half 2-C is against the standards and should be eliminated

[omegabronic]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue here.

2-C isn't unreachably beyond Low 2-C. It could be ∞ times greater. It could be 1.5 times greater. Since we can't ever be sure then we prohibit multipliers to upscale within Tier 2 to prevent potentially inflated or inaccurate ratings.

But being half of baseline 2-C is objectively Low 2-C. It's just that due to the above, the exact degree above baseline is unknown.

if we don't allow multipliers to raise the tier from, say 2-C to 2-B, then we can't use them to downscale from 2-C to low 2-C, that's double standards since the same logic that makes 2-B unreachable by multipliers in the 2-C tier makes low 2-C unreachable by dividing 2-C

 

[omegabronic]

@omegabronic I am asking even in cases of other multipliers, to see if it covers x10, 50, 100, etc downscaling as well, not just x2 weaker.

ok

 

[Eseseso]

....What are you talking about? Objectively anything less than what's needed to breach the distance and destroy 2 universes is just an explosion an unknown amount above that needed for Low 2-C. This isn't the case with 2-B and 2-A. Not to mention that it's not even a multiplier issue.

The space between universes is immeasurable according to the wiki, which is why we aren't allowed multipliers.

If the space is immeasurable, and multiplying a Low 2-C's power by 2 wouldn't get you 2-C, the reverse should not be true.

At best, people like Beerus and such who are affected by this should be Low 2-C+, or something like that.

If we can do 1-A+, we can have Low 2-C+.

 

[Planck69]

The space between universes is immeasurable according to the wiki, which is why we aren't allowed multipliers.

No, it isn't. It's just unknown. It could be 1 meter between universes or ∞ light-years but ultimately we can't ever really know.

If the space is immeasurable, and multiplying a Low 2-C's power by 2 wouldn't get you 2-C, the reverse should not be true.

Again, see above.

At best, people like Beerus and such who are affected by this should be Low 2-C+, or something like that.

They should just upscale massively from any Low 2-C feat or scaling that exists for settings that have it.

 

[Reiner04]

if we don't allow multipliers to raise the tier from, say 2-C to 2-B, then we can't use them to downscale from 2-C to low 2-C, that's double standards since the same logic that makes 2-B unreachable by multipliers in the 2-C tier makes low 2-C unreachable by dividing 2-C

He is saying that anything other than concrete feat can't be seen as feasible feat in tier 2, since Gap btw 2C and L2C is unknown, not to mention that low 2C multiplier to get 2C and dividing 2C to other stuff is different thing but still in both cases, feats aren't concrete, there is still something left, half 2C can as well be equal to many half 2C of other verses. That's the issue, it's unquantifiable and unknown, it's the issue that we cannot solve but have to go with best thing suggested.

 

[ObberGobb]

If two characters clash and destroy 1001 universes, are they 2-B or 2-C?

 

[Reiner04]

If two characters clash and destroy 1001 universes, are they 2-B or 2-C?

They're 2C, high into 2C.

 

[Eseseso]

No, it isn't. It's just unknown. It could be 1 meter between universes or ∞ light-years but ultimately we can't ever really know.

Again, see above.

Ok, but I have a personal question regarding multiplier logic: for someone who scales to 2-C via scaling to destroying group of parallel universes with the distance between all of them likely being equal, if he is multiplied enough to be over 1000 universes worth (hypothetically), wouldn't that be the same as multiplying that group of parallel universes with the same distance between each other?

As in, it'd get rid of the issue of unknown distances between universes.

Also, since 2-C people scale to destroying just the universes themselves, and usually not the distance between them as well, why should the distance between universes even affect the scaling?

They should just upscale massively from any Low 2-C feat or scaling that exists for settings that have it.

IMO a Low 2-C+ rating would help to separate them from the baseline low 2-C people who are infinitely below them.

