2-C and 2-B Tier merge

[Starter_Pack]

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

Not the topic here anyway. Let's put that conversation on hold for later, if at all possible.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

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 there's a reason why 1-B starts at 12-D why it's separated from High 1-C below (Because our universe has like 11 dimensions or something iirc idk)

That's a whole other can of worms I don't wanna open here. Better to save it for another thread.

 

[KLOL506]

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.

Pretty sure dimensionality operates on a whole other subset, something to do with Brane cosmologies. Might be wrong tho, may need some other expert.

But anyway, that's prolly too much derailing. This is for Tier 2. We can worry about Tier 1 some other time, but not here.

 

[KLOL506]

I think there's a reason why 1-B starts at 12-D why it's separated from High 1-C below (Because our universe has like 11 dimensions or something iirc idk)

That's a whole other can of worms I don't wanna open here. Better to save it for another thread.

Something something Brane Cosmology that mathematicians pulled out of their ass for make-believe sci-fi bullshit but what do I know

 

[KLOL506]

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 2-B, have to deal with the fact that not only Tier: At least 2-C, likely 2-B exists but fun stuff like Tier: At least 3-A, likely 2-B, possibly 2-A, and all the other fun variations that have to be done because just changing 2-C to 2-B doesn't work because Low 2-C exists.

Jesus fam, calm down.

 

[Everything12]

Jesus fam, calm down.

The large bold text was not shouting or anger but emphasising a flaw in the proposal.

 

[Starter_Pack]

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 2-B, have to deal with the fact that not only Tier: At least 2-C, likely 2-B exists but fun stuff like Tier: At least 3-A, likely 2-B, possibly 2-A, and all the other fun variations that have to be done because just changing 2-C to 2-B doesn't work because Low 2-C exists.

What the hell are you talking about?

Here is the order of events in this case.

Script to change {{2-C}} to {{2-B}} first.

Script to change {{Low 2-C}} to {{2-C}} next.

The categories come with the template, so no need to worry about that.

Make adjustments to certain profiles as needed if we have cases of repeat tiers after the script execution.

Again, this isn't a problem.

 

[Everything12]

What the hell are you talking about?

Here is the order of events in this case.

Script to change {{2-C}} to {{2-B}} first.

Script to change {{Low 2-C}} to {{2-C}} next.

The categories come with the template, so no need to worry about that.

Make adjustments to certain profiles as needed if we have cases of repeat tiers after the script execution.

Again, this isn't a problem.

It's a problem in that it shows that the chamge with minimum benefits has a bit more than a minimum required effort to fully pull off.

 

[Planck69]

I don't see how the above changes take particularly large amount of effort. Yes, it's likely more than just a tier shift but in all honesty, its still a relatively simple change.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. The less redundancy the better.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I don't see how the above changes take particularly large amount of effort. Yes, it's likely more than just a tier shift but in all honesty, its still a relatively simple change.

Especially if there are people who are willing to put in the effort to fix any problems that occur.

If you don't want to contribute, fine. But if it can benefit the wiki and is still a relatively easy change, what's wrong with it?

 

[KLOL506]

Friendly reminder that people said the same thing about categorizing the individual tiers if I haven't already repeated this here a dozen or so times, but people were absolutely willing to carry out this change that would serve to be immensely beneficial in the long run and would significantly reduce the overhead for actually making good matchups between characters without making it an overwhelming stomp.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

"Tier: At least 2-C, likely 2-B"

I mean, we can just do what Dragonball Super does with its speed tiers. Like say: "Multiverse level (100 universes, likely 10,000 universes)"

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Should I put a tally on the staff votes?

 

[KLOL506]

Should I put a tally on the staff votes?

Absolutely.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Call me neutral for now

 

[LordTracer]

I’ve always thought that these tiers should be merged, and 1,000 universes is a really arbitrary cut-off point for them.

I completely agree with the OP.

 

[KLOL506]

Friendly reminder that if you are a non-staff member and want to comment on this staff-only thread, get permission from staff members first, then mention this first and foremost in your comment before anything else.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

If I may put in my own two cents once more (Reminder I did get permission from the message wall of Emirp- Do you have to ask multiple times to comment multiple times? I hope not...), It's very much OK if you don't feel like it's worth the effort to change these profiles, but unless you have any actual objection with the idea of the change itself outside not wanting to do it, other people who are willing to apply the effort can, and likely will, do the job themselves, so there's no real need to be opposed to the change, just say that you don't personally want to be part of the process.

 

[Arceus0x]

So I'd like to bring sth up.

You see i think the tiers should remain but maybe in a different way?
You see I've an issue.
How much is countless?
We don't know but we could make some philosophical estimate.
I'd say
2-C is 2 to countless
2-B is countless and til any finite number

Problem is we don't know how much countless is, but at the same time placing every baseline 2-C character in the same tier as people who scale to 120*countless*countless universes I'd say it makes it feel weird.

