2-C and 2-B Tier merge

[Emirp sumitpo]

NOTE: Regular members who want access to the thread, pls ask me or a staff member before typing in. This is so to avoid clogging up the thread, and please only ask for access if you have something useful to add beyond "I agree" or " I disagree"

I hope this CRT should be simple enough.

I'll get straight to the point. Separating 2-C and 2-B is pretty redundant as ultimately, both are basically the same thing, except 2-C goes from 2 to 1000 universes, while 2-B goes from 1001 to any finite amount of universes. To put it simply, both are just tiers for "finite" multiverses, and there really isn't any reason to separate them. Which is why I propose just merging them as it'll make things simpler, making it:

2-C = Universe level+ (This is the new Universe level+, Low 2-C should just be deleted and all Low 2-Cs just become 2-Cs)

2-B = Multiverse level (Basically, 2 to any finite amount of universes. Or I guess finite multiversal). Or a more proper wording would be:

Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy multiverses which can be comprised from two to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums.

2-A = Remains the same.

Low 2-C characters that would need to be edited into 2-C would be 1197 profiles, and 2-C profiles that would need to be edited into 2-B would be 892 profiles. It is a lot, yes, but I am willing to go through that pain. Or I guess we could just do a mass edit script.

Agree: Emirp sumitpo, KLOL506, Planck69, Andytrenom, CloverDragon03, Maverick_Zero_X, LordTracer, DemonGodMitchAubin, Duedate8898, KingTempest

Disagree: Everything12, Antvasima, DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Mr._Bambu, Moritzva, Colonel_Krukov, Promestein

Neutral: Psychomaster35, Celestial_Pegasus, LordGriffin1000, AKM sama, Efficiente, Damage234, Starter_Pack

I'm uncertain what side they're on: Qawsedf234 (Qawsedf seems to disagree but I'm not truly sure)

The staff members with bolded usernames are the ones with voting rights regarding very important wiki policy changes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I will follow for now, I know I should post beyond simple agree or disagree, but I have something mandatory today, so I'll tackle this later. And I'm sure most staff disagree.

 

[KLOL506]

Hooooooooooooo boi. It's time.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The cut-off was always arbitrary as ****.

I will tag the other staff members in this as well. Gimme a moment.

 

[KLOL506]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Wokistan @Agnaa @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Theglassman12 @KingTempest @Planck69 @DarkGrath @LordGriffin1000 @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Colonel_Krukov @Celestial_Pegasus @SomebodyData @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @CrimsonStarFallen @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Armorchompy @Everything12 @UchihaSlayer96 @Duedate8898 What do you all think of this? This is a pretty important revision to consider.

 

[Planck69]

Honesty, I agree. No real point to having them be split so arbitrarily.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

but I have something mandatory today, so I'll tackle this later

Take your time.

I will tag the other staff members in this as well.

Thx

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I should note real quick, I never disagreed that 1001 universes is a very oddly specific cut off and wouldn't even mind if the baseline for 2-B was revised to something that made more sense. Some people thought 2-B should be reserved to like Ad Infinitum universes (Or multiverse that approaches infinity in size) which also sounded weird for other reasons even if it sounds good on paper. I personally thought making the baseline for 2-B like 1 million made more sense.

And I know the issue, I sort of agree with it on paper, not in execution is the concern. I'm also neither going to disagree with the idea of being an improvement, nor is "Too much work" a good reason to reject it. But "Too much work for something that's barely a payoff" is going to be the common complaint from the Bureaucrats. And that is the most important thing, is that there is going to be Bureaucrat approval required absolutely.

 

[KLOL506]

I should note real quick, I never disagreed that 1001 universes is a very oddly specific cut off and wouldn't even mind if the baseline for 2-B was revised to something that made more sense. Some people thought 2-B should be reserved to like Ad Infinitum universes (Or multiverse that approaches infinity in size) which also sounded weird for other reasons even if it sounds good on paper. I personally thought making the baseline for 2-B like 1 million made more sense.

