-
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
- 3,298
- 370
Seems fine at a first glance.
- 15,332
- 7,563
> 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.
Multipliers don't apply here in the conventional sense, no, and you missed my point entirely.
The gap between galaxy and multi galaxy is based off of the distance between the two. In that case, I can say that you need to multiply your baseline galaxy destroying powers by, say, many millions of times in order to attain baseline Multi Galactic power.
However, once you get into Tier 2, this is inadmissible. You can not come up with any sort of multiplier for this, because it is not a quantifiable deal. The distance between 2 space times is unknowable, and therefore multiplying by 2 is not any sort of viable solution whatsoever. Saying that you're applying "logic and basic mathematical principles" here doesn't address the issue or explain anything whatsoever, and glosses over the actual issue entirely.
You're simply not approaching this with a plausible solution.
> 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".
I don't know where you got this idea, but we do no such thing with 2-B or 2-A. Both of these follow the exact same idea as Low 2-C and 2-C. We don't use any sort of multiplier, we use actual, solid feats of infinite multiverse destruction or the destruction of, say, 1000 universes.
Multiplying unquantifiable power by 2 is definitely not any sort of "logical reasoning", and glosses over feats and statements which are always above multipliers in any case.
> 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.
See above. Don't know where you got that from.
> 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.
It doesn't. I don't know why you think so, but Tiers 2 through 0 do not work like the other tiers, in any way whatsoever. I've already explained why; the gap is impossible to quantify, so we use feats instead of vague multipliers. And saying it works because of math isn't any sort of explanation; elaborate.
> 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.
No, you can't. I don't know who scales this way, but 2-A is not being infinitely above a 2-C. We only use feats or statements, nothing more, nothing less.
The rest of your post is based off of the idea that 2-B and 2-A are multiplicative tiers, which is untrue.
Multipliers don't apply here in the conventional sense, no, and you missed my point entirely.
The gap between galaxy and multi galaxy is based off of the distance between the two. In that case, I can say that you need to multiply your baseline galaxy destroying powers by, say, many millions of times in order to attain baseline Multi Galactic power.
However, once you get into Tier 2, this is inadmissible. You can not come up with any sort of multiplier for this, because it is not a quantifiable deal. The distance between 2 space times is unknowable, and therefore multiplying by 2 is not any sort of viable solution whatsoever. Saying that you're applying "logic and basic mathematical principles" here doesn't address the issue or explain anything whatsoever, and glosses over the actual issue entirely.
You're simply not approaching this with a plausible solution.
> 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".
I don't know where you got this idea, but we do no such thing with 2-B or 2-A. Both of these follow the exact same idea as Low 2-C and 2-C. We don't use any sort of multiplier, we use actual, solid feats of infinite multiverse destruction or the destruction of, say, 1000 universes.
Multiplying unquantifiable power by 2 is definitely not any sort of "logical reasoning", and glosses over feats and statements which are always above multipliers in any case.
> 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.
See above. Don't know where you got that from.
> 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.
It doesn't. I don't know why you think so, but Tiers 2 through 0 do not work like the other tiers, in any way whatsoever. I've already explained why; the gap is impossible to quantify, so we use feats instead of vague multipliers. And saying it works because of math isn't any sort of explanation; elaborate.
> 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.
No, you can't. I don't know who scales this way, but 2-A is not being infinitely above a 2-C. We only use feats or statements, nothing more, nothing less.
The rest of your post is based off of the idea that 2-B and 2-A are multiplicative tiers, which is untrue.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I genuinely disagree. This is literally Solar System level x2 = Multi-Solar System level, but on a tier 2 scale. Which is far worse as distance on that level is completely unquantifiable as you need to factor time as well.
I agree with what kepekley has said and proposed.
I agree with what kepekley has said and proposed.
- 3,032
- 394
Now, guys, assuming the fact that there is a chance Assaltwife's solution may be accepted, may I point out a simple to solve yet existing problem that will appear then?
