Cross-Dimensional Vs Low Multiversal Range

[ChemistKyle89]

We're still talking strictly about range right? Could the summary on the Range page be reworded to say

Range refers to how far attacks or abilities of a certain character can efficiently reach on their own.

That way it doesn't seem like we're just talking about attacks and their associated attack potency. This would then imply that anyone who can create a portal between two dimensions would be Low Multiversal for their range? Unless you want to specifically define a difference between dimensions / universes / pocket dimensions and possibly planes.

Walking through the door of the RoSaT doesn't involve anything Low Multiversal, but ripping a hole between the dimensions might qualify if it applies to pocket dimensions. It depends on if you think pocket dimensions have weaker walls between themselves and the universe they exist in or not.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it is a good idea to reword the sentence in question.

 

[Eficiente]

Yes, this takes priority so let's fix it. I propose the following

"Range is the area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale, as a stat in our wiki it refers to measure the distance and limitations of attacks, abilities, or other aspects belonging to a profile."

This would be the differences

• Only attacks and abilities fall short of what range measures.
• Range isn't just for characters but any profile.
• The limitations of something are part of its range too.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Efficient that range and AoE ended up getting mixed up.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies, but I think that Eficiente's sentence is confusing, and would prefer if we keep it simple and straightforward.

Something like this perhaps?

"Range is a measurement that refers to how far the attacks or abilities of a certain character can efficiently reach on their own."

 

[ChemistKyle89]

I agree with Antvasima. It makes more sense when you consider we define things by their maximum values, even though a person may have an attack / ability that doesn't reach as far as others. What other aspects are there beyond attacks and abilities? Limitations are covered by the at most qualifier.

 

[Super_Saiyan_God_Julian]

I think Ant's wording makes sense, yes.

So is the " It should be noted that the entirety of these continuums need to be affected simultaneously to qualify" section of Low Multiversal going to be scraped? Or are we okay with that suggestion?

 

[Antvasima]

@SSGJ

I think that it seems best to remove that particular sentence.

 

[Eficiente]

"Range is a measurement that refers to how far the attacks or abilities of a certain character can efficiently reach on their own."

Well, as said before

• Only "attacks and abilities" fall short of what range measures, that why I added ", or other aspects" too. The cases where range will measurement more than just attacks and abilities are fewer but still there.
• Range isn't just for characters but any profile, as in civilizations, weapons, etc.
• "The area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale" is the meaning of range (the meaning we use anyway), note how lower limits matters as much as the upper limits. If anything, the range page should encourage users to write the limits of a character's range, image how the Intelligence page would look like without pointing out how everything isn't just the best shown by others?

I'm ok if the wording I proposed isn't used but would prefer the 3 things I pointed out to be expressed in some way.

 

[Antvasima]

The second point can be handled like this:

"Range is a measurement that refers to how far that the attacks or abilities of a certain character, weapon, or otherwise, can efficiently reach on their/its own."

Can you give an example of something in our pages that isn't a power or ability and has range?

I do not understand what you want to change in the sentence based on your third point.

 

[Eficiente]

Profiles of non-living things can very well have its range be their own sizes, like places or weapons. Beings can also have their physicality measured as a range without that being an attack or ability if they can't physically attack anything and they use other means to do so, and those character aren't all human-sized.

That we need to clarify that the limitations of a measurement to be part of its range too. How far the measurement can reach is only half the meaning of range.

 

[Wokistan]

Hold on, I'm still here to argue for affecting the entirety of the structure

 

[Agnaa]

If they can't attack or use abilities with their size, then that range doesn't matter and shouldn't be indexed.

 

[Eficiente]

Nope, if someone else can use them as a weapon then their size matters, if they can attack with powers but just not physically then their sizes matter if they are notoriously small or big, etc.

If it looks like the examples are not the usual 90% of profiles we have then that is entirely the point. Have a wording that fits everything we do and we have done. We have range pointing out non attacks and abilities, that's a thing.

 

[Agnaa]

If they can attack with a weapon then it's attack range.

Their large size matters, but that goes under the Large Size power, not in the range section.

