-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Multiversal Revisions: 2-C Standards and Logical Progression
- Thread starter Assaltwaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 6,698
- 2,496
How would this affect FoP?
- 8,427
- 3,144
Oh anyway, I'm in agreement with the general consensus.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #45
Make a thread after this one.Phoenix821 said:
Right now we need to either agree to get rid of the 5-D Power blockade on 2-C or disagree and keep it.
- 3,509
- 1,371
Also, it should be noted that the unquantifiable difference between Low 2-C and 2-C isn't neccessarily infinite. It's just unquantifiable. There's no way to measure it.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #49
@PaChi
An "infinitely sized" space-time is just space-time. Pretty sure the only way to have a truly infinite space-time continuum would be to have an infinite amount of time and space, which isn't really common in fiction.
An "infinitely sized" space-time is just space-time. Pretty sure the only way to have a truly infinite space-time continuum would be to have an infinite amount of time and space, which isn't really common in fiction.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I disagree with the OP, and will demonstrate why soon enough.
- 16,963
- 4,865
I agree with this honestly. Very glad someone finally brought this up.
Plus something has been on my mind concerning Low 2-C that, eventually, I would've made a thread about. A low 2-C has universal+ power for destroying a single space-time continuum yes? If so, then what about someone fighting multiple Low 2-Cs at the same time? For example, 2 as the bare minimum. Both low 2-Cs individually have the power of a space-time continuum, in other words both have universal+ power. So what if their power was combined? Not in the sense of absorbing the others power for themselves, but as in both fighting a single entity 2v1. Your essentially adding one universal+ power with the other and you get a force of baseline multi-universal power, which is 2-C.
And then what about the person fighting and beating those multiple low 2-Cs at once? You'd be besting combined multi-universal power from multiple other universal+ powers.
I never understood why this couldnt be 2-C.
Plus something has been on my mind concerning Low 2-C that, eventually, I would've made a thread about. A low 2-C has universal+ power for destroying a single space-time continuum yes? If so, then what about someone fighting multiple Low 2-Cs at the same time? For example, 2 as the bare minimum. Both low 2-Cs individually have the power of a space-time continuum, in other words both have universal+ power. So what if their power was combined? Not in the sense of absorbing the others power for themselves, but as in both fighting a single entity 2v1. Your essentially adding one universal+ power with the other and you get a force of baseline multi-universal power, which is 2-C.
And then what about the person fighting and beating those multiple low 2-Cs at once? You'd be besting combined multi-universal power from multiple other universal+ powers.
I never understood why this couldnt be 2-C.
- 10,394
- 3,348
@Kukui
Fighting multiple people in a tier at the same time doesn't make your power multiple times theirs.
Fighting multiple people in a tier at the same time doesn't make your power multiple times theirs.
- 1,160
- 186
Limited 4D power is high universal (i.e. destroying the universal future, but not the present or past)
Infinite 4D power is Universal+ (i.e. destroying the entire timeline)
4D power on a 5D axis is Low Multiverse Level (destroying a universal reality and extending to another universe's reality)
Infinite 4D power on a 5D axis is Multiversal+ (destroying the reality of infinite universes)
There's a reason why the 5D axis exists to begin with, and this is the reason.
This whole post seems to try to amp Dragonball (I said "seems", calm down)when Dragonball already doesn't follow the tiering system because of it having low multiversal timelines.
Infinite 4D power is Universal+ (i.e. destroying the entire timeline)
4D power on a 5D axis is Low Multiverse Level (destroying a universal reality and extending to another universe's reality)
Infinite 4D power on a 5D axis is Multiversal+ (destroying the reality of infinite universes)
There's a reason why the 5D axis exists to begin with, and this is the reason.
This whole post seems to try to amp Dragonball (I said "seems", calm down)when Dragonball already doesn't follow the tiering system because of it having low multiversal timelines.
