Profile Additional Revamps for Higher Tiers

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

The purpose for this thread was actually brought up by a member and I can not lie it was a rather good suggestion. I've talked with @Antvasima about this whom let me do this.

Due to recent revamping in the tiering system, its rather ambiguous and hard to differentiate beings in the same category, that's not counting High 1-A+ and 0 since all beings scaling there are more or less equal.

So here are the necessary suggestions and changes that need to be implemented.

Higher Infinity:​

Low 1-C:​

Low 1-C is defined as:

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are one uncountably infinite level above Low 2-C structures. In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to R^5 (5-dimensional real coordinate space).

Nothing really too much to change here, but an added bonus of just including (5D) to the attack potency area.

For example: Thor was recently added as Low 1-C due to scaling to realms that are 5-dimensional in nature. So for his attack potency justification, we’ll just add the standard bolded “Low Complex Multiverse level” followed by a parenthesis indicating (5-D) then the reasoning and supporting statement after that.

1-C:​

1-C is defined as:

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are two to five uncountably infinite levels above Low 2-C structures. In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to R^6 to R^9 (6 to 9-dimensional real coordinate space).

Now, this is where it gets interesting. While 1-C starts at 6-dimensional space it also goes up to 9-dimensional space. Obviously, the justifications usually tells us why certain characters or places get this tier. However, I think it'd be easier and a lot more convenient to add where they scale since scaling two different characters from two different fiction is rather difficult because the setting and context differ.

So like Low 1-C, we add where they correspond within 1-C as such; (6D), (7D), (8D), (9D)

For example, while Uminkeo is under revision, Jessica Ushiromiya is listed at one of her keys as 1-C to High 1-C which is a big jump and an obvious status of her dimensionality would matter.

For the next two tiers, I'm not going to go over too much since the application from the above tiers apply to them.

Spoiler: High 1-C and 1-B

High 1-C​

High 1-C is defined as:

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are six to seven uncountably infinite levels above Low 2-C structures. In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to R^10 to R^11 (10 to 11-dimensional real coordinate space).

1-B:​

1-B is defined as:

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are eight to any higher finite number of uncountably infinite levels above Low 2-C structures (12-dimensional real coordinate space, in ordinary distribution), up to any higher finite number of dimensions.

Same as above. All that's needed is to define which dimensionality of a certain characters, place, weapon, or civilization scale to.

High 1-B:​

High 1-B category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy infinite-dimensional space. Characters who can meddle with spaces with uncountably infinite or above dimensions should have a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Hyperverse level+).

This is where it gets rather interesting. We know that we define this tier in terms of quantitative measure on the degrees of infinity.

For beings that scale to this tier would get a different. For the standard notion of just the baseline level of infinite spatial dimensions, we can just put (Infinite-D*0) and it goes on infinitely(Infinite-D*∞).

For beings that scale to the uncountable side, we can denote them as (Uncountable-D*0), and it goes on infinitely as well (Uncountable-D*∞).

So that's each layer of countable or uncountable would associate with the latter portion which measures at the endpoint of the quantitative numbers.

Low 1-A:​

Low 1-A is defined as:

Characters whose power is on the level of the Von Neumann Universe. That is, they either encompass, or can affect structures which encompass, the collection including all possible dimensional spaces.

As a general rule-of-thumb, statements of being "above dimensions" and the like, whenever validly indicating a superiority over higher dimensions, fall under this tier without further context. See here for more information.

This one is rather tricky since it talks rather about structuring around any dimensional sets or being able to affect them.

So, for this tier, we can just say (All dimensional) for a structure containing any set application and perhaps some axioms. Though, that's only if the case is vague, if it does invoke any names to grant that such as “Von Neumann Universe” then put that instead of anything inline with the notion of a space of sets such as the example being Universe of Sets. As such read this.

Spoiler: Low 1-A+ Addition

I've argued with @Agnaa about this and personally, I feel its a must since anything above High 1-B should have some sort of “+” modifier. This will encompass Tegmark Type IV Multiverse(watered down) and any larger conglomerate containing all possible sets.

1-A:​

1-A category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle.

A way to explain their superiority over "physical composition" would be to bring attention to the fact that all of the previous tiers can be expressed as the union of constructs of lower tiers. For example, a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum is at most Low 2-C. However, an inaccessible cardinal's worth of such spacetimes is well into High 1-B+. In spite of the extremely large gap in size between the individuals comprising this totality and the totality itself, the latter is simply the sum of all the former, and as such both ultimately reside in the same state of existence, and have continuity of composition within that state.

Likewise, even the Von Neumann Universe (As well as larger structures still) is still simply the union of many elements that, individually, are smaller than itself. And the same applies to any mathematical space whatsoever.

For this tier, we can break down into some of the nuances. If the wether by conceptual transcendence or R>F, if it's just baseline then we use (baseline). For any additional layer (One layer-infinite layer).

For the “+” modifier from countable to the uncountable layers, we can use (Infinite layer-Uncountable layer)

High 1-A:​

High 1-A category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

Characters or objects who transcend 1-A characters in the same vein that 1-A characters transcend the rest of the system. That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-Arepresents a "meta"-qualitative superiority.

Similarly to 1-A, this tier can be generalized to higher levels of existence. Just as 1-A encompasses qualitative hierarchies, so too can there be meta-qualitative hierarchies. In addition, there can also be "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities, and so forth, endlessly.

The apex of this tier, represented also by a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Outerverse level+), corresponds to characters whose power encompasses meta-qualities, meta-meta-qualities, and any and all conceivable extensions of this process, being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought), being characters who either have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds, or embody the framework of such worlds itself.