 

[ObberGobb]

I still don't get how that isn't a multiplier. The feat is 2-C. Shouldn't any downscaling from it be 2-C as well? The standards saying being infinitely stronger than 2-C doesn't make you 2-B, so being infinitely weaker than 2-C by that same logic would still be 2-C. And it makes no sense for two characters who perform a 2-C feat together to be more than infinitely weaker than the feat they accomplished together.

 

[StrymULTRA]

IMO a Low 2-C+ rating would help to separate them from the baseline low 2-C people who are infinitely below them.

That sounds uneccessary, as only 2 characters are Half 2-C.

 

[ObberGobb]

I'd be fine with Low 2-C+ or with "At most 2-C" for these situations. Both work.

 

[omegabronic]

He is saying that anything other than concrete feat can't be seen as feasible feat in tier 2, since Gap btw 2C and L2C is unknown, not to mention that low 2C multiplier to get 2C and dividing 2C to other stuff is different thing but still in both cases, feats aren't concrete, there is still something left, half 2C can as well be equal to many half 2C of other verses. That's the issue, it's unquantifiable and unknown, it's the issue that we cannot solve but have to go with best thing suggested.

which is why i suggested an "at most" rating for such cases with an explanation of how many times they downscale from the said 2-C feat

 

[ExSENNA]

I think minimum the power required to achieve baseline 2-C Tiering cannot warrant to 2-C when divided in half. So such characters would get Unknown, or be scaled by other feats aside from them being "half 2-C". I think this is just semantics

 

[Reiner04]

IMO a Low 2-C+

It'll be low 2C+ in their own verse,not here on vsbw. Also we all know how contradictory is tier 2, something cannot be fixed and we have to go with what is given. Fiction will always give concrete feats of 2C and low 2C if multiverse and Universe will involve. But smth in-btw rather feasible for our standards neither for fiction in most cases.

 

[omegabronic]

That sounds uneccessary, as only 2 characters are Half 2-C.

all gods of destruction are "half 2-C" plus mui goku and jiren plus super forms from the sonic series plus the eggsalamander from the sonic series also

 

[Eseseso]

I still stand by the belief that saying half of 2-C is low 2-C but not accepting multipliers of 2-C is a double standard.

 

[Planck69]

Ok, but I have a personal question regarding multiplier logic: for someone who scales to 2-C via scaling to destroying group of parallel universes with the distance between all of them likely being equal, if he is multiplied enough to be over 1000 universes worth (hypothetically), wouldn't that be the same as multiplying that group of parallel universes with the same distance between each other?

Ignoring how that's not how that works for explosions generally, we don't know if the distance is even constant at all. They could differ by a factor of 10^2333421 or by 3 cm between each universe.

Also, since 2-C people scale to destroying just the universes themselves, and usually not the distance between them as well, why should the distance between universes even affect the scaling?

They do scale to the distance. What are you talking about?

IMO a Low 2-C+ rating would help to separate them from the baseline low 2-C people who are infinitely below them.

They're not "infinitely below them". We don't downscale on site principle, it doesn't literally mean Beerus is ∞ times stronger than Zamasu. And like, this tier would apply to 1 verse anyway so it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[StrymULTRA]

all gods of destruction are "half 2-C" plus mui goku and jiren plus super forms from the sonic series plus the eggsalamander from the sonic series also

I meant 2 verses* But does not change my point tbh.

 

[Huesito88]

Actually 2 verses which are popular, but yeah giving such a tier I think is to much regardless of popularity. If we agree to such a approach then I suggest instead a foot note at the bottom should be placed in there profile regarding their tier

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Would Dragon Ball (Toei) count as its own verse?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Would Dragon Ball (Toei) count as its own verse?

It is already.

 

[Excellence616]

For what I have read so far and from my understanding from what I have read



2-C= 2 space time or destroying 2 Low 2-C

Low 2-C= 1 Space time

a Low 2-C character with multipliers, no matter how great will be Low 2-C+ because of the huge gap that is why we have far higher


Two Characters defeating a 2-C Character will each have Low 2-C.

