-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
DMC Downgrades (the ones everyone expected)
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- devil may cry
- Status
- 2,719
- 3,206
Except the context is what is being debated on Low 1-C? Like…huh?
- 12,802
- 5,929
oh my god. DMC DOESNT NEED TO HAVE THAT SHIT BECAUSE THEY ARE TIER 1 IN A DIFFERENT WAY
THEY USE THE TIERING SYSTEM FAQ
dmc isnt your typical verse where there HAS to be a qualitatitive superiority in dimensions. they qualify coz of FAQ
- 5,460
- 2,304
And i already addressed them. Something being infinite in comparison to the finite structure isn't low 1-C.
- 4,325
- 732
The 9D litteraly use this tho...
- 12,802
- 5,929
huh? dmc is accepted as 9D (tier 1-C) because of what the tiering system FAQ said
- 5,460
- 2,304
Dude wat?
So we're literally treating this verse differently from others?
- 5,460
- 2,304
What did it say?
- 12,802
- 5,929
...
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
"One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.
However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify."
- 12,802
- 5,929
you can literally qualify for tier 1 for different reasons...i cant believe people thought there was only 1 way to get to tier 1
- 6,135
- 4,213
Whose idea was this to make this a normal thread instead of staff thread??
- 16,000
- 6,005
Make this a staff thread. Too many peanut galleries that are extending this further than it needs to be. Should be Fujiwara, and DMC supporters. Everyone else isn’t adding anything.
- 32,835
- 38,111
DON'T. Just stop. Address the arguments instead of devolving into petty jabs like this.
- 923
- 439
Lol. it's funny because you legit spent more time on this thread this hour than i did the last few hours.
- 4,325
- 732
Doesn't praticaly all higher dimmensionnal space does this in first? Having the lower dimmension as a subset of it.(Will probably make a crt for fate if this really can be used)...
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
"One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.
However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify."
- 5,460
- 2,304
That's literally how we treat higher dimensions all the time....
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
"One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.
Yes exactly, 9D in this context is vague asf.
No mention of superiority or anything like that.
- 32,835
- 38,111
If this shit goes out of hand one more ******* time I am gonna have this thread converted to Staff Only.
- 923
- 439
that would be for the better tbh
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
- Thread starter
- #340
I said that because I CANT address the arguments because I'm AT WORK.
But anyways, please move this to a staff thread, give me time to respond, and I am currently neutral on "2-C, possibly low 1-C". That is all.
- 6,135
- 4,213
Please do
- 5,460
- 2,304
Yes different reasons like being Inaccessible to the lower Dimension or viewing the lower Dimension as fiction.
- 2,719
- 3,206
I also want to point out that in Agnaa’s post Sevil links to here he literally refers to temporal dimensions as another means, and I think it’s common knowledge at this point that the DW has multiple temporal dimensions as well.
- 32,835
- 38,111
As you all wish.
@Theglassman12 @Planck69 Please make this a staff only thread. This has gone out of hand.
@Theglassman12 @Planck69 Please make this a staff only thread. This has gone out of hand.
- 5,668
- 4,897
mind if i join that one?
thetechmaster36
He/Him- 1,831
- 1,752
As someone who's completely unknowledgeable on DMC, but has been lurking and going through this thread, I will say this
I agree that 1-C should be gone. The basis of it simply being that it's just a statement of nine-dimensionality is pretty weak, all things considered, so that much I can vibe with unless DMC supporters can prove me wrong on this
However, Low 1-C, I can actually see it (though not necessarily for a full-on rating imo, perhaps a "likely" or "possibly" given how contentious it is). From the scans I've looked at (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, because as I said, I'm not knowledgeable on DMC by any means), the comparison being made is that the Darkness (Demon World) is considered to be an endless/infinite/unending expanse of darkness, and from that same expanse came a ray of light (Human World) which was split into the two worlds. Now, obviously, this ray of light is never given a definite size, but at the same time, a ray of light - as we know it at least - is extremely thin and small. Appeal to reality, perhaps, but when we are comparing something with a realistically-implied sized (a ray of light) against something which is referred to as an endless/infinite/unending expanse (the darkness, which is consistent with multiple translations by other people), then it's easy to assume that there is some form of qualitative superiority being seen here; there is an infinite difference in the size that's being implied here.
So for me, it's:
- 1-C can go, seeing how I find the argument to be a little weak on the only basis of it being a statement of nine-dimensionality and little else, but. . .
- Low 1-C can stay, on the basis of the ray of light being infinitesimally small compared to a structure that of which has been stated to be an infinite (or other synonyms) expanse, with the statement being consistent across multiple translations. Being infinitely larger in comparison to another structure is a valid way to reach Low 1-C and above, as denoted in the Tiering System page:
Now, obviously, I don't think my word should be taken as final; as I've said a few times before already, I'm by no means knowledgeable on DMC. But as someone who is relatively familiar with the ways the Tiering System works, I felt like jumping in just to try and give a bit of a stance on the ratings.
That's all I'm gonna say in this thread, it's honestly a pretty big shitshow, so have a nice day.
- 32,835
- 38,111
I did tag you as a DMC supporter, didn't I?
- 32,359
- 20,298
Looks like a downgrade to 2-C is imminent.
