- 15,107
- 6,876
- Thread starter
- #121
I'm not saying how we should treat the space, but I'm basing this CRT on how we already do, since SMT Ouroboros is literally what I'm talking about.
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.
SMT Ouroboros is complicated, since her thing is being infinite in relation to her domain, but how to apply that to scaling beyond "she's extremely above anything on there" would be hard to pinpoint.SMT Ouroboros is literally what I'm talking about.
This does not mean that the difference between these tiers is greater than infinite, merely that the difference is unknown.
I'm totally with thisBut the wiki is treating it as such now, since even if you could destroy 1000 universes, and multiplied your power infinitely, you would not get an upgrade in tier, not even a possibly 2-B right now. I am saying that since it is a distinct reasonable possibility we should allow a "possibly" tier upgrade with multipliers in tier 2 in order to show it is a distinct possibility at least, even if a certain amount of uncertainty exists.
1) Her AP description is saying that she's literally infinitely above baseline... Wait, why is SMT Ouroboros suddenly being argued to being infinitely above Low 2-C? She's just way above baseline via scaling, there's not a single multiplier for her tier.
I was the one who wrote her AP descritpion after a SMT CRT, if someone knows her AP it is me. So I can 100% definitely say there's no multiplier involved on her tier.1) Her AP description is saying that she's literally infinitely above baseline
2) If you don't agree with her rating just make a SMT CRT, otherwise this is going on derail
1 is not a finite number because of how big Y is compared to it, it is a finite number because it just straight up is a finite number. There is really no cohesive notion in mathematics where an infinite set of objects is "finite" compared to a larger collection, and the closest thing to that is a given set X having measure zero relative to another set Y, in which case, Y would have uncountably infinite size in comparision to X, and be an object of one dimension higher.I knew that such a ""counter"" came. I said COMPARATED to them, since we treat 2-C to 2-A tiers as infinitely above Low 2-C.
Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?
If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.
This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
Exactly. This is the issue here in a nutshell.I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
This seems like a good idea to me though.I guess if you want a sentence could be added to the end of that note saying:
"This does not mean that the difference between these tiers is greater than infinite, merely that the difference is unknown."
The issue of multiplying a 2-C degree of power infinitely should probably at least warrant a "likely higher" afterward in my opinion, yes, but I am not the best person to ask.To be fair though the current system is heavily flawed since your claiming destroying 2 Universes and multiplying your power infinitely is still inferior in the eyes of the tiering system than destroying 3 Universes. Your basically saying "we don't know the multiplier for sure, but for the sake of tiering were assuming even an infinite multiplier is not sufficient to add one more Universe of size to the AP". If we added in a "possibly" tier, or even "likely much higher" at the end for sufficient theoretical linear multipliers to show that they could be sufficient for a higher tier, your just not certain so it cant be a straight up confirmed tier, I think that would be better than assuming by default no multiplier is enough to even go up by one Universe in size.
Actually the example doesn't really work because I tried a simple back-of-envelope calculation and found that if someone is able to destroy 2 solar systems (i.e. baseline 4-A) at a certain power level X, he will be able to destroy actually more than 4 (in fact ~5.65 ) solar systems with a power level of 2X if the spatial density of solar systems is assumed to be uniform.I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
Hard disagree. The overwhelming majority of Tier 2 and above fights are decided on the basis of hax potency, resistances, passives, ability activation speed etc, and this fact is unlikely to change even if changes are made to how AP is scaled in Tier 2. The unquantifiable differences in AP almost never complicates actual VS matchups so the idea that Tier 2 matches are "completely unviable" with the current statistics is itself completely baselessLet's have an idea on this, shall we?
We definitely can't keep this tier with this vagueness, since this will make Tier 2 fights completely unaviable, so, I've got an idea.
Let's count the 2-C tiering as still beyond infinitely superior to Low 2-C, since we can't get in such highballs due to the unknown settings, so the idea of considering the 2-C to 2-A tiers as sub-sets of infinities unreachable for Low 2-C but comparable to each other in a numerical meaning still stands, also for the sake of vs debating and to respect the standards of Low End we always followed.