Dimensionality help

[Funnimane]

I'm thinking about making a page for the protagonist of the Stick RPG series, and immediately there's a couple roadblocks.

1: Stick RPG 1 explicitly takes place in the 2nd dimension, where there's length and width but no height. However, the actual game contradicts this:

• When you enter buildings, you can see their structure inside is clearly 3-dimensional as we know it. The outside is too.
• You can fall off the edge of the world.
• You can see the sticks from top-down in the overworld, and from the side in the bar fight minigame, showing that they have length, width and height.

Tiering-wise, do you just take the game's word for it that this realm is 2-dimensional, or go with what's actually shown? Or either way, is this still 11-A under the assumption that it's an infinitely inferior realm to the Stick RPGverse's 3rd dimension (which, going by memory, isn't directly implied in either game)?

2: Stick RPG 2 takes place in the 2.5th dimension. That isn't a thing of course, I'd guess it's just referring to the "2.5D" art style of the game. Hell, Stick RPG 1's art style is also 2.5D, this one just has a higher quality 2.5D art style.

11-A: High Hypoverse level​

Characters who demonstrate power equivalent to destroying/creating existentially inferior 2-D level constructs of any size, or 1 level of infinity/degree of reality/fiction transcendence or similar beneath a 3-D reality.

Is 2.5D still 11-A, or does the tiering system just not cover half-dimensional differences? Also, what I said about Stick RPG 1 still applies here; in terms of actual dimensionality, Stick RPG 2 is 3-dimensional.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Since it's still below the 3rd Dimension, it would still be considered Hypoversal. If the game never mentioned the 2nd or 2.5th dimension then you could just chalk it up to art style.

 

[Planck69]

Is it actually shown to be infinitely inferior? If not then just being lower dimensional isn't Tier 11 in the same way being higher dimensional isn't automatically Tier 1.

 

[Funnimane]

Is it actually shown to be infinitely inferior? If not then just being lower dimensional isn't Tier 11 in the same way being higher dimensional isn't automatically Tier 1.

From what I remember, neither the 2nd or 2.5th dimension are, but I'm going to finish both games again before making any pages just to be sure. If they aren't, the characters would just be tiered 3-dimensionally, I presume.

 

[Planck69]

From what I remember, neither the 2nd or 2.5th dimension are, but I'm going to finish both games again before making any pages just to be sure. If they aren't, the characters would just be tiered 3-dimensionally, I presume.

They'd be Unknown or whatever tier you get for 2-dimensional calculations.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Is it actually shown to be infinitely inferior? If not then just being lower dimensional isn't Tier 11 in the same way being higher dimensional isn't automatically Tier 1.

We normally assume it to be more than infinitely inferior by default unless they show contradictions to being literally 2D

 

[Funnimane]

They'd be Unknown or whatever tier you get for 2-dimensional calculations.

As I showed, the 2nd and 2.5th dimensions here actually operate 3-dimensionally, so feats would still be 3-dimensional :|

We normally assume it to be more than infinitely inferior by default unless they show contradictions to being literally 2D

As I showed, the game does contradict this.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Then it would be tier 11

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Just because a 2D or 2.5D world looks 3D doesn't mean it is 3D. Just like how games seem 3D to us as we look at them but is just 2D Fiction on our screen.

 

[Planck69]

We normally assume it to be more than infinitely inferior by default unless they show contradictions to being literally 2D

.....No, we don't. There was even a Staff Discussion thread on the matter. "Literally 2-D" means as much as "Literally 10-D" for tiering i.e. not at all without further context as to their nature.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

.....No, we don't. There was even a Staff Discussion thread on the matter. "Literally 2-D" means as much as "Literally 10-D" for tiering i.e. not at all without further context as to their nature.

Prove it

 

[Planck69]

Prove it

Energy is a dimensionless quantity. You'd have to prove that them lacking a dimensional axis means an infinite difference in strength, the same way that you'd have to prove that a character being called 7-dimensional means that they're four uncountable infinities above regular humans.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Energy is a dimensionless quantity. You'd have to prove that them lacking a dimensional axis means an infinite difference in strength, the same way that you'd have to prove that a character being called 7-dimensional means that they're four uncountable infinities above regular humans.

No, I mean prove there was this staff discussion. And if you're 2D, you won't even have mass for kinetic energy

 

[Planck69]

No, I mean prove there was this staff discussion. And if you're 2D, you won't even have mass for kinetic energy

Mass is dimensionless as well, so this is also wrong.

Also, here it was. Though, it wasn't Staff Discussion it seems, just a regular revision thread that's slowgoing.

Even without that thread, this was decided since the 2019 Tiering System revisions. The CRT was just completion of those resolutions. Dimensionality doesn't give tiers on its own. That simple.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Mass is dimensionless as well, so this is also wrong.

Also, here it was. Though, it wasn't Staff Discussion it seems, just a regular revision thread that's slowgoing.

Even without that thread, this was decided since the 2019 Tiering System revisions. The CRT was just completion of those resolutions. Dimensionality doesn't give tiers on its own. That simple.

Oh, so psuedomathematics, ok

 

[Planck69]

If you feel that the math isn't correct, make a CRT. These passive aggressive and often times just misinformed takes of yours aren't necessary, especially in Q&A threads where members need clarification.