Cruelty Squad CRT: Massively Freakshit revision

[Roachman40]

A new Cruelty Squad update came out! which is neat, while I was playing through the game again I noticed ALOT of things I missed previously, which I will list below.

Proposal 1: "Unknown. likely High 3-A to Low 2-C, possibly 2-A" Upgrade for GOLDEN AGE John Cruelty and Triagons​

hear me out.


I edited the my cruelty squad cosmology blog to explain the 2-A part of the cosmology, so just check the 'size of the cruelty squad universe' tabber and it should be there.

blog here

Why would freakshit scale to it? well his restoration only extending to just one universe I don't think makes sense? freakshit's seeming goal in the GOLDEN AGE ending is to remake the world and remove all of the corruption of the current dystopian reality, him only removing the corruption of one plane would make the effort useless as there an infinite amount of realms of which would still have this corruption. I suppose you can say that the universe is the thing that is 2-A, with the infinite dimensions statement for darkworld civs adding to the n^n onion layers statement. Eitherway I feel that John Cruelty's reformation of the world is an all encompassing one instead of a 'local one', so to speak.

To support this 2-A interpretation, I wanna bring up the triagons also, considering they evidently created the world and changed it to what it is in the cruelty squad verse, they should probably be 2-A as well, and due freakshit possibly surpassing them in the golden age ending then he should scale to 2-A as well.

not sure if im wording my idea right exactly, but im only suggesting a 'possibly 2-A' here, so yea.

Proposal 2: "Unknown. likely 2-A, possibly Low 1-C" for GOLDEN AGE john cruelty​

Editing this in, but it seems that viewing an infinite 4-D 2-A object as finite means your ontologically superior to it, thus granting freakshit a Low 1-C rating, Due to the golden age text being so interpretation heavy a possibly Low 1-C sounds fine, but 2-A will be turned into the base tier other than unknown.

Resistance to Ice Manipulation/Absolute Zero for John Cruelty​

shoutout to @Armorchompy for bringing this up to me in conversation

this should be fairly simple enough, this ice fish' temperature is almost 0 kelvin, of which john cruelty can hold the thing just fine without any issues.

 

[Jaften]

Wank it to High 1-B instead I agree with this.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

I agree with Empty **** upgrades, it seems like should be straight up 2-A based on this but I could be wrong.

 

[SweetDao]

I agree with the proposals. Although is there really a need for a "possibly 2-A"?

 

[Jaften]

Is Freakshit Low 1-C because he can peel the infinite multiverse like an onion
pls i just want to wank the sigma grindset meme depressed psychopath antigame protagonist

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Is Freakshit Low 1-C because he can peel the infinite multiverse like an onion
pls i just want to wank the sigma grindset meme depressed psychopath antigame protagonist

This unironically would be Low 1-C if he is that much larger then a 2-A space.

 

[Jaften]

Nah I think he would still be the same cardinality as it if he viewed the multiverse as an onion-sized object he could peel.

 

[SweetDao]

Is Freakshit Low 1-C because he can peel the infinite multiverse like an onion
pls i just want to wank the sigma grindset meme depressed psychopath antigame protagonist

If we take the text quite literally and not metaphorically, seeing a 2-A structure as nothing more than an onion should warrant a Low 1-C, I think.

This is kind of the same thing that gave Yan Sen his Low 1-C rating, although in his case it wasn't a 2-A structure.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Nah I think he would still be the same cardinality as it if he viewed the multiverse as an onion-sized object he could peel.

I mean, Anos was upgraded to Low 1-C because of this and so is Chrono Trigger I believe.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Anything 'larger' then a 2-A space requires an additional ontology to support technically. The issue here is if it is meant to be taken literally or not.

 

[Roachman40]

felt like 'possibly 2-A' was the safer option considering how interpretation heavy the Golden Age text is, I dont mind an "Unknown, likely 2-A" or "Unknown, likely Low 2-C to 2-A" tho, would just need more agree votes for that

 

[Blackcurrant91]

If it was me I would be going for 'Unknown, likely 2-A, possibly Low 1-C' based on the vagueness of the text.

 

[Roachman40]

is seeing a 2-A object as finite low 1-C? I thought you'd have to be like, infinitely above the 4D object to warrant such a tier, so to speak

 

[Blackcurrant91]

is seeing a 2-A object as finite low 1-C? I thought you'd have to be like, infinitely above the 4D object to warrant such a tier, so to speak

Being larger then a 2-A object requires a higher ontology which would imply the ontology that John Cruelty resides in at the end of the game is infinitely greater then said onion. Im no tier 1 expert however so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just indicating the logic used in similar Low 1-C upgrades (Anos/Some Chinamen stuff/Chrono Trigger)

 

[Roachman40]

interesting

 

[deonment]

Being larger then a 2-A object requires a higher ontology which would imply the ontology that John Cruelty resides in at the end of the game is infinitely greater then said onion. Im no tier 1 expert however so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just indicating the logic used in similar Low 1-C upgrades (Anos/Some Chinamen stuff/Chrono Trigger)

Yeah, if you see smth that is infinite as finite you by definition have to have a size infinitely greater than it, which would be low 1-C if you do this to a low 2-C or 2-A cosmology, which seems to be the case here

 

[Armorchompy]

I wouldn't oppose Low 1-C (Dunno if it scales to the Triagons). That said, the resistance is not to Absolute Zero, just to really good Temp Manip, given that the fish is almost 0 Kelvin.

