Differences in Power in 2-A and Above

[Agnaa]

@Vietthai96 and @KLOL506 said the following in a recent thread:

I still find it weird that a tier 1 guy destroying more Tier 1 structures than another would be on the same lvl as someone who does less, unless you're suggesting its just higher without quantifications

Because tier 2 upward are all infinity and higher, multiplying infinity you still get infinity. Only tier 2 is having a weird standard of scaling to more universes = stronger due to the distance between universes being unknown

So unless the verse specific affecting more structure require more power. They are all baseline, and you get stronger via multiplier, boost, amp or scaling chain

Vietthai is right, the gap between two space-time continuums is unquantifiable because the space between those two would be of an insignificant 5-D size. The arguments I am assuming (Someone can correct me on that) apply to all other tiers above, insignificant higher-dimensional space separating them and all. However, this then results in another mess. If you blow up two universes, but the other guy blows up 3, that 3 universe attack will one-shot the two universe buster due to this unquantifiable gap as per the rules.

I think this gets at what is ultimately an unexplained gap in our standards.

We do have this part of the Tiering System FAQ:

Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?​

A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A.

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare that information to another piece of fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.

However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

Which says that destroying multiple infinite multiverses, is considered the same as destroying a single infinite multiverse. It's an answer finely-targeted at 2-A, and so, it doesn't really help when looking at larger structures.

Looking at the reasoning cited by Vietthai and KLOL in that thread, it's ultimately flawed

Because tier 2 upward are all infinity and higher, multiplying infinity you still get infinity. Only tier 2 is having a weird standard of scaling to more universes = stronger due to the distance between universes being unknown

Vietthai says that Tier 2 is the only place where destroying multiple structures is a better feat, because there would be an unquantifiable gap crossed in doing that.

The issue is that this applies to Tier 1, too. Two 6-D universes would be separated by an unquantifiable 7-D gap. A character that is 1-A, but can't destroy a wall on their layer, is legitimately weaker than a character that is 1-A, but can destroy a city on their layer.

The only place where this unquantifiable gap doesn't come up is with situations like 2-A with infinite multiverses. Two infinite multiverses can both reside with similar gaps (consider one multiverse occupying every odd number, and one multiverse occupying every even number), and similar contents. Which is presumably why we don't treat that as a more impressive feat.

Vietthai is right, the gap between two space-time continuums is unquantifiable because the space between those two would be of an insignificant 5-D size. The arguments I am assuming (Someone can correct me on that) apply to all other tiers above, insignificant higher-dimensional space separating them and all. However, this then results in another mess. If you blow up two universes, but the other guy blows up 3, that 3 universe attack will one-shot the two universe buster due to this unquantifiable gap as per the rules.

KLOL's comment seems odd to me, saying that Vietthai is right, but then saying that the same argument would apply to Tier 1 as well, before saying that it just results in a mess.

---

Honestly at the start of this thread I was just going to ask for clarification, but now that I've thought through the arguments, I'd just advocate for applying Tier 2-like standards to higher tiers as well. One qualifying realm is baseline, multiple are unquantifiably above, but once you get to infinitely many you can only increase through multipliers unless you reach the next tier.

 

[Vietthai96]

One qualifying realm is baseline, multiple are unquantifiably above, but once you get to infinitely many you can only increase through multipliers unless you reach the next tier.

I think if we're going to applies tier 2 standard to tier 1 as well, i think we should also applies that if the verse have clear indicated of affecting more infinite tier 1 structures require more power, then it is > baseline infinite tier 1 power. Same with range

 

[Agnaa]

ofc, my apologies for the sloppy wording.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, destroying 2 or more 5-D sized multiverses would be above baseline; and to take it a step further, the cast of Dragon Ball Heroes/Xenoverse are rated based on destroying an infinite number of Low 1-C sized multiverses. Not sure how to word it better though.

 

[Agnaa]

Not sure how to word it better though.

In profiles, if we actually want to include stuff like this in a statistics note, it could be something like

5-D, infinitely many realms

For the actual standards, I think we could just plop something at the bottom of the section I quoted saying something like

Note that this applies to more than just 2-A; the same standards operate for any feat from tier 2 or above involving infinitely many separate realms being affected.

 

[Vietthai96]

Just to clarify on DBH/XV situation since i'm the verse supporter, the infinite 5D thing is because the verse did clearly show that you need more power to destroy more 5D structure. So it is based on an old discussion with DontTalkDT in the past (like 2 years ago at least i honestly don't remember) about destroying more 2-A structure = more power, and he said unless fictions clearly indicated such thing, more 2-A structure still = baseline as infinite x infinite still = infinite, mathematically speaking, this same thing applies to range as well. So i thought that this is also applied to 5D and above as well, as unless fiction clearly show that affecting more n-D structures require more power and/or range, it is baseline no matter how many structure you affected

 

[Vietthai96]

To be fair, if they're considered seperate multiverses, there's probably a divide.

