Low 1-C AP Question (Power difference)

[Phsccarvalho]

Hello
As everyone knows, at level 2, we have Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B and 2-A, which represents the number of four-dimensional structures (space-time continuums) that x character has the necessary power to destroy.

And we treat this quantity as a power difference. For example, someone who can destroy two timelines is > someone who can only destroy one timeline.

But when we get to AP Low 1-C do things get weird?

I've seen some staff members saying that we don't treat tier 1 in the same way as tier 2, and that there would be no difference in AP between a character that can destroy a 5D structure or infinite 5D structures.

However, I have seen staff members saying the opposite, like Qaw here. Saying yes, there would be a difference in AP.

So I'm asking some questions.

Is this question answered somewhere in the wiki rules or Q&A? At the moment, how does the wiki handle this just by looking at the written rules and Q&A?

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

i mean, is the same with all other Stuff with Tier 1, even with Tier 0, the only difference is when there are Existence Superiority

 

[Benimōru]

Well, if we equate destroying one L1-C with destroying two, then it makes no sense to say destroying two > destroying one in Tier 2.

Like, in the 2-A logic, the reason we equate one destruction with more than one destruction is that no matter how many multipliers we add to something that contains infinite amount of 4Ds, it will remain countably infinite. However, this is not the same for finite number of L1-Cs like it is not the same for the finite number of Tier 2s. Unless we have a structure with infinite amount of L1-Cs and/or more than one infinite amount of L1-Cs, the logic should not be the same as in 2-A.

 

[Brogeefrong]

Logically Low 1-C can be like a Low 2-C, and there is a difference ap differences from 1 L2-C and 2 L2-C's and so on, so multiple L1-C's is higher then 1 L1-C

 

[Padaruyos]

Right. Going with the way Tier 2 is treated rn someone blowing up two 5-D structures would be stronger than someone blowing up just one. It won't give a different tier, but it does make you stronger in terms of actual AP.

 

[Brogeefrong]

Right. Going with the way Tier 2 is treated rn someone blowing up two 5-D structures would be stronger than someone blowing up just one. It won't give a different tier, but it does make you stronger in terms of actual AP.

About that, is a person who can destroy 2 5D structures is infinitely stronger then one who can only destroy 1

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, it's still 5D. The only difference really is range.

I'm pretty sure most other people would say the same with regards to Tier 2 because of just how messed-up it is right now. But that's for Ultima and DT to hash out.

 

[Padaruyos]

About that, is a person who can destroy 2 5D structures is infinitely stronger then one who can only destroy 1

Even on Tier 2 it's technically not infinite gap, it's just unknown, but it ended up being infinite in vs matches.

I think 1 universe difference being an infinite gap is dumb, especially if both characters in question have gazillion universes destroyed. But the alternative here is scaling universes destroyed to AP linearly, and that doesn't make sense in Tier 2.

Also that would make DBS one of the strongest 2-Bs besides the countless ones. And we can't have that.

 

[KLOL506]

We once tried merging some of Tier 2's tiers into one because the numbers were arbitrary but were laughed off because it was "too much work for too little gain" and that it'd "lead to too many matchups" or that "it'd make characters look more powerful than they are now to appease DB fans", as if that'd matter given that by our current standards even having one more extra space-time up your belt would make you one-shot.

 

[Executor_N0]

Low 2-C can already be infinite 4D power. What makes 2-C and higher impressive it's not the 4D power, but the ability to spread that power across 5D space, so it's a bit 5D of insignificant size. 2-C up to 2-A is just a very broad way of measuring the destruction of 4D objects across the 5D space that encompasses them.

In theory, the destruction of multiple 5D objects across 6D space could be the same and it goes up on and on. It's just that after some time, it just doesn't make sense to be as precise with this for tiering purposes. There's already no really good reason why 2-C is up to 1000 universes and 2-B is more, in fact, before 2-A was not just infinite universes, but any multiverse with more than 10^500 universes because that was the "theoretical number of universes in our multiverse".

 

[Padaruyos]

We once tried merging some of Tier 2's tiers into one because the numbers were arbitrary but were laughed off because it was "too much work for too little gain" and that it'd "lead to too many matchups" or that "it'd make characters look more powerful than they are now to appease DB fans", as if that'd matter given that by our current standards even having one more extra space-time up your belt would make you one-shot.

Why do we even came up with Low Multiversal to begin with if even just a one universe gap is a one shot lmao.