That said, characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds properly speaking may be rightly considered more powerful than those that can simply create arbitrarily big possible worlds while nevertheless existing in one.

The same as before with 1-A to 1-A+. Which corresponds as (Baseline), (One layer-Infinite layer), (infinite layer-uncountable layer)

However, for the “+” modifier, it's rather easy to just (Type 1) or (Type 2). I can offer another suggestion which is just a slightly differ Type 1 while we keep it we also add a hyphen to indicate how many worlds are being counted. So (Type 1-One world-finite worlds).

 

[Agnaa]

Low 1-C is defined as:

Nothing really too much to change here, but an added bonus of just including (5D) to the attack potency area.

For example: Thor was recently added as Low 1-C due to scaling to realms that are 5-dimensional in nature. So for his attack potency justification, we’ll just add the standard bolded “Low Complex Multiverse level” followed by a parenthesis indicating (5-D) then the reasoning and supporting statement after that.

Why?

1-C:​

1-C is defined as:

Now, this is where it gets interesting. While 1-C starts at 6-dimensional space it also goes up to 9-dimensional space. Obviously, the justifications usually tells us why certain characters or places get this tier. However, I think it'd be easier and a lot more convenient to add where they scale since scaling two different characters from two different fiction is rather difficult because the setting and context differ.

So like Low 1-C, we add where they correspond within 1-C as such; (6D), (7D), (8D), (9D)

For example, while Uminkeo is under revision, Jessica Ushiromiya is listed at one of her keys as 1-C to High 1-C which is a big jump and an obvious status of her dimensionality would matter.

For the next two tiers, I'm not going to go over too much since the application from the above tiers apply to them.

Spoiler: High 1-C and 1-B

High 1-C​

High 1-C is defined as:

1-B:​

1-B is defined as:

Same as above. All that's needed is to define which dimensionality of a certain characters, place, weapon, or civilization scale to.

Dimensionality isn't the proper equivalence. Writing things out that way can easily lead to misconceptions (like you, in that very part, equivocating AP to dimensionality).

I don't care too much if people want to put R^6 or smth like that in a Statistics Value note, like we do for other ratings. But I do recognise that this sort of thing becomes troublesome for certain 1-B characters, as characters can reach that tier through statements which don't have precisely defined points. Maybe in those we should just let the justifications speak for themselves.

High 1-B:​

High 1-B category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

This is where it gets rather interesting. We know that we define this tier in terms of quantitative measure on the degrees of infinity.

For beings that scale to this tier would get a different. For the standard notion of just the baseline level of infinite spatial dimensions, we can just put (Infinite-D*0) and it goes on infinitely(Infinite-D*∞).

For beings that scale to the uncountable side, we can denote them as (Uncountable-D*0), and it goes on infinitely as well (Uncountable-D*∞).

So that's each layer of countable or uncountable would associate with the latter portion which measures at the endpoint of the quantitative numbers.

High 1-A:​

High 1-A category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

The same as before with 1-A to 1-A+. Which corresponds as (Baseline), (One layer-Infinite layer), (infinite layer-uncountable layer)

I think this idea is terrible. The notation is nonsensical, "Infinite * 0" and "Uncountable * ∞" make zero sense. This tier already has a way of distinguishing things; through the + modifier.

Low 1-A is defined as:

This one is rather tricky since it talks rather about structuring around any dimensional sets or being able to affect them.

So, for this tier, we can just say (All dimensional) for a structure containing any set application and perhaps some axioms. Though, that's only if the case is vague, if it does invoke any names to grant that such as “Von Neumann Universe” then put that instead of any anything inline with the notion of a space of sets such as the example being Universe of Sets. As such read this.

Spoiler: Low 1-A+ Addition

I've argued with @Agnaa about this and personally, I feel its a must since anything above High 1-B should have some sort of “+” modifier. This will encompass Tegmark Type IV Multiverse(watered down) and any larger conglomerate containing all possible sets.

I have no clue what you're suggesting here. Why would we write down names of the specific constructs they're referencing if we'd equalise them anyway?

1-A:​

1-A category(including the “+” modifier) is defined as:

For this tier, we can break down into some of the nuances. If the wether by conceptual transcendence or R>F, if it's just baseline then we use (baseline). For any additional layer (One layer-infinite layer).

For the “+” modifier from countable to the uncountable layers, we can use (Infinite layer-Uncountable layer)

There's no reason to distinguish between the ways of reaching that tier. We already have the + modifier. If people want to count layers in the statistics value, whatever.

However, for the “+” modifier, it's rather easy to just (Type 1) or (Type 2). I can offer another suggestion which is just a slightly differ Type 1 while we keep it we also add a hyphen to indicate how many worlds are being counted. So (Type 1-One world-finite worlds).

We don't have those types defined, so writing out "Type 1/2" would be meaningless to visitors.

We should absolutely not count how many worlds are described in the series. We treat all characters in those types as equal.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Why?

What do you mean why? They share all the same reasoning. Like what I said it is easier to define their dimensionality. Especially, if its more convenient to put it there than expecting people to read notes, which they hardly ever do. It's simple and it brings no harm.

Dimensionality isn't the proper equivalence. Writing things out that way can easily lead to misconceptions (like you, in that very part, equivocating AP to dimensionality).

My thought process follows more on the route that most of the ratings really come from their AP which is the eye catcher. If its within the tier itself then it looks awkward and off. Obviously, dimensionality isn't strictly related to AP, however, within these higher-tier, it's hard to quantify where they're at and a basis of what dimensionality they are is a good indicator of where they scale(So we don't want confusion over how a 1-C character is 6-D, but in the blog it states 7-D). AP in these tiers are pretty much intrinsic to their nature/tier or else they lose those tiers.