- 6,594
- 1,713
Why is Solaris 2-C for destroying the past, present, and future then?DeathstroketheHedgehog said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
Let's start by pointing out the obvious.
Tiers 4 through 3 rely on the distance between each galaxy or solar system in order to obtain the necessary energy to destroy one. However, once you enter Tier 2, this method is completely unusable, because the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable. It is not as simple as putting two and two together. Energy as we know it, watts\joules, is utterly immeasurable.
In that case, everything boils down to a more simple method that blows past the joule issue. Quantifying space time busting feats by the number of space times that is being destroyed.
Due to the fact energy caps are no longer quantifiable, multipliers ain't cutting it. We're going to need feats. I will exemplify that soon.
> And herein lies our problem. Low 2-C is the complete destruction of a space-time continuum. 2-C is two. But it is impossible to obtain 2-C from Low 2-C via a multiplier unless the multiplier is literally infinity. If the multiplier is infinity, however, the character in question is not 2-C, but instead 2-A, since their power must be infinitely 4-D. Despite this, even if a character is capable of producing power millions of times over Low 2-C they are not awarded 2-B or even 2-C, as there is no mathematical cap of Low 2-C, save infinity. For some reaso
Your mistake is trying to quantify Tier 2 with a standard mathematical approach. It is nowhere near as simple as putting 2 and 2 together, or even infinities together.
The fact is, 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. So treating 2-C as "2x Low 2-C" doesn't solve the problem, it dances around it.
> But when we try to approach this mathematically with certain characters, we see this odd standard break apart. Beerus and Champa together are able to obliterate two universal space-time continuums when either one alone cannot. By our standards, if you try to divide 2-C in half, they should still be 2-C, since there is no multiplier, save infinity, that gets you out of Low 2-C. But they aren't; they are Low 2-C since they are unable to achieve 2-C by themselves.
Ignoring the fact that the example isn't 2-C, and we consider the feat 3-A here, I'll follow the gist of the argument. Both Beerus and Champa are unable to achieve 2-C power by themselves. When they clash, their combined powers can break the barrier straight down. How? We don't know, at all. But it simply happens.
The fact is, dividing the feat between the two to still get 2-C is straight up incorrect, as their best feats are Low 2-C. Not 2-C. So feats once again solve this issue rather easily. Have a 2-C feat? You're 2-C. You don't? Then you're Low 2-C, no matter how many times you multiply your power.
> The division, multiplication, addition, or subtraction of anything from Low 2-C and 2-C could not cause these tiers to segway into one another, despite the fact that Low 2-C is essentially "1" and 2-C is "2". This is especially odd, since being 501 times over baseline 2-C is 2-B (2x501 = 1002, 1001+ = 2-B) and being infinitely over 2-C is 2-A. Both of these thresholds are met by appropriate multipliers, and 2-A is met by its infinite multiplier no matter what, yet 2-C is met by no multiplier because reasons. So, what is the actual reason that we bar any multiplier from letting a Low 2-C become 2-C?
Because it is utterly unquantifiable in this manner. We know it is not as simple as Low 2-C > 2x > 2-C, so we just have to deal with this fact and use a feat-based system, where the characters that have 2-C feats or statements are 2-C, while the ones who only have vague multipliers aren't.
In fact, 2-B is destroying 1,000 universes, not having your 2-C power multiplied by 500. So is 2-A, except you're destroying infinite universes. Your solution is not fixing the issue, it's adding to it.
What's the best solution? Keep the system as it is. Automatically granting someone 2-C because of multipliers can be contested, while granting them a 2-C rating because of a solid feat\statement can't, outliers aside.
Our system is good as it is. Don't apply multipliers and math where they aren't due.
Tiers 4 through 3 rely on the distance between each galaxy or solar system in order to obtain the necessary energy to destroy one. However, once you enter Tier 2, this method is completely unusable, because the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable. It is not as simple as putting two and two together. Energy as we know it, watts\joules, is utterly immeasurable.