And I know the issue, I sort of agree with it on paper, not in execution is the concern. I'm also neither going to disagree with the idea of being an improvement, nor is "Too much work" a good reason to reject it. But "Too much work for something that's barely a payoff" is going to be the common complaint from the Bureaucrats. And that is the most important thing, is that there is going to be Bureaucrat approval required absolutely.

Good, because neither of those are our arguments.

The argument is that 2-C and 2-B are basically redundant and placing a starting cap for what is essentially just blowing up a certain number of universes is arbitrary as ****. with 2-C and 2-B being merged that arbitrary cap ceases to exist. It also saves us a shit-ton of headaches having to deal with "countless" related statements for good.

The editing part isn't going to be hard because after all, it's only a Tier name change and the category change which won't even take seconds to pull off per profile, even quicker if someone extremely skilled with the script editor can do it, now that all individual tiers have been finally categorized. I will also personally contribute to this myself if I must.

 

[KLOL506]

I would like to give @Tanin_iver and @Arceus0x permission to comment.

Is that fine with you @Emirp sumitpo?

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Sure

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't have a problem changing them but at the same time I don't think there there's much actual value that comes out of renaming the tiers

 

[KLOL506]

I don't have a problem changing them but at the same time I don't think there there's much actual value that comes out of renaming the tiers

The actual value is that we get rid of the arbitrary limits set up by this and remove the extra redundance that currently remains to remain more accurate in the long run without much degradation and significantly easier indexability. Another thing is that this would completely nullify any reason to bother using "countless" statements with sufficient context to be denied said tier, which would save us a shit-ton of headaches in the long run.

People also said that categorizing the tiers individually was of little actual value and too much effort, but we managed to do it anyway and we managed to eventually satisfy both sides that this would make indexing a heck of a lot easier in the long run as well.

 

[KLOL506]

Bear in mind that this would not nullify any VS matches to boot that they currently have either. We just have to rename them if they only mention the Tier keys (Though honestly it's their form keys that should be used at this point).

 

[Starter_Pack]

My god.

I mean, OP makes sense, but I'mma keep my mouth shut until more has been said here.

 

[KLOL506]

My god.

I mean, OP makes sense, but I'mma keep my mouth shut until more has been said here.

My god why did that sound so menacing

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

(Received permission from Emirp's Message Wall to speak here)
I have no inherent issue's with the idea of merging together the finite tiers, but I do feel that there must be clear distinction between the character's in some capacity, because, for example, we could have two 2-B (Under the new system) character's, right? But if one destroyed only 5 Universes, and another destroyed 10,000, there's a clear difference that would indicate a massive stomp in power, in spite of being in the same tier. It would be tedious, but maybe some sort of, inner tiering system for the tier that generalizes certain ranges of Universes Destroyed?
I understand that the point of this is to smoothen out the system and remove any clutter or unneeded tiering, and while removing this particular split is fair and understandable, it'd still be important for there to be a clear distinction between the characters who destroy differing amounts of Universes in the tier. Even just adding a small little section specifying the max number of Universes a Character is known/shown to be able to destroy under the tier would be beneficial in being able to quickly ascertain the difference in character's destructive capacity.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Was permitted to comment here

I agree, but I wanted to make a very minor addition. Basically it should required for future pages to include the number of universes that the characters affect in the AP justification.

Yea Ik this may seem obvious, but what comes to mind is our current tier 1-B…..
1-B matches are absolute shitshows for the reason that nobody can remember what dimensionality the 2 characters are, and i don’t want that to happen to tier 2 matches in regards to nobody remembering the Amount of universes affected,

 

[KLOL506]

(Received permission from Emirp's Message Wall to speak here)
I have no inherent issue's with the idea of merging together the finite tiers, but I do feel that there must be clear distinction between the character's in some capacity, because, for example, we could have two 2-B (Under the new system) character's, right? But if one destroyed only 5 Universes, and another destroyed 10,000, there's a clear difference that would indicate a massive stomp in power, in spite of being in the same tier. It would be tedious, but maybe some sort of, inner tiering system for the tier that generalizes certain ranges of Universes Destroyed?

