Project - Attack Potency revision

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

also, as far as the size of the unobservable universe goes, it is at least 10^23 x bigger than observable one

after going past the edge of it, everythign repeats again, like a multiverse

so, 10^23 x mass energy of observable universe seems to be a good guess for 3-A

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)

Which is why, as I've said, every single source refers to spatial dimensions.
A circle is not considered 3-D because time exists.

A cube is not considered 4-D because time exists.

We are not considered 4-D because time exists.

in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

anyway, the point was that 3-A is the highest calculable amount, after which things get fuzzy

and the minimal energy for the unobservable universe wud be at least 10^23 x mass energy of observable universe

 

[Gerdkinerf]

There I finished the conversions (except ratio). Any complains about it will have to be dealed with by another admin, given that I will be away from now until tomorrow evening.

Tier	Level	Energy in Conventional Terms	Energy in Tonnes of TNT Equivalent	Energy in Joules
9-C	Street	100 Joules to 5 Kilojoules	2.39x10-8 to 1.195x10-6	102 to 5x103
9-B	Wall	5 Kilojoules to 0.005 Tons	1.195x10-6 to 5x10-3	5x103 to 2.092x107
9-A	Small Building	0.005 Tons to 0.25 Tons	5x10-3 to 2.5x10-1	2.092x107 to to 1.046x109
8-C	Building	0.25 Tons to 2 Ton	2.5x10-1 to 2	to 1.046x109 to 8.368x109
	Large Building	2 Ton to 11 Tons	2 to 11	8.368x109 to 4.6024x1010
8-C	City Block	11 Tons to 22 Tons	11 to 22	4.6024x1010 to 9.2048x1010
8-A	Multi-City Block	22 Tons to 1 Kiloton	22 to 1000	9.2048x1010 to 4.184x1012
7-C	Small Town	1 Kiloton to 5.8 Kilotons	1000 to 5800	4.184x1012 to 2.42672x1013
	Town	5.8 Kilotons to 100 Kilotons	5800 to 105	2.42672x1013 to 4.184x1014
	Large Town	100 Kilotons to 1 Megaton	105 to 106	4.184x1014 to 4.184x1015
7-B	Small City	1 Megaton to 6.3 Megatons	106 to 6.3x106	4.184x1015 to 2.63592x1016
	City	6.3 Megatons to 100 Megatons	6.3x10^6 to 108	2.63592x1016 to 4.184x1017
7-A	Large City or Mountain	100 Megatons to 1 Gigaton	108 to 109	4.184x1017 to 4.184x1018
	Large Mountain or Small Island	1 Gigaton to 4.3 Gigatons	109 to 4.3x109	4.184x1018 to 1.79912x1019
6-C	Island	4.3 Gigatons to 100 Gigatons	4.3x109 to 1011	1.79912x1019 to 4.184x1020
	Large Island	100 Gigatons to 1 Teraton	1011 to 1012	4.184x1020 to 4.184x1021
6-B	Small Country	1 Teraton to 7 Teratons	1012 to 7x1012	4.184x1021 to 2.9288x1022
	Country	7 Teratons to 100 Teratons	7x1012 to 1014	2.9288x1022 to 4.184x1023
	Large Country	100 Teratons to 760 teratons	1014 to 7.6x1014	4.184x1023 to 3.17984x1024
6-A	Small Continent	760 teratons to 1.33 Petatons	7.6x1014 to 1.33x1015	3.17984x1024 to 5.56472x1024
	Continent	1.33 Petatons to 1 Exaton	1.33x1015 to 1018	5.56472x1024 to 4.184x1027
	Large or Multi-Continent	1 Exaton to 29.6 Exatons	1018 to 2.96x1019	4.184x1027 to 1.238464x1029
5-C	Moon	29.6 Exatons to 433 Exatons	2.96x1019 to 4.33x1020	1.238464x1029 to 1.811672x1030
5-B	Small Planet	433 Exatons to 57.3 zettatons	4.33x1020 to 5.72x1022	1.811672x1030 to 2.393248x1032
	Planet	57.3 zettatons to 2.7 Yottatons	5.72x1022 to 2.7x1024	2.393248x1032 to 1.12968x1034
5-A	Large or Multi-Planet	2.7 Yottatons to 2.998 Tenatons	2.7x1024 to 2.998x1030	1.12968x1034 to 1.2543632x1040
4-C	Small Star	2.998 Tenatons to 150 Tenatons	2.998x1030 to 1.5x1032	1.2543632x1040 to 6.276x1041
	Star	150 Tenatons to 350 Tenatons	1.5x1032 to 3.5x1032	6.276x1041 to 1.4644x1042
	Large Star	350 Tenatons to 5.709 Foe	3.5x1032 to 1.364x1035	1.4644x1042 to 5.706976x1044
4-B	Solar System	5.709 Foe to 141.3 KiloFoe	1.364x1035 to 3.377x1039	5.706976x1044 to 1.4129368x1049
4-A	Multi-Solar System	141.3 KiloFoe to 10GigaFoe	3.377x1039 to 2.38x1044	1.4129368x1049 to 9.95792x1053
3-C	Galaxy	10GigaFoe to 1 teraFoe	2.38x1044 to 2.39x1046	9.95792x1053 to 9.99976x1055
3-B	Multi-Galaxy	1 teraFoe to undefined	2.39x1046	9.99976x1055