The fact there will exist a tier which is merely 2x another tier. The only reason this is allowed to presently exist is because we believe on this unquantifiable gap of power between Low 2-C and 2-C. No other tier in this wiki is Singular vs Plural otherwise.
Thus I suggest that should AW's Multiversal Revision be accepted, one of two options should be taken:
1. The very "Low 2-C" tier dies and destroying any number from 1 to 1000 universes is 2-C.
2. The tier Low 2-C becomes the destruction of 1 to 1000 universes and we finally use the stated but never once used variable of "our multiverse is made of 10^500 universes" from the Tiering System page. In other words, from 2-C to 2-B will be the ratio from 1000 to 10^500 universes. 2-B will be macro-multiversal scale, from that to any amount of universes.
3. Same of 2, but 2's Low 2-C becomes called 2-C and is from 1 to 1000 universes. It is scaled "High Universal" and High 3-A becomes "Universal+" instead. Then we have Low 2-B called "Low Multiversal" being this gap between 1000 and 10^500 and 2-B is from 10^500 to any finite number.
4. Same of 3, but instead of Low 2-B and 2-B it is 2-B and High 2-B: 2-C is multi-universal, 2-B is multiversal and High 2-B which is the largest tier with finite universes is "High Multiversal".
I personally like 2 and 4.
The fact there will exist a tier which is merely 2x another tier. The only reason this is allowed to presently exist is because we believe on this unquantifiable gap of power between Low 2-C and 2-C. No other tier in this wiki is Singular vs Plural otherwise.
Thus I suggest that should AW's Multiversal Revision be accepted, one of two options should be taken:
1. The very "Low 2-C" tier dies and destroying any number from 1 to 1000 universes is 2-C.
2. The tier Low 2-C becomes the destruction of 1 to 1000 universes and we finally use the stated but never once used variable of "our multiverse is made of 10^500 universes" from the Tiering System page. In other words, from 2-C to 2-B will be the ratio from 1000 to 10^500 universes. 2-B will be macro-multiversal scale, from that to any amount of universes.
3. Same of 2, but 2's Low 2-C becomes called 2-C and is from 1 to 1000 universes. It is scaled "High Universal" and High 3-A becomes "Universal+" instead. Then we have Low 2-B called "Low Multiversal" being this gap between 1000 and 10^500 and 2-B is from 10^500 to any finite number.
4. Same of 3, but instead of Low 2-B and 2-B it is 2-B and High 2-B: 2-C is multi-universal, 2-B is multiversal and High 2-B which is the largest tier with finite universes is "High Multiversal".
I personally like 2 and 4.
- 32,359
- 20,298
The problem lies not on the Tier, but on the explanation.
- 2,650
- 467
The problem with this, in my opinion, is A. that we don't make distinctions with multiverse types, and B. that we gauge all multiverses to have the same structure. The way we currently treat 2-C to 2-A is an amalgamation of Type II multiverses (Different universal bubbles created through chaotic inflation) and Type III, which typically represents the Many Worlds Theory interpretation in quantum mechanics (not to mention also including string multiverses in that equation, although that's generally made High 1-C or Low 1-B). The thing is, the composition for inflationary bubbles and quantum branches are completely different (It says they have the same features below, but that doesn't cover that a quantum branch is fundamentally different than an inflationary bubble). It's not possible to physically travel between two universes in a bubble universe without a mechanism, and a quantum multiverse is even more tricky, as it would likely require dimensional travel of some degree. According to Wikipedia:
Level II: Universes with different physical constants
Bubble universes ― every disk represents a bubble universe. Our universe is represented by one of the disks.
Universe 1 to Universe 6 represent bubble universes. Five of them have different physical constants than our universe has.
In the chaotic inflatio theory, which is a variant of the cosmic inflatio theory, the multiverse or space as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles (like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread). Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses.
Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking, which results in different properties, such as different physical constants.
Level II also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smoli's fecund universes theory.
Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Hugh Everett III's many-worlds interpretatio (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a six-sided die is thrown and that the result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes.
Tegmark argues that a Level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a Level I or Level II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a Level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a Level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that, "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space."
Similarly, all Level II bubble universes with different physical constants can, in effect, be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a Level III multiverse. According to Yasunori Nomura, Raphael Bousso, and Leonard Susskind, this is because global spacetime appearing in the (eternally) inflating multiverse is a redundant concept. This implies that the multiverses of Levels I, II, and III are, in fact, the same thing. This hypothesis is referred to as "Multiverse = Quantum Many Worlds".
Level II: Universes with different physical constants
Bubble universes ― every disk represents a bubble universe. Our universe is represented by one of the disks.
Universe 1 to Universe 6 represent bubble universes. Five of them have different physical constants than our universe has.
In the chaotic inflatio theory, which is a variant of the cosmic inflatio theory, the multiverse or space as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles (like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread). Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses.
Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking, which results in different properties, such as different physical constants.
Level II also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smoli's fecund universes theory.
Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Hugh Everett III's many-worlds interpretatio (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a six-sided die is thrown and that the result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes.
Tegmark argues that a Level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a Level I or Level II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a Level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a Level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that, "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space."
Similarly, all Level II bubble universes with different physical constants can, in effect, be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a Level III multiverse. According to Yasunori Nomura, Raphael Bousso, and Leonard Susskind, this is because global spacetime appearing in the (eternally) inflating multiverse is a redundant concept. This implies that the multiverses of Levels I, II, and III are, in fact, the same thing. This hypothesis is referred to as "Multiverse = Quantum Many Worlds".
- 19,163
- 6,455
The way i see it, we can't know if a 2x multiplier really makes someone who is low 2-C become 2-C, when it was 4-B and 4-A, we know for the distance between 2 solar systems a certain amount of energy is needed to cover it, and therefore if you are a trillion times stronger than 4-B you are 4-A.
Universes aren't just lined up next to each other in terms of distance, so you can't just say being x times stronger means you can destroy multiple of them, just like solar systems aren't line up next to each other, we have to account for the distance.
But what even is the distance between 2 space-time continuums? We don't know, and therefore we can't place how much stronger you have to be to go from one tier to the other. So there is no definitive value where we can say if you are x times stronger than low 2-C, so you are 2-C.
Though i think this should apply to 2-C and 2-B too, being a certain finite number stronger than 2-C shouldn't make you 2-B, in short we need feats.
Universes aren't just lined up next to each other in terms of distance, so you can't just say being x times stronger means you can destroy multiple of them, just like solar systems aren't line up next to each other, we have to account for the distance.
But what even is the distance between 2 space-time continuums? We don't know, and therefore we can't place how much stronger you have to be to go from one tier to the other. So there is no definitive value where we can say if you are x times stronger than low 2-C, so you are 2-C.
Though i think this should apply to 2-C and 2-B too, being a certain finite number stronger than 2-C shouldn't make you 2-B, in short we need feats.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That just ties into the idea of multiplying Low 2-C by 2 to get 2-C being even more completely not viable.
- 2,650
- 467
@Mand
I'd like to advise you not to use that kind of language in the thread, but it can be of help, yes.
Essentially, my argument boils down to simply multiplying Low 2-C doesn't equal 2-C, though. The composition of a multiverse isn't as simple as arrangements of matter, like galaxies. I do think that the descriptions and qualifications for each tier need to be more firmly grounded in existing science, but barring that, Low 2-C with multipliers should never be able to reach 2-C, unless it is shown to affect more than one inflationary bubble or quantum branch.
I'd like to advise you not to use that kind of language in the thread, but it can be of help, yes.