I don't care too much if people want to put R^6 or smth like that in a Statistics Value note, like we do for other ratings. But I do recognise that this sort of thing becomes troublesome for certain 1-B characters, as characters can reach that tier through statements which don't have precisely defined points. Maybe in those we should just let the justifications speak for themselves.

Some justification lacks context without reading into blogs related to them. This is to help out the community to see where they're character without the tedious need to read very long blogs. If they still don't understand the terminology then that's on them for at least not reading the tiering system page, which should be a given.

I think this idea is terrible. The notation is nonsensical, "Infinite * 0" and "Uncountable * ∞" make zero sense. This tier already has a way of distinguishing things; through the + modifier.

You miss the whole point of the thread then. Regardless, if you believe it to be terrible, the point is a matter of convenience which I don't see how it hardly would be any harder distinguish the large concept of “1-A+” which hardly discusses if its infinite hierarchy of 1-A, or anything more. It stands too vague as of now. We don't have to make it easier for the user sure, but, it's hardly a difficult thing to implement.

I have no clue what you're suggesting here. Why would we write down names of the specific constructs they're referencing if we'd equalise them anyway?

How we define definition here does not exactly line up with fictional universes interpretation. We gauge it based on “similarities” and the definition provided. A Universe of Sets is a specific example and any analog that doesn't match its description are not same thing, so at that point, we make the reference of why it scales to that, if its not that specific example in the definition.

There's no reason to distinguish between the ways of reaching that tier. We already have the + modifier. If people want to count layers in the statistics value, whatever.

Again, vague and not anymore reliable than what I'm suggesting which at least puts out the sore areas of the higher-tier.

We don't have those types defined, so writing out "Type 1/2" would be meaningless to visitors.

This is probably the most important part since each type is the same tier. It's very much would cause confusion as I've seen many commoners tell us about this issue and not understand whether it's type 1 or 2.

We should absolutely not count how many worlds are described in the series. We treat all characters in those types as equal.

Wether they're equal or not doesn't discount how much of it they hold. We can't seriously make the notion every character is equal as cross referencing fictional power shouldn't be a thing. They still can count as the same, but, obviously we don't treat them as one and the same, in that sense, so a distinguishing trait helps out a lot.

 

[Agnaa]

What do you mean why? They share all the same reasoning. Like what I said it is easier to define their dimensionality. Especially, if its more convenient to put it there than expecting people to read notes, which they hardly ever do. It's simple and it brings no harm.

There's literally only one level characters in that tier could have, why would we need an extra note for it?

My thought process follows more on the route that most of the ratings really come from their AP which is the eye catcher. If its within the tier itself then it looks awkward and off. Obviously, dimensionality isn't strictly related to AP, however, within these higher-tier, it's hard to quantify where they're at and a basis of what dimensionality they are is a good indicator of where they scale. AP in these tiers are pretty much intrinsic to their nature/tier or else they lose those tiers.

They aren't that dimensionality, much of the time. Saying such is incorrect.

Some jusiffitaon lacks context without reading into blog related to them. This is to help out the community to see where they're character without the tedious need to read very long blogs. If they still don't understand the terminology then that's on them for at least not reading the tiering system page, which should be a given.

Which is why I said that I don't care if people put those in statistics values, like we already do for other ratings. But I also acknowledged that some are too vague to work with those, and so they should just be explained in the justification, where a short version should be possible.

You miss the whole point of the thread then. Regardless, if you believe it to be terrible, the point is a matter of convenience which I don't see how it hardly would be any harder distinguish the large concept of “1-A+” which hardly discusses if its infinite hierarchy of 1-A, or anything more. It stands too vague as of now. We don't have to make it easier for the user sure, but, it's hardly a difficult thing to implement.

I don't think so, for this point I was just disagreeing with the notation you used.

How we define definition here does not exactly line up with fictional universes interpretation. We gauge it based on “similarities” and the definition provided. A Universe of Sets is a specific and any analog that doesn't match its description are not same thing, so at that point, we make the reference of why it scales to that, if its not that specific example in the definition.

You seem to be doing this so that people have easier times making threads for characters, but this specific suggestion would just go against that, by implying that Low 1-A characters end up at different levels, when they don't.

Again, vague and not anymore reliable than what I'm suggesting which at least put outs the sore areas of the higher-tier.

I cared more about the "there's no reason to distinguish between ways of reaching the tier" point.

This is probably the most important part since each type is the same tier. It's very much would cause confusion as I've seen many commoners tell us about this issue and not understand whether it's type 1 or 2.

Ask Ultima about it.

Wether they're equal or not doesn't discount how much of it they hold. We can't seriously make the notion every character is equal as cross referencing fictional power shouldn't be a thing. They still can count as the same, but, obviously we don't treat them as one and the same, in that sense, so a distinguishing trait helps out a lot.

?????

We should not mislead people into believing things which we don't hold to be true, just because you think that we shouldn't treat them as equal.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

There's literally only one level characters in that tier could have, why would we need an extra note for it?

Then just say they're 5-D which corresponds with the tier. Its really included here because of the fact its part of the “higher infinity.”

They aren't that dimensionality, much of the time. Saying such is incorrect.

Obviously. Its more given if they have the tier. If they lack any sort of specific dimensionality then don't include it. This is for those that have it while 1-A and above has it either way.

