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

[Omegabronic]

Currently there are several pages that use "half 2-C" justification, problem is that, by our standards, you can't multiply nor divide tier 2 into higher or lower tiers

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Note 1:

Due to the fact that the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A.

therefore these pages should just be 2-C

edit: as some pointed out, such characters should not be plain 2-C, but they can't be low 2-C either since we don't treat 2-C as 2 times low 2-C, therefore i suggest putting an "at most" in the ap/durability sections with explanations of how many times said characters downscales from it

Bold=staff

Agree = @Reiner @Bernkastelll @PrinceofPein @Aachintya31 @ÆONS @Eseseso @TyranoDoom30 @LuffyRuffy46307 @Quantu
@ImmortalDread (with the premise) @Thelastmlg (proposed the rating for such cases as "at least low 2-C, at most 2-C") @godofice (agrees with Thelastmlg proposal) @Planck69 @Bobsican @Hasty12345 @Robo @JED @KLOL506 @LordGriffin1000 @Lonkitt

Disagree =



Neutral = @DarkDragonMedeus (Currently waiting answer regarding position from this question) @Maverick_Zero_X (agrees with DDM so depends on his answer)

 

[Reiner04]

Half 2-C seems really vague. I am fine with suggested changes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

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.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Medeus raises a good point.

Though I will say since the gap between 2-C and Low 2-C is unknowable being “half” of that value should be considered an unknown level of Low 2-C, rather than being treated as immeasurably superior to any level of Low 2-C as it currently is.

 

[Omegabronic]

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.

the thing is, by our current standards you cannot reach a tier higher in tier 2 with multipliers, with the conbined effort of 2 characters make a 2-C feat, then it is simply half as strong as baseline 2-C and not low 2-C since we don't thread baseline 2-C as 2x low 2-C, it seens like a double standard to use it in this case since our very page about the topic specifies that multipliers are useless in raising tiers in tier 2

btw could you tag some staff knowledgeable on tier 2? i think that this topic might needed a lot

 

[Aachintya31]

There is nothing such as Half 2-C. Members just say Half 2-C for sake of simplicity. Such characters are just unquantifiably stronger than baseline Low 2-C so they are mostly given Atleast Low 2-C ratings for sake of acknowledgement of their strength.

 

[Omegabronic]

There is nothing such as Half 2-C. Members just say Half 2-C for sake of simplicity. Such characters are just unquantifiably stronger than baseline Low 2-C so they are mostly given Atleast Low 2-C ratings for sake of acknowledgement of their strength.

by dividing a 2-C feat, which is not something that our standards allow since it doesn't matter how much you multiply or divide, it will always be 2-C

 

[Aachintya31]

by dividing a 2-C feat, which is not something that our standards allow since it doesn't matter how much you multiply or divide, it will always be 2-C

Why? its too obvious that if 10 characters together destroy a 2-C multiverse , its very reasonable to say that each one of them is not capable of doing the same 2-C alone, no matter what standards say.
As such ,case by case analysis is done depending the size of 2-C multiverse.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Characters who got 2-C via being downscaled from a 2-C character are more or less the exception. Also, normally our rules are against stuff like getting struck by 2 characters with a 50 megaton output shouldn't be treated as 100 megatons since physics doesn't quite work that well. However, when 2 characters have a clash that generates a 100 megaton explosion, they realistically should be considerably more than 50 megatons individually. So it's for that reason that downscaling from a feat is fine while upscaling via assumed multipliers isn't; especially since we generally always consider lowballing with an open mind that some feats can actually be stronger than what they were calculated at as opposed to highballing with a note that they are actually weaker. And our feats regarding watts/conductivity also reflect this as we use watts for electrical current feats that took longer than a second whereas we don't multiply a feat for taking a fraction of a second.

 

[Omegabronic]

Why? its too obvious that if 10 characters together destroy a 2-C multiverse , its very reasonable to say that each one of them is not capable of doing the same 2-C alone, no matter what standards say.

which is why i addressed it here "with the combined effort of 2 characters make a 2-C feat, then it is simply half as strong as baseline 2-C and not low 2-C since we don't thread baseline 2-C as 2x low 2-C"

As such ,case by case analysis is done depending the size of 2-C multiverse.

we don't threat 2-C as 2 times low 2-C, therefore they will be 2-C no matter what, just a downscale from it

 

[Omegabronic]

Characters who got 2-C via being downscaled from a 2-C character are more or less the exception. Also, normally our rules are against stuff like getting struck by 2 characters with a 50 megaton output shouldn't be treated as 100 megatons since physics doesn't quite work that well. However, when 2 characters have a clash that generates a 100 megaton explosion, they realistically should be considerably more than 50 megatons individually. So it's for that reason that downscaling from a feat is fine while upscaling via assumed multipliers isn't; especially since we generally always consider lowballing with an open mind that some feats can actually be stronger than what they were calculated at as opposed to highballing with a note that they are actually weaker. And our feats regarding watts/conductivity also reflect this as we use watts for electrical current feats that took longer than a second whereas we don't multiply a feat for taking a fraction of a second.

just for me to understand what you are saying, you suggest that downscaling the characters who made the combined 2-C feat to low 2-C is fine, but using multipliers to make said characters into 2-C is not?

