Analyzing the Tiering System

[Self_Love]

I propose a feat based system.

Ranking characters on what they've actually objectively done just seems far better than cardinals.

 

[Moritzva]

I propose a feat based system.

Ranking characters on what they've actually objectively done just seems far better than cardinals.

Feats of what?

Feats of... say, cardinals?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Snip

Except this just loops back to what I've said previously. You are just arguing by starting off from the assumption that the premise of Dimensional Tiering is fundamentally valid, instead of actually addressing any of my points, something which will obviously get nowhere. Goku isn't even a factor here anyways, he can affect Higher-D stuff but is physically 3-D.

@Self Love

This is a feats based system though. It's tiering characters based on the size of the area which they can affect, instead of "lol how many dimensions do you have".

 

[Andytrenom]

The thread does a very good job explaining the problems and solutions in an easy to digest manner I'm jealous of you being able to do that in fact

Anyway, i agree changes should be made and as I already mentioned a few times elsewhere, the second tiering system layout that only affects 1-B and up should be used in my opinion

 

[Yobo_Blue]

The thread does a very good job explaining the problems and solutions in an easy to digest manner I'm jealous of you being able to do that in fact

Anyway, i agree changes should be made and as I already mentioned a few times elsewhere, the second tiering system layout that only affects 1-B and up should be used in my opinion

Most people disagree, and honestly, no offense, but it really doesn't explain anything too well even if it is "correct."

 

[Sera_EX]

I propose a feat based system.

Ranking characters on what they've actually objectively done just seems far better than cardinals.

That's not a system, that's a metric. One I clearly agree with, but it's not a system.

 

[DarkNoble]

I agree, so Yes and Option 1.

Have you gone over everything? Checked the sources and their credibility? Proceeded to understand what's going on and not just choosing to agree with what the moderators say?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Yobo

I mean, if you have a problem with how things are explained, I can break them down a bit more. Just say what they are, we are here to discuss after all

 

[Nepuko]

While I agree with this as I already said above, if it's possible to explain this in a.....er, "simpler" or more "comprehensible" way it would be awesome. Don't get me wrong the explanation seems correct, reasonabel, etc or else I wouldn't have agree, but....it would take a while to get understood if there's no better wording or something :/. (Basically while I agree with the change, I also gotta know how to apply it in the future XD)

 

[PsychoWarper]

I will agree that if it was explained in a simpler way that anyone could understand it would massively help this get through and make it far easier for people to look over a verse and figure out its tier.

 

[Nepuko]

I see I got Ninja'd.

 

[DarkNoble]

While I agree with this as I already said above, if it's possible to explain this in a.....er, "simpler" or more "comprehensible" way it would be awesome. Don't get me wrong the explanation seems correct, reasonabel, etc or else I wouldn't have agree, but....it would take a while to get understood if there's no better wording or something :/. (Basically while I agree with the change, I also gotta know how to apply it in the future XD)

So you essentially agree with something that you simply don't understand and until explained and gone over with you will come to some sort of fruition on what should be done? You can agree with a change but agreeing with a change without understanding its consequences is not a mature thing to go about it. You really should just go about having this broken down, then taking what was said and checking and quoting it with a wide variety of reliable sources before coming to said agreement.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima

Can we please talk in private as soon as possible regarding that you may or may not have diverged from what we explicitly repeatedly agreed about?

 

[Andytrenom]

They literally aren't. ... to get used to make Saiyan Saga Goku 4D or something like that.

There are also cases like The Authority who are very, very blatantly capable of manipulating higher dimensions but don't get a higher D tier, it is a matter of dimensionality not automatically giving infinite levels of transcendence, not just certain statements being insufficient for proving higher dimensionality

 

[ShivaShakti]

Ive been looking forward to this...

Yes. Option 1.

 

[Antvasima]

A strictly feats-based system recurrently turns meaningless beyond a certain point, due to problems with properly illustrating transcendent levels into such terms. We should use any available information for tiering purposes.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

So you essentially agree with something that you simply don't understand and until explained and gone over with you will come to some sort of fruition on what should be done? You can agree with a change but agreeing with a change without understanding its consequences is not a mature thing to go about it. You really should just go about having this broken down, then taking what was said and checking and quoting it with a wide variety of reliable sources before coming to said agreement.

They clearly understand the issue. It's just unnecessarily obtuse

 

[Self_Love]

Not at all

 

[Nepuko]

stuff

I said I gotta know how to apply it. I roughly get the logic behind all that, and it seems reasonable, I basically asked how to actually practically apply that ina Tiering.

And to answer your first reply that I missed, yes as I'm in Discord I kinda went over everything. forgot almost everything tho owo

Edit : Basically what Yobo said. I keep getting Ninja'd T_T

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I've already supported this, and will continue to do so.

Gunning on Option 1 for now, will comment more extensively a bit later.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mean, if you have a problem with how things are explained, I can break them down a bit more. Just say what they are, we are here to discuss after all

^^^^

 

[ShivaShakti]

Ty Ultima uwu

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima just assured me in private that he never diverged from what we agreed. Higher dimensions are still going to be taken into account for tiering when a verse explicitly defines them as infinitely larger or qualitatively superior. He says that he stated this in the original post of the thread.

As such, I apologise. It seems like I misread due to limited available time and energy.

As long as these points are incorporated into the new system, I support his option 1 revisions.

 

[Skalt711]

Ultima presents a Scientifically Accurate Tiering SystemÔäó to VS Battles Wiki!

Jokes aside, this feels like a really handy system! I'm going with the first option as well.