Essentially, my argument boils down to simply multiplying Low 2-C doesn't equal 2-C, though. The composition of a multiverse isn't as simple as arrangements of matter, like galaxies. I do think that the descriptions and qualifications for each tier need to be more firmly grounded in existing science, but barring that, Low 2-C with multipliers should never be able to reach 2-C, unless it is shown to affect more than one inflationary bubble or quantum branch.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Also, get rid of the idea that all dimensional ascensions multiply your power infinitely. The size matters.
An infinitely small dimension won't multiply your stats by infinity like the three main geometric dimensions and the fourth one do. An infinitely tiny dimension is a compact dimension, aka one that won't behave the same way as the main 4.
So yes, it's totally possible to achieve "5-D" power while still being low Tier 2 on this small of a scale. It's difficult to explain properly, but that's the gist of it.
An infinitely small dimension won't multiply your stats by infinity like the three main geometric dimensions and the fourth one do. An infinitely tiny dimension is a compact dimension, aka one that won't behave the same way as the main 4.
So yes, it's totally possible to achieve "5-D" power while still being low Tier 2 on this small of a scale. It's difficult to explain properly, but that's the gist of it.
- 2,650
- 467
@Kep
Yet another problem, though. We assume here, largely, that higher dimensions are the large extra kind and not the likely compact kind we find in our own universe.
Not to mention that dimensions are simply considered axes in a system scientifically, and are not necessarily realms stacked on top of ours OR infinite increases in power + energy output (Work energy would still exist in higher dimensions, can be calculated, and infinite values in math are both problematic and causes of tremendous entropy), but I'm well aware that we use dimensions in the context of verses like DC, Marvel, Umineko and the Cthulhu Mythos.
Yet another problem, though. We assume here, largely, that higher dimensions are the large extra kind and not the likely compact kind we find in our own universe.
Not to mention that dimensions are simply considered axes in a system scientifically, and are not necessarily realms stacked on top of ours OR infinite increases in power + energy output (Work energy would still exist in higher dimensions, can be calculated, and infinite values in math are both problematic and causes of tremendous entropy), but I'm well aware that we use dimensions in the context of verses like DC, Marvel, Umineko and the Cthulhu Mythos.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I understand that, but it seems like Assalt misunderstood the 5-D axis statement. What I'm saying is, it's not contradictory to the rest of the system, that's all.
- 2,650
- 467
Destroying a Type I multiverse, within the context of our Tiering System, would likely equate to Low 2-C, since it's a shared infinite space-time manifold with different cosmological horizons, but it could vary depending on the verse, possibly up to 2-A, yes. While I don't necessarily agree with that, it's what it is.
MinatoSparkle
He/Him- 7,190
- 4,001
I'm conflicted. Both sides make some good points, but I think the people voting for the tiering system to stay the same's arguments make slightly more sense.
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #99
Then the 5-D thing isn't contradictory, but there are still certainly problems that need to be addressed, including our treatment of characters infinitely superior to one another in Tier 2 and above.Kepekley23 said:
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #101
That's just incorrect.Crzer07 said:
- 1,102
- 66
your back????????? however my opinion doesn't matter I guess but hopefully someone litsens as hard as it is for me as a dragon ball fan to want to see teir 1's I dont think it would be a good idea to upgrade GoD's to 2-CPaChi2 said:
1.) You would in turn have to rank both Jiren and Goku to 2-C
2.) Others would be low into but still 2-C as the likes of Vegeta surpassed the power of Toppo who in turn is basacally a weak GoD
3.) Zeno is astronamically more powerful than GoD's and basacally all the angels + Zeno would be 2-C and in Zeno's case via hax he would basacally auto be 2-B or 2-A
It's undeniable that low 2-C and 2-C contradicts themselves but this would lead to calc issues and much other verses would become extreamly more teir jumping from my basic knowledge and many people use this site for refrence so in all honesty it could make the VsWiki community look bad if somone comes in claiming Goku is Multiversal+ even though his feats at most show universal+ and scaling to Beerus he would become low multiversal at least
- 167,734
- 76,348
I obviously agree with Kepekley, and thank him for his help in avoiding making our system even more confusing than it already is.