 

[KLOL506]

Why do we even came up with Low Multiversal to begin with if even just a one universe gap is a one shot lmao.

Because it sounded better than Multi-Universe level LMAO

Ideally we wanted it to go like this:

2-C: Universe level+ (Single space-time)

2-B: Multiverse level (Two space-times to any higher finite number of them. The current 2-C and 2-B tiers have arbitrarily set limits)

2-A: Multiverse level+ (Infinite number of space-times)

But it was rejected because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

[Padaruyos]

Because it sounded better than Multi-Universe level LMAO

Ideally we wanted it to go like this:

2-C: Universe level+ (Single space-time)

2-B: Multiverse level (Two space-times to any higher finite number of them)

2-A: Multiverse level+ (Infinite number of space-times)

But it was rejected because of the reasons I mentioned.

Damn this would be really good had it actually passed.

Also finally 2-B Goku

 

[KLOL506]

Damn this would be really good had it actually passed.

One of Ultima's early proposals (Rough draft, never meant to make it to the final thing) also had it in a similar fashion to what I described (Credits to Emirp Sumitpo), but I feared correctly that it would also be rejected for similar reasons unless Ultima and DT really went into the meat of it and elaborated the massive issues we have with Tier 2 at large.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Low 2-C can already be infinite 4D power. What makes 2-C and higher impressive it's not the 4D power, but the ability to spread that power across 5D space, so it's a bit 5D of insignificant size. 2-C up to 2-A is just a very broad way of measuring the destruction of 4D objects across the 5D space that encompasses them.

Wouldn't it be less headache for everyone then to just name the tiers above Tier 3 by their dimensionality.

Like 4D, 5D, 6D , countless D and then infinity etc, then start with low1A and 1A etc. After that just mention number of structures for range. Because rn we treat number of structures as if it also matters for AP in horizontal scaling.
And it's ****** real bad.

 

[Padaruyos]

Maybe if there's something we can change in the tiering system to match what we do with Tier 2 is giving a + (Low Complex Multiversal+) to Low 1-C characters that can destroy multiple Low 1-C structures. But since Low 1-C is both for 5 and 6D that's probably unfeasible without making the system even more confusing.

 

[Padaruyos]

There's also that supposed Ultima's Tier 2 Unfuckening thread that just makes any kind of Tier 2 destruction the same AP wise and only make scaling chains and multipliers matter.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Scaling still works even on low 1-C
the same way we can still scale someone as stronger than 2-A while still being 2-A because fiction says so
despite there isn't any higher number anymore than infinite for 2-A
but the way you get this is case by case

 

[Executor_N0]

Wouldn't it be less headache for everyone then to just name the tiers above Tier 3 by their dimensionality.

Like 4D, 5D, 6D , countless D and then infinity etc, then start with low1A and 1A etc. After that just mention number of structures for range. Because rn we treat number of structures as if it also matters for AP in horizontal scaling.
And it's ****** real bad.

The way the system was made was to become less specific the higher you go up because the lesser amount of series that developed those higher levels in detail.

If we wanted to be precise for tiering, we would have 4D tree level, 6D mountain level, and so on. But rarely do you have series that go into a baseline 6D level to give a reason for doing that considering there's already a structured system that covers thousands of pages. The opposite is true, there's enough focus in series with a finite up to infinite number of parallel universes, so in broader strokes, we can scale that. Above that, it become less common.


The system, be it for good or bad, is made with the intent of fitting with what is more common across fiction in a reasonable sense while working in the reasonable workforce of the managing staff and editors.

 

[Huesito88]

Scaling still works even on low 1-C
the same way we can still scale someone as stronger than 2-A while still being 2-A because fiction says so
despite there isn't any higher number anymore than infinite for 2-A
but the way you get this is case by case

If in the fictional work it out right states destroying two Low 1-C is more impressive than one Low 1-C "universe", would we count it as two times above baseline Low 1-C or the the same difference in power as we treat destroying two Low 2-C Universes in contrast to one?

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Low 2-C can already be infinite 4D power. What makes 2-C and higher impressive it's not the 4D power, but the ability to spread that power across 5D space, so it's a bit 5D of insignificant size. 2-C up to 2-A is just a very broad way of measuring the destruction of 4D objects across the 5D space that encompasses them.