We shouldn't have range pointing out non attacks and abilities, from the examples you've given.

 

[Wokistan]

But then we get into Low Multiversal range & above and suddenly everything has to be affecting everything up the minimum requirements of the range in question.

Why are to we assume that universes are a universe's distance apart though? Isn't the entire thing about no multiplier scaling in tier 2 because this distance is unknown? What stops it from being nowhere near as far apart? A universe here is more like the destination. Sure guy can throw a thing 1 direction for 10m, but he won't get a range upgrade just because he threw it into a crater with a 100m radius.

It obviously loses consistency with what the page was being used so far. (I'm not saying that it does retcon range, only that goes on its own for no reason).

How so?

The only things that would fit "affecting the entirety" of a set range would mostly be the destruction of things on those ranges and then very specific things that just so happen to target everything in those ranges. All the other non-linear attacks, powers & things would all get to be Interdimensional, that range would get not just the most amount of applications added to it, but also the most interesting ones to read as they are done in creative ways that cannot be just explosion/implosion/omnidirectional things. This is not organized.

How is this a problem or disorganized?

The text itself in Interdimensional is bullsh*t and super contrived to fit this fake idea that Range must be Area of Effect. It looks like if you can't "necessarily travel a universal distance" then too bad you get Interdimensional and not anything above it...except that you won't either way as traveling a universal distance is not Low Multiveral range at all. "Cannot affect the entirety of these" "pocket realities or parts of other universes"? Even if you could affect all of them you would still have Interdimensional range as to have Low Multiversal you would need to do more than it. The whole point in the OP was pretty clear, dimensions/pocket universes =/= other universes, same with affecting them. This devolved into whatever.

Yeah but I'm arguing something different from the OP. That is allowed. I found "imensions/pocket universes =/= other universes" strange here, due partly to Mr infinitely large pocket dimension over here, but also because it just didn't say why doing the exact same thing but just in a bigger space mattered.

Affecting two 4-dimensional space-time continuums is Low Multiversal in range except if you can miss tiny places of those two 4-dimensional space-time continuums, the range would then just be Interdimensional instead (because as we know, missing a tiny part of thing and affecting the entirety of it don't go well), similar cases with higher ranges with the range below it happen, do we legit don't have the vision to know how many mistakes newer/younger users this will create and how much wank that could let to? We would very much deserve that, range is range, it's a word that has a meaning, we grabbed it and gave it our own meaning for Interdimensional range and above because?

This is large, let's break it down.

Affecting two 4-dimensional space-time continuums is Low Multiversal in range except if you can miss tiny places of those two 4-dimensional space-time continuums, the range would then just be Interdimensional instead (because as we know, missing a tiny part of thing and affecting the entirety of it don't go well)

Do you have any examples of this scenario actually being relevant? I can think of quite a lot of people doing shit in other universes over a clearly not universal distance that would be pretty weird to say are higher range than the totality of a pocket dimension.

similar cases with higher ranges with the range below it happe

I don't know what this is arguing

do we legit don't have the vision to know how many mistakes newer/younger users this will create and how much wank that could let to?

So should the wiki just never become more complex, because any alteration is just more possibilities for new users to make a mistake? The distinction doesn't even seem that hard to understand, just because they're new doesn't mean they're unable to read.

We would very much deserve that, range is range, it's a word that has a meaning, we grabbed it and gave it our own meaning for Interdimensional range and above because?

It has a meaning that would still be being used under the proposal I support. The most relevant definition on Merriam-Webster is:

• the space or extent included, covered, or used

So how exactly, is it including, covering, or using a universal amount of space to affect planets on 3 different universes? This seems to be a far smaller total area than even one universe. ALso, how exactly would affecting a planet in a small universe and a planet in a big universe change the space or extent included, covered, or used? It's just a planet in either scenario.

 

[Eficiente]

Not if they are the weapons.

I'm pretty sure many profiles with Large Size have their evidence in their range, where it's more organized to mention that than in their P&A. The page for Small Size indicates the power to not be necessary to be added in a profile, so there is that.

