2-C and 2-B Tier merge

[CloverDragon03]

there's 9 staff members (2 admins, 7 thread mods) agreeing and 5 staff members (2 admins, 2 bureau, 1 thread mod) disagreeing

so removing the admins from both sides and the 1 thread mod, that means 2 bureaucrats have more say then 6 thread mods?

According to what’s being said, apparently, yeah. You and I may as well have not commented at all because it seems like in this thread, our opinions are pretty much dead weight

 

[Antvasima]

Since it seemed extremely inappropriate that an entirely new member kept trying to hijack such an important policy thread despite repeatedly being explicitly instructed to stop, I removed Tanin's posts in this thread as well as their ability to respond here.

 

[Antvasima]

According to what’s being said, apparently, yeah. You and I may as well have not commented at all because it seems like in this thread, our opinions are pretty much dead weight

All staff members have different areas of responsibility, and I am not allowed to evaluate calculation blogs for example, but this particular type of very important policy revision needs a consensus among the highest ranked staff members. My apologies.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I have thought a good deal about this, and I have decided to switch to Neutral on this stance.

To be frank, despite the fact that the argument for this is solid, Ant has convinced me that the current system as is works just as well, and does help specify how powerful one is roughly without having to get into technicalities about how powerful they actually are.

So, while I wouldn't mind the change if it passes, I'm also gonna say that I will be fine if nothing happens at all either.

 

[CloverDragon03]

What I don’t get is what disadvantage there is to having this. How is this any harder to understand, less accurate, or anything of that matter? Making the distinction between 1 universe, a finite number of universes, and an infinite number of universes is as close to objectively better as it can get compared to our current system of:

“What’s the difference between 2-C and 2-B?”
“2-C is 2-1000 universes, 2-B is 1001 universes onward”
“Why is that the cutoff?”
“Idk”

 

[Moritzva]

The reason for the cutoff is for clarity. What is the reason for cutoff in any tier? To not have one massively large supertier that contains way too many characters that can't be compared.

I disagree with the proposal, mostly for reasons already stated.

 

[LordTracer]

To not have one massively large supertier that contains way too many characters that can't be compared.

So 1-B

 

[CloverDragon03]

The reason for the cutoff is for clarity. What is the reason for cutoff in any tier? To not have one massively large supertier that contains way too many characters that can't be compared.

I disagree with the proposal, mostly for reasons already stated.

High 6-A has entered the chat
3-A has entered the chat
1-B has entered the chat

This isn't a good comparison, because those other cutoffs mostly (idk if the Tier 1 tiers have a given reason but idk much Tier 1 to begin with) have some sort of reason for them (5-B starts at Earth's GBE, for example). I at least would prefer to have the cutoff here be something that isn't completely arbitrary

 

[Reiner04]

Tier 1C has no reason for its sub divisions if tier 2 Don't have one, it's just that we wanted to divide it and so choose to do it based of numbers that are present in irl stuff. They are just our preference to divide in such way not that they're reasons for the division itself.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

I'm not staff, haven't asked for permission but this thread is basically what we did a few years ago with High 2-A.

For those that don't remember or were not here High 2-A used to be 5D and Low 1-C only 6D then they got merged because it was dumb to have that, despite all of the community inside and outside being familiar with the system at the time.

The change didn't affect the community, users adapted to it quickly and character moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1 was never perceived as an "artificial power jump" or something along those lines so it shouldn't be an issue here.

I know some think merging these tiers will lead to some sort of dump of characters in it but we already do that for those tiers mentioned above. The thing about characters not being comparable is a stupid argument as we all know 2B already has characters that aren't comparable.

Pokemon for example, that verse used to have countless ^ countless Universes, something that can't be compared to X verse that can only bust 5000 Universes.

My point is that these complains are basically out of laziness and the need to keep the status quo

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think you should've asked for permission to comment on the thread first. I agree with what you're saying to be honest (again, appeal to tradition is a fallacy for a reason), though not really laziness, more so the "need to keep the status quo" point. Going with what we've gone with before isn't always the best solution. Still, getting permission first would've been best.

 

[KingTempest]

High 6-A has entered the chat
3-A has entered the chat
1-B has entered the chat

This isn't a good comparison, because those other cutoffs mostly (idk if the Tier 1 tiers have a given reason but idk much Tier 1 to begin with) have some sort of reason for them (5-B starts at Earth's GBE, for example). I at least would prefer to have the cutoff here be something that isn't completely arbitrary

If 4-B and 3-A are allowed to exist how they are then their argument should be out the window

 

[LordTracer]

And by the logic of ”tiers with characters with gigantic power differences are bad”, 1-B is even worse than what we’re proposing for 2-B. Because 1-B has characters on different levels of infinity in the same tier, and that’s apparently fine.