Is it reasonable to assume that "+" categories start at the mean of low end and high end of a level?

IE: If Multi City Block Level starts at 22 tons of TNT equivalent and ends at 1 Kiloton of TNT equivalent, would Multi-City Block Level+ be directly in between that, at 511 tons of TNT equivalent?

1,000 + 22 = 1,022

1,022 / 2 = 511

 

[FanofRPGs]

I calced Rigel to be 290 Septillion Megatons of TNT tops so Large Star level's requirements are much lower

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

Which is why, as I have said repeatedly, time is not considered the fourth dimension in Euclidian space, which space-time is not. Objects do not gain a spatial dimension by moving, and only require an extra dimension to calculate their position. The dimension of the space does not affect the dimension of the object, which can not exist in that space entirely. This sort of relates to how a 2-D being would only perceive a small sliver of a 3-D being, just as we would only perceive a small sliver of a 4-D being. This is why a tesseract is considered 4-D, and we are not. Regardless of motion, you will always need four coordinates to determine a single point in the tesseract. The same cannot be said for humans. Please read this, this, and this for comprehensive reasons we are not considered 4-D, and why we are not referred to as such in fiction. The implications in those works should be obvious, regardless.

 

[Gerdkinerf]

I calced Rigel to be 290 Septillion Megatons of TNT tops so Large Star level's requirements are much lower

Interesting.

Another thing, isn't the GBE of the Sun listed on the OBD as 164.913 Tenatons, not 150 Tenatons?

I think 164 - 227 Tenatons being Star Level, 227 - 290 Tenatons being Star Level+, 290 Tenatons - 12.0952868 TenaKilotons being Large Star Level, and 12.0952868 TenaKilotons - 47.8011472 Tenakilotons (2 Foe) being Large Star Level+ sounds reasonable, imo.

Btw, I got 12.0952868 TenaKilotons by combining 290 Tenatons with 23.9005736 TenaKilotons AKA 1 Foe (24.1905736 TenaKilotons) and dividing that in half for the mean. I figured it'd be a reasonable stepping stone between the two. 227 Tenatons is likewise the mean of 164 and 290 Tenatons.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I got the Sun to be 54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT actually

I will link you to the blog which shows this if you want

 

[Gerdkinerf]

I got the Sun to be 54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT actually
I will link you to the blog which shows this if you want

I'd like to see it, sounds interesting.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