Bro, where is your permission? , this is staff thread

 

[Vietthai96]

Shit.

Well, i'm going to delete your comment since you have no perm, sorry, but it is the rule, remember to ask for perm next time

Edit: King already deleted his own comment

 

[KLOL506]

DT told me destroying more than one Low 1-C structures doesn't get you any higher into Low 1-C as per this.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT

 

[Agnaa]

DT told me destroying more than one Low 1-C structures doesn't get you any higher into Low 1-C as per this.

That's not quite what he said, he said:

Baseline 5D would be non-infinitely-sized 5-D constructs. He is infinitely above baseline if he can affect an infinitely sized 5D construct (infinitely sized in terms of 5D size that is). However, he would not be higher than that due to affecting multiple such constructs.

And tbh I think he may just not have thought through the analogy with Tier 2 entirely (he may just be imagining "finite 5-D multiverses" and "infinite 5-D multiverses", instead of thinking about the full spectrum of situations). Applying this reasoning to Tier 2 would get that the only gap should be between finite 4-D and infinite 4-D, without multiple timelines getting anything higher.

@DontTalkDT

Yeah, good call.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As far as I am concerned the multiversal tier may as well be run on its own system.
Like, you can do the unquantified 5D distance argument, but personally I think it more works the way it does because universe counting tends to be how fictions handle multiversal feats.

Aside from that, outside of cases of multiple 5D structures being in the same plane, I suppose you could make an argument of a multiversal analog of n-dimensional tiers by the same reasoning.

 

[Agnaa]

As far as I am concerned the multiversal tier may as well be run on its own system.
Like, you can do the unquantified 5D distance argument, but personally I think it more works the way it does because universe counting tends to be how fictions handle multiversal feats.

Aside from that, outside of cases of multiple 5D structures being in the same plane, I suppose you could make an argument of a multiversal analog of n-dimensional tiers by the same reasoning.

This post seems in conflict; the first part seems to effectively be saying "Tier 2 is a special case", while the second part is saying "You could say that Tier 1 operates the same way as Tier 2".

Which do you believe?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I personally don't strongly care which approach we take. The latter is probably what reflects the status quo.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Qawsedf234 @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think that we should do here? I personally do not want to apply any drastic revisions to our system unless they are necessary and very beneficial.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Honestly at the start of this thread I was just going to ask for clarification, but now that I've thought through the arguments, I'd just advocate for applying Tier 2-like standards to higher tiers as well. One qualifying realm is baseline, multiple are unquantifiably above

What do you think that we should do here? I personally do not want to apply any drastic revisions to our system unless they are necessary and very beneficial.

Overall I see three issues that aren't easily conveyed in the Tiering System:

• While no power multiplier can bridge a dimensional or universal gap, there can still be upscaling from baseline. Someone who's baselkne Low 2-C is still weaker than someone 10x above Low 2-C
• Every tier above Tier 2 works on the same principle as Tier 2 but juat isn't seperated. Despite both characters being rated at Low 1-C, someone destroying an infinite amount of 5D universes is going to be superior to someone who can only destroy one
• Tier 1-A and High 1-A layers work in the same capacity as Tiers 11-C through Low 1-A. So you can have a 10-B version 1-A coexist with a High 1-B version of 1-A within the same R>F layer

The easiest solution would be to either make a FAQ post or add like two/three notes on the Tiering System page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems reasonable to me. Thank you very much for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

I personally do not want to apply any drastic revisions to our system unless they are necessary and very beneficial.

I don't think it's really a drastic revision, it just covers things that aren't already explained by our system. And so, they've been decided by ad-hoc passing of information in versus threads and verse-specific CRTs.

Our standards don't say whether or not destroying two 1-C realms is more impressive than destroying one.

I want clarification on that, and I think the best way is to clarify that, internally, they operate similarly to Tier 2, we just don't consider those differences common enough to justify having separate tiers for those power differences.

 

[Qawsedf234]

While not in publishing condition, this would be my rough idea:

Q: How do multipliers affect Tier 2 and Tier 1 ratings?​

A: As stated in the Tiering System note section, a multiplier, even an infinite one, cannot bridge the gap between a universal or dimensional difference. Having said that, a multiplier or a scaling chain could place a character above the baseline version of that respective tier. So, for example, a Low 2-C character could not become 2-C with a multiplier, but they could be above the baseline for that respective tier. When making matches or constructing profiles, it is important to take this into account to make sure how strong a character may be for their respective tier.