 

[SinsofMan]

Not like I use the wiki much anymore, but Option Two.

 

[Antoniofer]

I believe that those times that dimensions refer to higher hierarchy and the beings there are extremely to infinite stronger its cuz these "dimensions" aren't dimensions in the physical sense (not in the way its explained above). It would be more like a higher plane of existence, that is not the same as extra-dimensional, and its more related to esoterism (like the Astral Plane of the Akashic Records).

 

[Antoniofer]

I believe that the "x dimensional hax" disappears too, at least those not related to space and time. I mean, how people even relate dimensions to mind/soul when they are immaterial?

 

[Andytrenom]

Not that I want everyone to change their opinions, but can someone explain why option 1 is the better pick ?

There is pretty much no meaningful difference between option 1 and 2 functionally, they are just different layouts and don't amount to a lot more than aesthetic choices. But option 1 affects a greater number of tier and is also further away from the layout we are familiar with, so I'm genuinely curious why that is considered a better option?


...unless everyone is referring to the options for handling 1-A and 0 rather than the layout thing, in which case nvm

 

[KLOL506]

Option Two is my pick.

 

[DMB_1]

Ultima presents a Scientifically Plausible Tiering SystemÔäó

This would be more correct, but that doesn't mean that Ultima is wrong by any means.

This raises another problem though: which verses actually do see "trascendent" planes as structurees that are actually infinitely superior/more complext than the universe, rather than simply spiritual/metaphisical planes like, per se, some sort of Afterlife?

 

[ShivaShakti]

Not that I want everyone to change their opinions, but can someone explain why option 1 is the better pick ?
There is pretty much no meaningful difference between option 1 and 2 functionally, they are just different layouts and don't amount to a lot more than aesthetic choices. But option 1 affects a greater number of tier and is also further away from the layout we are familiar with, so I'm genuinely curious why that is considered a better option?


...unless everyone is referring to the options for handling 1-A and 0 rather than the layout thing, in which case nvm

From what I can see (correct me if im wrong)

Option 1 has 1-B is baseline outerversal and up

Option 2 has Low 1-A as baseline outerversal

Option 1 gives alot more room and has less risk of a bunch of characters getting pushed into one tier (as our current 1-A has done)

 

[ProudLearner]

I agree to Option 1.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I just personally like the more neatly fractured structure of the first option, but like I said I am on board with whichever is thought best.

And it may be that people were just sold on the apparently "more thorough" explanation of option 1 when it's really not that different.

 

[SomebodyData]

DMB has a point about the transcedent thing, I've had to debate that issue before.

I think I get the general gist of the thread, but can someone (in layman terms) explain the practical effects on the wiki's profiles (ie like Antoniofer noting that x dimensional hax would no longer exist)

 

[Nepuko]

Nope we're referring to the layout~

Anyway the reason for me is that Option 1 is tiered even better than the 2. And by "tiering better", I'm referring to it also taking into account Infinite-Outerversal as its own category, like the current "High 1-B", as an exemple.

1-A was "too broad", and Option 1 can help more in categorizing it I believe.

I also prefer that a tier that completely surpass previous hierarchies entirely to be its own Tier, instead of part of a "Low", "Normal" one. So "Normal" Wan Ei completely and utterly surpassing all previous hierarchies, including "Low" 1-A (which contain everything from baseline to Infinite....), dosen't really cut it out for me, at least "aestetichally" speaking.

I think...that's it?

 

[ShivaShakti]

Nope we're referring to the layout~
Anyway the reason for me is that Option 1 is tiered even better than the 2. And by "tiering better", I'm referring to it also taking into account Infinite-Outerversal as its own category, like the current "High 1-B", as an exemple.

1-A was "too broad", and Option 1 can help more in categorizing it I believe.

I also prefer that a tier that completely surpass previous hierarchies entirely to be its own Tier, instead of part of a "Low", "Normal" one.

I think...that's it?

Yeah this is kind of what I was getting at. It classes Infinite Outerversal, and Regular Outerversal as separate categories. Our current system has had that problem where we had Baseline Outerversals mixed in with the infinitely transcendent highest end Outerversals.

 

[ThePerpetual]

A question-

If (current) 1-C and 1-B were to be collapsed into a single Tier, where would the lines be drawn between Low, normal, and High 1-C? And, furthermore, on what grounds/with what justifications would those lines be drawn?

 

[TheVoidWalker69]

I've been watching this thing develop and grow for many months now and can barely believe that this is finally happening, so I obviously agree with everything that's been stated here. Though I make no claims towards being an expert in regards to mathematics or physics, I've been exposed to these revisions long enough to have rather good knowlege over how this would work, and I've done my own research to where I can confidently agree with and understand the proposals.

At any rate, I acutally feel that Option Two would work better instead with all things considered. Now I ask that you hear me out. I primarily believe that Option Two works better because of the fact current 1-C, current High 1-C and current 1-B aren't compressed into one tier. It will also require far less work just generally speaking. The only downside to Option Two that I can see is the act of combining 1-A and High 1-A into Low 1-A, but overall that gets outweighed by the other benefits Option Two provides. At least it does in my eyes. As for how to handle 1-A and Tier 0, I believe that Option One for that respectively would be the best approach there.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Maybe we should expand the tiers a bit?

With option 1, the lower end of Tier 1 gets thrown together, but the higher end gets separated more. (Which I think is much needed.)

However with option 2 it's the reverse of that.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Why are you guys like this

Like for real, we have both the Audit and Fandom throwing a hissy fit to deal with already. Not exactly the best timing boys.

I'm low key at work rn so I'll actually answer that later.