But then we get into Low Multiversal range & above and suddenly everything has to be affecting everything up the minimum requirements of the range in question.

Why are to we assume that universes are a universe's distance apart though? Isn't the entire thing about no multiplier scaling in tier 2 because this distance is unknown? What stops it from being nowhere near as far apart? A universe here is more like the destination. Sure guy can throw a thing 1 direction for 10m, but he won't get a range upgrade just because he threw it into a crater with a 100m radius.

We don't. If someone can throw (as in basically teleport) a thing into other universe and that's their only feat then no one with common sense should assume that someone to also be able to throw a thing millions of kilometers into any direction. Especially if the context of the feat indicates Dimensional Travel, at worst if we can't extect people to get it then we can just write that restriction in their range.

It obviously loses consistency with what the page was being used so far. (I'm not saying that it does retcon range, only that goes on its own for no reason).

How so?

It was above that text, "If you can throw something or manifest non-omnidirectional abilities tens of meters away then that's tens of meters in range when throwing stuff or with those abilities respectively. If you can manifest your powers happening hundreds of meters away without them traveling into that much range then that is hundreds of meters in range with those powers. But then we get into Low Multiversal range & above and suddenly everything has to be affecting everything up the minimum requirements of the range in question."

If it didn't lose consistency then you would need to affect a whole planet to have planetary range, a whole galaxy to have Galactic range and so on. This is not the case, it starts with Low Multiversal and ranges above because reasons.

How is this a problem or disorganized?

In short, because that's not what range means, but the replies above and below this one answer that better.

The text itself in Interdimensional is bullsh*t and super contrived to fit this fake idea that Range must be Area of Effect. It looks like if you can't "necessarily travel a universal distance" then too bad you get Interdimensional and not anything above it...except that you won't either way as traveling a universal distance is not Low Multiveral range at all. "Cannot affect the entirety of these" "pocket realities or parts of other universes"? Even if you could affect all of them you would still have Interdimensional range as to have Low Multiversal you would need to do more than it. The whole point in the OP was pretty clear, dimensions/pocket universes =/= other universes, same with affecting them. This devolved into whatever.

Yeah but I'm arguing something different from the OP. That is allowed. I found "imensions/pocket universes =/= other universes" strange here, due partly to Mr infinitely large pocket dimension over here, but also because it just didn't say why doing the exact same thing but just in a bigger space mattered.

That can be fixed in other ways that don't mess the whole stat. Like elaborating context in profiles, and forcing others to do the same. That would work. The first point of what you quoted is still there, the Transdimensional range is super contraved.

Affecting two 4-dimensional space-time continuums is Low Multiversal in range except if you can miss tiny places of those two 4-dimensional space-time continuums, the range would then just be Interdimensional instead (because as we know, missing a tiny part of thing and affecting the entirety of it don't go well)

Do you have any examples of this scenario actually being relevant? I can think of quite a lot of people doing shit in other universes over a clearly not universal distance that would be pretty weird to say are higher range than the totality of a pocket dimension.

That's what "Cross-Dimensional" or whatever was going to do, fit that because it's not Low Multiversal. And I was agreeing with it. The example I gave that you quoted was of 2 full universes so idk what to make of this. And it is relevant.

similar cases with higher ranges with the range below it happe

I don't know what this is arguing

As in, there are 1000 4-dimensional space-time continuums, you affect all of them minus some parts in just one of them. You can "affect" all of them but not the the entirety of all of them, so the range of that is just Low Multiversal and not Multiversal. Which is just silly, legit if admins see this to the characters they support they will just give them Multiversal range and not Low Multiversal. "Interdimensional" would be there just to fit the awful new rules we have that are unnecessary as the feat said before should just be Multiversal with the mentioned limitations.

do we legit don't have the vision to know how many mistakes newer/younger users this will create and how much wank that could let to?

So should the wiki just never become more complex, because any alteration is just more possibilities for new users to make a mistake? The distinction doesn't even seem that hard to understand, just because they're new doesn't mean they're unable to read.

I don't even know why to say that when since the start my problem was with the logistics.