Which is why I said that I don't care if people put those in statistics values, like we already do for other ratings. But I also acknowledged that some are too vague to work with those, and so they should just be explained in the justification, where a short version should be possible.

I mean that's the middle ground. Regardless, I don't really see how bad these implemantions would be for cases that needs it. I wouldn't count that every profile needs it, I hope that was made clear.

I don't think so, for this point I was just disagreeing with the notation you used.

Ok, I’ll use your logic. Every “1-A” is the same regardless of context, especially in the case they don't have justification. We’ll make a safe guess they're all the same then.

You seem to be doing this so that people have easier times making threads for characters, but this specific suggestion would just go against that, by implying that Low 1-A characters end up at different levels, when they don't.

I made the notion they're analogous as anything scaling to the Universe of Sets or anything similar. I don't think I made a point of there being a higher ground other than Low 1-A+ suggestion.

I cared more about the "there's no reason to distinguish between ways of reaching the tier" point.

Then everything is the same, I guess. Not everyone reads blog and hardly are interested in all works of fiction. If its the least we can do then I see no harm in it.

Ask Ultima about it.

That puts more strain on him and that doesn't guarantee that he answers. This helps them figure it out, I don't see why my suggestion would be a bad thing.

?????

We should not mislead people into believing things which we don't hold to be true, just because you think that we shouldn't treat them as equal.

The notion they all exists in the same space makes them equal, yes. However, I don't see how you can say that they're all the same with on the basis they must also share all same qualities. If there's something with more worlds then just add it there.

 

[Agnaa]

Then just say they're 5-D which corresponds with the tier. Its really included here because of the fact its part of the “higher infinity.”

But w h y.

People can already figure that out by reading the Tiering System page.

Obviously. Its more given if they have the tier. If they lack any sort of specific dimensionality then don't include it. This is for those that have it while 1-A and above has it either way.

I think that removes the usefulness, if it's only going to end up on profiles that get tier 1 through dimensions.

I mean that's the middle ground. Regardless, I don't really see how bad these implemantions would be for cases that needs it. I wouldn't count that every profile needs it, I hope that was made clear.

It would be bad, because "R^too high for a scientist to count" looks absurd.

Ok, I’ll use your logic. Every “1-A” is the same regardless of context, especially in the case they don't have justification. We’ll make a safe guess they're all the same then.

Thinking that your notation is bad does not mean thinking that every 1-A character is equally strong.

I made the notion they're analogous as anything scaling to the Universe of Sets or anything similar. I don't think I made a point of there being a higher ground other than Low 1-A+ suggestion.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Then everything is the same, I guess. Not everyone reads blog and hardly are interested in all works of fiction. If its the least we can do then I see no harm in it.

All baseline characters are the same strength, yes. That's what "baseline" means.

That puts more strain on him and that doesn't guarantee that he answers. This helps them figure it out, I don't see why my suggestion would be a bad thing.

Because this way of elaborating on the differences between different kinds of High 1-A+ characters was discussed during the Tiering System revisions, when we had far more staff oversight, and was rejected.

The notion they all exists in the same space makes them equal, yes. However, I don't see how you can say that they're all the same with on the basis they must also share all same qualities. If there's something with more worlds then just add it there.

They don't share qualities (as in, hax), but that has absolutely nothing to do with AP.

Them having more worlds is irrelevant, and including it in their AP as if it is relevant is likely to mislead people.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

But w h y.

People can already figure that out by reading the Tiering System page.

I mean it still is useful if we have an indicator because this applies to all higher-infinity category to which Low 1-C is as well.

I think that removes the usefulness, if it's only going to end up on profiles that get tier 1 through dimensions.

If said tier 1 gets it through dimensionality. I'm applying this to those that get it through those means. Anything else can get it through whatever means necessary and be accounted for from where they scale. If “A” is said to transcend “B” and if “B” was described as 6-D then “A” is 7-D. Of course, I'll be careful in using that as a primary example given transcending needs context and added information that it actually gives extra dimensionality. If not then adding dimensionality is pointless to character “A” if there's nothing to suggest it.

It would be bad, because "R^too high for a scientist to count" looks absurd.

Fiction is hardly science. If it helps then take fictional science over the real thing. We apply tiers based on the context of the fictional universe and the work of fiction which rarely mirrors actual science.

Thinking that your notation is bad does not mean thinking that every 1-A character is equally strong.

Well, then my notation isn't so bad if it clarifies your point on not every 1-A being equal. Of course, without references to where exactly they scale then we'd have to assume it unless someone is a prodigy in understanding very fictional universe kinks. Better safe than sorry is the case here.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Low 1-A would share the same trait as High 1-A+(type 1) in that they're all within the same framework. However, not every Low 1-A mentions of the Universe of Sets as their example and thus a mention of what is similar structures to it gets them that tier. It won't make them higher, if the example is meant to be near enough the definition we have of Low 1-A.

All baseline characters are the same strength, yes. That's what "baseline" means.

Yeah, and we can clarify whose baseline and whose not. If not everything is baseline without reading the blogs, if the justifications are terrible.

Because this way of elaborating on the differences between different kinds of High 1-A+ characters was discussed during the Tiering System revisions, when we had far more staff oversight, and was rejected.

The amount of worlds example was an addition. Really, I want to distinguish what’s type 1 and 2. If not it looks the same which they're not.

They don't share qualities (as in, hax), but that has absolutely nothing to do with AP.

I was more in the line because they're all the same which you mention would indirectly mean they share all qualities. I don't think that's the case and neither do you. Obviously, the hax section typically aligns with their AP, if there's a specific example of there haxes being more or less than their AP really doesn't change their overall nature. That's really an outside thing, I hardly disclose haxes as being too different to most of the profile's nature.