Q: Why is Tier 2 split for individual structures and not Tier 1?​

A: For most of fiction, Tier 2 is the common endpoint or largest cosmological structure. Due to the volume of profiles that have this be the endpoint, splitting the 4D Cosmological structures was considered a better way to index profiles. With that said, all higher tiers follow the exact same standards as the Tier 2 ratings, they are not split up as stated in the 1-A section of the Tiering System page. To illustrate: if a character destroys three universes, they'd be rated at 2-C, while a character that has destroyed an infinite amount would be rated as 2-A. For Low 1-C all instances are put together, but there is still a power gap between them; so a character who's destroyed an infinite amount of fifth-dimensional universes would be superior to a character who's destroyed a singular fifth-dimensional space for the same reason why a 2-A character is superior to a Low 2-C character.

An additional note is needed for 1-A and higher tiers. Those tiers work on a meta-transcendence framework, meaning that the weakest 1-A would be superior to all lower tiers by an unbridgeable amount, but the power gap within that 1-A rating can be markedly different. For example, a 1-A character who struggles to break the equivalent of a house wall within a 1-A realm would be notably inferior to a character who can control a cosmological construct within a 1-A realm. By the same notion, a 1-A character who controls an equivalent of an infinite-dimensional structure within that realm would still be below a 1-A (1 Layer) character who views a baseline 1-A realm as qualitatively inferior. The same logic applies to High 1-A.

Tier High 1-A+and Tier 0 do fall under this principle, as both respective tiers contain all possible worlds under the Laws of Thought or exceed them. Making it impossible for a High 1-A+ or 0 character to get a multiplier or scaling chain to place them above another High 1-A+ or 0 character.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, that has me notice

With that said, all higher tiers follow the exact same standards as the Tier 2 ratings, they are not split up as stated in the 1-A section of the Tiering System page.

That section of the Tiering System page is worded a bit oddly, especially if combined like this. I don't think it should compare extensions of 1-A to 1-B when talking about 1-A+, as that can read as 1-A+ being infinitely many dimensions over 1-A.

I think that bit of the page should be reworded, which would mean that this bit of the FAQ would likely need to drop that reference.

 

[Qawsedf234]

That section of the Tiering System page is worded a bit oddly, especially if combined like this. I don't think it should compare extensions of 1-A to 1-B when talking about 1-A+, as that can read as 1-A+ being infinitely many dimensions over 1-A.

I think that bit of the page should be reworded, which would mean that this bit of the FAQ would likely need to drop that reference.

Wouldn't be that difficult to change:

A: For most of fiction, Tier 2 is the common endpoint or largest cosmological structure. Due to the volume of profiles that have this be the endpoint, splitting the 4D Cosmological structures was considered a better way to index profiles. With that said, all higher tiers follow the exact same standards as the Tier 2 ratings.

This tier can be extended into higher levels based on further cases of qualitative superiority, in a similar (but not identical) fashion as Tiers 1-C or 1-B. And should a character or object affect something equivalent to infinitely many levels of qualitative superiority, they should have a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+).

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that seems pretty good, although it should really be "almost all higher tiers".

Going off of that, with your earlier answer wording:

Tier High 1-A+and Tier 0 do fall under this principle, as both respective tiers contain all possible worlds under the Laws of Thought or exceed them. Making it impossible for a High 1-A+ or 0 character to get a multiplier or scaling chain to place them above another High 1-A+ or 0 character.

I think this should be reworked heavily, to something like

The Tiers High 1-A+ and 0 do not fall under this principle, as they both involve rather maximal constructs. There can only be one set of all possible worlds, and there can only be one Tier 0 character in a series, so indications of there being multiple constructs or power gaps at this level instead act as anti-feats, indicating that a series should receive a lower rating.

I haven't included talk of High 1-A+ Type 1 since I'm not sure how exactly we should handle power differences there (iirc power differences are possible, but idk how we'd practically handle cases like multipliers, or worlds that are stated to be harder to effect through that; those both seem like things that shouldn't be able to matter at that point).

Other than that, the changes I'd want are rather small wording things.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So the revisions:

Q: How do multipliers affect Tier 2 and Tier 1 ratings?​

A: As stated in the Tiering System note section, a multiplier, even an infinite one, cannot bridge the gap between a universal or dimensional difference. Having said that, a multiplier or a scaling chain could place a character above the baseline version of that respective tier. So, for example, a Low 2-C character could not become 2-C with a multiplier, but they could be above the baseline for that respective tier. When making matches or constructing profiles, it is important to take this into account to make sure how strong a character may be for their respective tier.