Which is why, as I have said repeatedly, time is not considered the fourth dimension in Euclidian space, which space-time is not. Objects do not gain a spatial dimension by moving, and only require an extra dimension to calculate their position. The dimension of the space does not affect the dimension of the object, which can not exist in that space entirely. This sort of relates to how a 2-D being would only perceive a small sliver of a 3-D being, just as we would only perceive a small sliver of a 4-D being. This is why a tesseract is considered 4-D, and we are not. Regardless of motion, you will always need four coordinates to determine a single point in the tesseract. The same cannot be said for humans. Please read this, this, and this for comprehensive reasons we are not considered 4-D, and why we are not referred to as such in fiction. The implications in those works should be obvious, regardless.

thought mathematically, there is not difference between time and space dimensions, since both need to represented in the vectors of an object. in the links they talk about spatial dimensions (also, if we are in fact considering a touch of reality here, then keep in mind the only advantage a higher dimension has over a lower one is that it gives objects more freedome to move, and not ifnite more power)

i think i understand that you are sollely refering to space dimensions ok then, using ONLY spacial dimensions as definition, the universe itselft wud be a 3-D void expanding into some 4-D (4 spacially dimensional) hypervoid or bulk

so, tell me how is the universe itself 4-D, which is that extra dimension?

if anything, the universe itself exists on top of a 4 spacial dimensional bulk (the same way a surface lays on top of a 3 spacial dimensional objec, and a line lies within a 2- spacially dimensional object). so its expanding on a 5-d (4 spcial dimensions) brane

TO SUM IT UP: Which is the extra proven 4th dimension? When in fact no results have shown the presence of other dimensions? Also, if theoretical stuff is concerned, the universe wud have 11-dimensions, with extradimensions being all around us, with us unable to see them due to them being so minute

 

[FanofRPGs]

The Sun's GBE I got in an attempt to make Beerus 4-A pre-episode 12

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Beerus's_star-busting_blast The next one was for DBZ again https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Some_random_calculations

 

[FanofRPGs]

The Sun's GBE I got in an attempt to make Beerus 4-A pre-episode 12
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Beerus's_star-busting_blast The next one was for DBZ again https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Some_random_calculations

I also found that stars like UY Scuti or VY Canis Majoris are easier to destroy than the Sun

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

thought mathematically, there is not difference between time and space dimensions, since both need to represented in the vectors of an object. in the links they talk about spatial dimensions (also, if we are in fact considering a touch of reality here, then keep in mind the only advantage a higher dimension has over a lower one is that it gives objects more freedome to move, and not ifnite more power)

i think i understand that you are sollely refering to space dimensions ok then, using ONLY spacial dimensions as definition, the universe itselft wud be a 3-D void expanding into some 4-D (4 spacially dimensional) hypervoid or bulk

so, tell me how is the universe itself 4-D, which is that extra dimension?

if anything, the universe itself exists on top of a 4 spacial dimensional bulk (the same way a surface lays on top of a 3 spacial dimensional objec, and a line lies within a 2- spacially dimensional object). so its expanding on a 5-d (4 spcial dimensions) brane

TO SUM IT UP: Which is the extra proven 4th dimension? When in fact no results have shown the presence of other dimensions? Also, if theoretical stuff is concerned, the universe wud have 11-dimensions, with extradimensions being all around us, with us unable to see them due to them being so minute

Yes, I am referring to spatial dimensions, as those are the dimensions an object always possesses, which is what's most important. Power is an irrelevant term. The point is an object with higher dimensions is completely beyond the scope of the lower dimensional object. I cannot kill a circle, but I can tear apart the paper it exists on, whereas it can do absolutely nothing to me.

The universe is 4-D, but there is no extra dimension. The universe is three spatial dimensions and one time dimensions. The difference is, unlike with us, those dimensions are fully unified in Minkowski space. We live in this continuum, but as I've said, are not fully unified with it.

