• 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.

Narratives, Tiering, and Low 11-C (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
My bad, I misspoke again.

There's only 3 characters and 1 group of avatars that have narrative consideration for their tier, and they're portrayed as supreme beings among the supreme beings of the verse. I used High 1-B/1-A out of haste from Ant using that same terminology.
 
Antvasima said:
This does not seem well suited for classification within our system.
Click to expand...
I do not see any particular problems even if the difference between the steps is as between tier 10 and 1-A.
 
@Agnaa, that's fine, although being a narritive above some in SCP is probably "high end" high 1-B, since you don't really transcend infinite dimensions, but you're still above it
 
DarkLK said:
Antvasima said:
This does not seem well suited for classification within our system.
Click to expand...
I do not see any particular problems even if the difference between the steps is as between tier 10 and 1-A.
Click to expand...
We can simply use the "relative characteristics" in this case. Although those who are superior to the entire hierarchy should be considered as fairly strong 1-As.
 
^basically my thoughts exactly, and we should probably use the Foundations narritive as our base unless it's states to be otherwise
 
@DarkLK Unrelated to this thread but on your comment about being superior to the entire hierarchy being a fairly strong 1-A. An Admin (Saikou) said about that same argument...

Saikou The Lewd King said:
This is just stacking a bunch of transcendence on top of each other and hoping it sticks. High 1-B is a HUGE tier. You basically have endless room before reaching 1-A.
Click to expand...
Would you be willing to weigh in on discussions about 1-A SCP in other threads in the future?
 
Personally I think the issue of "is fiction to something equivalent to a 0 dimensional entity", is best resolved if we just make 11-C the bottom equivalent of 1-A. That is, just change 11-C to: "0-dimensional characters and those qualitatively inferior to them". It just seems like the logical step to close off the tiering system to both sides.


Though let me say that in general ranking characters that are "fiction within fiction" as tier 11 should be avoided and they should instead be ranked as video game characters or non-corporeal entities with mind manipulating capabilities.

Considering that 2747 can, in my understanding, make physical text disappear it probably doesn't belong into tier 11 either way.
 
It doesn't really make physical text disappear, it erases lower narratives from existence. But thanks for replying, and I'll take your advice with me when making future "fiction in fiction" profiles.

Also that does seem like an elegant solution.
 
DarkLK said:
We can simply use the "relative characteristics" in this case. Although those who are superior to the entire hierarchy should be considered as fairly strong 1-As.
Click to expand...
Please explain further regarding your solution to how we should solve this.
 
@DarkLK

What do you think about this suggestion?
 
Antvasima said:
@DarkLK
What do you think about this suggestion?
Click to expand...
It seems quite reasonable option. But in any case, each case should be treated separately.
 
Please explain further regarding your solution to how we should solve this.

I mean, that if the characters are seen as a low tiers in their own story (if they are just regular mortals within their own levels, for example), but this story located high in the hierarchy of stories, then we can just give to characters the tiers that they has in their story. But with the explanation that these are relative characteristics. In this case, only the one who surpasses the entire hierarchy should receive a high tier.
 
@DarkLK

Hmm. Your solution seems rather complicated to apply, and I am very tired and busy, so I am not well suited to evaluating how to work out an appropriate way to revise our Tiering System page on my own.

DontTalkDT's solution seems comparatively simple though.

In any case, we need more staff input for something like this. Perhaps I should move the discussion thread to the staff forum, and then highlight it?
 
No, this is the simplest solution. We simply ignore the position in the hierarchy.
 
Okay. Perhaps I am just too tired. I will highlight the thread so the other administrators can help out with working out a practical solution.
 
Anyway, this is my offer. You guys can disagree with this.
 
Well, I think that you almost always know what you are talking about, so we should preferably listen to you.
 
I do say that I agree with DT. Making 11-C "0 dimensional and below" would fix issues with negative dimensional nonsense without needing to introduce a new tier.
 
@Saikou

Okay. Thank you for the input. That does seem very simple to apply, yes.
 
Just woke up, and yeah, I think DT's suggestion is easy to implement and more simple than my original proposal. Also helps a a great deal in terms of simplicity.
 
Okay. Thank you for the reply. I think that we should wait for input from a few more staff members before making the change though.
 
I know it says staff only, but I have something important to add, and a question of where it should stand.

I/O has a similar issue, where they have infinite higher, and lower dimensions in their hierarchy. Each layer is about equivolent to 12 dimensions and a reality fiction difference. Would being in the "middle" of the hierarchy make you high hyperversal, and those above you a degree of infinite above that, or would it be that those in the "middle" of the hierarchy be normal and those benieth them be whatever the lowest key we are discussing and those above them be high hyperversal?