Most example that does involve that are beings that go to said tier as opposed to being created in that tier. Like what I said previously, not every profile will need this if there's some sort of drawback. I would assume its clear who will have these and who won't.

Them having more worlds is irrelevant, and including it in their AP as if it is relevant is likely to mislead people.

No, like we both agreed the least they could do is read the tiering page. This really pivots more that they don't read the blogs related to a certain cosmology or they don't equalize every ficition because they share the same tier that's meant to make them exist in some sort of equal space ie High 1-A+(type 1).

 

[Agnaa]

I mean it still is useful if we have an indicator because this applies to all higher-infinity category to which Low 1-C is as well.

Disagree, it adds zero information there.

If said tier 1 gets it through dimensionality. I'm applying this to those that get it through those means. Anything else can get it through whatever means necessary and be accounted for from where they scale. If “A” is said to transcend “B” and if “B” was described as 6-D then “A” is 7-D. Of course, I'll be careful in using that as a primary example given transcending needs context and added information that it actually gives extra dimensionality. If not then adding dimensionality is pointless to character “A” if there's nothing to suggest it.

This reads like you're really misunderstanding the tiering system. Like you're thinking of it as it was 6 years ago.

Centering it that way is misleading, and so, we should use R^N instead.

Fiction is hardly science. If it helps then take fictional science over the real thing. We apply tiers based on the context of the fictional universe and the work of fiction rarely mirrors actual science.

This reads like you're completely missing the point I'm making, there.

Well, then my notation isn't so bad if it clarifies your point on not every 1-A being equal. Of course, without references to where exactly they scale then we'd have to assume it unless someone is a prodigy in understanding very fictional universe kinks. Better safe than sorry is the case here.

Just describe the amount of layers! Don't do this "Infinity times zero" or "Uncountable infinity times infinity" nonsense.

And including absolute gobbledygook like that is NOT an improvement. In that case, zero information would, in fact, be better.

Low 1-A would share the same trait as High 1-A+(type 1) in that they're all within the same framework. However, not every Low 1-A mentions of the Universe of Sets as their example and thus a mention of what is similar structures to it gets them that tier. It won't make them higher, if the example is meant to be near enough the definition we have of Low 1-A.

If it doesn't make them higher, then there's no need to specify it.

Yeah, and we can clarify whose baseline and whose not. If not everything is baseline without reading the blogs, if the justifications are terrible.

I was arguing against your idea to describe characters who reach that baseline in different ways, using different terminology. As that would imply that their baselines aren't the same.

I was more in the line because they're all the same which you mention would indirectly mean they share all qualities. I don't think that's the case and neither do you. Obviously, the hax section typically aligns with their AP, if there's a specific example of there haxes being more or less than their AP really doesn't change their overall nature. That's really an outside thing, I hardly disclose haxes as being too different to most of the profile's nature.

Most example that does involve that are beings that go to said tier as opposed to being created in that tier. Like what I said previously, not every profile will need this if there's some sort of drawback. I would assume its clear who will have these and who won't.

No, like we both agreed the least they could do is read the tiersng page. This really pivots more that they don't read the blogs related to a certain cosmology or they don't equalize every ficition because they share the same tier that's meant to make them exist in some sort of equal space ie High 1-A+(type 1).

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Disagree, it adds zero information there.

It doesn’t? What qualifies transcending 4-D isn't always 5-D. Really if it can be helped(it can)then it's more useful, this way.

This reads like you're really misunderstanding the tiering system. Like you're thinking of it as it was 6 years ago.

Centering it that way is misleading, and so, we should use R^N instead.

Clarifying the exact dimensionality a character has with just adding something like this: Complex Multiverse level (7D) (justification) is hardly going against the norm.

This reads like you're completely missing the point I'm making, there.

I'll rectify my point since I did read that wrong. Not every fiction atest to the notion “there's a structure so high and uncountable that science can count” is more a specific example than anything else.

Just describe the amount of layers! Don't do this "Infinity times zero" or "Uncountable infinity times infinity" nonsense.

Ok. I don't mind changing it just that we clarify how many layers there are. My suggestion weren't permanent since I knew there would be complication around how it was structured. So if it's easier to pinpoint an exact layering rather than my example above then that's fine. The whole point was to tell how many layers they are and in what way we do it is fine regardless.

And including absolute gobbledygook like that is NOT an improvement. In that case, zero information would, in fact, be better.

You say this all the time. You well know zero information isn't better simply because you don't agree. Seeing the profile with the exact thing they quantity for is indeed better than nothing. Let's not act coy here.

If it doesn't make them higher, then there's no need to specify it.

Says who? It's rather helpful to and it doesn't really take away from anything.

I was arguing against your idea to describe characters who reach that baseline in different ways, using different terminology. As that would imply that their baselines aren't the same.

If they're baseline then they're baseline regardless of how they reach it. If one terminology is so vast and different it still wouldn't make a difference unless extra context states they're not baseline. I don't see how baselines are different based on which way they got the tier.

I don't understand what you're saying.

The entirety of a profile is summarized around the tier template they're given. Hence almost every profile in their AP, DP, Range, etc….is centered around that tier. So more or less they're exactly what they are while haxes can vary, usually they correspond with their tier. If there's a specific example of a hax being too large or small for the tier, we disclose it since its rather an outside thing.

This case is especially for 1-A and below and above. 1-A beings having a High 1-A hax is incoherent same with anything that's not qualitative in nature to have those types of haxes outside those beings granting them it.