That difference is still prevalent between a 10,000 world 2-B character and a "countless" 2-B character or even a "25 million worlds" character.

I understand that the point of this is to smoothen out the system and remove any clutter or unneeded tiering, and while removing this particular split is fair and understandable, it'd still be important for there to be a clear distinction between the characters who destroy differing amounts of Universes in the tier. Even just adding a small little section specifying the max number of Universes a Character is known/shown to be able to destroy under the tier would be beneficial in being able to quickly ascertain the difference in character's destructive capacity.

I... do not disagree with this. If anything, wasn't this already mandatory? If not, it should be.

Though I must warn you, number of universes isn't the end-all, be-all of a match. A character could have trillions of universes to his belt and still be fodderized by a guy with only 9 universe because the weaker guy physically was massively more haxxed.

 

[KLOL506]

Was permitted to comment here

I agree, but I wanted to make a very minor addition. Basically it should required for future pages to include the number of universes that the characters affect in the AP justification.

Yea Ik this may seem obvious, but what comes to mind is our current tier 1-B…..
1-B matches are absolute shitshows for the reason that nobody can remember what dimensionality the 2 characters are, and i don’t want that to happen to tier 2 matches which are way more common anyway.

Pretty sure 1-B characters are mandated to state how many dimensions are at play. Just ask Unicron. We went through hell for it.

But yeah, go loud. Pretty sure even our current 2-C and 2-B characters are mandated to state this out, just a tiny description alone should fix things.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I can agree with having to note how many universes a certain 2-B affects, should this pass.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I agree, but I wanted to make a very minor addition. Basically it should required for future pages to include the number of universes that the characters affect in the AP justification.

I have no inherent issue's with the idea of merging together the finite tiers, but I do feel that there must be clear distinction between the character's in some capacity, because, for example, we could have two 2-B (Under the new system) character's, right? But if one destroyed only 5 Universes, and another destroyed 10,000, there's a clear difference that would indicate a massive stomp in power, in spite of being in the same tier. It would be tedious, but maybe some sort of, inner tiering system for the tier that generalizes certain ranges of Universes Destroyed?
I understand that the point of this is to smoothen out the system and remove any clutter or unneeded tiering, and while removing this particular split is fair and understandable, it'd still be important for there to be a clear distinction between the characters who destroy differing amounts of Universes in the tier. Even just adding a small little section specifying the max number of Universes a Character is known/shown to be able to destroy under the tier would be beneficial in being able to quickly ascertain the difference in character's destructive capacity.

Yeah I can agree to this, even if it wasn't mandatory already.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Wasn’t the point of splitting 2-1000 and 1001+ universes into separate tiers for the sake of formatting? Sure, they may be multiverses, although one is small and the other is large.

 

[KLOL506]

Wasn’t the point of splitting 2-1000 and 1001+ universes into separate tiers for the sake of formatting? Sure, they may be multiverses, although one is small and the other is large.

I mean, at this point we might as well give sub-tiers for every other tiers on this basis as well then. But we both know the clutter those would cause.

Tier 4-B has an even bigger AP gap than 2-C and 2-B when you consider the number of universes that have to be destroyed but that hasn't made anyone make even more sub-tiers for it.

At this point I'm even pressed to say that the whole 2-C / 2-B debacle is a matter of range and not AP. AFAIK, DT planned to make a revision where the entirety of Tier 2 could fight against each other and AP would be practically irrelevant in winning a fight even if you busted an infinite number of space-time continuums. Not sure where that went.

 

[Ayewale]

I like this change. But I have a few problems with it.

