Bigger than 2-A structures feat

[Reiner04]

So this thread is very simple, we do have established already that Bigger than 2-A structures aren't necessarily Low 1-C in last revision but yet- we don't exactly have anything to say for what and where structures that are genuinely bigger than 2-A structures scales, infact due to this standard all 2-A structures are said to be scaled equal since there's no structure bigger than 2-A as per our standards. So I just want something here to be mentioned for what to do incase fiction breaks rule and establishes such structures (Since that's a good place to elaborate on what to do regarding such structures imo). Nothing much worded stuff but simply put-

Although theoretically structures larger than 2-A shouldn't exist (in terms of real size difference, not as in multiple 2-A structures), fiction often plays loose with mathematical concepts. If such a structure were established by authors, its tier would depend on its size relative to the 2-A structure. For example, if it's infinitely larger than 2-A structures, its tier would reflect that tier difference, but an infinite number of 2-A structures wouldn't unless there's proof they contribute to actual size differences.

 

[Daoist_Pepe]

I know this a staff thread but doesn't Firestorm recent thread already tackle something related to this premise?
https://vsbattles.com/threads/accep...o-the-tiering-system-explanation-page.165769/

 

[Reiner04]

I know this a staff thread but doesn't Firestorm recent thread already tackle something related to this premise?
https://vsbattles.com/threads/accep...o-the-tiering-system-explanation-page.165769/

Nope, his thread tackles with entirely different thing than mine. His crt is just examples of uncountable narrative, while mine is to establish that bigger than 2-A structures (as in genuinely bigger) should contribute to bigger feats.

 

[Georredannea15]

Nope, his thread tackles with entirely different thing than mine. His crt is just examples of uncountable narrative, while mine is to establish that bigger than 2-A structures (as in genuinely bigger) should contribute to bigger feats.

Well, I think what was said about it was that it came from the logic of "Infinite x infinite x infinite x infinite x infinite = infinite", where bigger than 2-A or multiple 2-A structures have equal feat with baseline 2-A(According to DT and tier 1 staffs.) But it would be best to wait for the experts

 

[KLOL506]

IIRC, "infinitely bigger than 2-A" would still lead down the path of "Still 2-A", as there is no such thing as "higher than baseline 2-A" except in the form of scaling chains.

 

[Reiner04]

IIRC, "infinitely bigger than 2-A" would still lead down the path of "Still 2-A", as there is no such thing as "higher than baseline 2-A" except in the form of scaling chains.

That was true till the last thread went through. Now we allow structures bigger than 2-A to exist even if not on scale of Low 1-C, but have them equivalent to baseline 2-A structure.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, all the same, they're still baseline 2-A regardless.

 

[Reiner04]

I mean, all the same, they're still baseline 2-A regardless.

Not really, since our tiering system is size dependent, if the structure bigger than 2-A exist, it should have higher scale than baseline 2-A. The logic of being bigger than 2-A structure not existing until uncountably or so has been eliminated. Technically, multiple 2-A structures would be baseline 2-A still but the structures genuinely bigger than 2-A in fiction should be treated as such if we are already allowing that bigger than 2-A structures can exist Without being Low 1-C in fiction.

 

[Reiner04]

The thing are currently like this:

---

Bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C?
- Nor necessarily, fiction can break rules and they do not abide with mathematical concepts strongly, so they're not uncountably larger unless specified.

So Bigger than 2-A if exist by breaking rules, it scales or treated higher than baseline?
- Nuh uh. As per maths, bigger than 2-A doesn't exist unless uncountably or so, even if fiction being possibly illogical our scale will be logical.

---

So in one instance we are under assumption that fiction must be breaking rules (without any specifications from within fiction) so we shouldn't use mathematical concepts (not Tier 1) but in another we are using maths stuff to deny any increase in scale even when fiction saying otherwise.

I think if we are going with "fiction might not follow maths" then we should go as such rather than half way turn back to apply logic. Not like our tiering system is 100% maths based anyway due to trying to accomodate as much fictional concept as much possible over irl stuff (ex: 2 timelines > 1 timeline).

 

[Georredannea15]

Not really, since our tiering system is size dependent, if the structure bigger than 2-A exist, it should have higher scale than baseline 2-A. The logic of being bigger than 2-A structure not existing until uncountably or so has been eliminated. Technically, multiple 2-A structures would be baseline 2-A still but the structures genuinely bigger than 2-A in fiction should be treated as such if we are already allowing that bigger than 2-A structures can exist Without being Low 1-C in fiction.

