Low multiversal multiplier revision

[XXKINGXX69]

Currently, scaling many times above low multi won't grant you a higher tier. This is due to the distance between universes being unknown. However, i do believe its possible for a 2-C being to reach 2-B through simple multipliers (e.g a guy who destroys 2 universes then gets 600 times stronger would be 2-B)

This is because if you have AP or energy output equivalent to the power needed to destroy 2 universes, and you multiply it, you're also multiplying the power needed to destroy the space between universes.

Its like this:

Destroying 2 universes (or AP to do it) = destroying 1 universe + space between universes + another universe
Multiply that by 2 and its
destroying 1 universe + space between universes + another universe
destroying another universe + space between universes + another universe

This doesn't apply to low 2-C because we don't know how much more power is needed to destroy 2 universes including the space between them

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

2-B goku moment lets go

 

[Vietthai96]

I can see the logic behind this, however let see other opinion

 

[Hasty12345]

I'm almost certain this has been rejected more than once.

 

[StekFence]

Watching

 

[Funnimane]

isn't tier 2 destroying 4-D spaces/time-space continuums? why would the space between them matter anyway?

 

[The_Pink_God]

Following

 

[Romeu08]

I mean its logically right tho
If you can destroy a 4d construct and your Power doubles then you're able to destroy 2

 

[StekFence]

I mean its logically right tho
If you can destroy a 4d construct and your Power doubles then you're able to destroy 2

sure you could destroy 2, but its unknown if you could cross the space between, since thats usually unknown

 

[StekFence]

Thats how its explained to me anyway

 

[Funnimane]

and yeah for the record I agree with this, it seems logical

 

[Vietthai96]

isn't tier 2 destroying 4-D spaces/time-space continuums? why would the space between them matter anyway?

You still need to produce enough energy to bypass the distance between two universe. Similar to destroying two stars grant you Solar System level, you need not only the energy to destroy the star, but also bypass the distance between celestial body. When a blast travel through a distance, it still require energy

 

[Planck69]

We've been over this a dozen times by now, to the point I'm starting to consider it being made a discussion rule. Not only do we not know the distance between universes and how they're positioned relative to each other in higher dimensional space but this distance isn't consistent either. Two universes can be X units apart and a 3rd one could be X^100, X/100 or ∞ units away. Since these distances is unknowable, multipliers are unreliable.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

We've been over this a dozen times by now, to the point I'm starting to consider it being made a discussion rule. Not only do we not know the distance between universes and how they're positioned relative to each other in higher dimensional space but this distance isn't consistent either. Two universes can be X units apart and a 3rd one could be X^100, X/100 or ∞ units away. Since these distances is unknowable, multipliers are unreliable.

Why would you assume the distance is inconsistent? I think the default assumption is to assume its the same

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

There is no reason to assume the distance between universes is constant every time. We don't say that the distance between solar systems or the distance between galaxies is the same as that is blatantly false. The same would apply here.

 

[StekFence]

There is no reason to assume the distance between universes is constant every time. We don't say that the distance between solar systems or the distance between galaxies is the same as that is blatantly false. The same would apply here.

Yeah but if your measuring how many solar systems one can bust, its basically in units of Solar Sytsem A,The distance between, and Solar B, right?

 

[Planck69]

Yeah but if your measuring how many solar systems one can bust, its basically in units of Solar Sytsem A,The distance between, and Solar B, right?

.....No? We don't ever use a standard distance between celestial bodies, let alone space-time continuums.

 

[StekFence]

Hm. Didnt know that

 

[StekFence]

K, so what about verses where Unis are visually depicted at the same distance

 

[XXKINGXX69]

K, so what about verses where Unis are visually depicted at the same distance

Its rare for a series to outright show the distance between universes

There is no reason to assume the distance between universes is constant every time. We don't say that the distance between solar systems or the distance between galaxies is the same as that is blatantly false. The same would apply here.

It would be relative anyways

We also don't assume the size of universes to be different depending on the verse unless we know the universe's size

 

[Romeu08]

"sure you could destroy 2, but its unknown if you could cross the space between, since thats usually unknow"

I mean If your range is enough to cross the space once and then It doubles you should be able to destroy another one since there is no reason to assume distancie varies that much

 

[Bobsican]

My only concern is that currently we linearly treat these sorts of multipliers like that for the purposes of comparting AP in 2-C and 2-B for versus threads IIRC.
If they're unquantificable and all, should we just conclude in general that AP gaps in those tiers from the number of universes involved are irrelevant? Or just stick to the standard 7.5 multiplier gap in regards of the number of universes A scales to compared to B in lack of better options?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

My only concern is that currently we linearly treat these sorts of multipliers like that for the purposes of comparting AP in 2-C and 2-B for versus threads IIRC.
If they're unquantificable and all, should we just conclude in general that AP gaps in those tiers from the number of universes involved are irrelevant? Or just stick to the standard 7.5 multiplier gap in regards of the number of universes A scales to compared to B in lack of better options?

