• 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.
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Why are people mentioning vs matches here? They aren’t the reason why I suggested this,
Click to expand...
It's almost tradition at this point that people mention and "vote" on tiering changes and say the reason is something vs related, you've been here for a while, I'm surprised you haven't noticed.


Also, because he deserves it for thinking of this cool idea,the one who orginally thought of this in the DBH thread was Ss3micah then the Professor and others began talking about it and the professor made the thread so they um well could stop derailing, just thought I'd say that before this thread gets closed
 
Honestly, I didn't understand this level, I may be misinterpreting it, but if a character for example destroys 500 universes but the multiverse expands infinitely, wouldn't he have to be destroying everything constantly to gain this level? It's not like he's going to destroy these universes that don't even exist yet, since they're in the process of being created as you say on the thread.

Also the fact of expanding infinitely, it’s not as if the work would be eternal, like a character destroys 500 universes but the work ends, we won’t know in what exact number of universes he destroyed, it may be even less than the multiversal baseline it's 1001 it's not like other wikia characters are going to wait for him to reach such a number of destroyed universes.
 
Guileal said:
Honestly, I didn't understand this level, I may be misinterpreting it, but if a character for example destroys 500 universes but the multiverse expands infinitely, wouldn't he have to be destroying everything constantly to gain this level? It's not like he's going to destroy these universes that don't even exist yet, since they're in the process of being created as you say on the thread.

Also the fact of expanding infinitely, it’s not as if the work would be eternal, like a character destroys 500 universes but the work ends, we won’t know in what exact number of universes he destroyed, it may be even less than the multiversal baseline it's 1001 it's not like other wikia characters are going to wait for him to reach such a number of destroyed universes.
Click to expand...
Well usually it's something in the already existing universes that is making new ones not that there just, appearing, for example as time branches out there are more paths to split in half to make more branches, if all the branches are destroyed nothing is therefore left to branch out, tho people have brought up your issue before, but generally such a thing doesn't have a "there are currently' statement, such statements normally vaguely imply that there are "alot"
 
Anyway, im sorry Don't Talk, but im genuinely not seeing how this isn't possible to differentiate in 2-B.
DontTalkDT said:
I don't think such a distinction is necessary... I also don't think such a distinction is possible.
Click to expand...
The distinction should be pretty simple. Regular 2-B would be for Multiverses that are countless, or larger, but don't increase. Ones given an explicit exact number.

Ex: A multiverse with a 1000 universes, 100,000, millions, etc.

High 2-B would be for Multiverses that constantly increase and have the finite number be unspecified, since for every moment, the number becomes larger than it was at in a previous moment.
 
Yeah looking back now i'll disagree, it basically says countless expanding > countless static, which is not really a constant because countless is not defined and the rate of growth can vary.

One countless multiverse could be 10x bigger than another, even if the latter is growing, eventually the latter would surpass it but you need the rate of expansion for that.
 
It should simply be clarified in the tier justification of a character. For example:

"Multiverse level (Was going to destroy the entire multiverse, which has been consistently noted to be constantly expanding, though still finite)"
 
I still haven't changed my stance; while I agree 2-B is a broad term, this example just seems way to oddly specific. If anything, if people find the 1001 universes arbitrary, that would be the thing that could use a discussion/placement. Zamasu proposed a while back that he thinks 2-C should be countable set number of universes whether 2, 12, 1000, or 10^30 with 2-B being an over-expanding or countless/innumerable number of universes which are assumed much larger to an unknown extent than the previously mentioned examples. Which me and Antvasima iirc disagree with that proposal too, but just pointing out that even that in the long run sounds like a more reasonable suggestion than the one proposed in the OP.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I still haven't changed my stance; while I agree 2-B is a broad term, this example just seems way to oddly specific. If anything, if people find the 1001 universes arbitrary, that would be the thing that could use a discussion/placement. Zamasu proposed a while back that he thinks 2-C should be countable set number of universes whether 2, 12, 1000, or 10^30 with 2-B being an over-expanding or countless/innumerable number of universes which are assumed much larger to an unknown extent than the previously mentioned examples. Which me and Antvasima iirc disagree with that proposal too, but just pointing out that even that in the long run sounds like a more reasonable suggestion than the one proposed in the OP.
Click to expand...
I suppose that is a logical evolution of this logic in general, it is sorta the same logic, just applied differently, the ever expanding worlds would fit into that definition of 2-B as well, the logic here is there's a ckear divide so they should be divided, the same logic applies there, arguable better, and there are more augments, such as the 1000 being rather arbitrary itself. Of course the issue is it makes a borad category border, and that's probably a big issue to some, and there are FAR more profiles to change.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Anyway, im sorry Don't Talk, but im genuinely not seeing how this isn't possible to differentiate in 2-B.

The distinction should be pretty simple. Regular 2-B would be for Multiverses that are countless, or larger, but don't increase. Ones given an explicit exact number.

Ex: A multiverse with a 1000 universes, 100,000, millions, etc.

High 2-B would be for Multiverses that constantly increase and have the finite number be unspecified, since for every moment, the number becomes larger than it was at in a previous moment.
Click to expand...
Every of our tiers must be larger than the prior. 8-A must always be stronger than 8-B, regardless of we define it.
Likewise, High 2-B would have to always be higher than 2-B.
Your suggestion doesn't work, because High 2-B characters wouldn't always be above 2-B characters in strength. Strength wise a 2-B with a sufficiently high number of universes can be stronger than a High 2-B at some point.