Merging tiers together for the sake of nothing but them being arbitrary is a bit of a slippery slope argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but more or the less the vast majority of tiers are all arbitrary bullshit values from a Naruto Battledome post 12 years ago. This isn't a "what about..." argument, I'm just wondering why this redundancy is so especially potent since we all seemed to have accepted the rest of the tiering system's redundancies. Like, if you really want to get into redundancies, the mere concept of a multiverse doesn't really make sense, since a 'universe' is supposed to be all encompassing; any 'multiverse' or 'omniverse' in terms of physics would just be a larger universe (and there isn't any proof that a multiverse exists anyhow). We could take the redundancy argument very far.

Additionally, the whole point in tier differences is to document significant changes in power. Tier 2-B alone containing someone who can destroy 2 universes and someone who could destroy two million universes doesn't really make a lot of sense. Yes, when it comes to high tiers you can have rather large power gaps due to how even small differences scale upwards, but the difference between "2 universes" and "any non-finite number" isn't arbitrary, that should absolutely have some sort of distinction, somewhere at least. You could argue that any number picked is an arbitrary value, but I'd argue any arbitrary value is better than literally none at all--which is what your split proposes. Going from "a random number of universes" to "**** it, 2 to infinity" is less arbitrary but more stupid, to put it simply.

The easy solution to the second problem is to simply have a Low/High 2-B. Simply 'stating the amount of universes involved' is kind of silly, I think; gaps of a theoretically infinite size should have High 2-B or Low 2-B and the likes (similar to what KingStrategist has proposed). Yes, the number we pick would probably be arbitrary, but (a) our tiering system (and multiverses as a whole) is arbitrary as **** just by definition and (b) it being arbitrary does not make no distinction automatically better.

 

[KLOL506]

At this point I'm even pressed to say that the whole 2-C / 2-B debacle is a matter of range and not AP. AFAIK, DT planned to make a revision where the entirety of Tier 2 could fight against each other and AP would be practically irrelevant in winning a fight even if you busted an infinite number of space-time continuums. Not sure where that went.

Anyway, we can ignore this tidbit for now and deal with that later. For now, the naming scheme.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm not opposed to this. I did always feel like 1001 universes was an odd, arbitrary number to split the tiers off at. My only gripe is that Low 2-C is a lowkey aesthetically pleasing tier to look at but obviously that's a personal preference.

Leaning toward agreeing with this. Will wait for some more staff in case of counterarguments though.

 

[KLOL506]

I like this change. But I have a few problems with it.

Merging tiers together for the sake of nothing but them being arbitrary is a bit of a slippery slope argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but more or the less the vast majority of tiers are all arbitrary bullshit values from a Naruto Battledome post 12 years ago. This isn't a "what about..." argument, I'm just wondering why this redundancy is so especially potent since we all seemed to have accepted the rest of the tiering system's redundancies. Like, if you really want to get into redundancies, the mere concept of a multiverse doesn't really make sense, since a 'universe' is supposed to be all encompassing; any 'multiverse' or 'omniverse' in terms of physics would just be a larger universe (and there isn't any proof that a multiverse exists anyhow). We could take the redundancy argument very far.

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.

Additionally, the whole point in tier differences is to document significant changes in power. Tier 2-B alone containing someone who can destroy 2 universes and someone who could destroy two million universes doesn't really make a lot of sense. Yes, when it comes to high tiers you can have rather large power gaps due to how even small differences scale upwards, but the difference between "2 universes" and "any non-finite number" isn't arbitrary, that should absolutely have some sort of distinction, somewhere at least. You could argue that any number picked is an arbitrary value, but I'd argue any arbitrary value is better than literally none at all--which is what your split proposes. Going from "a random number of universes" to "**** it, 2 to infinity" is less arbitrary but more stupid, to put it simply.

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.

The easy solution to the second problem is to simply have a Low/High 2-B. Simply 'stating the amount of universes involved' is kind of silly, I think; gaps of a theoretically infinite size should have High 2-B or Low 2-B and the likes (similar to what KingStrategist has proposed). Yes, the number we pick would probably be arbitrary, but (a) our tiering system (and multiverses as a whole) is arbitrary as **** just by definition and (b) it being arbitrary does not make no distinction automatically better.

