- 9,982
- 10,821
Yeah, I understand, that's why I said to just ignore that explaination. Smh tier 2 revision hanging it.tier 2 thread tho.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, I understand, that's why I said to just ignore that explaination. Smh tier 2 revision hanging it.tier 2 thread tho.
"Way worse redundancy" means... we fix the redundancyNot 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
How is "a single one vs more than a single one" not a valid distinctionNot 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.
Why is 1000 the cut off?A better distinction would be.
1
2-1000
Not what I means but it’s fine."Way worse redundancy" means... we fix the redundancy
We don't leave uselessness cause there's more uselessness
that’s not enough distinction to put a single feat with a single value in a tier while putting the rest in a single tierHow is "a single one vs more than a single one" not a valid distinction
Well we can’t exactly accommodate all numbers now can we?Why is 1000 the cut off?
Why isn't it 500?
Why isn't it 100?
Why isn't 10?
Tf where are you seeing you need 5-D range to affect two universes?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.
I have no idea what you last point here mean, can you explain better? why is that necessaryThe 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.
High Hypersonic is actually a very real term that is used IRL.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?
No, that only applies up from 9-A to High 6-C, and then the tiers Low 6-B and High 6-B.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.
To clarify: High Hypersonic is real, but MHS is made up terminology. The range for HH is also different when used for IRL stuff iirc.High Hypersonic is actually a very real term that is used IRL.
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).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.
What do they have to do with this? Those are entirely different things.immeasurable speed and also remove immeasurable lifting strength
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 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.
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.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.
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 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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
That'd lie in direct conflict with 2-A's nameWhile I still support the initial proposal, I wouldn’t mind giving countless universes its own sub tier like High 2-B, 2-B+ or whatever you want to call it.
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.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.
How about "low 2-A= the destruction of an adinfinitum amount of universes"?That'd lie in direct conflict with 2-A's name
It's not even like removing a tier, just renaming one and then merging one tier with another.By the gods, how is all this less complicated than just removing a tier....?
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.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.
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.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.
This looks like an even worse end to take than whatever Qawsedf proposed NGL, really tempts me to choose that end.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.
Destructive against who LOLAlso, 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.
From what the others have been saying, the change can be done by a bot.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.
I mean, it ain't broken, but we can improve it, and its not like ya'll need to help.Also, I think this is a good statement to live by. "There is no need to put in so much time, or energy just to try to fix something that was never broken in the first place."
Bruh, doesn't mean it can't be improved, plus most of us don't even need to help out thanks to tier categories.Also, I think this is a good statement to live by. "There is no need to put in so much time, or energy just to try to fix something that was never broken in the first place."
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.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.