In theory, the destruction of multiple 5D objects across 6D space could be the same and it goes up on and on. It's just that after some time, it just doesn't make sense to be as precise with this for tiering purposes. There's already no really good reason why 2-C is up to 1000 universes and 2-B is more, in fact, before 2-A was not just infinite universes, but any multiverse with more than 10^500 universes because that was the "theoretical number of universes in our multiverse".

So is there a difference between destroying one or infinite Low 1-C structures or not?

Whether it exists or not, I ask the question I asked again.

Is this question answered somewhere in the wiki rules/standards or Q&A? At the moment, how does the wiki handle this just by looking at the written rules and Q&A?

Because if I ask staff members, each one will have their own opinion, like Qaw and KLOL.

 

[Executor_N0]

It feels strange. It's just a follow-up of what is already in the tiering system for Tier 2, I have no idea why some thought it was different to Tier 1 when it's just a generalization of Tier 2 for the lack of enough work that goes that deep. I don't know if there's more to it, I'm merely using the logic the very system states in the notes

Tiering System

Note 1:

Because 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.

Universe

Regarding the Separation of Universes​

Universes must be separated by something other than 3 dimensional distance or physical barriers, otherwise they would be considered to both be part of one large universe for our tiering purposes.

The most typical example is the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate universes coexist in a four dimensional or even higher dimensional space, occupying different position along some additional dimensional axis. Therefore, in order to travel between such universes, the movement must be through the higher dimensional space between them.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

It feels strange. It's just a follow-up of what is already in the tiering system for Tier 2, I have no idea why some thought it was different to Tier 1 when it's just a generalization of Tier 2 for the lack of enough work that goes that deep. I don't know if there's more to it, I'm merely using the logic the very system states in the notes

Tiering System

Note 1:

Because 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.

Universe

Regarding the Separation of Universes​

Universes must be separated by something other than 3 dimensional distance or physical barriers, otherwise they would be considered to both be part of one large universe for our tiering purposes.

The most typical example is the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate universes coexist in a four dimensional or even higher dimensional space, occupying different position along some additional dimensional axis. Therefore, in order to travel between such universes, the movement must be through the higher dimensional space between them.

I'm sorry I ask again.

Is it that I'm new to the subject and don't have enough head for long things?

If this isn't offensive to you or anything like that, could you respond in a simpler way for people like me?

According to the layer system and standards we currently have, does tier 1 work in the same way as tier 2? In the sense that destroying more Low 1-C structures makes a character have a higher AP than a character who destroyed fewer Low 1-C structures, in the same way that destroying more timelines makes a character have higher AP than a character who destroyed fewer timelines.

You've probably already answered this, it's just that I'm a bit dumb when it comes to these things, so if in the question above you could summarize or be more direct or say yes or no, I would be grateful.

 

[KLOL506]

If it really were up to us, Tier 2 wouldn't have sub-tiers to begin with, nor would there be a requirement for "significant size" on any tier whatsoever because that's not how shit works.

So that 2-A Low 1-C thread people made? All of that goes down the drain.

 

[Qawsedf234]

According to the layer system and standards we currently have, does tier 1 work in the same way as tier 2? In the sense that destroying more Low 1-C structures makes a character have a higher AP than a character who destroyed fewer Low 1-C structures, in the same way that destroying more timelines makes a character have higher AP than a character who destroyed fewer timelines.

Going by the system now every Tier above 2 works the same as Tier 2. There's just not enough media that would qualify for a sub Tier to make it worth separating.

A multiverse of infinite 5D universes is still Low 1-C. Just higher than a baseline universal 5D space.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

If in the fictional work it out right states destroying two Low 1-C is more impressive than one Low 1-C "universe", would we count it as two times above baseline Low 1-C or the the same difference in power as we treat destroying two Low 2-C Universes in contrast to one?

that's one example of how you can be above baseline without being on a higher dimension yes

 

[Huesito88]

that's one example of how you can be above baseline without being on a higher dimension yes

But to what degree?

"two times above baseline Low 1-C "

Or

"the the same difference in power as we treat destroying two Low 2-C Universes in contrast to one?"

 

[Killerdrone123]

Going by the system now every Tier above 2 works the same as Tier 2. There's just not enough media that would qualify for a sub Tier to make it worth separating.

A multiverse of infinite 5D universes is still Low 1-C. Just higher than a baseline universal 5D space.