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

 

[Everything12]

Is 2-B arbitary and doesn't need to exist. Yes.

Does the proposed fusion give little to no benefit. Yes.

Is the work required to enact the change insignificant. Yes.

Is the little benefit not even worth the insignificant effort required. In my opinion, yes.

 

[Planck69]

By the way, to the people talking about how it'd make the gap between characters within the same tier too massive or hard to discern, I'd remind you that 3-A works off of basically the same principle. We even have characters currently on the wiki whose gap with baseline 3-A is larger than the gap between baseline 3-A and Tier 7, so this isn't much of an argument. We'd merely need to actually specify the number of space-time continuums like we already should.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Is 2-B arbitary and doesn't need to exist. Yes.

Does the proposed fusion give little to no benefit. Yes.

Is the work required to enact the change insignificant. Yes.

Is the little benefit not even worth the insignificant effort required. In my opinion, yes.

Literally just have a script go through the wiki pages and change {{Low 2-C}} to {{2-C}}.

I fail to see how this is a problem.

 

[KLOL506]

Is 2-B arbitary and doesn't need to exist. Yes.

Does the proposed fusion give little to no benefit. Yes.

Is the work required to enact the change insignificant. Yes.

Is the little benefit not even worth the insignificant effort required. In my opinion, yes.

Axe Tier 2 and 1. Problem solved. Anything beyond High 3-A is arbitrary as ****.

 

[KLOL506]

Is 2-B arbitary and doesn't need to exist. Yes.

Does the proposed fusion give little to no benefit. Yes.

Is the work required to enact the change insignificant. Yes.

Is the little benefit not even worth the insignificant effort required. In my opinion, yes.

I mean, people said the same about the whole categorization of individual tiers. But here we are.

If anything, that categorization just saved us days and potentially even countless hours of work.

 

[Everything12]

Literally just have a script go through the wiki pages and change {{Low 2-C}} to {{2-C}}.

I fail to see how this is a problem.

I'm aware, and I'm saying that any actual benefits is so irrelevant that even that is too much effort.

Can anyone give any actual benefit beyond it dealing with the mild annoyance of 2-B's start being arbitary?

 

[CloverDragon03]

For such an easy change, I'd argue even addressing a mild annoyance is still more beneficial than not

 

[Planck69]

It'd lessen the redundancy I suppose and remove arbitrary tier borders. Personally, I really don't see the problem with a CRT that makes a minor but beneficial change for truly minimal effort. A script to just shift Low 2-C and 2-C one position up is all it'd take.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I'm aware, and I'm saying that any actual benefits is so irrelevant that even that is too much effort.

Can anyone give any actual benefit beyond it dealing with the mild annoyance of 2-B's start being arbitary?

Let me answer your question with another question.

What do we really lose from doing it? We're literally removing a tier for the sake of another being based on arbitrary values and making things just a little neater around here.

Again, how is this a problem?

 

[Planck69]

Also, before someone brings up "well, might as well merge 1-C to 1-B on the same principle", I genuinely wouldn't mind. Not sure about the effort involved there though.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Mmmm, yes, very wise.

I agree with the OP.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, before someone brings up "well, might as well merge 1-C to 1-B on the same principle", I genuinely wouldn't mind. Not sure about the effort involved there though.

I think that'd be more of a hassle since there's a Low 1-C, 1-C, High 1-C, 1-B, and High 1-B

 

[Everything12]

Tell the script to add the 2-B category to every profile with a 2-C category. Remove the 2-C category from every profile. Add the 2-C category to every Low 2-C profile. Remove the Low 2-C category. Edit every mention of "Tier: 2-C" to "Tier: 2-B", have to deal with the fact that not only does "Tier: At least 2-C" exists, but "Tier: At least 2-C, likely 2-B" exists and fun stuff like "Tier: At least 3-A, likely 2-C, possibly 2-A", and all the other fun variations that have to be done because just changing any mention of 2-C to 2-B doesn't work because Low 2-C exists.