• 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.

On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
Well, I find a potential tier 12 a valid topic here, but not unnecessary hostility that derails from all other discussion here.
Click to expand...
My suggestion would be that we focus on Ultima's summary first. As it focuses on Tier 1 stuff, I don't believe Tier 11/potentially Tier 12 stuff would come into play just yet. Afterwards, if necessary, it can be discussed (since said stuff seems like it relies on Ultima's Tier 1 proposals being accepted to begin with)
 
Oh yeah, I should add, having read through Ultima's summary, I agree with his proposals (a High Hyperverse level+ tier for spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions also makes sense to me)
 
Ultima_Reality said:
It won't affect the former, no. The latter will be affected, though, yes, since one of the proposals is making transcendences over dimensionality in general be qualitative superiorities and thus scaling them to 1-A as a default. (Provided a good standard of evidence, of course)
Click to expand...
What should we do with that thread, as well as https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/, https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/, and https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-revision-merging-3d-spaces-and-destroying-empty-space.157173/, then?
 
Reading through Ultima's post and the back-and-forth with Deagonx, honestly I don't have anything against this. So, I agree.

Minor but wouldn't keeping the term Low 1-A rather than High 1-B+ look better? Granted, I'm not particularly hung up over it.
 
So what exactly does 1-A+ and High 1-A remotely mean if R>F qualitative superiority is just 1-A? Are we still treating it like 3-D to High 1-B transcendence only in a 1-A R>F aspect or something else?
 
Ultima_Reality said:
1-A+ and High 1-A would stay effectively the same. The former would be for an infinite hierarchy of qualitative superiorities. The latter would be for characters who are above the "quality" defining the lower hierarchy altogether, while still working on their own, higher form of qualitative superiority. For example, in Marvel Comics, the omniverse has an infinite hierarchy of dreams-within-dreams in itself, and above that, then, is the Outside, which transcends all forms of reality and dream and yet nevertheless still has its own hierarchy that works on something else entirely.
Click to expand...
Here.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
What should we do with that thread, as well as https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/, https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/, and https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-revision-merging-3d-spaces-and-destroying-empty-space.157173/, then?
Click to expand...
Well, if this is accepted, then the first thread will have just aged like milk. Type 4 Multiverses would, at absolute most, be very high into High 1-B+, so the second thread will lose its relevance as well. Third thread is unrelated to the topic, so, wouldn't be affected, really.
 
Last edited:
In my formal, academic, indubitable opinion, I have to confess - you cooked.

Normally, my instinct on a thread as important as this would be to play the devil's advocate for a bit. Even with something I ultimately agree with, I find it to be helpful (especially for such important discussions) to ensure that every reasonable counterargument is addressed. That way, there isn't any rational ground on which to doubt the conclusions drawn, and the topic can be comfortably put to rest with no loose ends.

However, I just don't have any issue with what has been expressed here. The greatest issue I have is that this should have all been considered a long time ago. I've even fairly recently had similar lines of thought (albeit, far less comprehensive) regarding the ways in which we've treated dimensional jumps under qualitative superiority, and the counterarguments you address go over every rationalisation I had for the current state of the system. That being said, I do intend to give this thread another read later, if only to pick out and polish the semantics of the matter. If I can be trusted with anything, it's to be a pretentious skeptic.

I don't expect changing the tiering system to reflect these conclusions will be easy, regardless of how we go about it. But, admittedly, I want to see it done. In the long term, I imagine this would be the ideal for the quality of our indexing.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Well, if this is accepted, then the first thread will have just aged like milk. Type 4 Multiverses would, at absolute most, be very high into High 1-B+, so the second thread will lost its relevance as well. Third thread is unrelated to the topic, so, wouldn't be affected, really.
Click to expand...
Should we lock these three threads while you leave a post explaining why they're irrelevant now in all of them, then?
  1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dealing-with-dimension-once-and-for-all.159694/
  2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/
  3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/
 
Antvasima said:
We need your help here. 🙏
Click to expand...
I don't mind helping out I guess, but being honest the 1-A proposal seems like it will immediately lead to any author insert having a 1-A upgrade attempt and I'm not for that.

Most of the time R>F isn't even transcendence as much as they have the ability to freely alter the lower world and I can't see this change doing anything but making certain things worse. Especially when this change has been proposed before and shot down for this exact same reasoning.

