- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #41
It's also better to avoid derailing, yes. Should I delete the off-rails posts?
-
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
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- Status
- 13,225
- 21,037
That'd help to stay on track actually, yeah. As far as I'm concerned, delete away
- 167,855
- 76,474
Well, I find a potential tier 12 a valid topic here, but not unnecessary hostility that derails from all other discussion here.
- 13,225
- 21,037
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)
- 13,225
- 21,037
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)
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
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?
- 13,225
- 21,037
The latter one is about Tier 2 so I don't believe it'll be affected
- 18,625
- 18,681
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.
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.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
1-A is supposed to be reserved for qualitative superiorities, which no longer include dimensional jumps, so low 1-A doesn't make sense as a name anymore.
- 20,083
- 10,871
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?
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #53
Here.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #55
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:
- 4,604
- 6,575
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.
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.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
Should we lock these three threads while you leave a post explaining why they're irrelevant now in all of them, then?
- 20,541
- 17,454
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.We need your help here.
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.
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #59
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.
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.
No, it does, in fact, cause several logical problems. I already said what those are.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
- 13,225
- 21,037
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
- 4,769
- 7,810
So if this is passed, would low 1-A dudes not tied to qualitative superiority just get bumped down to High 1-B+?
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #63
I suppose so, yes. This thread is picking up steam, so, may as well.
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #64
- 20,541
- 17,454
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.
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.
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.
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #66
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.
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.
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.
- 20,541
- 17,454
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.
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.
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.
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".
- 13,225
- 21,037
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
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #69
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)
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.
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.
"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:
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #70
Also, this, too.
- 20,541
- 17,454
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
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.
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.
So to make sure I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting we go back to the 2018 version of the Tiering System
Am I understanding you correctly?
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
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #72
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."
According to the dictionary, "equivalent" means:
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.
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."
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."
- 20,541
- 17,454
Is that the sole criteria or is there more.
In that case we can also just change the wording to not be equalivent.
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.
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #74
Does "no glaring anti-feats" (Of the sort I mentioned) count as a criterion? If so, I suppose that's another.
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.
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.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
So your saying that dimensional jump are just quantitative superiority? And Dream, R>F, unreality to reality are qualitative superiority?
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #76
Yeah.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
- 20,541
- 17,454
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.
Are you suggesting that we getting rid of Tier 0 again then?
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.
- 6,196
- 16,487
- Thread starter
- #79
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.
Not really. Tier 0 can just be reflective of what it currently is, just as High 1-A is.
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.
- 20,541
- 17,454
I thought you were moving all Cardnial Sets to High 1-B. Are we still keeping Inaccessible Cardnials at 1-A and higher?
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
Similar threads
