be throwing around like this without additional context.
Click to expand...
How do you mean 'vague'? We have determined 2-B levels of strength related to countless universes for years now, it would just be officially recognised. Context would be required, but any tier 2 or above requires a high level of scrutiny anyways. If you mean mathematically vague, then 'large but not infinite' numbers already exist to describe numbers that can't be reached via counting, such as the big M.
 
GyroNutz said:
How do you mean 'vague'? We have determined 2-B levels of strength related to countless universes for years now, it would just be officially recognised. Context would be required, but any tier 2 or above requires a high level of scrutiny anyways. If you mean mathematically vague, then 'large but not infinite' numbers already exist to describe numbers that can't be reached via counting, such as the big M.
Click to expand...
What I meant was, "Countless" on its own is too vague to warrant its own tier. Plus, it still falls under the "finite number of universes being destroyed" argument.
 
I also thinks same, as for 2C we have solution for characters to get assigned with number of universes to have proper idea of their AP but such solution do not exist for a multiverse in which number universes are increasing with a very high or unknown pace to bother and have same tier as of 2C.
 
GyroNutz said:
I share this opinion too. "Countless" seems like a far more notable boundary than 1001 to me. I understand that there are issues with how "countless" might be used in fiction, but context + discretion should be used to distinguish between countless as some arbitrarily high number and countless as in tending to infinity. That would be my preferred solution, but I'm not too fussed if things stay the way they currently are.
Click to expand...
Zamasu Chan wanted to propose that to Antvasima years ago, but it was rejected because it was demanded that 2-B should have a specific baseline; and countless/innumerable is too vague on its own. Furthermore, there was a proposal to make a High 2-B tier that is reserved for Inflationary multiverses, multiverses that constantly expand themselves to the point of approaching infinite. But that was have otherwise been proposed for the new 2-B using this tactics but also faces the exact same issues.

But anyway, my thoughts are still more or less the same as Celestial Pegasus' that I don't mind the paper of the proposal but overall still prefer sticking to what we currently have.
 
Well, I and KLOL506 apologised to each other earlier for him starting off by rudely dismissing and belittling my concerns, and me turning increasingly irritated and rude due to being forced to argue with unreasonable spam posts for several hours long into the night when I had a long meeting quite early in the morning.

Also, I have already written an instruction page for our staff long ago, including for our content moderators, and think that I updated it some months ago.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Advice_to_the_staff_of_the_VS_Battles_wiki

If we can find volunteers among our administrators and content moderators to split our edit patrolling workload, it is a good idea for me to give them instructions in private in this area, yes.

Anyway, I am fine with if we add a requirement to list the number of universal space-time continuums to our pages, but continue to extremely strongly disagree with this revision, as I find it very convenient with as many easily overviewed distinctions between characters of different power levels as is practically possible for us to fit in, and also much of the entire point of our wiki as a whole.

I am fine with if we adjust the upper 2-C border to some other relatively low number though, in case any of you can come up with a more real world-based solution in that regard.

Also, I apologise for being blunt and if anybody gets offended by this, but I am afraid that potential major system revisions such as this one are not open for all staff members to have vote regarding (any more than I can somehow decide what the official Fandom staff decide to do regarding all wikis, just offer suggestions), just bureaucrats and administrators, and the bureaucrats have veto rights if they think that a suggested change is directly detrimental for our wiki. Acting as a buffer against potentially destructive policy revisions is a part of my duties here.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Well, I and KLOL506 apologised to each other earlier for him starting off by rudely dismissing and belittling my concerns, and me turning increasingly irritated and rude due to being forced to argue with unreasonable spam posts for several hours long into the night when I had a long meeting quite early in the morning.
Click to expand...
Words cannot express just how distastefully dishonest this accusation is but I'm not gonna go through the effort of dissecting this because this is gonna lead to nowhere.

Antvasima said:
Also, I have already written an instruction page for our staff long ago, including for our content moderators, and think that I updated it some months ago.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Advice_to_the_staff_of_the_VS_Battles_wiki

If we can find volunteers among our administrators and content moderators to split our edit patrolling workload, it is a good idea for me to give them instructions in private in this area, yes.

Anyway, I am fine with if we add a requirement to list the number of universal space-time continuums to our pages, but continue to extremely strongly disagree with this revision, as I find it very convenient with as many easily overviewed distinctions between characters of different power levels as is practically possible for us to fit in, and also much of the entire point of our wiki as a whole.
Click to expand...
By the Gods man, how is this any different between comparing our current 2-B characters with other higher "countless" 2-B characters? AP isn't the end-all, be-all of a match or powerscaling you know.

Antvasima said:
I am fine with if we adjust the upper 2-C border to some other relatively low number though, in case any of you can come up with a more real world-based solution in that regard.
Click to expand...
This looks like an even worse end to take than whatever Qawsedf proposed NGL, really tempts me to choose that end.

Antvasima said:
Also, I apologise for being blunt and if anybody gets offended by this, but I am afraid that potential major system revisions such as this one are not open for all staff members to have vote regarding (any more than I can somehow decide what the official Fandom staff decide to do regarding all wikis, just offer suggestions), just bureaucrats and administrators, and the bureaucrats have veto rights if they think that a suggested change is directly detrimental for our wiki. Acting as a buffer against potentially destructive policy revisions is a part of my duties here.
Click to expand...
Destructive against who LOL

Ant, this is literally just a name change and a tier merge that wouldn't affect the actual feats. This is in no way related to the conditions required for Tier 2 as that's its own beast completely unrelated to naming schemes at hand. This is literally as simple as the Tier Categorization CRT that took months ago.
 
I remember making this thread way back in 2017 when I was new: https://vsbattles.com/threads/multi-universal-vs-low-multiversal.4048/

At this point in time, I don't really care either way. It's an arbitrary border/distinction and the term "multi-universal" doesn't really mean anything besides multiversal. It's technically correct, which is why I created that thread. Though, I didn't push for it later down the line due to finding it okay to differentiate characters who vary largely in power. It's our system and it's fine to divide characters who can destroy a low number of universes and insanely high number of universes into different categories if we want, nothing wrong with defining borders to make it easy to categorize characters.

I'm quite indifferent/neutral if it can be done by a bot. I don't think it's worth the effort if we have to do it manually. In any case, specifying the number of universes they are able to destroy/create for such characters on their profiles should be mandatory.
 
KLOL506 said:
Pretty much all of this can be done by a bot. The only issue would arise if some characters have an "At least 2-C, likely 2-B" kind of rating, which would pretty much be edited to "2-B" flat out. I'm also pretty sure such examples would be quite rare.
Click to expand...
I think such cases would be better labeled as "2-B, likely higher", as you'd be compromising otherwise an accepted argument in the page (namely the AP section, for example) that mentions how the respective character is on the level of even more universes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
4K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Goshtama
Low 2-C | Finite or Infinite Timelines?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Richard5128pm
Richard5128pm
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Reiner04
  • Locked
Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification
2 3
Replies
115
Views
25K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top