 

[Aachintya31]

which is why i addressed it here "with the combined effort of 2 characters make a 2-C feat, then it is simply half as strong as baseline 2-C and not low 2-C since we don't thread baseline 2-C as 2x low 2-C"

Hmm i can see some merit here though, i would like to quote one of my favourite mods

this is one of those cases where mathematics says one thing while fiction generally treats it a different way. As a fictional series indexing site we go with the way that bests fits with how fiction operates.

 

[Omegabronic]

Hmm i can see some merit here though, i would like to quote one of my favourite mods

i mean, however it gets indexed it cannot be low 2-C as it is right now since it is against our standards currently

 

[Reiner04]

Hmm i can see some merit here though, i would like to quote one of my favourite mods

You have been corrupted Aachintya.

 

[Eseseso]

If multiplying 2-C to get 2-B isn't allowed (like multiplying a 20 universe character by 50 times to get baseline 2-B), then half of a two-universe 2-C being low 2-C isn't valid either by the exact same reasoning.

Agree hard with this OP.

 

[Huesito88]

I think I can see the problem here, we currently have this on a few profiles as the reasoning for their tiers

2 characters together preform a Baseline 2-C feat, individual they're Low 2-C

Low 2-C Baseline < Quantifiable higher Low 2-C Characters Individually, but can harm and fight baseline 2-C characters because they're 2 times weaker than them (or just get a transformation later on that gets them back to Baseline 2-C) < Baseline 2-C

Now this part of our Standards is accepted, we know multipliers can't get you into a higher tier. For example a Character can destroy 50 Universes and has a 1 million time multipler transformation later on, this example is accepted.

50 Universes < 50 Universes * 1 Million < 51 Universes

However I think the problem here is, if both are accepted. Then if a character is baseline 2-C and there's another character that's 100 times weaker than said character is this how It'd go?

Low 2-C < 100 times weaker than Baseline 2-C, but still rated as 2-C? < Character who's Baseline 2-C

 

[Omegabronic]

However I think the problem here is, if both are accepted. Then if a character is baseline 2-C and there's another character that's 100 times weaker than said character is this how It'd go?

Low 2-C < 100 times weaker than Baseline 2-C, but still rated as 2-C? < Character who's Baseline 2-C

yeah that is a way to do it, we could clarify it in the profiles, but the mojor problem is that baseline 2-C is not low 2-C, so making it any degree of low 2-C is not acceptable since we don't know how many times stronger than low 2-C a baseline 2-C is

 

[Reiner04]

I mean.. if 2 equal amount energy merged together can cause a 2-C impact than I don't see "half 2-C" reasoning being invalid? Multiplying Low 2C energies won't give 2C ever because we don't have any exact quantification to know where and when it'll end or reach near 2C, but other way around it seems to makes sense and have justification. We cannot divide 2C, we can divide the energy?

 

[Huesito88]

That's the point if we accept both

I mean.. if 2 equal amount energy merged together can cause a 2-C impact than I don't see "half 2-C" reasoning being invalid? Multiplying Low 2C energies won't give 2C ever because we don't have any exact quantification to know where and when it'll end or reach near 2C, but other way around it seems to makes sense and have justification. We cannot divide 2C, we can divide the energy?

This

 

[Eseseso]

Let me give an example of what I said above:

So Kirby pre-star allies scales to 15-16 universes.

Void Termina/The Jamba Heart scales to 120 times this, which would theoretically be 1800-1920 universes (and 2-B), except multipliers like that aren't allowed cuz space-time distance between universes being immeasurable

Thus, by this exact same logic, 1/2 of baseline 2-C being Low 2-C is not acceptable, just like someone who is double the power of a low 2-C isn't 2-C.

 

[Reiner04]

Let me give an example of what I said above:

So Kirby pre-star allies scales to 15-16 universes.

Void Termina/The Jamba Heart scales to 120 times this, which would theoretically be 1800-1920 universes (and 2-B), except multipliers like that aren't allowed cuz space-time distance between universes being immeasurable

Thus, by this exact same logic, 1/2 of baseline 2-C being Low 2-C is not acceptable, just like someone who is double the power of a low 2-C isn't 2-C.

But the point is, we cannot say that half of the energy that needed to destroy 2C structure would still be enough to destroy 2C structure but we can say for sure that it's atleast half and know exact quantification about when it'll end to 2C.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I agree, by the way if a character destroys a universe like Universe 7 it would be 2-C since both Universes have two Universal size structures in it, why should we just give low 2-C's to certain characters who are capable to take more than 2 Universes?

 

[Reiner04]

I agree, by the way if a character destroys a universe like Universe 7 it would be 2-C since both Universes have two Universal size structures in it, why should we just give low 2-C's to certain characters who are capable to take more than 2 Universes?