In that case, everything boils down to a more simple method that blows past the joule issue. Quantifying space time busting feats by the number of space times that is being destroyed.
Due to the fact energy caps are no longer quantifiable, multipliers ain't cutting it. We're going to need feats. I will exemplify that soon.
> And herein lies our problem. Low 2-C is the complete destruction of a space-time continuum. 2-C is two. But it is impossible to obtain 2-C from Low 2-C via a multiplier unless the multiplier is literally infinity. If the multiplier is infinity, however, the character in question is not 2-C, but instead 2-A, since their power must be infinitely 4-D. Despite this, even if a character is capable of producing power millions of times over Low 2-C they are not awarded 2-B or even 2-C, as there is no mathematical cap of Low 2-C, save infinity. For some reaso
Your mistake is trying to quantify Tier 2 with a standard mathematical approach. It is nowhere near as simple as putting 2 and 2 together, or even infinities together.
The fact is, 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. So treating 2-C as "2x Low 2-C" doesn't solve the problem, it dances around it.
> But when we try to approach this mathematically with certain characters, we see this odd standard break apart. Beerus and Champa together are able to obliterate two universal space-time continuums when either one alone cannot. By our standards, if you try to divide 2-C in half, they should still be 2-C, since there is no multiplier, save infinity, that gets you out of Low 2-C. But they aren't; they are Low 2-C since they are unable to achieve 2-C by themselves.
Ignoring the fact that the example isn't 2-C, and we consider the feat 3-A here, I'll follow the gist of the argument. Both Beerus and Champa are unable to achieve 2-C power by themselves. When they clash, their combined powers can break the barrier straight down. How? We don't know, at all. But it simply happens.
The fact is, dividing the feat between the two to still get 2-C is straight up incorrect, as their best feats are Low 2-C. Not 2-C. So feats once again solve this issue rather easily. Have a 2-C feat? You're 2-C. You don't? Then you're Low 2-C, no matter how many times you multiply your power.
> The division, multiplication, addition, or subtraction of anything from Low 2-C and 2-C could not cause these tiers to segway into one another, despite the fact that Low 2-C is essentially "1" and 2-C is "2". This is especially odd, since being 501 times over baseline 2-C is 2-B (2x501 = 1002, 1001+ = 2-B) and being infinitely over 2-C is 2-A. Both of these thresholds are met by appropriate multipliers, and 2-A is met by its infinite multiplier no matter what, yet 2-C is met by no multiplier because reasons. So, what is the actual reason that we bar any multiplier from letting a Low 2-C become 2-C?
Because it is utterly unquantifiable in this manner. We know it is not as simple as Low 2-C > 2x > 2-C, so we just have to deal with this fact and use a feat-based system, where the characters that have 2-C feats or statements are 2-C, while the ones who only have vague multipliers aren't.
In fact, 2-B is destroying 1,000 universes, not having your 2-C power multiplied by 500. So is 2-A, except you're destroying infinite universes. Your solution is not fixing the issue, it's adding to it.
What's the best solution? Keep the system as it is. Automatically granting someone 2-C because of multipliers can be contested, while granting them a 2-C rating because of a solid feat\statement can't, outliers aside.
Our system is good as it is. Don't apply multipliers and math where they aren't due.
- 12,833
- 4,000
I agree with Kep
- 3,294
- 1,289
Man, that's an argument.
Also, checking our AP chart, we stop after 3-A. So there is no more math to even apply.
I'll wait for further input, but at the moment, I find it hard to argue with Kep.
Also, checking our AP chart, we stop after 3-A. So there is no more math to even apply.
I'll wait for further input, but at the moment, I find it hard to argue with Kep.