 

[Agnaa]

It doesn’t? What qualifies transcending 4-D isn't always 5-D. Really if it can be helped(it can)then it's more useful, this way.

Clarifying the exact dimensionality a character has with just adding something like this: Complex Multiverse level (7D) (justification) is hardly going against the norm.

Then it either should be downgraded, or your suggestion would only apply to the subset of profiles which reach those tiers through dimensionality, which is not a worthwhile change to make. You should look to a different way to format it. Like the R^N thing I've mentioned a few times, already.

I'll rectify my point since I did read that wrong. Not every fiction atest to the notion “there's a structure so high and uncountable that science can count” is more a specific example than anything else.

I know??????? That's my point, that many 1-B ratings are due to weird things without a specific number, and so it's difficult to list them as you suggest.

You say this all the time. You well know zero information isn't better simply because you don't agree. Seeing the profile with the exact thing they quantity for is indeed better than nothing. Let's not act coy here.

Misinformation is worse than no information. A profile saying that the speed of light is 5,000 km/h is worse than a profile which doesn't say that.

I'm not talking about removing justifications, you're already allowed to add those. I'm talking about putting those in the same place you would a brief explanation of a character's power, if that thing you're mentioning does not change the character's power. It's unnecessary, and that placement makes it likely to mislead.

Says who? It's rather helpful to and it doesn't really take away from anything.

If they're baseline then they're baseline regardless of how they reach it. If one terminology is so vast and different it still wouldn't make a difference unless extra context states they're not baseline. I don't see how baselines are different based on which way they got the tier.

How does it help?

It takes away by misleading people into believing that there's importance in the way of reaching it, creating the idea that they should be treated differently.

The entirety of a profile is summarized around the tier template they're given. Hence almost every profile in their AP, DP, Range, etc….is centered around that tier. So more or less they're exactly what they are while haxes can vary, usually they correspond with their tier. If there's a specific example of a hax being too large or small for the tier, we disclose it since its rather an outside thing.

This case is especially for 1-A and below and above. 1-A beings having a High 1-A hax is incoherent same with anything that's not qualitative in nature to have those types of haxes outside those beings granting them it.

I kinda disagree. But more importantly, I don't understand how this relates to the thread.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Only thing I disagree with is the 5-D addition to Low 1-C profiles. It's already widely known that Low 1-C is 5-D, and will be even more known over time. To me its just unnecessary addition

I wholeheartedly agree with Practically everything else here though, along with showcasing the differences of qualities of characters in the same Tiers in a "Statistics Values", showing the Layers.

• Example: Character is 1-A. But in AP/Striking Strength/Durability, they have layers like "Outerverse level (Explanation {{Statistics Values - 2 Layers}})"

Actually, I have thought about this for a while now. That the + should be in the actual Tier template. There's no harm in doing it, and you can easily just copy the Template source code of the ordinary Tier.

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, I have thought about this for a while now. That the + should be in the actual Tier template. There's no harm in doing it, and you can easily just copy the Template source code of the ordinary Tier.

That's something which has been repeatedly suggested, and rejected, for over 7 years at this point.

There are some tiers which already have the + in their name (Low 2-C and 2-A), so putting some of those in the tier itself and not others would be quite confusing.

In addition, we'd need to copy the templates for all the finite tiers, since they all have + versions. Unless you only want to apply this to High 1-B and High 1-A, which would be quite the inconsistency.

 

[Apotheosis69]

That's something which has been repeatedly suggested, and rejected, for over 7 years at this point.

There are some tiers which already have the + in their name (Low 2-C and 2-A), so putting some of those in the tier itself and not others would be quite confusing.

In addition, we'd need to copy the templates for all the finite tiers, since they all have + versions. Unless you only want to apply this to High 1-B and High 1-A, which would be quite the inconsistency.

2-A should be renamed to High Multiverse level, I will be completely honest. Multiverse level+, In my personal opinion does not fit. Though I can understand the point for Low 2-C

The copying of templates is not that big of a worry or annoyance. Esp for templates with the minimal amount of code as those

'''TIER #+'''<includeonly>[[Category:Tier #]][[Category:Tier #-#]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Tiering System Templates]]</noinclude>

 

[Agnaa]

I'd caution that it's not just the copying over that's an issue, especially for the finite tiers; it's finding every page which has the + in its AP section, and updating its tier template accordingly.

Doing this automatically would be a nightmare, as you'd need to account for the possibility of Durability having a + while the AP doesn't, and you'd need to be able to discern which of the tier templates at the top needs to be changed. Really I don't think it'd be practical to do.

 

[Apotheosis69]

While in some aspects it may not be practical. It most certainly will be helpful.

If necessary, I and any others are more than willing to do it.

I mean, I am going through a loot of P&A changes with the Border Template.

 

[Agnaa]

I think you might be underestimating how difficult that would be to implement. It'd involve checking tens of thousands of pages.

Regardless, something of that scope should definitely wait until after Ant comes back.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Agreed on that front.

Trust, I am not underestimating. I am well aware.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Then it either should be downgraded, or your suggestion would only apply to the subset of profiles which reach those tiers through dimensionality, which is not a worthwhile change to make. You should look to a different way to format it. Like the R^N thing I've mentioned a few times, already.

It would help a lot of profiles that just simply lack any justification. In the long run, it does help, and since as we previously discuss would affect some profiles, the entirety of the wiki remains unchanged for the most part. So the suggestions are very safe and much worthwhile.

I know??????? That's my point, that many 1-B ratings are due to weird things without a specific number, and so it's difficult to list them as you suggest.