In any case, the issue here isn't that 2-C is considered infinitely above Low 2-C, it is that we have no way to accurately measure the difference, and as such it is unquantifiable, and we have to rely on feats instead.
I agree that tier 2 is rather confusing though, as it is built on the principle that you need to breach the 5-D gulf between 4-D universes, but the universes themselves still have 0 5-D volume. Hence, we consider a character of considerable length in each of its 5 directions to be High 2-A, and as such above the other tier 2 levels.
A better explanation might be an idea though.
In any case, the issue here isn't that 2-C is considered infinitely above Low 2-C, it is that we have no way to accurately measure the difference, and as such it is unquantifiable, and we have to rely on feats instead.
I agree that tier 2 is rather confusing though, as it is built on the principle that you need to breach the 5-D gulf between 4-D universes, but the universes themselves still have 0 5-D volume. Hence, we consider a character of considerable length in each of its 5 directions to be High 2-A, and as such above the other tier 2 levels.
A better explanation might be an idea though.
- 16,606
- 1,791
but even if it is along a different axis, the amount of energy or content should be the same, since you are not jumping up a level of infinity, right?
- 167,734
- 76,348
@Iapitus
Well, it depends. If somebody simply created a portal between the universes, and then destroyed them, multiplies might work, but creating a 5-D "shockwave" that affected several of them at once is not quantifiable for us.
Fiction tends to be inconsistent and confusing.
Well, it depends. If somebody simply created a portal between the universes, and then destroyed them, multiplies might work, but creating a 5-D "shockwave" that affected several of them at once is not quantifiable for us.
Fiction tends to be inconsistent and confusing.
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #108
@Ant
If this is really how we do it, we need to completely remove any tiers gained from multiplicative superiority, including those of infinite power beyond other Tier 2s. Looking at you, Asriel.
But honest it isn't "making our system even more confusing". The system is crazy confusing as is with no significant explanation behind it. Aeyu's point still stands that we merge together multiverse types when that is completely dubious.
Also the "5-D gulf" doesn't make sense here, since we currently treat higher-D power as higher-D since we don't take any size of the dimension into account.
If this is really how we do it, we need to completely remove any tiers gained from multiplicative superiority, including those of infinite power beyond other Tier 2s. Looking at you, Asriel.
But honest it isn't "making our system even more confusing". The system is crazy confusing as is with no significant explanation behind it. Aeyu's point still stands that we merge together multiverse types when that is completely dubious.
Also the "5-D gulf" doesn't make sense here, since we currently treat higher-D power as higher-D since we don't take any size of the dimension into account.
- 1,418
- 311
Another thing, it doesn't make sense for someone who is 2x baseline Low 2-C to become 2-C when someone who can take out an infinite space-time continuum is also Low 2-C, despite being infinitely more powerful than a baseline who can only destroy one the size of the observable universe.
Anyway, I agree being infinitely above Low 2-C shouldn't make you 2-A. It should only take you from destroying finite space-time continuums to infinite ones.
Anyway, I agree being infinitely above Low 2-C shouldn't make you 2-A. It should only take you from destroying finite space-time continuums to infinite ones.
- 21,783
- 4,826
Technically Asriel is just the evolved form and (percieved to be) infinitely stronger version of another character who already showed the ability to "cross the 5-D gulf"Assaltwaffle said:
- 31,415
- 34,242
Yeah, I agree with Kep and disagree with using multipliers to go from Low 2-C to 2-C. Considering the 5-D distance, Baseline 2-C is infinitely greater than Baseline Low 2-C. However, once we get to the point where someone can destroy 2 or more universes, it does become somewhat linear. Destroying 3 universes is roughly twice as powerful as destroying 2 and destroying 4 universes is roughly 3 times stronger than destroying 2. When destroying 3 universes, we have 2 5-D lines which hold most of the weight. However, destroying an infinite number of universes is also infinitely greater than destroying a finite number of universes. 2-A is technically 2 degrees of infinity times greater than Low 2-C and High 2-A is technically 3 degrees greater.
