• 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.

Norse's land cosmology - God of War

Status
Not open for further replies.
is it not already rejected or my memory is generally bad?
It was originally Low 1-C for different reasons (treating the Nine Realms as infinitesimal points, transcending infinite timelines etc.) then got downgraded. This one seems to focus on Yggdrasil being a hypertimeline and transcending space-time, as well being infinitely larger than the Nine Realms.
 
It was originally Low 1-C for different reasons then got downgraded. This one seems to focus on Yggdrasil being a hypertimeline and transcending space-time, as well being infinitely larger than the Nine Realms.
We rejected that one as well when Darius re-attempted it without using the Card Game if memory serves me right, and I had to ask Ultima on Discord about it, hence, the reply you see now.
 
Yeah, I agree with KLOL and disagree with the OP.
 
It was originally Low 1-C for different reasons (treating the Nine Realms as infinitesimal points, transcending infinite timelines etc.) then got downgraded. This one seems to focus on Yggdrasil being a hypertimeline and transcending space-time, as well being infinitely larger than the Nine Realms.
This is low 1-C.
 
This is low 1-C.
Ultima said no upon asking him as you can see in my comment.

1. The "transcendence" statement on its own is vague for Tiering purposes.

2. The statement regarding the branches stretching out to infinity and thus being infinitely larger than the realms themselves ultimately means nothing if there isn't a more direct size-comparison statement made for it, as per Ultima's comment, which would rob it of the ability to obtain Tier 1 partly due to it no longer encompassing a 2-A structure as that is less hassle than say, encompassing a Low 2-C/2-C/2-B structure by that amount.

The same statement, which you called metaphorical without any solid reasoning that would be consistent with the actual intent of the statement in the novel as we had argued in the prior thread made by Darius. Even though the size of the tree in the end ultimately had nothing to do with Tier 1 in the first place and was just further support of Tier 2 shenanigans but wouldn't be a make-or-break deal without it due to what Ragnarok gave us.
 
Last edited:
Is that an agreement or just personal belief on it? Btw, the current Yggdrasil accepted information is in the above post of mine so take a gander there and look through it before anything.
This is an agreement if what you said is actually true.
 
Is it updated? If yes, do you mind linking it and I will share my thoughts.
But honestly, it's whatever. I'll call the staff and link the current Explanation page section on Yggdrasil for them to read and make their conclusions on.

Everything currently accepted about Yggdrasil.

@Maverick_Zero_X @Elizhaa @Celestial_Pegasus @SamanPatou @Abstractions @Theglassman12, @LordTracer @LephyrTheRevanchist

Any input would be appreciated.
 
Idk about low 1-C, but if the tree is infinitely larger than a 2-C structure wouldn’t it essentially be the same size as 2-A?

possibly 2-A for the tree should be on the table
 
Idk about low 1-C, but if the tree is infinitely larger than a 2-C structure wouldn’t it essentially be the same size as 2-A?

possibly 2-A for the tree should be on the table
That we have no idea about TBF. Time to ask Ultima yet again.

@Ultima_Reality Does being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C or a 2-C structure grant 2-A? Or is it not that simple?
 
Also @Fixxed, to fix your broken links, replace "static" with "vignette".

And it'd be preferable if you removed the Card Game portion entirely, that shit is dead and done for good.

The Norn shit should preferably be removed as well, they actually cannot see through time, they just make incredibly good predictions based on their calculations which they do inside their head.

Your only working materials would be the branch statement, and the transcend statement, nothing more, nothing less.
 
That we have no idea about TBF. Time to ask Ultima yet again.

@Ultima_Reality Does being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C or a 2-C structure grant 2-A? Or is it not that simple?
And i dont know why this is rejected before, i mean the infinite size structure that contain 4D structure is will become 2A structure
It like how tensura and old MGF have it 2A structure
Infinite space that just contain a low 2C will be 2A

If it transcending it, it will low 1C

It is like what ultima saying here
 
Infinite space that just contain a low 2C will be 2A

If it transcending it, it will low 1C

It is like what ultima saying here
Different verses, different contexts. Just because it goes for one verse, doesn't mean it will for all others that follow the same principle.
 
Different verses, different contexts. Just because it goes for one verse, doesn't mean it will for all others that follow the same principle.
Bruh i literaly read all of the context in two verse above, i'm supporter of MGF and also participated in rimuru 2A CRT

I can say the context is same, infinite space that contain low 2C structure is 2A structure
 
I'd rather we didn't go about on that kind of flimsy whataboutism and judged each verse separately by its merits whenever possible, unless clear examples are unavailable to refer to.
 
What Ultima wanted from us was to know how big the realms are from the branches, the difference between them and the "size".

Realms are all 4-D structures that are not infinite in themselves and have their own space-time continuum. Branches, on the other hand, are infinite structures that hold these finite structures on top, completely surpass them, and are unaffected.

There is always an infinite difference by default between a finite structure and an infinite structure. Because the finite structure can never reach the infinity of the infinite structures. This is exactly what Ultima wanted from us. And we don't need a directly statement for that. Knowing these is enough for us.

Although the previous Low 1-C seemed suspicious to me, the difference is well explained in this thread and looking at the current low 1-C standarts, it doesn't look bad at all.

Also, many verses have been upgraded to 2-A because they contain more than one Low 2-C structure and are infinite structure. Because the standard says so. And when this is combined with other statements, it is quite good to go to Low 1-C. We are the only verse that cannot benefit from these standards. That shouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
You don't need the damned size difference to be spoonfed. It's no needed whatsoever.
The Hypertimeline proof is stuff to lust after, especially with transcending space/time statements.
Yeah, are i must make clear in OP the cycle is mean for hypertimeline or it not need??
 
Yeah, are i must make clear in OP the cycle is mean for hypertimeline or it not need??
And what I don't understand is why is this most requested of us when 60% of Low 1-C doesn't have any "size" arguments. So many statements are simply ignoring because of a "size" argument.
 
And what I don't understand is why is this most requested of us when 60% of Low 1-C doesn't have any "size" arguments. So many statements are simply ignoring because of a "size" argument.
Yeah it like i say above
Isnt that.... not necessary.... i mean it already prove infinitely larger than something, and we must have some strictly, clear, and boring statement for just say "compare to it existence", isnt that what the proof exactly mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top