1-B in itself is such a horrible tier if you ask me. Though, I'm not going too hard to additions such as Low 1-A+ or 1-B+. If the profile in question is too vague to quantify where they scale then they don't get it. I thought we were on the same page, if a verse mentions the specifics then we inculde them, if not they remain unchanged.

Misinformation is worse than no information. A profile saying that the speed of light is 5,000 km/h is worse than a profile which doesn't say that.

That's hardly a good comparsion.

I'm not talking about removing justifications, you're already allowed to add those. I'm talking about putting those in the same place you would a brief explanation of a character's power, if that thing you're mentioning does not change the character's power. It's unnecessary, and that placement makes it likely to mislead.

The point wasn't to change anything. It just adds an extra set of information of how high they are within that tier.

How does it help?

It takes away by misleading people into believing that there's importance in the way of reaching it, creating the idea that they should be treated differently.

Except they're not? If you reach baseline 1-A by means of R>F then its quite the same thing as reaching it by conceptual transcendence. Every profile that's on the same level are treated as the same regardless of how they reached it. Anyone can make a VS scenarios claiming one is higher, but the profiles hardly are meant to denote anything of that line, that's just personal discussions and preferences.

I don't see where the confusion would lie in just clarifying if a character is baseline in their tier or how many layers they are within the said tier. If they misinterpret anything(unlikely) then that's on them.

I kinda disagree. But more importantly, I don't understand how this relates to the thread.

You asked about why it's being applied to AP. I didn't really say it would be limited to that especially if the other category are different from the AP. If they're one and the same then the work is easier, if not then the statistic key or even the notes can clarify the matter. Unless you're keen on getting it in every single category of a character’s statistics.

 

[Agnaa]

It would help a lot of profiles that just simply lack any justification. In the long run, it does help, and since as we previously discuss would affect some profiles, the entirety of the wiki remains unchanged for the most part. So the suggestions are very safe and much worthwhile.

If profiles lack justifications.

Then we wouldn't know what to add for these "additional revamps" you're suggesting.

Unless someone who knew about the verse well enough came along to write them.

In which case they could just add the justifications themselves.

And at this point you're just blatantly ignoring my suggestion that is actually in line with wiki policies....

The point wasn't to change anything. It just adds an extra set of information of how high they are within that tier.

I know. You're also talking about adding information which does not change how high they are within that tier in the exact same place, which given its placement, would be misleading.

Except they're not? If you reach baseline 1-A by means of R>F then its quite the same thing as reaching it by conceptual transcendence. Every profile that's on the same level are treated as the same regardless of how they reached it. Anyone can make a VS scenarios claiming one is higher, but the profiles hardly are meant to denote anything of that line, that's just personal discussions and preferences.

Yes, they should be treated the same, but you advocated differently:

Low 1-A would share the same trait as High 1-A+(type 1) in that they're all within the same framework. However, not every Low 1-A mentions of the Universe of Sets as their example and thus a mention of what is similar structures to it gets them that tier. It won't make them higher, if the example is meant to be near enough the definition we have of Low 1-A.

For this tier, we can break down into some of the nuances. If the wether by conceptual transcendence or R>F,

If you're retracting that suggestion now, good.

And sure, people can make matches claiming one is higher, but that would be considered invalid reasoning, and would be removed by staff for going against our standards, if they insist on engaging in that way.

You asked about why it's being applied to AP. I didn't really say it would be limited to that especially if the other category are different from the AP. If they're one and the same then the work is easier, if not then the statistic key or even the notes can clarify the matter. Unless you're keen on getting it in every single category of a character’s statistics.

You've lost the thread of conversation.

• You said that High 1-A+ characters should list the number of worlds they have dominion over.
• I said we should not do that because we consider those characters to have the same strength, so listing that would be misleading.
• You said that we should list that distinguishing trait anyway.
• I responded that listing that would mislead people.
• You said that they may be the same strength, but could have different qualities.
• I agreed that they could have different qualities, like hax, but that their AP should still be the same, and so your suggestion should not be implemented.
• Then you started saying stuff I didn't understand.

And are now saying "Oh you can put that note in Durability as well, if you want", which has absolutely nothing to do with the point we were discussing.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If profiles lack justifications.

Then we wouldn't know what to add for these "additional revamps" you're suggesting.

Unless someone who knew about the verse well enough came along to write them.

In which case they could just add the justifications themselves.

And at this point you're just blatantly ignoring my suggestion that is actually in line with wiki policies....

If someone were to know the verse to write and handle it then that's fine. That's really what I was counting for.

Since you've been suggesting your take for a while(I didn't really ignore simply because I thought I could convince you of my take) then perhaps we could redraft a bit of the OP to match some sort of middle-ground. If your take is more in line with the Wiki as you claim it is then can I get a summary of what you're suggesting?

I know. You're also talking about adding information which does not change how high they are within that tier in the exact same place, which given its placement, would be misleading.

It's to pinpoint exactly where they scale, it obviosuly won’t change their placing, but it certainly is information thats good to use, if nothing is said about their dimensionality in their justifications.

Yes, they should be treated the same, but you advocated differently:

If you're retracting that suggestion now, good.

And sure, people can make matches claiming one is higher, but that would be considered invalid reasoning, and would be removed by staff for going against our standards, if they insist on engaging in that way.

Well, that's not the point of the thread. There misunderstanding would fall on them, they could just leave the topic if its something they're not familiar with.

You've lost the thread of conversation.