Why would we do that

 

[Planck69]

My only concern is that currently we linearly treat these sorts of multipliers like that for the purposes of comparting AP in 2-C and 2-B for versus threads IIRC.
If they're unquantificable and all, should we just conclude in general that AP gaps in those tiers from the number of universes involved are irrelevant? Or just stick to the standard 7.5 multiplier gap in regards of the number of universes A scales to compared to B in lack of better options?

They're unquantifiable when it comes to comparing number of universes destroyed through multipliers and such, not specifically AP. As in, if both scale to 2112 universes but one dude has a 100x multiplier on that then he's 100 times stronger than the other guy. If one scales to 3 universes and the other scales to 7 then multipliers aren't assumed to breach the gap.

 

[Bobsican]

The issue is more when A scales to 2 universes and B scales to 20
Would B AP stomp out of the raw universe number? If not, TBH that should be clarified somewhere in the vs thread rules out of how often this is misunderstood

 

[Planck69]

The issue is more when A scales to 2 universes and B scales to 20
Would B AP stomp out of the raw universe number? If not, TBH that should be clarified somewhere in the vs thread rules out of how often this is misunderstood

Yeah, he would. It's what's already implied in the Tiering System notes regarding the matter.

 

[LaserPrecision]

We've been over this a dozen times by now, to the point I'm starting to consider it being made a discussion rule. Not only do we not know the distance between universes and how they're positioned relative to each other in higher dimensional space but this distance isn't consistent either. Two universes can be X units apart and a 3rd one could be X^100, X/100 or ∞ units away. Since these distances is unknowable, multipliers are unreliable.

I've been curious to delve into this more for some answers.

While it's true, the distance between said Space-Times are unknowable, does that even matter? The idea of being a Low-Multiverse character is the concept of them being able to affect two separate Space-Time Continuum regardless of distance. If there's any distance at all between 2 Space-Times, and said Universes are destroyed, that's a Low-Multi feat.

So essentially, if a Low-Multi character multiplied their power by say twice their current power which can affect 2 Space-Times, they'd be able to affect 4 Space-Times if they were close enough. Meaning realistically, they should still scale to 4x Low-Multiverse level. If the distance between 2 stars is known, and a character destroys them yields Multi-Solar System level results, and their power is multiplied by 4, their AP would logically increase by 4x. But by this assertion, just because we don't know the distance between the next set of Stars (or Universes in this case) we can't say they've grown linearly 4x above what they were capable of because the next pair of stars could be way further out? That doesn't make a whole lot a sense, because if said Stars were close enough to be in range of the 4x amplified Attack's range, they'd subsequently be destroyed. Only with multiple Space-Times, the distance between them doesn't matter as destroying 2 Space-Times regardless of the unknowable space between them which can range from 1 millimeter to trillions of lightyears apart is 2-C

 

[Rabbit2002]

Following

 

[XXKINGXX69]

I mean why would you assume the distance between universes to be very different? Them being relative should be the best assumption

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I mean why would you assume the distance between universes to be very different? Them being relative should be the best assumption

No.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

No.

I can see you're running out of arguments

If we use this logic, destroying 20 universes isnt stronger than destroying 3 because what if the 3 universes had far wider distance between them?

 

[Planck69]

I mean why would you assume the distance between universes to be very different? Them being relative should be the best assumption

One look at the positioning of something like stars should tell you how ridiculous this is. Since there's no precedent of universes being of uniform distance, why is this the best assumption?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

One look at the positioning of something like stars should tell you how ridiculous this is. Since there's no precedent of universes being of uniform distance, why is this the best assumption?

Why would you assume them to be different

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Why would you assume them to be different

Why should we assume them to NOT be different?
What lazer accuracy said is interesting however.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Why should we assume them to NOT be different?
What lazer accuracy said is interesting however.

It takes more assumptions to think they're like a distance of say 23x than to say theyre a distance of like 2x or something.

There's also a 50/50 chance of them either being almost the same or different, so "likely" should be accepted at the very least

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree with Planck and I’m very surprised there isn’t a Discussion Rule on this

 

[Planck69]

It takes more assumptions to think they're like a distance of say 23x than to say theyre a distance of like 2x or something.

Based on? There's no reference point for which a certain closeness or distance is more reasonable at all.


Honestly, this thread is a mix of misunderstanding the tiering system, Burden of Proof errors and reaching for an upgrade.

 

[Mr._Undetected]

Watching

 

[Zaratthustra]

You destroy/create multiple universes at once to get a tier 2 if not then you can't get one through multipliers. It is nowhere near as simple as putting 2 and 2 together as no matter how many times you keep multiplying Low 2-C, it is not going to breach into 2-C, as the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Based on? There's no reference point for which a certain closeness or distance is more reasonable at all.


Honestly, this thread is a mix of misunderstanding the tiering system, Burden of Proof errors and reaching for an upgrade.

Because assuming things to be higher is a bigger assumption? And like I said, its like at least a 50/50 chance, so a "likely" would be good

You destroy/create multiple universes at once to get a tier 2 if not then you can't get one through multipliers. It is nowhere near as simple as putting 2 and 2 together as no matter how many times you keep multiplying Low 2-C, it is not going to breach into 2-C, as the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable.

This doesn't apply to low 2-C because we don't know how much more power is needed to destroy 2 universes including the space between them

Nice strawman argument