• Before: You can get into a set range by reaching it but add the limitations of it because common sense.
• Now: The same up to Universal, from Low Multiversal and beyond you need to affect the whole thing so no need for limitations. If you can't but it's still above universal then go use Transdimensinal.

I still don't much care about that last point quoted because it assumes that this new wording will stay, but if it does then yes, the point predicts things quite well. Affecting the whole of something is super interpretable and wankable for new users, normal users and even staff. Go to a random user's wall and ask them if mindhaxing everyone in 2 universes is Low Multivesal range with mind manip. They will say yes and would add so to a profile if they had to. That's not because they are unable to read, that's because our rules are weard and dumb.

It has a meaning that would still be being used under the proposal I support. The most relevant definition on Merriam-Webster is:

Well then, that definition is good and technically precise, but vague next to the one I used before in this thread. Your definition can be taken as just a space being covered in a simple and straightfor way (fitting to how the ranges Low Multiversal and the ones above it now need everything covered), my definition points out the lower limits of a scale to matter just as much as the upper limits in it, suggesting that any mess can be done while needing to be specified as to how it is (fitting to how we treat the ranges below Universal). It would at least be more consistent if we treat all ranges the same, but then one way would be Range and the other Area of Effect...+this Extradimensional rank that goes on its own and is an abomination to the rest of the things in the page.

So how exactly, is it including, covering, or using a universal amount of space to affect planets on 3 different universes? This seems to be a far smaller total area than even one universe. ALso, how exactly would affecting a planet in a small universe and a planet in a big universe change the space or extent included, covered, or used? It's just a planet in either scenario.

A universal amount of space is not being covered as in all the universe is being covered. The distance those planets have from each is that of 3 universes, 3 universes=Low Multiversal in our terms of AP, but can I change "distance" to "range"? Because they are synonyms? Nope, "range" got warped and I need to argue to put it like it always was before. We are not destroying those universes nor does it matter to cover all 3 of them, because that's not what range is.
The last 2 sentences would have been fixed with what "Cross-Dimensional" was going to be.

 

[Agnaa]

Not if they are the weapons.

It's still how far the attacks of the weapon reach, which is already accounted for in the draft Ant gave.

I'm pretty sure many profiles with Large Size have their evidence in their range, where it's more organized to mention that than in their P&A.

That sounds really really weird/outdated to me.

The page for Small Size indicates the power to not be necessary to be added in a profile, so there is that.

Only for types 0 and 1 since they're not really notable.

 

[Eficiente]

Ok then, I agree with just saying attacks and abilities in that case.

 

[ChemistKyle89]

Could Low-Multiversal Range be applied to things that take the distance between universes into account, and Cross-Dimensional be applied to things that ignore the distance between those universes?

Do pocket dimensions that exist within a certain universe have a distance between themselves and the universe they are contained within?

(Don't hurt me, I didn't go for a M.S. or Ph.D. in Physics)

 

[Eficiente]

Could Low-Multiversal Range be applied to things that take the distance between universes into account, and Cross-Dimensional be applied to things that ignore the distance between those universes?
Do pocket dimensions that exist within a certain universe have a distance between themselves and the universe they are contained within?

For the first thing, that's I hoped for when this thread started and want the new range rank to be.

For the second, it varies on the verse or abilities used.

 

[Antvasima]

If Eficiente simply wants to change the requirements to that, for example, Low Multiversal means affecting 2 to 1000 universes at the same time in some manner, rather than the entireties of them (which can mainly be accomplished via creation or destruction), I think that he has a very good point.

So is the "It should be noted that the entirety of these continuums need to be affected simultaneously to qualify" section of Low Multiversal going to be scrapped?

So should we apply these changes now?

 

[ChemistKyle89]

I'd say yes, but I'm not staff. I would establish Cross-Dimensional as anything involving more than one universe / pocket-dimension that ignores the space between universes and Low Multiversal as anything that does consider the space between universes.

I'm guessing this would mean that a lot of portal creation / teleportation would fall under Cross-Dimensional.

 

[Antvasima]

Bump.

It is very important that we properly finish this revision.