• You said that High 1-A+ characters should list the number of worlds they have dominion over.
• I said we should not do that because we consider those characters to have the same strength, so listing that would be misleading.
• You said that we should list that distinguishing trait anyway.
• I responded that listing that would mislead people.
• You said that they may be the same strength, but could have different qualities.
• I agreed that they could have different qualities, like hax, but that their AP should still be the same, and so your suggestion should not be implemented.

Up until your final point here. I've advocated the entire time their whole tier would be reflected upon their entire statistics. If somethings is different then clarification can be made. If a character is listed as 1-A(if it all the statistics match; AP, DP, Durability, Range, etc….) and they're say one layer into Outerversal(in which we clarify as stated in the OP) then its other stats are already accounted for.

Also, I do think listing the number of worlds is good enough, although not all that necessary. They're all equal which your point was its rather useless, but clarifying it solely for the character is better than anything else. Even if they have different quality in the end, they're the same so like other points, I don't see any fouls here. If someone is willing to do it then why stop them?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think I'm for the most part agreeing with Agnaa here, especially regarding issues with the way of notation.

Aside from that, statistics justifications should always be accessible and written in a fashion meaningful for a reader that doesn't know the verse, in that sense many profiles have need for improvement, but too much standardization hurts the nuance of the matter. I think there is nothing stopping us from just having well-written justifications that answer such points in as much conciseness as the matter allows for.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Aside from that, statistics justifications should always be accessible and written in a fashion meaningful for a reader that doesn't know the verse, in that sense many profiles have need for improvement, but too much standardization hurts the nuance of the matter. I think there is nothing stopping us from just having well-written justifications that answer such points in as much conciseness as the matter allows for.

I should clarify that it isn't a necessity, but if anyone is willing to take the time to add it then I see no harm in it. Also, I think Agnaa would want to revise somethings of this thread to fit it better with the standard because obviously doing nothing about it isn't any better.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Raises hand slowly

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Then it either should be downgraded, or your suggestion would only apply to the subset of profiles which reach those tiers through dimensionality, which is not a worthwhile change to make. You should look to a different way to format it. Like the R^N thing I've mentioned a few times, already.

Please put your ideas for us.

 

[Agnaa]

Please put your ideas for us.

It'd just be using the same primary language as the Tiering System page uses. Using a similar method as we use to provide specific joule/speed numbers, we can describe 1-C through 1-B as "Corresponds to R^N"

1-A and High 1-A could be described as "{description} layer(s)"; "1 layer", "5 layers", "Infinitely many layers", "An infinite hierarchy of infinitely many layers".

I think the relevance of other noteworthy levels would be too rare, and would require too many contortions, to include.

 

[Apotheosis69]

I feel like "#-D" like "9-D" would be more beneficial than "Corresponds to R^N".

Completely agree with everythin else tho.

 

[Agnaa]

I feel like "#-D" like "9-D" would be more beneficial than "Corresponds to R^N".

Completely agree with everythin else tho.

That's just inaccurate tho:

• We don't give high tiers to higher dimensions by default until there's infinitely many of them.
• You can reach higher tiers without physically embodying those sizes.
• You can reach those tiers in ways completely unrelated to dimensions, i.e. simply with composite hierarchies.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

1-A and High 1-A could be described as "{description} layer(s)"; "1 layer", "5 layers", "Infinitely many layers", "An infinite hierarchy of infinitely many layers"..

The suggestion is fine, though just baseline could be what “0” layers or “baseline?”

 

[Apotheosis69]

Should be "Baseline"

 

[Apotheosis69]

That's just inaccurate tho:

• We don't give high tiers to higher dimensions by default until there's infinitely many of them.
• You can reach higher tiers without physically embodying those sizes.
• You can reach those tiers in ways completely unrelated to dimensions, i.e. simply with composite hierarchies.

Ofc there are other methods into Tier 1, but since most fictional stories talk about/refer to dimensions (least the ones I am aware of), would it not be better to give that same standard and option to them as well?

 

[Agnaa]

Ofc there are other methods into Tier 1, but since most fictional stories talk about/refer to dimensions (least the ones I am aware of), would it not be better to give that same standard and option to them as well?

That's a better idea, but I think the inconsistency might make things confusing for people.

 

[Apotheosis69]

That's a better idea, but I think the inconsistency might make things confusing for people.

I can understand it being inconsistent, taking into account the entire wiki. Having different terms targeting to the same exact system.

But in order to have some clarity and coherency in relation to the verse being scaled, having "#-D" would be best for it.


Plus with the Tiering System page showcasing both "R^N", And Dimensions. Feel like it works best then.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah, have to agree with Apotheosis with identifying the quantity.

• You can reach those tiers in ways completely unrelated to dimensions, i.e. simply with composite hierarchies.

I thought the case was made for if it does involve dimensionality.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

That's a better idea, but I think the inconsistency might make things confusing for people.

Still need your opinion:

I can understand it being inconsistent, taking into account the entire wiki. Having different terms targeting to the same exact system.

But in order to have some clarity and coherency in relation to the verse being scaled, having "#-D" would be best for it.


Plus with the Tiering System page showcasing both "R^N", And Dimensions. Feel like it works best then.

Yeah, have to agree with Apotheosis with identifying the quantity.

I thought the case was made for if it does involve dimensionality.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Now that Ant is back, think its best we can have his opinion on this matter.

 

[Agnaa]

Still need your opinion:

I already gave my opinion on those, tho.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Agnaa and DontTalk here, and I don't remember allowing this thread to be posted.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I agree with Agnaa and DontTalk here, and I don't remember allowing this thread to be posted.

3 staff disagree. Just close this and I swear we've talked about this topic, if briefly(which may be a confusion).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. I have had lots of things to think about lately, so I may just have forgotten it.