Adding a note on why destroying multiple Infinite-sized multiverses is not entirely worthless

[Rikimarox2]

Good morning people. I didn't know any other way of wording the title, so, I'm sorry if the wording seems off.

Anyways, In the Tiering system FAQ, it states that "destroying multiple infinite-sized multiverses is not a better feat than destroying one infinite-sized multiverse, unless the verse treats it as such"

Which, while might be true for AP, the FAQ makes it seem like destroying Multiple 2-As is not impressive at all and won't grant anything, so some new user might get confused.

While it doesn't qualify as an AP upgrade, destroying multiple 2-As will in fact give you an upgrade in range. Not only that, but it is quite useful in battles depending on your abilities.

For example, a character with the range of 5 2-As would be able to BFR an opponent who only has the range of 4 2-As, and effectively incapping them.

Or if a character is omnipresent across multiple 2-A structures, then said character would be virtually immune to any character who doesn't have the range to affect them. An example of this is: Arceus, Madoka Kaname, etc...

As such, I propose to make a note in the FAQ where it states that while destroying more 2-As doesn't necessarily grant an AP upgrade, it can be used however to get a higher above baseline range. Most people may already know this, but some may not.

It's a small change, really.

TL;DR: Destroying multiple 2-As grant a range upgrade, and it should be noted on the FAQ.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Agreed, let's go

 

[KingTempest]

I like this perspective. Agreed for now. I wanna see arguments against it

 

[Rikimarox2]

Bump

 

[ElixirBlue]

I agree on having a note about the range. People can make conclusions for multiple 2-A’s being worthless, like said above

 

[Thelastmlg]

Arceus is the living proof that this is this is required tbh

 

[Zencha9]

Agree

 

[Helestias]

Pretty much understandble,agreed

 

[DontTalkDT]

Destroying multiple infinite multiverses wouldn't automatically equate to a higher range either.
There is in fact no objective way to even differentiate between one and five infinite multiverses. It's literally just a question of how you arbitrarily draw borders into a cluster of infinite universes to separate them into multiple multiverses.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Destroying multiple infinite multiverses wouldn't automatically equate to a higher range either.
There is in fact no objective way to even differentiate between one and five infinite multiverses. It's literally just a question of how you arbitrarily draw borders into a cluster of infinite universes to separate them into multiple multiverses.

Wouldn’t that be determined by the story’s narrative/cosmology?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Wouldn’t that be determined by the story’s narrative/cosmology?

It's not the default assumption.
Like with power it can be considered more impressive if the verse itself explicitly states it as such. However, "explicitly" in this case means clearer than a mere subset relationship. If it's merely about destroying more in the sense of reaching universes not included in one of the other multiverses, or not included in some prior feat of destruction, that wouldn't suffice.

Edit: One should also consider that other than for AP, there is no practical baseline for multiversal range. One can always have half of a given multiversal range and still have multiversal range. And contrary to the AP case, the half range could actually be lesser.

 

[Zencha9]

@DontTalkDT so what about arceus and madoka is their range baseline or is it as big as it's claimed to be?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I’m not seeing why the range aspect of the 2-A would need to be given the same treatment as the AP.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with DontTalk.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I mean, if Don't Talk is correct then how would that affect our current profiles? Especially characters like Arceus and Madoka who are made of millions to infinite amount of 2As?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I’m not seeing why the range aspect of the 2-A would need to be given the same treatment as the AP.

Again, with all due respect, I’m still not seeing why the range part of higher than baseline 2-A needs to be in the same boat as how we treat AP now.

AP is one thing because the “still infinite” point would make the destructive value, by default, not greater than affecting a normal 2-A multiverse. But range should be a different story as that’s borderline saying that 1+1 doesn’t equal 2 or that 2 isn’t > 1 in numbers without something saying so explicitly. Range wise, a bigger extent of infinity within multiple 2-A structures is still getting effected, which means in terms of the actual area, it should be fine to take it as higher than baseline range.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I agree with kukui BTW. Hell I believe asked a similar questions before to a staff, and they told me it grants higher range iirc.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I heard higher range from staff as well

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Perhaps DT and Ultima should be tagged here again?

 

[Delta333]

well according to Ultima affecting multiple 2-As is better feat of range,also iirc staff members already accepted it in thread about infinite 2-As in archie sonic

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps DT and Ultima should be tagged here again?

DT has already answered though.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

DT has already answered though.

People still have questions for him and it appears Ultima has mentioned on previous threads that affecting separate and more 2-A structures = higher 2-A range

this appears to conflict with DT's response

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

The other members here want me to call you to answer questions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT so what about arceus and madoka is their range baseline or is it as big as it's claimed to be?