 

[Planck69]

So I'd like to bring sth up.

You see i think the tiers should remain but maybe in a different way?
You see I've an issue.
How much is countless?
We don't know but we could make some philosophical estimate.
I'd say
2-C is 2 to countless
2-B is countless and til any finite number

Problem is we don't know how much countless is, but at the same time placing every baseline 2-C character in the same tier as people who scale to 120*countless*countless universes I'd say it makes it feel weird.

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

As for the latter part, again, no different from 3-A or 1-B in its gaps.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it is very unnecessary and misleading to place characters that can only destroy very few universes as being comparable with ones that can destroy a googolplex of them.

It is the kind of random change that would contribute nothing whatsoever of value to this wiki and its easily comprehended accuracy for our visitors, just massive amounts of entirely unnecessary work.

So place me very firmly in the disagree camp. I would be considerably more open towards adding a Tier 2-D and possibly 2-E for greater specification/accuracy instead (which, for example, would allow a tier for 1001 to 1,000,000,000 universes as well), and we have far more important work to focus our efforts on.

@AKM sama @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12 @Agnaa

What do you think?

 

[KLOL506]

I think that it is very unnecessary and misleading to place characters that can only destroy very few universes as being comparable with ones that can destroy a googolplex of them.

It is the kind of random change that would contribute nothing whatsoever of value to this wiki and its easily comprehended accuracy for our visitors, just massive amounts of entirely unnecessary work.

Unnecessary work

reduces redundancy

Removes arbitary cap

I'm sorry, what?

So place me very firmly in the disagree camp. I would be considerably more open towards adding a Tier 2-D and possibly 2-E for greater specification/accuracy instead (which, for example, would allow a tier for 1001 to 1,000,000,000 universes as well), and we have far more important work to focus our efforts on.

That's literally got no basis whatsoever and now this is what I'd call peak overcomplication holy shit

Also are you crazy!? 1001 to 1 billion universes within 1 tier like you explained is fair? ON WHAT WORLD?

@AKM sama @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12 @Agnaa

What do you think?

Already notified DontTalk, AKM, Elizhaa, Agnaa and Ultima in advance.

 

[Catzlaflame]

I think that it is very unnecessary and misleading to place characters that can only destroy very few universes ascomparable with ones that can destroy a googolplex of them.

It is the kind of random change that would contribute nothing whatsoever of value to this wiki and its easily comprehended accuracy for our visitors, just massive amounts of entirely unnecessary work.

How would it be misleading if we specified the amount of Universes the characters affect like as was proposed above ?

And not to constantly keep bringing 1-B into the discussion but isn’t that what we literally do to tier 1-B….

And I’d like to add when we previously had the tier “low-1B” which essentially plays the same functional role as 2C, you were the one who made the thread to remove it under the very same reasoning this thread uses, i.e. redundancy.

 

[KLOL506]

Also I can assure you this work is no more important as the Tier Categorization project which Imp-ress had led, and it suffered the same asinine arguments as you have just proposed now, yet the opposite happened after it got implemented. That project has literally made our lives easier in the long run, especially for this CRT in particular.

 

[KLOL506]

So place me very firmly in the disagree camp. I would be considerably more open towards adding a Tier 2-D and possibly 2-E for greater specification/accuracy instead (which, for example, would allow a tier for 1001 to 1,000,000,000 universes as well), and we have far more important work to focus our efforts on.

This part. This is why I can't take this disagreement seriously.

You are literally making the tiering system even more complicated and unfair than it already is just for the sake of stat padding. If you really cared about accuracy here then you would admit that these universe number caps are arbitrary as hell with no basis to them, but no, instead you admit to keeping this lie and further exacerbating the problem to no real end.

 

[Antvasima]

I maintain the same position as earlier. I much prefer greater specification/distinction/accuracy for our visitors, and much prefer to increase it rather than decrease it whenever possible. Engaging in ad hominem by accusing my viewpoint of being asinine or non-serious doesn't change that in the slightest.

A near complete lack of accuracy will almost always be perceived as a destructive change for the worse to me, and certainly not worthy of spending great amounts on work on. My apologies, but I am not going to budge from this position.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have question, if this is implemented, should be mentioned how many universes are being destroyed in AP justification? Since destroying a million is nowhere same as destroying 2 and somehow may lead to confusions in battles since the gap is strong.

If not, it is somehow misleading putting all characters I one tier with a big gap between each of them.

 

[KLOL506]

I have question, if this is implemented, should be mentioned how many universes are being destroyed in AP justification? Since destroying a million is nowhere same as destroying 2 and somehow may lead to confusions in battles since the gap is strong.