 

[Wokistan]

We love a missing notification

I will try to read this in a little while, after I edit a sandbox and eat dinner.

 

[Eficiente]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4023493#10

Ignoring part of my predictions coming true, I would like to note something from this that many users do; use AP & Tier terms (mostly the latter) to measure things unrelated to AP & Tier. For example, mindhax affecting a galaxy is "3-C mindhax", resurrection that revives you in other universe and can always do so in infinite universes is "2-A resurrection", and so on. This is stupid due to being misleading, and the same logic was used here. The whole of something needs to be destroyed to get a tier with the same name as it so now range has the whole of something to be affected to get a range of the same name, nevermind the fact that range has nothing to do with its measurements always having the whole of a set area, range can just be the measurement extenting into the set area, stretching into it, reaching it, covering it, all synonyms of range that ca mean having the whole of a set area, but don't always do so. We are cutting the meaning of word in half and using it like that.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

A bit harsh, but honestly I'm inclined to agree with Eficiente after his explanation.

 

[AstralKing7]

I agree with Eficiente

 

[Agnaa]

I still disagree with Eficiente.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Eficiente is basically trying to say that we keep getting ranged mixed up with AoE. It's not like sniper rifles have below standard melee range just because that's how small the bullet it. It has hundreds of meters to several kilometers because that's how far the bullet travels.

Range is how far an attack or ability can reach while Area of Effect is how much the attack or ability covers.

 

[Agnaa]

And I disagree, because it seems misleading to label characters who can make human-sized portals between two timelines at once as 2-B or 2-A because their setting happens to have a huge multiverse.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

alright boys, time to create a new stat: area of effect

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Can I ask exactly what's being argued at the moment? Or what Eficiente is arguing?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We don't need a new stat; Area of Effect is still a subset of range.

Anyway, I sort of agree regarding that if it's Multiversal scale since the distance between two universes cannot truly be measured. So, if it's only between two Universes at once, it's 2-C. But a portal that connects an infinite number of universes would be Multiversal+ range; the size of the portal isn't relevant however.

 

[Elizhaa]

Can I ask exactly what's being argued at the moment? Or what Eficiente is arguing?

Medeus explained it here.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Oh, that.

I don't see how. Even when people say stuff like 3-C mindhax, that's just their human brain being economic. It has nothing to do with AP, but is a much shorter way of saying "mindhax that worked on everyone in a galaxy".

I much less doubt that people are getting range and area of effect confused, I haven't come across anything similar yet.

 

[Eficiente]

And I disagree, because it seems misleading to label characters who can make human-sized portals between two timelines at once as 2-B or 2-A because their setting happens to have a huge multiverse.

Hey, I..kinda tackled this in my last comment

• Range=/=AP or Tier
• The sheer meaning of the word makes that not being misleading. Calling range with AP/Tier terms is what's meaning.

The arguments are literally wrong. The dislike of what range is wouldn't be there if we didn't allow profiles to be vague about that stat, the responsable thing to do would be to do something about that.

 

[Wokistan]

I'm not on a computer rn so I'll actually have to respond tomorrow, sorry.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I still don't see in anyway where this misleading people is a thing. Using AP terms is literally nothing more than shortening for the sake of saving space.

Last time I saw someone most likely new to the site bring up 5-B with Madara's Mindhax, multiple people answered and cleared that AP has nothing to do with that, 5-B is just saying it can affect the whole Planet and is more like slang. His misunderstanding wasn't even because of the use of such terms in here, but rather a fundamental mixing of AP being related to hax like mindhax due to this and that. It was a mistake of his own making due to different reasons.

 

[Eficiente]

Well, good for Madara. But then in other verse a character can do the same and the planet has less life than normal then guess what? Users here can very well still call that 5-B mindhax, the ones who started that will (maybe) know the limitations of it, the ones seeing them say that and imitating will not. And there we have a problem.

Was this nobody's fault? People very much have fault in this, using that AP/Tier term to measure the scale of a hax is a broken thing to do. Needless to say, mindhax was just an example, Rick Sanchez was said to have "2-A Resurrection" at the time even by good admins.