Idk the verses well enough to answer that.

I’m not seeing why the range aspect of the 2-A would need to be given the same treatment as the AP.

As there is no actual difference between one and multiple multiverses, except where the author draws lines into its map, I see no reason why we would assume anything different.

Assume you have infinite universes numbered through with the natural number. I could call that the infinite multiverse of natural numbers.
I could also call it two infinite multiverses: The infinite multiverse of odd-numbered universes and the infinite multiverse of even-numbered universes.
As an author I will simply describe it in whichever way suits my story best. Like, maybe all the even-numbered universes have normal gravity and all the odd-numbered universes have anti-gravity. Hence I, as author, make that distinction.
That changes absolutely nothing in the fact that the set of infinite universes I started out with is exactly the same between the infinite multiverse of natural numbers and the two infinite multiverses of odd/even numbered universes. I didn't move or change anything about them. I just described them differently.
What you're suggesting is that a purely semantic difference, that is how the author describes a cluster of infinite universes, somehow makes a difference in range. That's by no means the case. Manipulating the same thing gives the same ranking, regardless of how that thing is described.

I mean, if Don't Talk is correct then how would that affect our current profiles? Especially characters like Arceus and Madoka who are made of millions to infinite amount of 2As?

I don't think it affects profiles at all, since they list it as Multiversal+ range one way or another?

 

[Rikimarox2]

We assumed omnipresent characters who are made of millions of multiverses to be pretty much immune to any being who doesn't have sufficient range to reach them. Unless if a character destroys a simple baseline 2A would be enough to affect them?

 

[DontTalkDT]

We assumed omnipresent characters who are made of millions of multiverses to be pretty much immune to any being who doesn't have sufficient range to reach them. Unless if a character destroys a simple baseline 2A would be enough to affect them?

Well, considering that an infinite multiverse cut into a million equally sized pieces results in a million infinite multiverses I see no real difference there.
Unless the verse has any actual indication of there being a difference of range like nature.

 

[Everything12]

Pokémon has a countless/infinite Multiverse, the Distortion World which is separate and equal to said Multiverse like a reflection, and every Game Copy canonically has its own separate versions of both.

Madoka has two infinite Multiverse's, the old one that still "exists" separately and a new one created when Madoka rewrote the Laws of the world to remove Witches.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Pokémon has a countless/infinite Multiverse, the Distortion World which is separate and equal to said Multiverse like a reflection, and every Game Copy canonically has its own separate versions of both.

Madoka has two infinite Multiverse's, the old one that still "exists" separately and a new one created when Madoka rewrote the Laws of the world to remove Witches.

Ok. Do any of the two have any indicator as there being a difference in range when it comes to affecting one multiverse or all of those?

 

[QuasiYuri]

I agree with DontalkDT.

It's obvious that we can't treat the infinity differently whenever we want.
Either Infinity + 1 isn't a thing for AP and range, or it is a thing for both.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Pretty sure Ultima or some other staff had a different view on this before. I suggest we wait for him.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Pretty sure Ultima or some other staff had a different view on this before. I suggest we wait for him.

^

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm neutral on this, but i understand DontTalkDT viewpoint, dividing infinite we still have infinite, so we could divide one infinite multiverse into a set of multiple infinite multiverse, or reverse it, we could group multiple infinite multiverse into one infinite multiverse. So unless the verse treated the thing specifically like AP, it is safer to keep everything at equal

 

[Delta333]

Ok. Do any of the two have any indicator as there being a difference in range when it comes to affecting one multiverse or all of those?

In Madoka yes,the destruction of world of witches has nothing to do with world of wraiths and vice versa

 

[Secretly_domain]

Hoho I'm following this

 

[Seol404]

Hard agree with this.

 

[My_area]

Agreeing with Dont talk DT so far

 

[ElixirBlue]

In Madoka yes,the destruction of world of witches has nothing to do with world of wraiths and vice versa

Same with Archie

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Honestly at this point we should treat it like AP

If the verse specifies treats 2 multiverses as better than 1,it shouldn't just affect AP but range as well.


Otherwise, they should just be baseline 2-A. I should also mention, since it was brought up, that 2 multiversal structures being separate is not enough for better AP (which should affect range too now if this gets accepted) IIRC. This kind of stuff has to be stated, as far as I remember

 

[StrymULTRA]

Ok. Do any of the two have any indicator as there being a difference in range when it comes to affecting one multiverse or all of those?

About Pokémon I'll explain later, verse kinda has evidence for the multiverses not being part of the same "group"

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

As long as the verse treats affecting 2 multiverses as being > affecting 1 multiverse, said verse won't be affected.

However as I said 2 multiversal structures being separated from one another isn't enough, as far as I remember