I obviously agree with the OP. This in no way meets any requirement for a justifiable Tier 1 rating.
I obviously agree with the OP. This in no way meets any requirement for a justifiable Tier 1 rating.
- 3,461
- 1,724
You're just objectively incorrect, then. That isn't how we do this. If it was an "inaccessible gap" it'd be High 1-A.
- 3,461
- 1,724
1. Calm down. You have a tendency to become emotional on CRT's and it needs to stop.
2. It's implicit. It's merely a single spark of light against infinite darkness.
- 5,460
- 2,304
Why did you reply to my comment? I am not staff, OP nor am i knowledgeable about the verse. i am not allowed to comment.
But just to quickly address what you said, inaccessible gap is not high 1-A. We literally have verses on this site that have inaccessible gaps but are just one layer into a respective tier.
- 3,461
- 1,724
This isn't CSaP. Inaccessible transcendences are High 1-A. We don't consider normal transcendences inaccessible.
I am correcting misinformation.
- 5,460
- 2,304
But we do though. Just look at B&W verse. It has inaccessible gap but is still only one layer into it's tier.
- 2,719
- 3,206
No idea.
Kirbonic_Pikmin
He/Him- 3,480
- 6,940
If you see it everywhere then post it? Shouldn’t be that hard if you’ve seen it everywhere.
(Oops I wasn’t fully caught up on the thread to see it became staff only, my bad lol)
Last edited:
Palito266
He/Him- 260
- 156
Just one thing Regarding the whole PoC stuff.
You cannot create a higher dimensional object in a 3D Space, similar how we can't comprehend how would a 4D Object look, feel and even exist and we can't even imagine the axis of it. So, with this in mind, it's safe to assume that in order for a space to create objects, it needs to be in the same dimensionality or maybe less for it to work.
You cannot create a higher dimensional object in a 3D Space, similar how we can't comprehend how would a 4D Object look, feel and even exist and we can't even imagine the axis of it. So, with this in mind, it's safe to assume that in order for a space to create objects, it needs to be in the same dimensionality or maybe less for it to work.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
- Thread starter
- #360
Okay, so to start, I'd like to request for @Bobsican to be allowed to comment here, as it was him who reached out to me about creating this CRT and played a part in its creation. He's the OP of this just as much as I am.
Second is that, just for the sake of recapping, @Sir_Ovens, @Maverick_Zero_X, and @DarkDragonMedeus agree with downgrading the verse from 1-C (9D). Ovens and DDM are okay with low 1-C, while Mav is neutral and has said she will weigh in once more discussion has been had regarding low 1-C. DDM has unfollowed the thread, so I'm not sure if he wants to be @ed here. DMC supporters are trying to undermine Ovens' and DDM's agreement by saying they don't know DMC, and my only response to that is that the DMC supporters are committing a double standard regarding this by using Ultima and DT as "gotchas" despite their own lack of knowledge on the verse. That's all there is for staff input at this moment.
I'd also like to ask for the raws for the "ray of light" statement, as I would like to make sure the original text supports the interpretation of a direct size comparison between the HW and DW, and isn't just being misunderstood/mistranslated.
To address some smaller stuff,
That does lead me to the low 1-C stuff though, and I will say that I am fine with a possibly rating for the reasons @thetechmaster36 has stated above. The comparison needs to be taken at its absolute most literal interpretation for it to be low 1-C, which I do not think suffices for a full on rating, but that interpretation obviously does still exist, so it's fine as a possibility.
Anyways, I'll get to work on responding to @Sevil Natas' post, though I'd like to ask him to repost his response here, both so it's easier for staff members just joining to view it and easier for me to respond to it.
Second is that, just for the sake of recapping, @Sir_Ovens, @Maverick_Zero_X, and @DarkDragonMedeus agree with downgrading the verse from 1-C (9D). Ovens and DDM are okay with low 1-C, while Mav is neutral and has said she will weigh in once more discussion has been had regarding low 1-C. DDM has unfollowed the thread, so I'm not sure if he wants to be @ed here. DMC supporters are trying to undermine Ovens' and DDM's agreement by saying they don't know DMC, and my only response to that is that the DMC supporters are committing a double standard regarding this by using Ultima and DT as "gotchas" despite their own lack of knowledge on the verse. That's all there is for staff input at this moment.
I'd also like to ask for the raws for the "ray of light" statement, as I would like to make sure the original text supports the interpretation of a direct size comparison between the HW and DW, and isn't just being misunderstood/mistranslated.
To address some smaller stuff,
I am calm, just frustrated. I'm asking you to explain what your source here is, because one has not been given. If the text is only implicit in its meaning, then we should not use it to conclusively say the DW transcends the HW. We only give "possibly" ratings for things that are merely implied (and even that is often a bit generous).
That does lead me to the low 1-C stuff though, and I will say that I am fine with a possibly rating for the reasons @thetechmaster36 has stated above. The comparison needs to be taken at its absolute most literal interpretation for it to be low 1-C, which I do not think suffices for a full on rating, but that interpretation obviously does still exist, so it's fine as a possibility.
Anyways, I'll get to work on responding to @Sevil Natas' post, though I'd like to ask him to repost his response here, both so it's easier for staff members just joining to view it and easier for me to respond to it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