But sure, I wouldn't mind being in some discussion about it. Expressing my personal feeling though, the tiering system cannot cover all of fiction. It's always been a "generally covers most things" thing and attempting to quantify all of fiction will inevitably lead to failure. Just having a character with R>F being the equalivent of a Tier jump doesn't cause problems in 99% of cases.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Most of the time R>F isn't even transcendence as much as they have the ability to freely alter the lower world and I can't see this change doing anything but making certain things worse.
Click to expand...
These instances of R>F can easily just be dismissed, as they would be even under the current Tiering System. This isn't a problem created by what I'm proposing, so using that as a reason to reject it is nonsensical.

Qawsedf234 said:
But sure, I wouldn't mind being in some discussion about it. Expressing my personal feeling though, the tiering system cannot cover all of fiction. It's always been a "generally covers most things" thing and attempting to quantify all of fiction will inevitably lead to failure.
Click to expand...
We can reach closer to that ideal than what we have currently, at the very least. I've already outlined why the Tiering System proposed is just objectively better and more consistent than the current one, and "It will lead to more arguments" doesn't negate that.

Qawsedf234 said:
Just having a character with R>F being the equalivent of a Tier jump doesn't cause problems in 99% of cases.
Click to expand...
No, it does, in fact, cause several logical problems. I already said what those are.
 
Well, I'd say whether or not the threads are relevant depends on whether or not this thread is accepted, so maybe not just yet
 
Ultima_Reality said:
These instances of R>F can easily just be dismissed,
Click to expand...
How can they be easily dismissed? Your proposal is that R>F doesn't work with mathematics and should be 1-A or higher. I'm not seeing how this won't be seen as an arbitrary criteria of what does or doesn't count.
Ultima_Reality said:
No, it does, in fact, cause several logical problems. I already said what those are.
Click to expand...
Logical problems because you're trying to fit a square peg in a triangle hole. The tiering system doesn't need to cover literally every base and we can equate things to their equalivent.
Ultima_Reality said:
It will lead to more arguments" doesn't negate that.
Click to expand...
It doesn't negate it but if the change proposed only works in fringe cases and makes everything notable more confusing I don't see why it should be added either.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
How can they be easily dismissed? Your proposal is that R>F doesn't work with mathematics and should be 1-A or higher. I'm not seeing how this won't be seen as an arbitrary criteria of what does or doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Because "Some R>F isn't transcendence, just hax" is a problem that already exists even under the current Tiering System. And under the current Tiering System, if a R>F isn't transcendence, just hax, we'd reject it as a basis for a higher tier.

So you're basically saying that we should reject this proposal because of a problem completely unrelated to it.

Qawsedf234 said:
Logical problems because you're trying to fit a square peg in a triangle hole. The tiering system doesn't need to cover literally every base and we can equate things to their equalivent.
Click to expand...
Except the entirety of the OP was dedicated to explaining why there is no "equivalence" here. All the equivalences made by the current Tiering System are false ones.

So what I am suggesting is that we, in fact, start fitting the square pegs into the square holes, and the triangle pegs into the triangle holes.

Qawsedf234 said:
It doesn't negate it but if the change proposed only works in fringe cases and makes everything notable more confusing I don't see why it should be added either.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work "only in fringe cases." There are plenty of cases of legitimate qualitative superiorities on the wiki. And I don't see how it makes anything more confusing. If anything, it makes things less confusing.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Because "Some R>F isn't transcendence, just hax" is a problem that already exists even under the current Tiering System. And under the current Tiering System, if a R>F isn't transcendence, just hax, we'd reject it as a basis for a higher tier.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing how this answers my question. What is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a hard list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.

Ultima_Reality said:
Except the entirety of the OP was dedicated to explaining why there is no "equivalence" here. All the equivalences made by the current Tiering System are false ones.
Click to expand...
It's an equalivent to being above what they effected rather than being conceptually above every faucet shown or theoretically existing within a work like what I'm getting from your proposal.

Ultima_Reality said:
It doesn't work "only in fringe cases." There are plenty of cases of legitimate qualitative superiorities on the wiki.
Click to expand...
What are some examples of characters you would make Tier 1/0 with this proposal. What characters in your mind do count and don't count.

Ultima_Reality said:
anything, it makes things less confusing.
Click to expand...
I don't see how explaining to a new user what an empty power set means and the nature of a null set is less confusing than "One notch above whatever they effected".
 