Q: Why is Tier 2 split for individual structures and not Tier 1?​

A: For most of fiction, Tier 2 is the common endpoint or largest cosmological structure. Due to the volume of profiles that have this be the endpoint, splitting the 4D Cosmological structures was considered a better way to index profiles. With that said, almost all higher tiers follow the exact same standards as the Tier 2 ratings. To illustrate: if a character destroys three universes, they'd be rated at 2-C, while a character that has destroyed an infinite amount would be rated as 2-A. For Low 1-C all instances are put together, but there is still a power gap between them; so a character who's destroyed an infinite amount of fifth-dimensional universes would be superior to a character who's destroyed a singular fifth-dimensional space for the same reason why a 2-A character is superior to a Low 2-C character.

An additional note is needed for 1-A and High 1-A. Those tiers work on a meta-transcendence framework, meaning that the weakest 1-A would be superior to all lower tiers by an unbridgeable amount, but the power gap within that 1-A rating can be markedly different. For example, a 1-A character who struggles to break the equivalent of a house wall within a 1-A realm would be notably inferior to a character who can control a cosmological construct within a 1-A realm. By the same notion, a 1-A character who controls an equivalent of an infinite-dimensional structure within that realm would still be below a 1-A (1 Layer) character who views a baseline 1-A realm as qualitatively inferior. The same logic applies to High 1-A.

The Tiers High 1-A+ and 0 do not fall under this principle, as they both involve rather maximal constructs. There can only be one set of all possible worlds, and there can only be one Tier 0 character in a series, so indications of there being multiple constructs or power gaps at this level instead act as anti-feats, indicating that a series should receive a lower rating.

1-A: Outerverse level​

Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle.

A way to explain their superiority over "physical composition" would be to bring attention to the fact that all of the previous tiers can be expressed as the union of constructs of lower tiers. For example, a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum is at most Low 2-C. However, an inaccessible cardinal's worth of such spacetimes is well into High 1-B+. In spite of the extremely large gap in size between the individuals comprising this totality and the totality itself, the latter is simply the sum of all the former, and as such both ultimately reside in the same state of existence, and have continuity of composition within that state.

Likewise, even the Von Neumann Universe (As well as larger structures still) is still simply the union of many elements that, individually, are smaller than itself. And the same applies to any mathematical space whatsoever.

A 1-A character or realm, on the other hand, fundamentally surpasses lower states of existence, with their sheer superiority not being expressible as the sum, union or permutation of anything in these lesser states. They, in other words, transcend lower existences to the point that those vanish into nothingness.

This tier can be extended into higher levels based on further cases of qualitative superiority, in a similar (but not identical) fashion as Tiers 1-C or 1-B. And should a character or object affect something equivalent to infinitely many levels of qualitative superiority, they should have a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+).

 

[Qawsedf234]

Bump

 

[Vietthai96]

Qaw draft looks good to me

 

[Qawsedf234]

So does anyone have issues with my proposed revisions?

 

[Random-Helper323]

Qawsedf's draft does seem to explain it pretty well. Tier 1 is very explicitly about dimensionality, and obviously two people can be the same dimensionality and one can be stronger. A 10-C and a 3-A are both the same dimensionality, 3D.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@Agnaa @Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus Are you all fine with my newest draft above.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus Are you all fine with my newest draft above.

Yes. Thank you greatly for helping out.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0

Are you fine with it as well?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So the revisions:

Looks all good to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'll apply it when I get home then.

 

[Agnaa]

I mentioned there were some minor wording things I wanted to change. Only one I remember now is:

• "Those tiers work on a meta-transcendence framework" > "Those tiers work on a qualitative transcendence framework".

Also, I am a bit concerned that we haven't considered how High 1-A+ Type 1 fits into this. I don't want to apply wording that implies a particular treatment for that without having considered it.

So if we still wanna rush ahead, I'd change this too:

• "The Tiers High 1-A+ and 0 do not" > "The Tiers High 1-A+ (Type 2) and 0 do not"

 

[Qawsedf234]

Updated the Tiering System and FAQ pages with the agreed upon stuff in my post.

 

[Antvasima]

I mentioned there were some minor wording things I wanted to change. Only one I remember now is:

• "Those tiers work on a meta-transcendence framework" > "Those tiers work on a qualitative transcendence framework".

Also, I am a bit concerned that we haven't considered how High 1-A+ Type 1 fits into this. I don't want to apply wording that implies a particular treatment for that without having considered it.

So if we still wanna rush ahead, I'd change this too:

• "The Tiers High 1-A+ and 0 do not" > "The Tiers High 1-A+ (Type 2) and 0 do not"

What about this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I included those changes when I updated the page

 

[Vietthai96]

So, is there anything need to do here, if not then we should close the thread

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.