 

[Omegabronic]

I mean.. if 2 equal amount energy merged together can cause a 2-C impact than I don't see "half 2-C" reasoning being invalid? Multiplying Low 2C energies won't give 2C ever because we don't have any exact quantification to know where and when it'll end or reach near 2C, but other way around it seems to makes sense and have justification. We cannot divide 2C, we can divide the energy?

it can be half baseline 2-C, it just still will be in the 2-C tier since "half 2-C" is simply not low 2-C

 

[Reiner04]

it can be half baseline 2-C, it just still will be in the 2-C tier since "half 2-C" is simply not low 2-C

Well yeah but it's still not 2C as well. This is one of those cases where we can quantify even Tier 2 related things.

 

[Omegabronic]

I agree, by the way if a character destroys a universe like Universe 7 it would be 2-C since both Universes have two Universal size structures in it, why should we just give low 2-C's to certain characters who are capable to take more than 2 Universes?

being a universal sized structure doesn't matter for tier 2, it needs to be accepted as a separated space time

however this thread is not to debate this, i ask kindly not only to you but everyone else to not derail this thread with other verses, this is about our standards regarding this part of the tier 2, other verses are not relevant in the slightest, thank you

 

[Planck69]

Medeus raises a good point.

Though I will say since the gap between 2-C and Low 2-C is unknowable being “half” of that value should be considered an unknown level of Low 2-C, rather than being treated as immeasurably superior to any level of Low 2-C as it currently is.

I heavily agree with this.

It's ultimately just an unknown level of power above baseline Low 2-C, not something automatically far superior and we really need to do away with that. At best, characters can just heavily upscale from any Low 2-C feats if they exists as far as their power quantification goes.

 

[Omegabronic]

Well yeah but it's still not 2C as well. This is one of those cases where we can quantify even Tier 2 related things.

i mean, we can always put an "at most" and expecify how many times weaker than baseline 2-C it is, it will be 2-C regardless tho since that is how our standards are currently

 

[Omegabronic]

I heavily agree with this.

It's ultimately just an unknown level of power above baseline Low 2-C, not something automatically far superior and we really need to do away with that. At best, characters can just heavily upscale from any Low 2-C feats if they exists as far as their power quantification goes.

thing is, even if we divide by 2 it would not reach any level of low 2-C since we don't treat baseline 2-C as 2x low 2-C, however it gets addressed it cannot be low 2-C no matter what

 

[Reiner04]

i mean, we can always put an "at most" and expecify how many times weaker than baseline 2-C it is, it will be 2-C regardless tho since that is how our standards are currently

This thread seems to be going over changing the standards itself and infact contradicting it. So what our standards were doesn't matter here.

Half 2-C makes sense imo.

 

[Huesito88]

@Planck69

Does that mean instead of doing this

"A character that is baseline 2-C and there's another character that's 100 times weaker than said character is this how It'd go?

Low 2-C < 100 times weaker than Baseline 2-C, but still rated as 2-C < Character who's Baseline 2-C"

We'd go with this

"Low 2-C < is a quantifiable higher Low 2-C due to being 100 times weaker than a Baseline 2-C < Baseline 2-C"

 

[Eseseso]

How about we just downscale it to being immensely weaker than Baseline 2-C.

Unless we want to make a Low 1-C+.

But just slapping Low 2-C onto people who are half of 2-C, when multiplying 2-C people to 2-B is not allowed for the exact same reason of multipliers being invalidated by the distance between universes (which I personally disagree with), is a huge double-standard.

 

[Planck69]

thing is, even if we divide by 2 it would not reach any level of low 2-C since we don't treat baseline 2-C as 2x low 2-C, however it gets addressed it cannot be low 2-C no matter what

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.

 

[Reiner04]

One more issue is here are with their versus matches,. They will AP stomp all Low 2C's and get Stomped by all 2C's Lmfao.

 

[Eseseso]

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.

Dividing 2-C's to get a different tier should not be valid when multiplying 2-C's to get 2-B/A is invalid despite them being incredibly similar.

 

[StrymULTRA]

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.

The thread was made because of this CRT of rating some DBGT characters to just Low 2-C as Syn Shrenron is 10 times weaker than Omega Shenron who is 2-C.

Assuming that Omega Shenron is 2-C, would Syn Shenron be Low 2-C here?

 

[Omegabronic]

The thread was made because of this CRT of rating some DBGT characters to just Low 2-C as Syn Shrenron is 10 times weaker than Omega Shenron who is 2-C.

Assuming that Omega Shenron is 2-C, would Syn Shenron be Low 2-C here?

however this thread is not to debate this, i ask kindly not only to you but everyone else to not derail this thread with other verses, this is about our standards regarding this part of the tier 2, other verses are not relevant in the slightest, thank you

 

[Reiner04]

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.

Well yeah, this is another point as well. Low 2C aren't exactly just far weaker or stronger but rather we don't know, it is exactly possible for even a Low 2C character to be as strong as half 2C guy but we don't know and can't be sure, so another issue.

 

[StrymULTRA]

@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.

 

[Planck69]

Dividing 2-C's to get a different tier should not be valid when multiplying 2-C's to get 2-B/A is invalid despite them being incredibly similar.

....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.