Qawsedf234 said:
I'm not seeing how this answers my question. What is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a hard list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.
Click to expand...
I think his point is that regardless of this thread's existence, this is something we've had anyway, so it's not even relevant to begin with
 
Qawsedf234 said:
I'm not seeing how this answers my question. Why is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a working list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.
Click to expand...
The primary criterion is just "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence." After we establish that, deciding if a verse qualifies or not is largely a matter of pinpointing if it contradicts this condition or not. For example, as Deagon and I discussed up there, characters just wrestling with the supposed higher reality as if it was equally real to their own with no explanation would potentially count as an anti-feat for this (See the Animaniacs example I gave up there)

Qawsedf234 said:
It's an equalivent to being above what they effected rather than being conceptually above every faucet shown or theoretically existing within a work like what I'm getting from your proposal.
Click to expand...
And this is, itself, a false equivalence. It's basically saying "Y and X both transcend Z, so clearly Y and X are equivalent!", which is something I chastise at length in the OP.

Qawsedf234 said:
What are some examples of characters you would make Tier 0 with this proposal.
Click to expand...
Firstly, not Tier 0, since the proposal is basically kicking the current baseline of Tier 0 down to High 1-B and making 1-A the tier for qualitative stuff instead.

Secondly: An example I already gave up there would be God from Seekers into the Mystery. After that: Characters who are superior to dimensionality altogether would qualify, as well.

Qawsedf234 said:
I don't see how explaining to a new user what an empty power set means and the nature of a null set is less confusing than "One notch above whatever they effected".
Click to expand...
"We should stick to the objectively incorrect explanation because the correct one may be subjectively more confusing to explain to new users" is a terrible thing to unironically consider. The OP of this thread is only as long as it ended up being because I needed to explain these things to people who are already far too accustomed to think of R>F Trancendences and the like as equivalent to dimensional jumps.
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
The primary criterion is just "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence." After we establish that, deciding if a verse qualifies or not is largely a matter of pinpointing if it contradicts this condition or not. For example, as Deagon and I discussed up there, characters just interacting with the supposed higher reality as if it was equally real to their own with no explanation would potentially count as an anti-feat for this (See the Animaniacs example I gave up there)
Click to expand...
You said "primary". Meaning you have an idea of secondary characters that also count. As before can you provide a list of what does and doesn't count
Ultima_Reality said:
And this is, itself, a false equivalence. It's basically saying "Y and X both transcend Z, so clearly Y and X are equivalent!", which is something I chastise at length in the OP.
Click to expand...
But we don't say that they're equivalent, which just rate them in the same Tier. Something being 5D through geometric dimensions and something being rated higher than 4D due to R>F are still fundamentally different within the system. Every higher tier after Tier 2 has this built in considering a 5-D Multiverse would still only be Low 1-C.
Secondly: An example I already gave up there would be God from Seekers into the Mystery. After that: Characters who are superior to dimensionality altogether would qualify, as well.
Click to expand...
I'm asking for who does and doesn't count (since God wasn't in the OP). Your proposal is large and I want to know what criteria you think does and doesn't count so I get an idea off what you're working off of. I'm not asking you to go through every profile but you obviously have examples of what does and doesn't count and I want to know them.

Ultima_Reality said:
Firstly, not Tier 0, since the proposal is basically kicking the current baseline of Tier 0 down to High 1-B and making 1-A the tier for qualitative stuff instead.
Click to expand...
So to make sure I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting we go back to the 2018 version of the Tiering System
Basically, a being or an object which is outside and beyond all dimensions of time and space. This is something completely formless, abstract, metaphysical and transcendental. The usual scale does not make sense against a beyond dimensional object. Such beings can not be affected by destruction within the dimensions of time and space, or physical matter and energy. This "space" in which there is no dimension can be the background for any dimensional space. Within such a beyond dimensional "space", a dimensional structure with any number of dimensions can be placed, because there are no restrictions regarding dimensions.
Click to expand...
Am I understanding you correctly?

Ultima_Reality said:
"We should stick to the objectively incorrect explanation because may be subjectively more confusing to explain to new users" is a terrible thing to unironically consider.
Click to expand...
My complaint wasn't that it was or wasn't correct, but your assertion that this is simpler to explain when it isn't. It's an additional complex subject when Tier 1 already confuses the majority of our users and just name dropping your OP won't fix the issue
 
Qawsedf234 said:
You said "primary". Meaning you have an idea of secondary characters that also count. As before can you provide a list of what does and doesn't count
Click to expand...
That word is really irrelevant, since it's just a remnant of earlier drafts of the post, so forget I said it. To reiterate: The criterion, as far as R>F Trancendences are concerned, is: "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence."

Qawsedf234 said:
But we don't say that they're equivalent, which just rate them in the same Tier. Something being 5D through geometric dimensions and something being rated higher than 4D due to R>F are still fundamentally different within the system. Every higher tier after Tier 2 has this built in considering a 5-D Multiverse would still only be Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
According to the dictionary, "equivalent" means:

equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.
Click to expand...

