• 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.

New Tiering System was applied.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, I have a question about High 1-A. The old tiering system stated "A character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed ones who are bound by dimensions". The way i understood this is an Outerversal difference between a 1-A character and another character (the latter being the one above the 1-A). Is this still true for High Outerversal characters? Or would this just be 1-A or 1-A+ instead of High 1-A?
 
Dentris8 said:
Hey, I have a question about High 1-A. The old tiering system stated "A character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed ones who are bound by dimensions". The way i understood this is an Outerversal difference between a 1-A character and another character (the latter being the one above the 1-A). Is this still true for High Outerversal characters? Or would this just be 1-A or 1-A+ instead of High 1-A?
Click to expand...
Was going to ask the same question
 
I think I need more input on the Warhammer thread if anyone knowledgeable on Warhammer can help
 
@Dentris @NightStar9716 As Ultima has mentioned multiple times over the past threads, the definition has changed, that feat you describe is no longer High 1-A.
 
Agnaa said:
@Dentris @NightStar9716 As Ultima has mentioned multiple times over the past threads, the definition has changed, that feat you describe is no longer High 1-A.
Click to expand...
Oh okay thanks. I thought it would be the same as Ultima said "High 1-A: Transcending infinite levels of the above and extensions thereof, pretty much like how 1-A transcends High 1-B, except that happens on a much larger scale here." when responding to someone asking them what makes someone High 1-A.
 
But you don't reach 1-A by seeing a High 1-B as that High 1-B sees a 10-B, without more context that's just a higher end of High 1-B. Similarly, transcending a 1-A in the same way they transcend 10-B in its basic form is just one layer above in outerversal. Much more context is needed. Hence why Ultima said, "except that happens on a much larger scale here".
 
Agnaa said:
But you don't reach 1-A by seeing a High 1-B as that High 1-B sees a 10-B, without more context that's just a higher end of High 1-B. Similarly, transcending a 1-A in the same way they transcend 10-B in its basic form is just one layer above in outerversal. Much more context is needed. Hence why Ultima said, "except that happens on a much larger scale here".
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Thank you.
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
2) I hear all tier 1 verses are getting revised now. Should I just go ahead and make the I/O one to get it over with? Surprisingly, I think this is gonna help the verse more than it hurts it
Click to expand...
I suppose that is probably a good idea.
 
I would appreciate further help with finding tier High 2-A pages that need to be adjusted to Low 1-C.
 
Thank you. I will check it out.
 
I think high 1B TES should be low 1A.

Ultimate Gods are also high 1A due to their trans 1A avatars who trans 1A who also trans countless 1A realms.

Corrected me If I am Wrong.
 
@Ogbunabali

Okay.
 
@Ant I believe tier 11 characters have already been updated. I haven't checked all of them, but I saw Ultima editing many of them to the new naming conventions yesterday.
 
Okay. Thank you for the information, and thank you to Ultima for handling the workload.
 
It seems like they have received "None" in striking strength, rather than some degree of "Microversal".
 
Should Tier 11 character's lifting strength be Unkown or Below Average Human which is between 0-50kg as default?
 
I am not sure. Probably "None" in that case.
 
You can probably let the lifting strength values remain as they were before the revision.
 
The Lifting Strength and Striking Strength conventions for tier 11 pages have never quite been unified.

Some were given "None", some were given "None by 3-D standards", while some just didn't have the statistic listed at all.

How do you think they should be indexed?
 
Hmm. That is a problem. The lifting strength values can probably remain as "None", but I updated the Striking Strength to use "Microversal" earlier today, as I thought that Ultima forgot about it. Was this a mistake on my part?
 
I think it's something we just need to come to a decision on, but we have never had tier 11 striking strength in the past.
 
Okay. Bad memory on my part then. I will remove the ratings from the striking strength page in the meantime.
 
Ultima has expressed discomfort at me tiering SCP-3812 as "1-A, will eventually become 1-A" reflecting 3812's "Outerverse level, will eventually become Outerverse level+" AP/Dura. He thinks that the tier should just be "1-A" since it's something 3812 achieves himself and is still in the same tier. I think it should be as I edited it since tier should be the same as AP.

This sort of issue also exists with SCP-2747.

What should our standard on this be?
 
I don't really see any issue with just putting 1-A in the tier other than people being overly pedantic, honestly. 1-A and 1-A+ are fundamentally the same rating, and the latter is just a modifier to indicate how high a certain character is into it; we could also ask ourselves the same thing about lower tiers, as in, what would we do if a character had a low-end and a high-end that were Large Town level and Large Town level+ and both were somehow valid to use in a profule?
 
Then we should probably move this issue to a new thread, considering it affects more than just the updated tiers in the tiering system.
 
I believe we would use: 7-C, will eventually become higher

Not completely sure on this, but it does mirror how we use boosting abilities that are in the same tier

7-C, higher with ___
 
Antvasima said:
@Ultima

Here are some other pages that may need to be updated:
Click to expand...
I would appreciate if you would be willing to take a look at these.

Also, what do you think that we should do about the tier 11 striking strength?
 
Striking strength just mirrors the Attack potency conventions doesn't it? I for one see no problem with including striking strength values for tier 11
 
I am also fine with just putting 1-A in the tier, and leaving further explanation to the attack potency section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fixxed
  • Locked
Higher D by Transcending Infinite/all level of Power and Existential
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Boy.Line
Qualification issues.
Replies
7
Views
1K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
  • Locked
Problems with Dimensional Scaling
Replies
3
Views
533
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
31
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top