• 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.

Analyzing the Tiering System

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's overall inaccurate in slightly different ways, but it does clear up some big inaccuracies with outerversal.

Verses will be equalized into the new tiering system, just like verses are already equalized into the current tiering system despite not necessarily mentioning dimensions.
 
@Crabwhale

Well, you are likely right in that this was organised in a harebrained manner by us, but there were definitely not any shady intentions behind it. As I mentioned earlier, I just wanted Ultima to thoroughly correspond with some of our most knowledgeable members in private first, so as few mistakes as possible would be made before the actual revision. That is all. I am quite bad at anticipating complicated social community reactions to what I do.

It is also likely that we will have to delay this actual revision until after the forum move as you say. I just feel bad for having left Ultima to wait for half a year due to preparations, and then maybe have to let him wait several months further until something is done.

If nothing else, at least the information is out there now, so everybody will be better prepared when the change eventually happens.
 
For reference, here's a condensed version of what each of the tiers are planned to be after this change, assuming option 1:

  • High 3-A = Infinite Universe
  • Low 2-C = Universe+ (4-D when only 1 4-D realm or a whole spacetime)
  • 2-C = Low/Small Multiverse
  • 2-B = Multiverse
  • 2-A = Large Multiverse/Multiverse+
  • High 2-A = Complex/High Multiverse level (5-D manifold)
  • Low 1-C = 6-D to 11-D manifolds/levels of fiction/qualitative superiority/layers of reality
  • 1-C = Former 1-B
  • High 1-C = Former High 1-B
  • Low 1-B = Uncountable High 1-B
  • 1-B = Baseline outerversal
  • High 1-B = infinite outerversal
  • 1-A = beyond scale outerversal
  • 0 = transcendent of 1-A
 
Andytrenom said:
Not 100% certain, but I believe Ultima mentioned there would be a different thread for actually implementing the changes

If that is true and this thread is more about getting opinions on the revision itself, as well as informing the community at large, that alleviates some of the concerns regarding timing.
Click to expand...
This is my impression as well. This thread is mainly to get feedback from the community.
 
I would try to contribute to this, but things spreading exclusively into the Tier 1 and 0 scale is way beyond me in terms of what I understand. So, I'll be forever neutral on this subject, and let people who are ultimately smarter than me on this topic talk it out with each other.
 
We are not changing the names of any tier below 1-A, aside from Complex Multiverse level, which will just be called Hyperverse level anyways if Option 1 goes through. Just leaving this here.
 
Well, I'm strongly against Option 1 anyway due to how much it compressed the tiers and favors 1-A. I've expressed why in more detail several times on Discord. Option 2 is better since a simple "Low 1-A" would easily solve the "1-A is too broad issue" without having to compact the rest of tier 1 just to satisfy that.
 
I agree with that completely, the first option just feels like making too much changes for no reason whatsoever

The revision itself is mostly about what we require of feats before assigning them a high tier, there doesn't need to be such a major overhaul of the tiering system to accomplish that, some slight alterations should be more than enough
 
@Sera & Andy

Would you be more positive for option 1 if there were more tiers available lower down the scale?
 
I mean, my problem is how much it changes what we are used to, in a situation where it isnt actually necessary I'm not sure why more tiers being available would address that
 
Well, I like the system for the new Low 1-B and above.
 
Won't blame you for that, but as far as I can see they are the same thing with just the organization mixed up a bit

It's just quite hard to see any major benefits that doesn't come down to "seems better" since even some points like the broadness of the tier aren't inherently problems, both because tiers are allowed to have wide disparity of power within them and because the second option option also does the job of dividing the higher tiers in an appropriate manner
 
Well, if we can then keep the tiers not compressed and still categorize the too broad 1-A, maybe adding another tier in the 1-A for the Infinite Outerversal characters in Option 2 would be neat.

Low 1-A : Baseline

1-A : Infinite Outerversal

High 1-A : Above the Outerversal hierarchy

could be a solution. Since it'll fuse both what Ant wants (the problem with 1-A too broad, Option 2 lacks the "Infinite Outerversal" tier that Option 1 posseses), and the 'too compressed' problem, as well as the "too much work" one I presume. That or Tier S owo
 
Well, in that case I would like for us to also have an option 3 to choose from, which keeps the greater amount of highest tiers available in option 1, but combines them with option 2 otherwise.
 
Well, we also have a say in this.
 
That's what I've told Aeyu and Ultima multiple times. We can have 1-A be differentiated without compressing the lower tiers. Something akin to what Nepuko suggested. Notice how in Option 1, there's no Low 1-A. Why?

Low 1-A : Baseline

1-A : Infinite Outerversal

High 1-A : Above the Outerversal hierarchy

^That's a lot better than: 1-B, High 1-B, and 1-A in Option 1.
 
In my opinion, each tier (and sub-tier) should both have its own established identity and expect to see some reasonable degree of use, as far the two can be negotiated with each other, and up to now I think @Agnaa's iteration of Option 1 accomplishes this the best:

"1-C", on the whole, has the clear task of sorting out characters who transcend normal reality by some tangible number of higher realities. This is further sorted nicely into 6-11-dimensional for Low (a contingent with boundaries clearly established through existing scientific theory, and that makes sense based on the general frequency with which such tiers appear), 12-to-transfinite for Mid (which again should see some use, and catches everything Low before it or High coming up does not), and then High 1-C for "infinite-Dimensional" as we understand it currently: this recurs frequently enough here, and is noteworthy enough as a classification, I find, to warrant its own rating.

1-B's job is likewise to sort out the characters that transcend "transcend normal reality by some tangible number of higher realities" here, whether only by a relatively minor margin (Low 1-B), ordinarily (normal 1-B, for baseline), or extraordinarily (High 1-B.)

If we wanted to keep the Tiering System mostly the same, and simply expand what ranges of 1-A exist, we'd need to ask ourselves what functions those classifications serve to fulfill. It's one thing to say "something is better", and another to consider why it's better (or not) in the first place.
 
@SeraEx @Ercosore Thanks!

@Antvasima well it seems that if an Option 3 is available most (including me ofc) would agree. It would have the best of both Options after all, and probably everyone who already chose an option would choose Option 3 when it's available, since whatever reasons one had to choose 1 or 2 would be there in 3.

Tho seeing that Option 3 is basically adding One Tier to Option 2 (basically adding Infinite Outerversal), maybe we should just edit Option 2 to something similar to my proposition above (since it seems that Mods seem to like it)


Edit : glad to have been able to help in some way :).
 
Sera's suggestion seems to make sense to me.
 
What about the wierd zone between Low 1-A and 1-A? Like, for people who transcend above baseline but not infinitely so? Like, Hadou Gods are above baseline, but there's a difference between them and Hajun. Other than that, I agree with Option 3.
 
NOOOOOO


Dimensional tiering itself is bad in my opinion but it is more or less based on logic. The new "overvoids", "overvoids of overvoids", "overvoids of overvoids of overvoids" stuff is even worse.

We simply need to get rid of tier 0 and mix it with 1-A. All versions of 1-C and 1-B should be also mixed into a single category as well.

So we will have:

1-B: Higher dimensional stuff (5D and everything above it)

1-A: Beyond dimensional/physical/logical stuff

It will be much better actually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
4K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fixxed
  • Locked
Higher D by Transcending Infinite/all level of Power and Existential
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top