But i suggest in case of Low 2-C with multipliers we should have or add to the Tiering System that will be for them like:
3-A universal
High 3-A universal+
Low 2-C High universal
Low 2-C+ High universal +
2-C Low multiversal

 

[StrymULTRA]

For what I have read so far and from my understanding from what I have read



2-C= 2 space time or destroying 2 Low 2-C

Low 2-C= 1 Space time

a Low 2-C character with multipliers, no matter how great will be Low 2-C+ because of the huge gap that is why we have far higher


Two Characters defeating a 2-C Character will each have Low 2-C.

But i suggest in case of Low 2-C with multipliers we should have or add to the Tiering System that will be for them like:
3-A universal
High 3-A universal+
Low 2-C High universal
Low 2-C+ High universal +
2-C Low multiversal

Making this entire load of work on a lot of profiles just to accomodate 2 verses is eh.

 

[Aachintya31]

Making this entire load of work on a lot of profiles just to accomodate 2 verses is eh.

Technically one

 

[Planck69]

For what I have read so far and from my understanding from what I have read



2-C= 2 space time or destroying 2 Low 2-C

Low 2-C= 1 Space time

a Low 2-C character with multipliers, no matter how great will be Low 2-C+ because of the huge gap that is why we have far higher


Two Characters defeating a 2-C Character will each have Low 2-C.

But i suggest in case of Low 2-C with multipliers we should have or add to the Tiering System that will be for them like:
3-A universal
High 3-A universal+
Low 2-C High universal
Low 2-C+ High universal +
2-C Low multiversal

This entire thing hinges on half 2-C actually being higher than Low 2-C instead of justing being unknown.

 

[Huesito88]

Technically one

Wait Sonic is Dragon Ball? Should've known with the Golden Super and Silver Ultra. Anyway yeah I agree it'd be unnecessary just put a footnote in the profile and leave the rating as it is if it's agreed to such a approach.

 

[Excellence616]

Making this entire load of work on a lot of profiles just to accomodate 2 verses is eh.

Yeah, that's the problem. So many profiles

 

[Eseseso]

For what I have read so far and from my understanding from what I have read



2-C= 2 space time or destroying 2 Low 2-C

Low 2-C= 1 Space time

a Low 2-C character with multipliers, no matter how great will be Low 2-C+ because of the huge gap that is why we have far higher


Two Characters defeating a 2-C Character will each have Low 2-C.

But i suggest in case of Low 2-C with multipliers we should have or add to the Tiering System that will be for them like:
3-A universal
High 3-A universal+
Low 2-C High universal
Low 2-C+ High universal +
2-C Low multiversal

This would work for me.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I agree with the thread's premise, no such thing is even allowed. So either remove it entirely or change the standards.

 

[Thelastmlg]

i think the standards regarding tier 2 are a bit too strict considering how fluid and inconsistent fiction is regarding theorical structures and their destructions, honestly i always found it weird that we don't accept multipliers for 2-C to 2-B because we assume the universes have inconsistent distances between them and stuff, when visually that is rarely the case, especially distances like centimeters just, never happening really

anyway, i personally think such feats should just get "at least low 2-C, at most 2-C", might as well appeal for both sides if we can't decide on how we treat tier 2

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

i think the standards regarding tier 2 are a bit too strict considering how fluid and inconsistent fiction is regarding theorical structures and their destructions, honestly i always found it weird that we don't accept multipliers for 2-C to 2-B because we assume the universes have inconsistent distances between them and stuff, when visually that is rarely the case, especially distances like centimeters just, never happening really

anyway, i personally think such feats should just get "at least low 2-C, at most 2-C", might as well appeal for both sides if we can't decide on how we treat tier 2

I agree, it's getting really hard to be tier 2.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

They should have been 2-C from the get go.