Despite these being the only 4 dimensions known, the point I'm trying to make is the continuum that is our universe is composed of all four of these dimensions fully unified, whereas we are not fully unified with time.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I think large star level is kind of a misleading title, VY Canis Majoris and NML Cygni are huge but they are much easier to destroy than the Sun. Stars like Bellarix and Rigel are stars that we mean when we talk about large star level, how about giant or massive star level?

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime is a combination of Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.

Sounds a lot like when any things happens, it is the spacetime between them - which is in the case of any two events no matter how small they are, also, it seems to be like the sum of combination of these

by dimension, i mean the definition itself- humans and all other things in the universe are defined by 4 dimensional coordinates

now if u mean that the universe is 4-D since it encompassesa ll of time, then yes u wud be correct- it is a high 4-D thing (if infinite), and normal beings are low 4-D beings

the fact is, the universe is the sum total of all confirmed 4-D things, and the brane is the sum total of all universes and so o

just becuz huans do not have tohe totality of all 4-D thingss in the universe doesnt mean that they arent 4-D at all......

this will go on forever

but did u respond to my original point- on the minimum energy for unobservable universe being--> 10^23 x energy of observable universe

so that means 3-A is the highest calculable tier, and not 3-B

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

my main point was that 3-A is the highest calculable tier, not 3-B

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Yes, what I mean is the universe is 4-D because it fully encompasses the dimension of time, experiencing all of it simultaneously due to containing it.

Everything in the universe can be defined by 4-D coordinates, but that does not mean they're 4-D. An object's dimensional level is defined by the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Humans require a minumum of three coordinates, hence being 3-D. The universal continuum will always require a minimum of four.

I did not see your other point. It is theoretical in size, but it seems like it could work. That depends on what DontTalk and the other calcers think, though.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

wait, so u were arguing that the universe is all of the 4-D itself?

i thought you argued the universe itself had an additional coordinate

lol

anyway, your point is true if the universe is infinite, or else there will be restrictions to all of its dimensions thus defining it to be a very large finite sum of all 4-d coordinate objects (eg. we know for a fact that there is a restriction to the universe's sum total of time which is 13.8 billion years), also, keep in mind that the universe is the sum total of all objects in it, not all events in it, its not like it stores all events of time and grows forwards like a loaf of bread, so if the universe is limited, its a 4-d region with 4-d defined objects, but not an necessarily an infinite 4-d space on its own (it will be one if and only if it is infinite, but we already know it has had a finite time so far)

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Nah, just that the universe fully encompasses the dimension of time.

That is a question that we may never truly know the answer to, friend.

Get on it, Hawking.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

what if time exists outside it

also, time itself seems to be limited, since the past is liited, so if i were to plot it along the time axis, the universe will be from t = 0 to t = 13.7 billion years

so its finite along those lines, also it likes has finite 3 spacial dimensions, so its like a region of the sum total hight-width-breadth-time graph, 4 entire theoretical 4th dimension wud be infinite on all axis, since it includes all entries for all axis such that the entries are in the set of real numbers

so its a sum of the 4-d but not a never ending 4-d hyperspace (at least not very likely)


also, azzy boy, wat if i told you the past, the present and the future are not distinct (in the newtonian fashion), and so static time does not exist , but relative time does (this last thing is off topic)

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

It's a definite possibility, as different types of time (higher dimensional/extra dimensional time etc.) have been theorized. I suppose, but it can depend on which theory ends up actually being right/the one you believe. There's always Eternal Return and yadda yadda.

Yeah, I've heard that, before.

 

[Kavpeny]

EMERGENCY UPDATE

Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

It's a definite possibility, as different types of time (higher dimensional/extra dimensional time etc.) have been theorized. I suppose, but it can depend on which theory ends up actually being right/the one you believe. There's always Eternal Return and yadda yadda.
Yeah, I've heard that, before.

no i mean the past and future things were models used to show how static time doesnt make sense, and how time is relative

 

[Gerdkinerf]

===EMERGENCY UPDATE===
Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

^ Thank you.