- 3,034
- 394
Actually, just by having infinite space your hypervolume is already infinite. A cilinder with infinite volume can be made which is one centimeter tall but has an infinite radius, it doesn't have to be endless in all dimensions it is made of. Destroying an infinitely large universe is 2-A.Assaltwaffle said:
- 19,236
- 6,513
Kep seems to make sense, math in terms of measuring the energy needed to cover distances, does indeed stops being relevant after tier 3 due to things not being physically measurable anymore, so trying to apply math doesn't work, either you can perform the feat or you can't.
This shouldn't just apply to low 2-C though, but all tiers thereafter really, tiers shouldn't be jumped with multipliers, but displayed feats.
This shouldn't just apply to low 2-C though, but all tiers thereafter really, tiers shouldn't be jumped with multipliers, but displayed feats.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #65
Making my reply. Don't write me off yet.
- 24,183
- 3,938
Math remains relevant within dimensioned space. Only 1-A and above are above math altogether.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That isn't the argument.
- 3,034
- 394
It's less like math cannot be applied and more like we don't know what math to apply, you see. No theory has something like hyperjoules or the energy necessary to damage spacetime, even though a hypothesis was formulated in which our Big Bang might have had its energy provided by the contact or collision of two branes (meaning a notion of energy does exist on multiversal scale).Kepekley23 said:
Maybe when we get a string physicist on the wiki. Who knows? We might even begin to count it all in joules again, with all tiers below High 1-B having numbers or a formula to obtain them (because no one deserves to calc Tier 1-B's "any finite amount of dimensions").
- 19,236
- 6,513
@Zach That isn't what Kep is saying, he is saying the gap between low 2-C and 2-C is unquantifiable, it can't be calculated/we have no idea what it is, it's not like the difference between 4-B and 4-A, where we simply calculate how much energy is needed to cover the distance between 2 solar systems, as more distance=more energy needed.
We aren't dealing with physical distances anymore, in fact energy based calculations are completely irrelevant at the tier 2 scale, this is literally beyond infinite energy, physical calculations don't work.
Space-time continuums aren't separated by physical distances, thus attempting to figure out some value based on that can't work, thus it's unquantifiable.
We aren't dealing with physical distances anymore, in fact energy based calculations are completely irrelevant at the tier 2 scale, this is literally beyond infinite energy, physical calculations don't work.
Space-time continuums aren't separated by physical distances, thus attempting to figure out some value based on that can't work, thus it's unquantifiable.
- 3,294
- 1,289
So, math doesn't work because we can't actually quantify anything. Thus, the need for "You either have destroyed 2 spacetimes or you haven't" nature of tier 2-C.
While it's jarring, due to how much math goes into most of the system, it makes sense.
...You know, it's quite amazing how something that seems so complicated can really be so simple.
While it's jarring, due to how much math goes into most of the system, it makes sense.
...You know, it's quite amazing how something that seems so complicated can really be so simple.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Yep.
Trying to insert multipliers into this creates ten times the problems it solves.
Trying to insert multipliers into this creates ten times the problems it solves.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #72
@TheC2
This grievously undersells what is going on here and it honestly makes me sound like an idiot. I am quite aware that we love to tout around the "you are or you aren't" rule, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't what we do for literally every other tier bar 1-A and above.
I'm still constructing my response to Kep, for those wondering.
I would also like to see Ryukama's input here, as I see he has Kudos'd my post and must have seen it.
This grievously undersells what is going on here and it honestly makes me sound like an idiot. I am quite aware that we love to tout around the "you are or you aren't" rule, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't what we do for literally every other tier bar 1-A and above.
I'm still constructing my response to Kep, for those wondering.
I would also like to see Ryukama's input here, as I see he has Kudos'd my post and must have seen it.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I'm going to get out of the computer in about 30 minutes, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow for this to be really concluded.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #75
I'm OK with that. Complicated issues and thought-out responses deserve time to be concluded; I never expected this to be done today.Kepekley23 said:
- 3,294
- 1,289
@Assaltwaffle
Sorry, wasn't trying to undermine anything.