If I am not wrong I think he is asking would a character who can destroy infinite no of low 1c structure have a higher ap compare to a character who can destroy a single low 1c structure or they would both be same in terms of ap

 

[Brogeefrong]

If I am not wrong I think he is asking would a character who can destroy infinite no of low 1c structure have a higher ap compare to a character who can destroy a single low 1c structure or they would both be same in terms of ap

it would apply the same with multiple Low 1-c structures and one Low 1-c structure

 

[Killerdrone123]

it would apply the same with multiple Low 1-c structures and one Low 1-c structure

Means they would have same ap?

 

[Brogeefrong]

Means they would have same ap?

if it works like tier 2, even just 2 low 1-c structures is infinitely above just 1

 

[Executor_N0]

What makes the multiple instead of just one impressive is the fact you are spreading across an extra-dimensional axis of not-significant size. So, having two parallel 6D structures is no different than 2 parallel 4D structures. It's, equalizing everything, the same thing as going from Low 2-C to 2-C.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

But to what degree?

"two times above baseline Low 1-C "

Or

"the the same difference in power as we treat destroying two Low 2-C Universes in contrast to one?"

If you destroyed 2 low 1-C (5D) universe then you're 2 universes above baseline
if you're said to be twice as strong as someone who destroyed 1 low 1-C (5D) universe
then you are simply twice stronger but below someone who can destroy 2 of them.

if it works like tier 2, even just 2 low 1-c structures is infinitely above just 1

something like this yes

 

[Qawsedf234]

To summarize: Every Tier after Tier 2 is treated as Tier 2, they're just not seperated into sub-tiers.

So Universal Sized Space < Infinite Sized Space < Multiple Different Universes < Multiverse.

They're just not given the same level of 4D is since very few things actually go I'm depth like that media wise. But we would treat a Multiversal 5D feat as the same superiority over a Universal 5D feat under the same assumptions for 2A and Low 2C.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Is this question answered somewhere in the wiki rules or Q&A? At the moment, how does the wiki handle this just by looking at the written rules and Q&A?

Is it necessary to receive a direct response or be highlighted in FaQ? The answer is already given by examining the difference.

The question can be addressed by stating that asserting an equivalence between the two cases you presented is inaccurate:

The comparison involves

• A range of 4-D space (from 1 timeline to countable infinite amount of timelines)

versus

• A range spanning from 5-D to a countably infinite D.

Notice the distinction: you are contrasting the quantity within the same dimensional plane with one that varies by an uncountable amount of power at each level (tier). We can't treat them the same, as each tier is holding a qualitative superiority over the below, this is not the same case for tier 2 where the difference is only in quantitive terms.

 

[Fixxed]

Well

Many number of low 1C structure is still above just one low 1C structure

We not write it as same as tier 2 because it needless, we must add some needless sub tier just to clarify that

 

[KLOL506]

Sub-tiers at that stage is just needless stat-padding that logically makes no sense in terms of actual geometry, and there aren't remotely enough verses to qualify for such a distinction in Tier 1. Hell, Tier 1 is being revised ATM by Ultima, and if by some stroke of luck that passes, expect Ultima to gut Tier 2 and revise it as well so that the standards we have now, go poof (And for good measure).

 

[Ben_CleverName]

I mean, it's still 5D. The only difference really is range.

I'm pretty sure most other people would say the same with regards to Tier 2 because of just how messed-up it is right now. But that's for Ultima and DT to hash out.

8-A and High 3-A are both 3D as well. The "infinity + 2 = infinity" stuff only really matters when you're quantifying the amount of something in a set. If the argument is that 5D is "infinite" because it's R^5, the same logic also applies to 4D for being R^4, and 3D for being R^3. In fact all of those things have the exact same cardinality as each other, but it doesn't matter much when quantifying the difference between one object and two objects.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, like I said, Ultima plans to unfuck Tier 2 and do something about this "significant size" mess we've created for ourselves. But it ain't anytime soon, so better wait after he's done with the Tier 1 revisions and the Marvel Part 3 revisions. Prolly in the next two years, fingers crossed.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

I'm not sure how much of his revision plans actually impact Tier 2 unless it's a different revision from what he's currently arguing about regarding R>F stuff. This sort of thing just happens when people don't think much about what the sets entail and go strictly by cardinality itself... A set with five stars has the same cardinality as a set with five molecules, for example... and the amount of points that make them up are both R^3, but we wouldn't assume that those sets are equal.