As for Keying them, I have been planning to create a key for characters in a single given layer, and then them in respect to the hierarchy as a whole as another key. Would a similar system possibly work here?
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
I do say that I agree with DT. Making 11-C "0 dimensional and below" would fix issues with negative dimensional nonsense without needing to introduce a new tier.
Click to expand...
^
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
I know it says staff only, but I have something important to add, and a question of where it should stand.
I/O has a similar issue, where they have infinite higher, and lower dimensions in their hierarchy. Each layer is about equivolent to 12 dimensions and a reality fiction difference. Would being in the "middle" of the hierarchy make you high hyperversal, and those above you a degree of infinite above that, or would it be that those in the "middle" of the hierarchy be normal and those benieth them be whatever the lowest key we are discussing and those above them be high hyperversal?

As for Keying them, I have been planning to create a key for characters in a single given layer, and then them in respect to the hierarchy as a whole as another key. Would a similar system possibly work here?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that those who are within the hierarchy should not receive a high 1-B tier just because of this. That is, high 1-B normal humans (or some low superhumans) is too stupid, even if technically it's right. I think that they should get such a tier as they would have, if we consider their layer of existence separately. With the explanation that these are relative stats. An exception can be made for those characters (quantum computers maybe) who are actually able to realize their cosmological position for some manipulations. Those who exceed the entire hierarchy will be 1-A in any case.
 
Most of the characters end up being either way level with far higher hax (outside the hierarchy), with many actually being 12D beings. I wasn't really questioning about the IC within the hierarchy, because they can actually move up and down the hierarchy. Also, (those profiles are wrong) there are actually other characters who can also maintain the hierarchy and manipulate it other than the quantum computers.

I was more asking about the people who can't do anything, like normal humans. Which I guess would be normal human level relative to their point
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Is...is Dark arguing for legitimate 1-A SCP...?
Click to expand...
+feelings of importance

Either way, i do think the tiers should relative to the Foundations narritive
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
I was more asking about the people who can't do anything, like normal humans. Which I guess would be normal human level relative to their point
Click to expand...
And I answered that they should get a tier of normal humans with the explanation that these are relative characteristics.
 
So, unless there is anything else to say, this should be close as both the original question and the Tiering issue has been resolved.
 
Pardon this intrusion, but I would like to point out that negative-dimensional space is very much a real concept.

Honestly, it seems erroneous to me to lump 0-dimensional characters in the same tier as negative/below-dimensional characters simply because it's easy to do.

First of all, it would be like if we merged High 1-B with 1-A, because that is basically what we are doing here. I get that two characters in one tier need not be comparable, but distinctions must still be made in any case.

Secondly, we have 11-C having only one character, 11-B having only two characters, and Low 1-B will soon have only one character (I've heard that Homestuck's God Tiers are going up a few dimensions). Low 11-C having only one character should not be a problem.

Third, we have done revisions that have affected virtually every character profile, so what's a revision that will affect only a few in comparison?

And this leads me to my final point: if we keep half-baking revisions simply to take an easy way out, we will not survive much longer. Seriously. Part of my personal problems with this site is how stagnant it is being right now: we're constantly skipping over revisions on the basis that "it's too hard to do", and when they do happen, most of the time some corners are cut.

Life is all about putting in effort and adapting to change, which VS Battles so far is not doing properly.
 
There is a pretty clear difference between 1-A and Low 11-C. The former has a ton of characters and quite a few franchises having one or two. Low 11-C would currently only have one character or so from a single franchise.

It's also different from other Tier 11 tiers, since those are actually based on a concept that is widespread across a lot of fictions, even if not much characters borrows from it. Meanwhile, negative dimensions are extremely limited in scope compared to just lower dimensions in general. It's even more obscure than 1-A. There is just no need to cover that separately.

There is also the fact that stuff like Low 1-B existed before. We didn't create this tier specifically for the character they host. So it's not comparable to creating Low 11-C just for this SCP.

My dude, we have over 16k pages. When we do wiki-wide revisions, it's out of necessity, not just on a whim such as changing the name of a tier. We are static because doing otherwise is just not feasible. You don't seem to get that doing revisions on entire tiers regularly would cause us to "not survive much longer" far more than just refusing to do changes for a single character or on a whim.
 
Well said, Saikou.

I apologise myself for encouraging talk like that over one character/verse.

Also I feel like "Staff Only" is starting to lose meaning
 
For the record I agree with Saikou.

Speaking personally, I usually spend at least 10 hours a day trying to take care of this wiki, but the other staff members are generally busy IRL, and as such cannot constantly be expected to handle massive revisions recurrently affecting several thousand pages, unless it is absolutely necessary.

We have to time 1-2 extremely important projects for the summer and winter vacations each year when the staff members are more free to help out. Most recently Assaltwaffle's tier 5 to 3 revision project, although given that he quit, I am not sure how much of that was actually done.
 
Either solution seemed fine with me, I just wanted something like this accounted for, but just expanding 11-C is a really elegant solution.

This thread can be locked now, any future issues with this profile would belong in another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Hsharpe
SCP-2747 VS SCP-682
Replies
2
Views
2K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Lifting Strength, Tier 11, & Tier 0
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
The Afterlife of SCP
Replies
23
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top