It's just that for a long time anything beyond Low 2-C and how to get there seemed...muddled to me. Like I couldn't wrap my head around it. Like it's an abstract concept just out of my reach. I was just reveling in feeling like I understand a bit more than before this thread started.
Which is part of my reason for Following and replying in such threads: to learn and comphrend a little more.
Again, apologies for any offense.
Sorry, wasn't trying to undermine anything.
It's just that for a long time anything beyond Low 2-C and how to get there seemed...muddled to me. Like I couldn't wrap my head around it. Like it's an abstract concept just out of my reach. I was just reveling in feeling like I understand a bit more than before this thread started.
Which is part of my reason for Following and replying in such threads: to learn and comphrend a little more.
Again, apologies for any offense.
- 11,546
- 8,070
I'm definitely no expert with math and I am really uncertain about this "2x Low 2-C is 2-C". However I do agree that our current standards are a bit wonky and poorly explained.Assaltwaffle said:
As well as its weird standing in which it seems like there is no real line between Low 2-C and 2-C. Multiple it by any finite number and it remains Low 2-C. Increase it infinitely and becomes 2-A. There's no way to get from Low 2-C to 2-C according to our system, even when other verses explicitly disagree with this idea.
I'd suggest Low 2-C is just an unquantifiable yet finite number lower than 2-C, and get rid of the weird 5-D space stuff like Saikou said.
- 19,236
- 6,513
@TheC2 For me our our tiering systems has 3 parts, tier 11 to tier 3 is an energy based scale, while tier low 1-C to High 1-B is based on higher dimensions, tier 1-A and above don't even know what you call it, i guess you could say it's based on transcendence since it's a matter of transcending things ie transcending all concepts of dimensions.
For tier 2, we are dealing with space-time continuum, and not primarily higher dimensions, albeit low 2-C is 4-D, but 5-D is High 2-A, and we are looking at the gap in between the two. This is how i see the tiering system.
For tier 2, we are dealing with space-time continuum, and not primarily higher dimensions, albeit low 2-C is 4-D, but 5-D is High 2-A, and we are looking at the gap in between the two. This is how i see the tiering system.
- 8,438
- 3,294
- Thread starter
- #79
> Tiers 4 through 3 rely on the distance between each galaxy or solar system in order to obtain the necessary energy to destroy one. However, once you enter Tier 2, this method is completely unusable, because the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable. It is not as simple as putting two and two together. Energy as we know it, watts\joules, is utterly immeasurable.Kepekley23 said:
I never implied Tier 2 functioned in a joule-ish fashion. There is a big difference between measuring the joule output of an expanding radius of destruction and the multiplicative power difference between two levels. One uses mathematically formulas that only apply to joules and energy output, and the other uses basic logically reasoning that should be present throughout all layers of our tiering system. I am not suggesting we try to quantify the Tier 2 tiers in an energy output fashion, but if something follows basic principles of mathematics, regardless of the energy form or fundamental principle behind it, multipliers apply. While this is using math, it is using the most fundamentally basic math that is applied to the structure as a whole, not to the energy output of a feat, which is utterly unquantifiable by our knowledge of joules and energy.
>Due to the fact energy caps are no longer quantifiable, multipliers ain't cutting it. We're going to need feats. I will exemplify that soon.
But we currently aren't going by feats. Being over 1000x 2-C is treated as 2-B. Being infinitely above any other Tier 2 tier is treated as 2-A. We already use multipliers within these tiers, as it makes logical sense, but we are selective with Low 2-C and 2-C, as we also want to put in place the "5-D space" despite acknowledging multiplicative logical progression in the rest of the tier. This isn't just "math works in Tier 2" it is "logic applies to Tier 2 and the multiplication of existing levels of power is merely logical reasoning, not an attempt to formulate a concrete energy value using mathematical equations".
>Your mistake is trying to quantify Tier 2 with a standard mathematical approach. It is nowhere near as simple as putting 2 and 2 together, or even infinities together.