 

[Moritzva]

I see a lot of whataboutisms being thrown about here. Just because we have other egregiously large tiers doesn't mean it is a good idea to make more.

If you want to argue that the cutoff "shouldn't be arbitrary" then I simply ask that you are consistent when making this change. Our system works as it is, and if you want to change it for a particular reason, stick by said reason instead of pointing towards similarly (or not so similarly) large tiers as if that's not a textbook fallacy.

And no, 1-B is an extremely poor example. The stretch of power 1-B encompasses is so generally unpopulated and so massive that, to actually document all of it individually, we'd need a downright infinite number of tiers. 1-B isn't remotely comparable, and I find it pretty stupid that people don't see the obvious problem with "We didn't split 1-B into a million different tiers (despite how unpopulated and small there tier already is) so we should remove 2-C!"

 

[CloverDragon03]

I see a lot of whataboutisms being thrown about here. Just because we have other egregiously large tiers doesn't mean it is a good idea to make more.

I'm just calling out an inconsistency in the "we don't want egregiously large tiers" argument. Reducing that to a whataboutism isn't exactly correct, because I know what my reason is for wanting this change made: it gets rid of an arbitrary cutoff point between tiers.

If you want to argue that the cutoff "shouldn't be arbitrary" then I simply ask that you are consistent when making this change. Our system works as it is, and if you want to change it for a particular reason, stick by said reason instead of pointing towards similarly (or not so similarly) large tiers as if that's not a textbook fallacy.

My reason is that I want the cutoff to actually make some sense instead of slapping on some arbitrary value like 1001 universes. This proposed revision would do that. I know that it's not just these tiers that have an arbitrary cutoff point (i.e. 7-B starting at 6.3 megatons, I have no idea where that came from), but I legitimately don't know what to do for other tiers that have this issue. But in this case, the answer is right in front of me.

Our system may work, but this system works better. At least this way, I could actually explain "well 2-C involves 1 universe, 2-B involves any finite number of universes, and 2-A involves an infinite number of universes" instead of being like "idk why 2-C cuts off at 1000 universes but that's just how it is."

Sticking with tradition is not always best.

And no, 1-B is an extremely poor example. The stretch of power 1-B encompasses is so generally unpopulated and so massive that, to actually document all of it individually, we'd need a downright infinite number of tiers. 1-B isn't remotely comparable, and I find it pretty stupid that people don't see the obvious problem with "We didn't split 1-B into a million different tiers (despite how unpopulated and small there tier already is) so we should remove 2-C!"

Well that's kinda why I also mentioned High 6-A and 3-A, two tiers that are highly populated

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Disagree with the changes I guess

 

[Promestein]

High 6-A, 4-B, and 3-A are tiers that are harder to divide into smaller portions. I understand that the distinction between 2-C and 2-B may be a bit arbitrary, but it's certainly not comparable to these three. If you have an issue with them, you can always try to tackle those - Low 5-C is at least a concept I've seen thrown around before, so you might be better off with that one.

A change here is only going to cause more confusion; understand that not all our userbase is going to be participating on the forums and following revisions. A lot of people are just going to be looking at the wiki pages, and a sudden change like this is going to cause confusion in exchange for not a whole lot of benefit, as far as I can tell. I'm not going to steadfastly oppose this because it's not a big deal, but I just don't personally see the issue with the tiers as they are right now. These clear distinctions, even if at times a bit arbitrary, have their benefits.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I can understand the confusion this may cause, but I remember someone mentioning that there was a change involving a former High 2-A tier that changed things to how they are now. Wouldn't this be pretty much the same in that regard?

 

[Promestein]

That change is different than this one. While High 2-A had its reasons to exist, (and I remember vouching for its existence as an introduction to hd concepts in the tiering system) everything is rendered much clearer by moving all the higher-dimensional / similar thing tiers into Tier 1. High 2-A no longer existing and fusing with Low 1-C is quite a bit different, in comparison to a major change to the bounds of existing tiers that redefines them entirely. High 2-A is gone; 2-C and 2-B would still exist but mean different things.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Agree with Prom.

There's literally no meaningful difference in the revisions proposals other than to make characters have a higher tier, seemingly making them more powerful, when the number of universes allocated to them will be the same anyway. I don't get why we need to go through hundreds of profiles just to make a change that makes no difference other than to bump characters up a tier.