So if we are saying they are the same tier, we are saying they equivalent, yes. As said, the current logic is literally "They are not identical, but they equivalent." Which is utter nonsense for reasons already explained.

Qawsedf234 said:
So to make sure I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting we go back to the 2018 version of the Tiering System
Click to expand...
Not quite, since even the old Tiering System still had R>F Transcendences as equivalent to dimensional jumps for some reason. Moreover the proposed version of 1-A wouldn't be exclusively about "ooooH beyond dimensions." This sort of stuff qualifies for it, but generally speaking it's just "Qualitative superiorities, as opposed to quantitative."

Qawsedf234 said:
My complaint wasn't that it was or wasn't correct, but your assertion that this is simpler to explain when it isn't.
Click to expand...
It is simpler to explain when you consider the fact everything I said about R>F boils down to "Nothing added to nothing is still nothing."
 
Ultima_Reality said:
To reiterate: The criterion, as far as R>F Trancendences are concerned, is: "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence."
Click to expand...
Is that the sole criteria or is there more.
Ultima_Reality said:
So if we are saying they are the same tier, we are saying they equivalent, yes. As said, the current logic is literally "They are not identical, but they equivalent." Which is utter nonsense for reasons already explained.
Click to expand...
In that case we can also just change the wording to not be equalivent.

Ultima_Reality said:
to dimensional jumps for some reason. Moreover the proposed version of 1-A wouldn't be exclusively about "ooooH beyond dimensions." This sort of stuff qualifies for it, but generally speaking it's just "Qualitative superiorities, as opposed to quantitative."
Click to expand...
What is your written justifications for Tier 1-A and on. How would the definitions look if this thread was accepted right now and we made the changes.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Is that the sole criteria or is there more.
Click to expand...
Does "no glaring anti-feats" (Of the sort I mentioned) count as a criterion? If so, I suppose that's another.

Qawsedf234 said:
In that case we can also just change the wording to not be equalivent.
Click to expand...
So... We would then start to say the two things aren't identical. But that they aren't equal, either?

I don't think I even have to explain why this solves absolutely none of the problems I brought up.

Qawsedf234 said:
What is your written justifications for Tier 1-A and on. How would the definitions look if this thread was accepted right now and we made the changes.
Click to expand...
Outerverse level: Characters whose superiority over lesser realms is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This is to say that their transcendence over them hinges on metaphysical qualities as opposed to mathematical quantities, and as such are completely beyond any and all extensions of the latter. For example, characters to whom lower worlds are literal unreality/fiction/nonexistence, or characters who exceed the necessity of physical size and dimensionality entirely.

1-A and High 1-A I already explained in the OP.
 
So your saying that dimensional jump are just quantitative superiority? And Dream, R>F, unreality to reality are qualitative superiority?
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Does "no glaring anti-feats" (Of the sort I mentioned) count as a criterion? If so, I suppose that's another
Click to expand...
It's a big change Ultima. I just want a list of is a qualifier and what isn't. If it's just "Nonexistent and can't be interacted with" that's fine, but I want to know if that's all there is to it or if there's more.
Ultima_Reality said:
1-A and High 1-A I already explained in the OP.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that we getting rid of Tier 0 again then?
Ultima_Reality said:
don't think I even have to explain why this solves absolutely none of the problems I brought up.
Click to expand...
I really don't think they're problems in the first place.

But if we're changing the system radically (again), it's whatever I guess.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
It's a big change Ultima. I just want a list of is a qualifier and what isn't. If it's just "Nonexistent and can't be interacted with" that's fine, but I want to know if that's all there is to it or if there's more.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I really can't think of any criteria other than these two. I appreciate suggestions from others, of course, but in my mind those two are the ones to keep close by.

Qawsedf234 said:
Are you suggesting that we getting rid of Tier 0 again then?
Click to expand...
Not really. Tier 0 can just be reflective of what it currently is, just as High 1-A is.

Qawsedf234 said:
I really don't think they're problems in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're basically saying "Blatant false equivalences, category errors, self-contradictions and just overall bad logic are not problems." It'd be understandable if they were unavoidable, but I just explained how they are very much avoidable.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Not really. Tier 0 can just be reflective of what it currently is, just as High 1-A is.
Click to expand...
I thought you were moving all Cardnial Sets to High 1-B. Are we still keeping Inaccessible Cardnials at 1-A and higher?

Ultima_Reality said:
It'd be understandable if they were unavoidable, but I just explained how they are very much avoidable
Click to expand...
You explained how we can rework the entire system to handle a problem that's not really a problem. Which, sure if guess but it's not an easy job.
 
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
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top