So you are saying, it will not be Tier 1, but at the same time it will be at a higher level than baseline 2-A. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Reiner04]

So you are saying, it will not be Tier 1, but at the same time it will be at a higher level than baseline 2-A. Do I understand you correctly?

Yeah.

 

[Reiner04]

Bamp.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I don't see this as useful for obvious reasons (w..k) unless the standards are clearly spelled out, but if knowledgeable staff could draft a good explanation of this and show its practical applications in the fiction then it could be useful. (I just realized this is a staff discussion, staff can delete this if they wish)

 

[Reiner04]

I don't see this as useful for obvious reasons (w..k) unless the standards are clearly spelled out, but if knowledgeable staff could draft a good explanation of this and show its practical applications in the fiction then it could be useful.

Any fiction which has structures bigger than 2-A. For example Ben 10 or Maou Gaukin and god knows how many.

Basically any verse that was previously Low 1-C for reasoning like "Bigger than 2-A".

 

[Georredannea15]

In fact, it is still baseline 2-A.

Because no matter how many times you add infinity to infinity or how many times you multiply it, "For example, infinity x infinity x infinity..."
It will still be the same infinity. (Like 2-A)

But on the one hand, what Reiner is saying is that structures infinitely larger than 2-A are higher than 2-A without tier 1. (And it actually makes sense at first glance)

For example "Higher into 2-A." It could be something like this. But IDK, mehh...

 

[Reiner04]

I could explain it but idk if it's any better than not to, multipliers in 2-A do not get them to scale any higher than baseline 2-A, true. But, the very reason that multipliers do not contribute is because they don't contribute to any difference in real size at all as said "Infinite*infinite*infinite = infinite" but the case here I am talking about is Y > X within fiction that breaking rules and allowing such structures to exist. Since funnily, now our default assumption is that fiction breaks rules. So this case was supposed to be Low 1-C before but not anymore since "They have to be Qualitatively bigger not just bigger", so I'm proposing something for things that are bigger.

Hope this post clears up.

 

[Georredannea15]

I see. In short, you are saying that in fiction it has to be higher than the basic 2-A. Just like "Higher into 2-A." Or something like that.

 

[Reiner04]

Byump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Not sure I fully understand, let's see

Your saying, An infinite number of 2-A structures is still baseline 2-A (because infinite x infinite is still infinite and so on). However, A space that is shown "bigger" than a 2-A structure should qualify as higher into the tier since our current standards mention fiction can break the rules in regards to having a structure larger than 2-A but not mathematically Low 1-C?

 

[Reiner04]

Not sure I fully understand, let's see

Your saying, An infinite number of 2-A structures is still baseline 2-A (because infinite x infinite is still infinite and so on). However, A space that is shown "bigger" than a 2-A structure should qualify as higher into the tier since our current standards mention fiction can break the rules in regards to having a structure larger than 2-A but not mathematically Low 1-C?

Yup. Although, logically it's impossible to have structures bigger than 2-A but still not being Low 1-C and we used to default that fiction follows logic. But since that all changed months ago I'm proposing that destroying bigger than 2-A structures that has been introduced in fiction should be bigger feat.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Yup. Although, logically it's impossible to have structures bigger than 2-A but still not being Low 1-C and we used to default that fiction follows logic. But since that all changed months ago I'm proposing that destroying bigger than 2-A structures that has been introduced in fiction should be bigger feat.

So verses like Danny Phantom would be examples of this since after revisions it's characters scale to destroying the Ghost Zone, which is an endless universe that contains an infinite number realms and separate timelines (universes) that are infinite in size yet visually can't fill the Ghost Zone?

In regards to whether I agree with the thread or not, I'm unsure given I wasn't apart for that standard addition (at least I don't remember if I was). I see the point you're trying to make but I'm unsure, and really don't if that would be a bigger feat. Though I guess for verses that actually perceive that as a higher feat, I'd be fine with it.

 

[Reiner04]

So verses like Danny Phantom would be examples of this since after revisions it's characters scale to destroying the Ghost Zone, which is an endless universe that contains an infinite number realms and separate timelines (universes) that are infinite in size yet visually can't fill the Ghost Zone?

Yeah. Logic is Y > X then destroying Y > feat than destroying X.