 

[ThanatosX]

I was recently wondering why the Cosmology was only 2-C despite the statement in the Darkworld, so I agree with a 2-A rating.
For the Low 1-C, I guess it could be fine since seeing a 2-A structure as an onion and peeling it until it becomes a unicellular construct would suggest that the Protagonist became 5-D in some capacity, so I agree with a possibly rating for that too.

 

[Roachman40]

After giving it some thought, im relatively fine with the Low 1-C rating, I edited the OP to offer three proposals, and to make who voted for which easier

 

[deonment]

me don't find a way to wank verses wasp works on challenge (impossible):

 

[Roachman40]

I wouldn't oppose Low 1-C (Dunno if it scales to the Triagons).

they probably would scale? no idea ngl, they should get 2-A tho

That said, the resistance is not to Absolute Zero, just to really good Temp Manip, given that the fish is almost 0 Kelvin.

tis fair

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm fine with 2-A, not sure about low 1-C though

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah, if you see smth that is infinite as finite you by definition have to have a size infinitely greater than it, which would be low 1-C if you do this to a low 2-C or 2-A cosmology, which seems to be the case here

No, this won't work in Low 2-C, but it will work in 2-A. As DT and Qawsedf mentioned here and here. For this you need R>F or ontological/qualitative superiority. And for this you need such as statement like "transcends" or other.

In short, this is only certain in the case of 2-A, for Low 2-C, 2-C or 2-B more statements are required.

 

[deonment]

No, this won't work in Low 2-C, but it will work in 2-A. As DT and Qawsedf mentioned here and here. For this you need R>F or ontological/qualitative superiority. And for this you need such as statement like "transcends" or other.

In short, this is only certain in the case of 2-A, for Low 2-C, 2-C or 2-B more statements are required.

Except it does because timelines are infinitely 4D by the site's assumptions, to say otherwise is to just go against the system of physics we assume verses work by as a baseline.
And since it is something with an infinite 4D volume seeing it as finite makes you by necessity have to be tier 1

 

[Georredannea15]

Except it does because timelines are infinitely 4D by the site's assumptions, to say otherwise is to just go against the system of physics we assume verses work by as a baseline.
And since it is something with an infinite 4D volume seeing it as finite makes you by necessity have to be tier 1

Brother, the people who said this are DT and Ultima, who made these standards. But no, seeing every Low 2-C build as a finite build by default doesn't make you Tier 1, it's at best 2-A according to DT and Ultima. If you assume that this is the case, you are very wrong

You can also see an infinite structure as finite because you can be an infinite 4-D bigger than an infinite 4-D thing.

 

[deonment]

Brother, the people who said this are DT and Ultima, who made these standards. But no, seeing every Low 2-C build as a finite build by default doesn't make you Tier 1, it's at best 2-A according to DT and Ultima. If you assume that this is the case, you are very wrong

You can also see an infinite structure as finite because you can be an infinite 4-D bigger than an infinite 4-D thing.

You are entirely misreading what they said if you are getting that.

You literally can't, you can be further displaced across a 5D axis than another 4D thing, which is the principle upon which 2-C to 2-A and above baseline 2-A range is based, but you literally can't be larger than another 4D infinite thing, that is mathematically and topographically false. You literally cannot be larger than (R^4)*N, (A 4D infinite hypervolume) without becoming (R^4)*R aka R^5 and 5D, and this is the standard we currently work on.

 

[Shmooply]

Resistance to Heat Manipulation seems fine.

As for the cosmology scaling stuff, I think the second proposal makes sense. I'm not gonna pretend like I'm that knowledgeable on tier 1 stuff, but wouldn't him viewing an infinite multiverse as onions be enough proof for qualitative superiority or R>F?

 

[Georredannea15]

You are entirely misreading what they said if you are getting that.

You literally can't, you can be further displaced across a 5D axis than another 4D thing, which is the principle upon which 2-C to 2-A and above baseline 2-A range is based, but you literally can't be larger than another 4D infinite thing, that is mathematically and topographically false. You literally cannot be larger than (R^4)*N, (A 4D infinite hypervolume) without becoming (R^4)*R aka R^5 and 5D, and this is the standard we currently work on.

Then what you say contradicts the DT, in which case I will of course choose the DT.

Also this is mathematically possible because no matter how infinitely you add to infinity and no matter how big you are, the upper dimension is always uncountably infinitely bigger than you. You're gonna need more than that

 

[Roachman40]

if viewing a Low 2-C to 2-B object as finite grants low 1-C should probably be kept for a thread that surrounds that topic I feel, since what john cruelty is viewing as finite here is a 2-A object

just vote which proposal you agree with more

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Neutral on Low 1-C but 2-A seems fine.

 

[Planck69]

2-A seems fine to me.

 

[deonment]

Then what you say contradicts the DT, in which case I will of course choose the DT.

Also this is mathematically possible because no matter how infinitely you add to infinity and no matter how big you are, the upper dimension is always uncountably infinitely bigger than you. You're gonna need more than that

Okay, so I'm going to just stop this conversation right here as you clearly do not know what you are talking about and will just defer to DT who I'm like 70% sure will disagree with you here anyways.

Anyways I agree with the 2-A likely Low 1-C end as seeing an infinite 4D structure as finite, that being seeing it as an onion in this case, makes you Low 1-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

Okay, so I'm going to just stop this conversation right here as you clearly do not know what you are talking about and will just defer to DT who I'm like 70% sure will disagree with you here anyways.

There seems to be no problem except that DT and Ultima say these things. Or the only problem is that you think you're right here. And if you are very curious and "don't know" I can quote the comment to you

 

[Roachman40]

otherwise, it seems I have enough votes for this(?), its a relatively small verse

if I do have enough votes, I suppose this thread can be closed