Lots of work for literally no benefit except a different letter on the profile.

 

[Bobsican]

Uh... it was already concluded it wouldn't be a lot of work as a bot can do most of it, the only manual thing would be handling pages that have 2-B and 2-C in them at the same time, which are only 28 or so.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Uh... it was already concluded it wouldn't be a lot of work as a bot can do most of it, the only manual thing would be handling pages that have 2-B and 2-C in them at the same time, which are only 28 or so.

Much like Bob has said here- There have been multiple arguments against it being of any degree of work for those who don't want to be a part of it, between the bot and the handful of people who do have the desire to do the changes themselves. Respectfully, any argument that say's it's just too much work without addressing the rebuttals (That which there have been several of) against it being such are frankly invalid in that regard at least.

And I also question why people keep talking about this just being a excuse to make characters seem stronger. Like, it doesn't change anything inherently, so why would they do that if that was their objective? It makes very little sense, and frankly just serves to be a baseless accusation against a person's character, if anything, without clear and blatantly obvious proof.

 

[LordTracer]

other than to make characters have a higher tier, seemingly making them more powerful

This was never the point of the revision though…

 

[KingPin0422]

I've thought about it a lot in the time I've been gone, and honestly... I don't think an outright fusion is needed anymore. I mean, I won't protest if it goes through (unlikely as it is at this point), and I admit there is logic to such a change (precedents in the merge of High 2-A with Low 1-C and the addition of tier categories, mainly), but I also don't think we should make more overpopulated tiers just because we have tiers like 9-B out here with several thousands of characters with vastly different power levels. Yes, specification on the profiles is more important, and I fully agree with enforcing a rule that tier 2 profiles should specify the maximum # of universes the character can be reasoned to affect where applicable, but we do have divisions for a good reason: it's easier to organize and sort through profiles with them than without.

With that being said, 1,000 universes is still a poor choice for the upper boundary of 2-C IMO, as I cannot name any characters at the moment who scale to or slightly above/below that number, and even "hundreds of universes" is quite rare for scaling as far as I remember. I can suggest changing the limit of 2-C to 100 universes if people really want a change, as that number is much closer to the point where multiverse sizes start to hit a "gap" - to the best of my knowledge, not much of the 2-C population scales to more than 10 universes, nor are there many 2-B characters who only scale in the thousands. I dunno, just a thought.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's also important to note, that it isn't just profiles we'd be mass editing, but a lot of explanations pages that don't quite have the 2-C or 2-B categories would inherently need updating which are easy to over look. And those pages also can't simply be edited via a bot unlike the massive number of character profiles. Same with respect blogs for various verses. There's also the fact that some characters who are currently rated as "At least 2-C, possibly 2-B" would have a solid 2-B rating be the update needed. Which a bot wouldn't be flexible enough to register that if the command was to change all current 2-Cs to 2-Bs. We'd have some "At least 2-B's possibly 2-B's" to fix.

And of course, it's just Attack Potency Page, Striking Strength page, durability page, range page, and tiering system pages, but also every respect blog and/or explanation pages that mention Tier 2 stuff that would need tackling and aren't as simple as the individual character pages. So once again, the "No need to make so much effort to try to fix something that isn't broken" still holds up.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

At this point, are they even going to listen to the fact that there are other people more than willing to do the work for them, or...?

Well, unfortunately, it's looking like at this point, this thread really is just not going through at this rate.

 

[CloverDragon03]

At this point, are they even going to listen to the fact that there are other people more than willing to do the work for them, or...?

Well, unfortunately, it's looking like at this point, this thread really is just not going through at this rate.

It is what it is. Can't really do much when it's universally disagreed on by the people whose opinions actually matter for this sort of thing. It's not the end of the world at least

 

[Smashtwig]

For some reason, I'm allowed to comment here...? (Someone should probably fix that)

Well, since I can- I'll have my own stance on this. And it has nothing to do with the logistics of what's better for the tiering system. Though I do agree the two tiers are redundant...

From what I understand, this is a lot of work. A lot of work for the sake of "something is too redundant". What's at stake here at this point is pretty much, pride and who wins and doesn't win this argument more than the actual issue (which, I totally understand, humans don't like feeling inferior to other humans).

What I'm trying to say is that we're butting heads over something so... insignificant in the grand scheme it really isn't worth it.

I think that if there's a change to the tiering system, it should be because of something actually of the essence / or something that is actively causing a problem with how we do things. The phrase "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" has an actual reason behind it.