That's why we can't make that distinction in the form of tiers. It isn't always higher than the tier before it.
 
I agree with DontTalk. Even if the multiverse is constantly expanding, let's say it starts at 1500 universes and you have another multiverse that consists of 5000 universes, with that number staying constant. As such, theoretically, the former would be High 2-B while the latter would be 2-B. However, the 2-B one would actually be above the High 2-B one, which goes against the idea of each tier being above the next, even if the former will eventually surpass the latter.
 
I guess the actual counter to don't talk's and Dragon's point is that, normally these systems already have an endless statement attached to them anyway /: that was the difference "endless" that you can't count with the expanse and endless you can't count without it, otherwise I Honestly think the whole system Medeus described is a better version of this idea, but that idea was already turned down, so there isn't much chance for this one
 
While I can understand the point being made, im not see why it would ultimately matter if in the long run, the ad-infinitum Multiverse would still end up objectively being superior to the non-ad infinitum multiverse.

Why would a tier need to be constantly superior to the next when, at the end of the day, it still ends up being superior?
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
While I can understand the point being made, im not see why it would ultimately matter if in the long run, the ad-infinitum Multiverse would still end up objectively being superior to the non-ad infinitum multiverse.

Why would a tier need to be constantly superior to the next when, at the end of the day, it still ends up being superior?
Click to expand...
I mean, you just have to adjust the definition a little bit so that It dose need the companying implication of 'endless'/uncountable with it in addition to the expansion to qualify which would eliminate ths problem. But, like I said

~~I like fusing 2-C and 2-B sans the basically unaccountable stuff better but that isn't going to happen~~
 
Compare this to every tier we have so far. In all of them, there is no questioning - for example - that 8-A is superior to 8-B, that High 4-C is superior to 4-C, and that High 1-A is superior to 1-A. There is no room for a lower tier to even theoretically be superior to a higher tier. Even if a multiverse expands ad-infinitum, that doesn't change that at some point, it would still be High 2-B but possibly inferior to a 2-B structure. It's contradictory to the entire tiering system.

I understand your point that it would end up eventually being superior anyway, but this possibility overcomplicates things and it's simpler to just leave it as very high into 2-B.
 
Fair enough then I suppose. But I still think a note in the tiering system to address the ad-infinitum aspect of 2-B should be made. Someone further above recommended this I believe.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Every of our tiers must be larger than the prior. 8-A must always be stronger than 8-B, regardless of we define it.
Likewise, High 2-B would have to always be higher than 2-B.
Your suggestion doesn't work, because High 2-B characters wouldn't always be above 2-B characters in strength. Strength wise a 2-B with a sufficiently high number of universes can be stronger than a High 2-B at some point.

That's why we can't make that distinction in the form of tiers. It isn't always higher than the tier before it.
Click to expand...
Agree with this, we have example like Rimuru's AP is endlessly increasing, but no matter what, AP wise he is still weaker than any 2-B with millions multiversal AP
 
Makenai said:
Agree with this, we have example like Rimuru's AP is endlessly increasing, but no matter what, AP wise he is still weaker than any 2-B with millions multiversal AP
Click to expand...
What? If Your AP is infinitely increasing then how the heck would millions x 2-B AP do anything to you? Strange logic that I've got here
 
I pretty much disagree with High 2-B
It could be something like "2-B, higher over time" to accommodate for the expanding multiverse over time.
It also depends on how fast the multiverse expands, which could be very hard to find out, moreover an extremely large, though not infinite, static multiverse can greatly overshadow the expansionary multiverse of High 2-B.
 
High 2-B sounds like it would always be superior to 2-B in terms of raw AP. However, an extremely large multiverse can potentially be far greater than one that expands, as one that expands may not reach the size of an extremely large multiverse. High 2-B doesn't make a whole lot of sense and can be inferior to 2-B, depending on the situation.
In my conclusion; High 2-B is too inconsistent and can be inferior to 2-B in terms of raw AP.
 
I think it's already been decided that High 2-B won't be made a thing, but now we're working on the idea of a footnote in the tiering system to address the idea of a multiverse expanding ad-infinitum
 
but the purpose of this thing exists? that is, if High 2-B does not have to exist, this should not exist either. just write a decent description to the character AP and pray that people understand, if they don't understand they will understand when they do a thread. then it's not that difficult
 
If High 2-B is a thing, it would given to a verse whose cosmology is describe as endless. It should be bigger than a large multiverse due to the fact that it really doesn't have an end, it just goes on.
 
Thinking on it now, we could just make sure it's elaborated on in the justification for a character's AP if they scale to such a thing.
 
Delta333 said:
Yeah I know but it is not endless from the beginning,instead it is increasing continuously so dude with millions 2-Bs will one shot
Click to expand...
Hence "endlessy increasing" because it will constantly increase without end, well its not that important though since Rimuru mainly dependant on his hax.
 
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
23
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Epyriel
Tier 5 Revision
2 3
Replies
104
Views
8K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
BrainiacWorld
  • Locked
Scaling Question
Replies
10
Views
615
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top