 

[omegabronic]

This entire thing hinges on half 2-C actually being higher than Low 2-C instead of justing being unknown.

well, it is higher, the very fact that it is unknown is the whole reason why "half 2-C" being low 2-C is wrong, just as much as 2-B being 10000x low 2-C is also wrong, if we do not allow multipliers to go up, we can't allow them to go down

i think the standards regarding tier 2 are a bit too strict considering how fluid and inconsistent fiction is regarding theorical structures and their destructions, honestly i always found it weird that we don't accept multipliers for 2-C to 2-B because we assume the universes have inconsistent distances between them and stuff, when visually that is rarely the case, especially distances like centimeters just, never happening really

anyway, i personally think such feats should just get "at least low 2-C, at most 2-C", might as well appeal for both sides if we can't decide on how we treat tier 2

problem is, by our current standards, 2x low 2-C is not 2-C, by the exact same logic 2-C is not low 2-C, so indexing it as low 2-C is just plain wrong

 

[PrinceofPein]

First dividing 2-C by 2 would still be 2-C, 50% of infinity would still be infinite as far as any math is concerned, but since this is related to DB and the feat being Whiz saying the clash between two gods will destroy 2 universes, this is a blatant 2-C feat and should have never been half 2-C from the beginning saying their power would destroy half each is wrong, he just said their energy attack clashing will destroy the two universes.
So this CRT is not needed, it should be a CRT to give them the actual tier they were supposed to be in the beginning.

And also if to clear this up, if a character is baseline 2-C, and he says I am twice as powerful as X, does X get low 2-C or 2-C?
Well according to the standard, he gets 2-C, so I really do not see how this is any different, or why 2-C can be divisible to be low 2-C, if low 2-C cannot be multiplied to be 2-C.

 

[Thelastmlg]

problem is, by our current standards, 2x low 2-C is not 2-C, by the exact same logic 2-C is not low 2-C, so indexing it as low 2-C is just plain wrong

our current standards need to chill then, i don't think they can answer every kind of feat correctly, we might as well put this as an exception, that or we might need a revision regarding tier 2 gaps/multipliers, cuz i find it weird that it is possible to "divide" 2-C considering the baseline requirement, but at the same time, this isn't like tier 3 and below where we can just use energy valuesand slap lower tiers with +

i'll stand by my suggestions but i'll remain neutral, leaning a bit towards "lower 2-C" as you suggested

 

[omegabronic]

First dividing 2-C by 2 would still be 2-C, 50% of infinity would still be infinite as far as any math is concerned, but since this is related to DB and the feat being Whiz saying the clash between two gods will destroy 2 universes, this is a blatant 2-C feat and should have never been half 2-C from the beginning saying their power would destroy half each is wrong, he just said their energy attack clashing will destroy the two universes.
So this CRT is not needed, it should be a CRT to give them the actual tier they were supposed to be in the beginning.

And also if to clear this up, if a character is baseline 2-C, and he says I am twice as powerful as X, does X get low 2-C or 2-C?
Well according to the standard, he gets 2-C, so I really do not see how this is any different, or why 2-C can be divisible to be low 2-C, if low 2-C cannot be multiplied to be 2-C.

don't about sonic the hedgehog my kind sir

 

[Thelastmlg]

First dividing 2-C by 2 would still be 2-C, 50% of infinity would still be infinite as far as any math is concerned

just to be clear, where are you getting "infinity" from

 

[Aachintya31]

50% of infinity would still be infinite as far as any math is concerned

Not equally infinite according to set theory on which the entire tiering system is based upon.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

Case by case, if it takes 2 characters' combined might to perform a baseline 2-C destruction feat, then I think the two individual characters being unquantifiable above baseline Low 2-C to the point where they are getting close to reaching 2-C is alright. With a character being strong enough to withstand a blow from those two character's combined strikes also being fine. But fighting a 2-C character 2 on one where the individual characters are still able to trade blows to an extent should still be 2-C outright.

Beerus 2-C!!!!!!!

 

[Eseseso]

Considering Beerus and Champa would've likely survived the destruction of 2 universes, and Whis/Vados had no issue enduring their 2-C clash, they should be scaled period.

But either way, the double standard needs to go.