Hopefully the newer chart will have sub-tiers like how FanofRPGS and me suggested, or at least "+" categories like the old one did.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Alright.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

no i mean the past and future things were models used to show how static time doesnt make sense, and how time is relative

I know. The second paragraph (that was only one sentence long) was a reply to that.

 

[Gerdkinerf]

How do these subtiers sound?
4-B

Low 4-B "Supernova level": The force of a supernova

Mid 4-B "Planetary System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to Neptune

High 4-B "Outer Solar System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to the Oort Cloud


4-A

4-A "Inter-Stellar": Basically destroying a close-by cluster of star systems or a Solar Interstellar Neighborhood tops

High 4-A "Multi-Solar System level+" able to destroy hundreds of light years worth of space


3-C

Small Galaxy Level: Destroying stuff like the Orion Arm or smaller galaxies

Galaxy Level: Galaxies like andromeda and the Milky Way

Large Galaxy Level: Larger galaxies like the Pinwheel Galaxy


3-B

Massive Galaxy Level or Inter-Galactic: Destroying two closeby galaxies or the morbidly huge galaxies like IC 1101

Multi Galaxy Level: Destroying Galaxy clusters

Super-Cluster Buster: Destroying massive galactic structures like the Virgo Supercluster


3-A

Low 3-A or "Spacial Superstructure" level: Stuff like the Sloan Great Wall or huge chunks of the universe

Mid 3-A or "Observable Universe" level: Our observable universe

Sorry if bringing this back is annoying, but does anyone here have any suggestions as to expand on this? All I can think of for ideas are these:

7-A

High 7-A or "Large / Multi-Mountain Level"

6-C

Low 6-C or "Small Island / Mountain Range Level"

5-B

High 5-B or "Super-Earth / Mini-Neptune Level"

5-A

High 5-A or "Sub-Stellar / Brown Dwarf Level"

I still think we need to be more specific and go into more detail in what each category truly means so that newcomers will have a much easier time imagining how powerful a character really is. It's not good to be broad, imho.

 

[Darkness552]

===EMERGENCY UPDATE===
Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

Alright

 

[Antvasima]

I am just making a quick visit, and won't interfere in the implementation of the project, but TLT1, please immediately stop repeatedly derailing the thread thank you. This is far too important for that.

Also, you constantly take up this topic, which is technically strongly against the rules of the site, as we will not change the foundation of our higher tiering system for your sake. Sorry.

If we were truly 4-dimensional we would be able to encompass and freely move back and forth along the time axis. We can not. However, again, this is extremely off-topic.

 

[Antvasima]

In addition, I would very strongly suggest that the project is not initiated until after it has been thoroughly evaluated and the scale agreed upon.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I think 4-C/4-B should be more like this

Small Star Level: 2.992-54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT

Star Level: 54.5366885-290.894404 Septillion Megatons of TNT

Giant Star (Not Large) Level: 290.894404 Septillion Megatons of TNT-23.9005736 Octillion Megatons of TNT

Low 4-B: 23.9005736-136.448375 Octillion Megatons of TNT

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

I am just making a quick visit, and won't interfere in the implementation of the project, but TLT1, please immediately stop repeatedly derailing the thread thank you. This is far too important for that.
Also, you constantly take up this topic, which is technically strongly against the rules of the site, as we will not change the foundation of our higher tiering system for your sake. Sorry.

If we were truly 4-dimensional we would be able to encompass and freely move back and forth along the time axis. We can not. However, again, this is extremely off-topic.

that wasnt even the point, idk how it came to that, my main point was that 3-A was the highest calculable tier and not 3-B, now if we multiply 10^23 by mass-energy of the observable universe, we can get a good estimate for true universe level

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

I will just say I second Gerkinerf and FanofRPG in their ideas.

 

[DontTalk]

@The Living Tribunal1: The universe is infinite after recent measurements. Margin of error is just about 0.4%

Source: NASA

For me that is certain enough and I would go with it. Also as Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote a universe busting feat is self evident. Either everything was destroyed or it wasn´t quite universe busting. There just is nothing in between.


