• 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.

Possible New Tier Addition: "High 2-B"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hasty12345 said:
If you wan to look at naming conventions,

High Uni is infinitely>uni
high 2-A was uncountably infinitely>2-A
high 1-B is infinite layers above 1-B
High outer is inaccessible to an outer+ structure

I think "High 2-B" makes the least sense of all.
Click to expand...
Uncountably infinite 2A is low1C or equavivalent of 5D on our wiki, there was a Q&A thread which clarified this too.
 
"2-B+", "low 2-A", "2-A-","2-(A/2)" The name isn't important, I was just making a comment on "high 2-B" not making much sense in terms of naming conventions.

I suggested "2-B+" as it wouldn't inherently require any chnage to the tier system itself, a simple note at the bottom of the page like:

"2-B+ can be given to verses which don't have infinite low 2-C structures but are still qualitatively superior to any static finite amount of low 2-C structures" or whatever is decided upon.
 
Well I suspect that regardless of the name this is gonna be accepted based on the current number of I do's in comparison to the number of I don'ts
Guess we'll have to wait and see
 
Ss3micah said:
Well I suspect that regardless of the name this is gonna be accepted based on the current number of I do's in comparison to the number of I don'ts
Guess we'll have to wait and see
Click to expand...
Well given that it would be adding something to the tiering system, no matter how minor it is, it definitely needs staff input. Thats why I put it in the staff forum.
 
Agree with this, about the name, i belive that 2-B+ have problems such the name tier, like, how we should call the tier itself? Multiversal+? already taked. would be better either Low 2-A or High 2-B

btw i don't think we can name a tier in a other way than High, Low, +, -.
 
I definitely agree with High 2-B, so we get a thing like 2-B/High 2-B/2-A as there's already 3-A/High 3-A/Low 2-C, or as we can even call it:

Universe -> High Universe -> Universe+ / Multiverse -> High Multiverse -> Multiverse+

It would also make things way more specific as well.

Disagree with 2-B+, is pretty confusionary and unecessary, High 2-B is more than enough and is a my plan since 2019 tbh
 
The name isn't as important as getting the tier recognized by staff, someone should ping Dont talk or Ultima.
 
I'm not opposed to this idea, but we would need to straighten out the standards a little bit more.

For example, in Kamen Rider, there are countless universes. Each universe contains countless Another Worlds, which are universes spawned from possibilities that never came to be. This would make the cosmology countless x countless. Does this count for High 2-B?
 
Sir_Ovens said:
For example, in Kamen Rider, there are countless universes. Each universe contains countless Another Worlds, which are universes spawned from possibilities that never came to be. This would make the cosmology countless x countless. Does this count for High 2-B?
Click to expand...
yes? i don't see why it wouldn't

also why it's relevant?
 
Sir_Ovens said:
For example, in Kamen Rider, there are countless universes. Each universe contains countless Another Worlds, which are universes spawned from possibilities that never came to be. This would make the cosmology countless x countless. Does this count for High 2-B?
Click to expand...
completely depends if its always increasing, which I think Karmen Rider would qualify for based on what you've said
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I feel like this is unnecessary as most 2-B characters on the wiki are massively above baseline anyway. The weakest 2-B character on the wiki is rated that way based on a millions of universes statement. I'm well aware of several verses that would pretty much fall into this tier, but I'd prefer to stick to just considering those verses massively above baseline 2-B.
Click to expand...
I agree with Medeus.

This also seems like an unnecessary distinction and a considerable revision that it is a very bad time to apply.
 
Tbh wouldn't changing 2-B to this be more logic?

Low Multiversal stopping at 1001 is arbitrary af and makes little sense, while it stopping with these kind of stuff looks better
 
Eh, seems unnecessary. Theirs no actual problems with what we currently have, it would barely be any help in preventing stomps; as stomps created from the other side having a greater Comeology would happen at one million versus two million, even in this new proposed High 2-B their would also more likely be stomp matches from stuff like characters with a baseline countless versus the character who are countless times two and all that.

I just don't see the point for all this extra effort when there is no actual benefit to anyone, just make the AP description better if you are worried people won't understand how high the character strength is.
 
Delta333 said:
People can make a small note for any verse that has cosmology which is higher than baseline 2-B so that we will not waste time in creating new tier
Click to expand...
Such information should preferably be noted somewhere in the relevant profile pages instead, yes.
 
They shouldn't need a note or a new Tier, this is what the AP section is for. If a user makes a stomp because they don't read the relevant sections on the profile then that's entirely their fault and they shouldn't be doing that. If the AP section lacks the information or is too difficult to understand then that should be fixed with appropriate scans and explanations.

There doesn't need to be some new standard applied to fix this, the current standards if done correctly should be more than enough to fix these problems.

Edit:
Gohanblanco217 said:
Tbh no one cares to read notes in characters profiles
Click to expand...

Well, they should. Creating and replying to matches without reading all the information necessary is entirely their fault and we have no need to accommodate people who do not do so.
 
Everything12 said:
They shouldn't need a note or a new Tier, this is what the AP section is for. If a user makes a stomp because they don't read the relevant sections on the profile then that's entirely their fault and they shouldn't be doing that. If the AP section lacks the information or is too difficult to understand then that should be fixed with appropriate scans and explanations.

There doesn't need to be some new standard applied to fix this, the current standards if done correctly should be more than enough to fix these problems.
Click to expand...
I think the reason why people make a lot of stomp matches comes from the AP section of said profile character with bad justifications / informations if you know what I mean
 
That is the case often enough, but regardless of why said stomps were created; lack of sufficient explanation or the negligence of the thread creator to even read the profile, that doesn't change the fact that this is not something we need a new Tier for. This can all be fixed by having the current standards be followed and does not need a drastic change as is being proposed.
 
I don't think such a distinction is necessary... I also don't think such a distinction is possible.
High 2-B would suggest that the ranking is higher than 2-B, but an ever-increasing multiverse is at any one moment in time not necessarily larger than a multiverse that has a constant 10^(100^100) universes for example.
 
True.
Most 2-B feats are destruction feats so they destroy everything at that moment in time, so their own power is not ever expanding.

Though the 2-B+ proposal seems nice. What do you think?
 
Arceus0x said:
True.
Most 2-B feats are destruction feats so they destroy everything at that moment in time, so their own power is not ever expanding.

Though the 2-B+ proposal seems nice. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I feel like if nothing else, it should be remembered some where, it's a nice idea, if I ever made a reference to the vs wiki system in a story I wrote I'd probably include this tier and a few others, tho ultimately, were scaling characters, and there isn't one Civilization for this to apply to there scale that I know of, and for them it's arguable more appropriate because it conveys more information about there situation? Idk just a thought, wish we had more civilization profiles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
19
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Reiner04
Bigger than 2-A structures feat
Replies
22
Views
2K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Epyriel
Tier 5 Revision
2 3
Replies
104
Views
7K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
BrainiacWorld
  • Locked
Scaling Question
Replies
10
Views
567
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top