If not, it is somehow misleading putting all characters I one tier with a big gap between each of them.

It should be mentioned regardless of whether this CRT goes through or not.

 

[Antvasima]

This part. This is why I can't take this disagreement seriously.

You are literally making the tiering system even more complicated and unfair than it already is just for the sake of stat padding. If you really cared about accuracy here then you would admit that these universe number caps are arbitrary as hell with no basis to them, but no, instead you admit to keeping this lie and further exacerbating the problem to no real end.

It is far more arbitrary to get almost entirely rid of our accuracy to make it seem like characters that can only destroy 2 universes are comparable to ones that can destroy a near infinite amount.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It should be mentioned regardless of whether this CRT goes through or not.

I meant by, a policy should be given if it gives through. Not many characters have it in their AP justification and mostly they scale to other characters. I am only asking.

 

[Reiner04]

Tier 2C finite
Tier 2B adinfinitum (greater than any established finite amount but not infinite then?).

I am done after this.
1001 universes doesn't makes much sense tbh. Either a good distinction or non at all.

 

[KLOL506]

I maintain the same position as earlier. I much prefer greater specification/distinction/accuracy for our visitors, and much prefer to increase it rather than decrease it whenever possible. Engaging in ad hominem by accusing my viewpoint of being asinine or non-serious doesn't change that in the slightest.

Where exactly have I engaged in ad hominem here? Please do point it out.

A near complete lack of accuracy will almost always be perceived as a destructive change for the worse to me, and certainly not worthy of spending great amounts on work on.

On what planet is such arbitrary decision with no actual logical basis accurate?

It is far more arbitrary to get almost entirely rid of our accuracy to make it seem like characters that can only destroy 2 universes are comparable to ones that can destroy a near infinite amount.

You suffer the same problems if you place an arbitrary cap on it like this with current 2-B.

What you just suggested not only shoots this notion of accuracy you have on the foot, it then burns said notion alive on the stake without mercy and it would be tenfold less accurate than what we're currently using. You can't really expect me to believe that this is about accuracy when you say stuff like that with a straight face.

 

[KLOL506]

Tier 2C finite
Tier 2B adinfinitum (greater than any established finite amount but not infinite then?).

I am done after this.
1001 universes doesn't makes much sense tbh. Either a good distinction or non at all.

Please don't comment on this thread if you have not been given permission prior.

 

[KingPin0422]

I maintain the same position as earlier. I much prefer greater specification/distinction/accuracy for our visitors, and much prefer to increase it rather than decrease it whenever possible. Engaging in ad hominem by accusing my viewpoint of being asinine or non-serious doesn't change that in the slightest.

A near complete lack of accuracy will almost always be perceived as a destructive change for the worse to me, and certainly not worthy of spending great amounts on work on. My apologies, but I am not going to budge from this position.

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?

 

[KLOL506]

I meant by, a policy should be given if it gives through. Not many characters have it in their AP justification and mostly they scale to other characters. I am only asking.

The main character who did the feat should have this listed down at the bare minimum if nothing else.

 

[LordTracer]

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.

 

[KLOL506]

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?

Correct. Even assuming that this tier fusion doesn't go through, the specified value of the number of universes destroyed must be absolutely involved, as is tradition. But that's only one part of the problem solved.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

If I may, It's more misleading to have the current system than to subscribe to this new system, in my admittedly less than valuable opinion. All that needs to be done is it needs to be clearly stated that the character's in this tier fluctuate greatly in their power. Can someone who destroy's 2 universes be compared to one who destroy's 50? Not exactly. If you were to make even more tier's, it would be even more work than this for significantly less benefit to the wiki. No matter what, it will be difficult to avoid categorizing certain character's that are not similar in power together.

Due to the vast number of possible distinctions within the general tier itself, you would likely at least need 7 Specifications, likely many more as that's a low ball, for finite Universes that can be destroyed. Making these tier's, figuring out what can fit within a tier and what is too strong or weak, and having to go through each profile and painstakingly mark them as the new tier they would belong to (Something I'm sure even having a program do would take time) would be a massive waste of resources just to clutter the Tiering system.

Whether or not something is misleading is all about communication- If you communicate how the combined tier would work, and how big a range in power it has properly, then there will be no problems, unless someone misinterpreted.

 

[Antvasima]

Where exactly have I engaged in ad hominem here? Please do point it out.

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

On what planet is such arbitrary decision with no actual logical basis accurate?

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?

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.

You suffer the same problems if you place an arbitrary cap on it like this with current 2-B.

What you just suggested not only shoots this notion of accuracy you have on the foot, it then burns said notion alive on the stake without mercy and it would be tenfold less accurate than what we're currently using. You can't really expect me to believe that this is about accuracy when you say stuff like that with a straight face.

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

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.

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.