@FanofRPGs: GBE is usually (by OBD standard at least) calculated with the formula given here, so I will give results from it precedence.

So let me check the case:

First our sun.

Solar Mass = 198892*10^30 kg

Solar radius = 6.96342*10^8 m

Complete formula: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(198892*10^30)^2)/(5*6.96342*10^8)

Result: 2.2748328548001068e41 J = 5.4369810105165076482e31 tons of TNT = 54.36 tenatons

So if your Septillion is the US septillion (really I always have to look up and guess what people mean if they use huge numbers like that >.< who would even know by head how much a septillion is?) your result is the same as mine.

So in that case I suggest we use it. If anyone present, for any reason knows why these value should not be used, let him write now or forever hold his peace.

Now Rigel:

Mass: 17 solar masses

radius: 62 solar radii

Since they are muliples of our units before that I will just modify the formula accordingly:

Complete formula: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(17*1.98892*10^30)^2)/(62*5*6.96342*10^8)

Result: 1.06036e42 J = 2.534321223709369e32 tons of TNT = 253 tenatons

So I actually got it even lower than you. Reason:

My values. I find a lot of different values for its mass and radius. The german wikipedia page to Rigel lists the stars, that the star system is made of, seperate and states the mass of the main star, which is the one we are interested in, as 17 solar masses and with a radius of 62 solar radii. So that is where i took my values from.

So I am kinda unsure about the very basis of this calc. I will try to find a reliable source or if anyone can link me a reliable source on mass and radius that clearly distinguishs between the star system Riegel and the star Riegel (Riegel A) I would appreciate it.

 

[DontTalk]

Is Giant or Massive Star the appropriate scientific term?

Because if it isn´t I would just keep it as large. No need to rewrite the name of an category if it doesn´t make it clear either way.


Gerdkinerf: I am opposed to inserting now subtiers. For one thing, in my expierence, people will just know even less where to place characters if we do many subtiers, because they can not tell wether something is a small or large variation of something. One would have to calculate/pixelscale almost everything to correctly place characters in this. And each subtier makes the edit less acurate. You have to remember that we don´t know the reasoning behind most of the characters stats, so having to decide wether or not they belong in a new sub category of a pre-existing category would always be difficult.

 

[FanofRPGs]

@DontTalk

Large star level is a misleading name, for a star can be large but easier to destroy than the Sun because its low mass/gravity. Giant or Massive imply the star is also heavy.

 

[DontTalk]

Giant wouldn´t imply mass to my knowledge. Massive would be preferable in my opinion iif we want to change the name because of that reason. But lets see what other people say.

 

[FanofRPGs]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/4-C_change_suggestio

Here is my blog post discussing 4-C

 

[Antvasima]

Given that the wiki currently seems far too chaotic and unstable, and the staff already have their hands full, I think that it would be better to start the project in two months or so, around December. This will also give the staff plenty of time to make sure that the new standards are as accurate as possible.

 

[Kavpeny]

Given that the wiki currently seems far too chaotic and unstable, and the staff already have their hands full, I think that it would be better to start the project in two months or so, around December. This will also give the staff plenty of time to make sure that the new standards are as accurate as possible.

Hmm...noted.

In fact, now that you mention it, after spectating the recent wikia changes silently, I believe that you make an excellent point. Hardly surprising, given your massive experience as a bureaucrat.

The wikia is still trying to stabilize itself, and the staff are doing an admirable job of holding it together. However, like you say, they have too much on their plate already, and every now and again, I occasionally notice an unpatrolled here and there.

Add to that the fact that there is apparently a disagreement regarding separation of levels, and a massive amount of confusion regarding Tier 5 and 4, I believe it would be better if the entire staff agreed to a new standardized system by consent and proper discussion, instead of rushing to make such a critical decision.

@everyone: Given all that, I'm inclined to state that Antvasima's suggestion holds merit, and that I concur with his notion. Also, I thank him for his advice.