• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Adding details and ranges between the planetary and stellar levels in the tiers

Is there any way we can add descriptions and details about the tiers that encompass the planetary and stellar levels? They tend to overlap so I'd just like to see this change to avoid all confusion about tiers and categorizations in where certain things belong in.

Planetary levels could reach small planetoids (such as King Kai's) or asteroids at a few miles in circumference to planets close to or about the size of a main sequence star such as our sun.

Stellar levels go from neutron stars (which are comparable in size to many asteroids around our solar system at only double digit miles size but are much more massive) to red Hypergiants which can reach diameters of a solar system that reaches past the orbit of Saturn.

My question is... where to smaller planet levels lie and where do large ones lie on the tier list? Same question for stellar levels as they intersect with each other. I see them used as descriptors for tiers and destructive capacities and it would be neat to have some clarity of this range.

I also ask about where life wiping lies in the grand scheme of things since it only overs the surface area of where living things lie. And since there are varying sizes of planets, this creates another dilema as to calculations of the energy output required to destroy lets say... life wiping all of planet Namek (a planet larger than earth) compared to destroying a dwarf planet like Pluto.
 
I think "life wiping" tier is unnecessary, as is an extension of what a character may do; if a character is able to destroy a planet is able to wipe its life (Cosmo and Wanda did wipe all the life in the universe except Timmy, Trixie and them; and that they were able to do that is a consequence of their power which is enough to create/remove timelines and even dissapear all the universe, e.g.).
 
In the way it's commonly used, life wiping means the surface area where living things lie. Your idea of life wiping is too vague and is not the way we use it here either.
 
Also, the fact they're exceptions to the rule (saiyans for instance) makes difficult to undestand the real strength of a character with this tier.
 
We do not use life-wiping any more, as it is too unspecific. It could mean anything from burning all of the surface of a planet in a single attack, which is Multi-Continent level, to releasing a virus or telepathic attack, which is unquantifiable.

As for redefining the planetary and stellar energy scale. I think that it would create too much work, and demand a focus, organisation, and energy that I no longer possess. I think that we will have to make do with what we have for the moment. Sorry. It might have been different if Lord Kavpeny was still here.
 
I've thought for quite a while that the planetary classifications are in need of revision; it says a lot that busting our own planet is a Moon+ feat, in fact I feel a lot of the issues come from the Moon+ tier, but that's neither here nor there.

However the wiki isn't in its stablest of moments right now, and so this isn't really the time to make that sort of change. I think it's something that does need done eventually though.
 
Yes i agree with Rib78

maybe far down the line we can start doing these changes but for now we need stabllization.

How long will it take before we start doing these type of changes, idk i am going to guess probably awhile so it might just better to wait.
 
Of course! Priorities matter more, as I mentioned in another post I just thought this would be a good idea. I'm not asking for immediate action or anything, just going on an astronomy nerd rant.
 
Back
Top