Keep in mind that Low 2-C is infinitely greater than high end High 3-A which is infinitely greater than base High 3-A which is infinitely greater than 3-A. Each dimension feels like it's 3 degrees of infinity. It's kind of like how there's a 6-D line between two 5-D multiverses, which then we eventually have an infinite number of 5-D multiverses being infinitely greater than destroying two of more, then destroying the entire 6-D multiverse is infinitely greater. And it keeps going on.
At least, that's how I view it, I might be right or wrong.
Keep in mind that Low 2-C is infinitely greater than high end High 3-A which is infinitely greater than base High 3-A which is infinitely greater than 3-A. Each dimension feels like it's 3 degrees of infinity. It's kind of like how there's a 6-D line between two 5-D multiverses, which then we eventually have an infinite number of 5-D multiverses being infinitely greater than destroying two of more, then destroying the entire 6-D multiverse is infinitely greater. And it keeps going on.
At least, that's how I view it, I might be right or wrong.
- 167,734
- 76,348
@Jobbo
Our system is not flexible enough to take into account the size of the universes in question. Sorry.
@Assaltwaffle
I am fine with expanding our explanation, but do not know any better way to make a distinction between the different degrees of 5-D than currently. If we merged them all together, destroying 2 universes would be considered as powerful as destroying an infinite amount of them.
We lump together all 6-D characters and upwards into single tiers because we have no better way of distinguishing them from each other, as there is no available, easily visualised, reliable scale, such as "number of universes" anymore.
I will ask DontTalkDT to help us out here. He is likely one of our 3 to 4 most intelligent and knowledgeable members, and has helped greatly with defining our current system.
Our system is not flexible enough to take into account the size of the universes in question. Sorry.
@Assaltwaffle
I am fine with expanding our explanation, but do not know any better way to make a distinction between the different degrees of 5-D than currently. If we merged them all together, destroying 2 universes would be considered as powerful as destroying an infinite amount of them.
We lump together all 6-D characters and upwards into single tiers because we have no better way of distinguishing them from each other, as there is no available, easily visualised, reliable scale, such as "number of universes" anymore.
I will ask DontTalkDT to help us out here. He is likely one of our 3 to 4 most intelligent and knowledgeable members, and has helped greatly with defining our current system.
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #113
@Monarch
Yes, but it is still an infinite multiplier to get a 2-C character to 2-A. If Tier 2 doesn't work with multipliers, as Kep as stated, then this doesn't work. There is no blatant multiplier or superiority that justifies any jump from any tier in tier 2, "5-D gulf" or otherwise. If 2*502 =/= 2-B, neither does 2*infinity = 2-A.
From what we have stated in this thread, all use of multiplicative scaling, regardless of intensity, needs to be dropped from Tier 2.
Yes, but it is still an infinite multiplier to get a 2-C character to 2-A. If Tier 2 doesn't work with multipliers, as Kep as stated, then this doesn't work. There is no blatant multiplier or superiority that justifies any jump from any tier in tier 2, "5-D gulf" or otherwise. If 2*502 =/= 2-B, neither does 2*infinity = 2-A.
From what we have stated in this thread, all use of multiplicative scaling, regardless of intensity, needs to be dropped from Tier 2.
- 16,606
- 1,791
I disagree. Multipliers should apply between multi universal characters. a 2x multiplier on someone who can destroy 4 universes should be able to make them capacle of destroying 8 universes. If you can already effect all the necesary axes, then it should work.
- 16,606
- 1,791
does distance really matter? we are speaking of potency are we not?
- 16,606
- 1,791
So at that point the amount of stuff being destroyed doesn't change but only on the scale it is being destroyed does?
- 32,359
- 20,298
I disagree. This decision seems far worse, and feels like you're overreacting.Antvasima said:
- Status
