Lifting Strength, Tier 11, & Tier 0

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Currently, Tier 0 characters are treated as existing beyond quantitative and qualitative distinction alike; to reflect that, they have Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, and Stamina set to Inapplicable due to transcending such qualities. However, LS in particular also uses "Inapplicable" as a term to refer to lower-dimensional characters or those qualitatively inferior to baseline reality, which makes no sense and is a relic of the old tiering system. To remedy this issue, I would like to propose that we rename that usage of "Inapplicable" to Infinitesimal with a description of "Lifting objects that are wholly inferior to 3-dimensional space, and are thus below standard measurements of weight. This might range from lower-dimensional characters existing on less than three spatial axes, to characters who inhabit qualitatively inferior levels of existence."

Also, I would like to propose that we remove the note at the bottom of the page that claims that Infinite and Immeasurable LS are "literally impossible" IRL because it makes no sense. If this note refers to the best feats accomplished in nature, it would also include anything above Class M because that's the most anything has ever lifted IRL. If it refers to modal possibilities, it's obvious nonsense because models of a universe where infinite or higher-dimensional weight exist can work perfectly fine in math.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You can conceivably have lower-dimensional objects with finite mass, so I wouldn't cast such a wide blanket on all of them with that description. Should be reworded.

Granted I think the change itself is good; saying Lifting Strength is "inapplicable" is weird when you can have 11-C characters who are regular humans on their level of reality and so have a concept of mass/weight that matters to them. Contrary to Tier 0, where the whole thing really is just not applicable. So, yeah.

 

[DarkGrath]

Currently, Tier 0 characters are treated as existing beyond quantitative and qualitative distinction alike; to reflect that, they have Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, and Stamina set to Inapplicable due to transcending such qualities. However, LS in particular also uses "Inapplicable" as a term to refer to lower-dimensional characters or those qualitatively inferior to baseline reality, which makes no sense and is a relic of the old tiering system. To remedy this issue, I would like to propose that we rename that usage of "Inapplicable" to Infinitesimal with a description of "Lifting objects that are wholly inferior to 3-dimensional space, and are thus below standard measurements of weight. This might range from lower-dimensional characters existing on less than three spatial axes, to characters who inhabit qualitatively inferior levels of existence."

I don't mind this suggestion. The lifting strength page is strangely vague on what exactly is meant to qualify as "Inapplicable", but beside that, it just seems useful to distinguish the lifting strength of something on qualitatively inferior planes with something beyond qualitative distinctions. I imagine having such a delineation would just make the meanings behind the expressions clearer. As for whether "infinitesimal" is a good term for it, I'm not so sure - to my understanding, something infinitesimal is approaching but not at zero, but I don't think this aptly describes how we would think of qualitatively inferior lifting strength.

Also, I would like to propose that we remove the note at the bottom of the page that claims that Infinite and Immeasurable LS are "literally impossible" IRL because it makes no sense. If this note refers to the best feats accomplished in nature, it would also include anything above Class M because that's the most anything has ever lifted IRL. If it refers to modal possibilities, it's obvious nonsense because models of a universe where infinite or higher-dimensional weight exist can work perfectly fine in math.

I would like to acknowledge the Chesterton's Fence and ask that we don't remove this note until we figure out for what reason it was put there. But while I am pretentious, I'm not pretentious enough to claim I think that removing this note would have serious long-term consequences. If we can figure out why the note was put there first, that would be good, but I wouldn't oppose removing it.

 

[Tllmbrg]

So, how do we plan to define tier 11 LS?
Will there be a difference between a 11-A LS feat and a 11-C LS feat now rating wise or

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As for whether "infinitesimal" is a good term for it, I'm not so sure - to my understanding, something infinitesimal is approaching but not at zero, but I don't think this aptly describes how we would think of qualitatively inferior lifting strength.

If you want to argue that this issue is present here, I'd say you'd have to argue that it's present in Immeasurable lifting strength as well. Do you want to change that as well?

I would like to acknowledge the Chesterton's Fence and ask that we don't remove this note until we figure out for what reason it was put there. But while I am pretentious, I'm not pretentious enough to claim I think that removing this note would have serious long-term consequences. If we can figure out why the note was put there first, that would be good, but I wouldn't oppose removing it.

It was in https://vsbattles.com/threads/lifting-strength-page-revision.155039/.

Will there be a difference between a 11-A LS feat and a 11-C LS feat now rating wise or

No, for the same reason there isn't one for different higher-dimensional spaces.

 

[Starter_Pack]

This seems fine, from a glance.

 

[DarkGrath]

If you want to argue that this issue is present here, I'd say you'd have to argue that it's present in Immeasurable lifting strength as well. Do you want to change that as well?

Could you elaborate? I think it's fairly apt, actually, to say that someone lifting something on a qualitatively superior plane is 'Immeasurable', given that we can't measure that form of lifting within the definitions of mass present in the lower plane. Comparatively, describing lifting something on a qualitatively inferior plane as 'Infinitesimal' doesn't seem apt, as that still defines a value for the mass being lifted greater than 0, which isn't the case when describing qualitative inferiorities. I can take a guess, but for clarification and ease of discussion, what exactly are your issues with the term 'Immeasurable' in lifting strength?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Could you elaborate? I think it's fairly apt, actually, to say that someone lifting something on a qualitatively superior plane is 'Immeasurable', given that we can't measure that form of lifting within the definitions of mass present in the lower plane. Comparatively, describing lifting something on a qualitatively inferior plane as 'Infinitesimal' doesn't seem apt, as that still defines a value for the mass being lifted greater than 0, which isn't the case when describing qualitative inferiorities. I can take a guess, but for clarification and ease of discussion, what exactly are your issues with the term 'Immeasurable' in lifting strength?

I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but do you have a different suggestion for the replacement?

 

[DarkGrath]

I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but do you have a different suggestion for the replacement?

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

Thesaurus moment.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that these suggestions seem reasonable. Thank you for helping out.

You can conceivably have lower-dimensional objects with finite mass, so I wouldn't cast such a wide blanket on all of them with that description. Should be reworded.

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

Just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

I'm fine with that too.

 

[Antvasima]

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

@Ultima_Reality @DarkGrath

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.