See above. We already do have this approach to the tier as it isn't just mathematical. It is logic. We are just inconsistent in our standards and application of logical scaling within tier 2.
>The fact is, 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. So treating 2-C as "2x Low 2-C" doesn't solve the problem, it dances around it.
Unless that value reaches infinity, of course, then we treat it like 2-A and are perfectly fine with it. And it solves the problem better than we are currently doing for reasons I'll address later.
>The fact is, dividing the feat between the two to still get 2-C is straight up incorrect, as their best feats are Low 2-C. Not 2-C. So feats once again solve this issue rather easily. Have a 2-C feat? You're 2-C. You don't? Then you're Low 2-C, no matter how many times you multiply your power.
I think you missed my point here. That is their problem; it makes no logical sense that you can't divide 2-C, yet you can divide all the other tiers and still get a result. Even if you have to divide/multiply the other tiers by literal infinity, it still works from a logical and mathematical perspective.
>Because it is utterly unquantifiable in this manner. We know it is not as simple as Low 2-C > 2x > 2-C, so we just have to deal with this fact and use a feat-based system, where the characters that have 2-C feats or statements are 2-C, while the ones who only have vague multipliers aren't. In fact, 2-B is destroying 1,000 universes, not having your 2-C power multiplied by 500. So is 2-A, except you're destroying infinite universes. Your solution is not fixing the issue, it's adding to it.
If it truly is like this, we need to be consistent. Right now we aren't. I can see the argument for an elitist "feats or bust" tiering system for Tier 2 and beyond, but right now we don't have that. You can still be 2-A by being literally infinitely superior to a Low 2-C. You can be High 2-A by being infinitely superior to an 2-A being, and such an increase is even defined in our tiering system right now in regard to uncountable infinity, which is an outright mathematical concept.
This still doesn't address the inconsistency of needing 5-D power to breach 2-C. This explanation completely ignores the inconsistency of Tier 2 and acts like everything is fine, when in reality we seem to use logical progression within parts of it, yet not others, and act like 5-D is High 2-A even though 5-D is already obtained at 2-C.
Not only is this inconsistency an issue, but you also make it seem like the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C being incalculable as something that is OK. It isn't. If we were using an exclusive "feats or not that tier" system, we would also have to get rid of the already present multiplicative increases found in 2-C to 2-A. You say that Low 2-C to 2-C can't be calculated, yet I say that they should if we acknowledge that the gap between 2-C and 2-A can be. And before you say that it can't, we already treat it as such. The gap between 2-C and 2-A is infinity, just as the gap between Low 2-C and 2-B to 2-A is infinity. That is a multiplicative increase, just as the jump from 2 universes to 1002 universe is a multiplicative increase. While we leave individual sub-tiers for dimensional power upon arrival at Low 1-C and instead adopt the dimensional tiering, the power within each dimensional tier still ranges by infinity. If there were hypothetical sub-tiers for the higher dimensions, they would still be bound by basic mathematical progression, as such progression is a basic byproduct of general causality and logic. This isn't me trying to put a formula on the higher tiers, it is solving inconsistency in the way we treat them despite multiplicative increases being present in all tiers bar Low 2-C.
Either we completely cut all multiplicative scaling in tier 2 and beyond and adopt an absolutist "feats only" mentality, even for infinite increases, or we get rid of this stipulation and let logic and mathematical progression play out its course.
What problems would this create that you mention? It is easy to say something will "make more problems than it solves" but if you can't actually name valid problems that it will bring about then it seems like fluffy wording that tries to make your argument sound stronger while not having a basis. If you bring specific problems to the table that this makes that are more significant than the blatant inconsistency of our current standards I would be glad to address them. I truly believe that everything that this would cause if regard to the changing of the standards of tier 2 is already solved in the other tiers and can be brought over to tier 2 to nullify a potential problem.
- 3,706
- 316
Would destroying a single universe that's infinite and eternal be considered 2-A?
- Status