I disagree with the changes, because the system already working and it isn't really causing a problem at the moment. Perhaps if you pair this with a super major tiering system update- it could get by.

 

[CloverDragon03]

There's no hard restrictions (like some sort of message or blockade) on who can comment, but if it's a staff-only thread, it's pretty much a given that only staff members and those given permission by staff can comment

 

[KLOL506]

It's also important to note, that it isn't just profiles we'd be mass editing, but a lot of explanations pages that don't quite have the 2-C or 2-B categories would inherently need updating which are easy to over look. And those pages also can't simply be edited via a bot unlike the massive number of character profiles. Same with respect blogs for various verses. There's also the fact that some characters who are currently rated as "At least 2-C, possibly 2-B" would have a solid 2-B rating be the update needed.

Only 28 profiles like this latter example exist. I already pointed this issue out a while back before we then found out only 28 profiles exist that have the "At least 2-C to 2-B example".

Which a bot wouldn't be flexible enough to register that if the command was to change all current 2-Cs to 2-Bs. We'd have some "At least 2-B's possibly 2-B's" to fix.

28 profiles only as per the above comments.

And of course, it's just Attack Potency Page, Striking Strength page, durability page, range page, and tiering system pages,

This'd be the easiest part.

but also every respect blog and/or explanation pages that mention Tier 2 stuff that would need tackling and aren't as simple as the individual character pages.

Shouldn't be that hard, if it's 2 universes and above, just replace the specific wordings to... well, 2-B. Besides, Explanation Blogs are supposed to be converted to Explanation Pages in the near future anyway plus lot of them might have outdated scans from Discord and whatnot so I wouldn't miss this opportunity to fix them up if possible.

So once again, the "No need to make so much effort to try to fix something that isn't broken" still holds up.

You're blowing this well out of proportion DDM. 90% of the hard work's already been done. This case isn't one of them.

 

[Antvasima]

I would like to apologise to the rest of our staff and regular members for personally mishandling my responses to this thread, and likely being rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful, and causing hurt feelings.

If all of my sum total general stress, confusion, and tiredness at the moment accumulate beyond a certain threshold and I also have to strain myself with prolonged arguments, there is still a rather big chance that I will turn into an irritable control freak just to try to get things over with quicker, and even though I am probably not nearly as bad in this regard as I used to be years ago, it is still not good at all.

I am currently taking meditation lessons (in lack of better descriptions for it), and am trying to figure out how to reorient my personality in a more positive manner, or rather gradually break free from just being a set of instinctive obsessions and reactions due to all of my past traumatic experiences, but at the moment that creates an even more disoriented state of mind than otherwise, as I am only on a basic beginner level, and have a very long way to walk ahead of me.

 

[KingPin0422]

If it wasn't obvious in my previous comment, I don't think workload is the problem at all. We've tackled far bigger revisions than this with no issues (such as adding more detailed tier categories to nearly every page on the site), and the bulk of this change can be handled by an automated script anyway, leaving comparatively few pages that would need to be edited manually by those who are willing to do so. I just think this change is borne out of aesthetic appeal more than anything else and wouldn't do much practically, is all.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I got permission to post here.

And I will say that I absolutely disagree with this.

I see a lot of posts claiming that this is is more accurate and is more simple, and I will say these statements are simply a matter of opinion. I have yet to see an argument about how this change will make things easier for the site users and those who manage the site. In fact, I see several statements that this could potentially create extra work load which is a negative.

So what are the actual benefits to this change other than personal opinions? What are the disadvantages for the current system?

I wish for the tier system to remain as it is. One of the benefits of the current situation, is that it allows users quickly match up characters of a similar power level, without there being too much of a divide. Fusing the two tiers will make it harder.

In fact, when you look at the numbers:

Within 2-C: there are 896 characters
Within 2-B: there are 319 characters

What is the benefit of combining these two to have one of 1,215 characters? Yes there are also tiers that have a lot of characters such as Low 2-C which has 1199 characters. But the difference between that current tier (Low 2-C), and the new one being proposed is that within the Low 2-C tier, the characters are all within a similar range of AP. Whereas, in the new proposed tier, you will have characters that have gaps of millions to billions to adinfinitum being stuffed together and for what benefit?

 

[Antvasima]

Given that the initial suggestion here seems to have been rejected, should we close this thread now?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Given that the initial suggestion here seems to have been rejected, should we close this thread now?

Yap, it can be closed then.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so.

Thank you very much to everybody who helped out here, and apologies again for turning irritable and cranky earlier.