- 1,280
- 1,120
So, I have a couple of issues with many of this site's tiers, and ones that have been brought up and discussed before. In order to make the tiering system more coherent and congruous with itself, I am going to address these problematic tiers myself.
5-A and High 5-A
I attempted to have these tiers addressed at one point, but the suggestion was quickly shot down. Admittedly, it was my fault for refusing to elaborate on why the 5-A category was flawed, but in this thread I will be more thorough with the problems.
The point I want to make is this: giving a tier two subtiers with completely different names contradicts this site's precedent with number-letter tiers. As an example, 6-B is divided into "Small Country", "Country", and "Large Country" levels. Despite surely being different overall tiers, they all fall under the same "Country level" parameters of 6-B. Another example is 4-C, which is split into "Small Star", "Star", and "Large Star" levels. Again, different subtiers of one tier, and they are covered by the "Star level" parameter set by 4-C.
So what's the problem with 5-A? Well, we should look into not only the 5-A subtiers, but also the 5-B subtiers as well. Low 5-B is "Small Planet level", and 5-B is "Planet level". So far, so good, but then... 5-A is "Large Planet level", and High 5-A is "Dwarf Star level".
Yeah, this is definitely a problem. When larger planets share a tier with dwarf stars and not average-sized and small planets, it shows an inconsistency within the tiering system and a direct contradiction to a precedent made with the other tiers.
I am aware that we have a similar case with "Small Building level" being 9-A and not "Low 8-C", but to be completely honest there is not really any other option in that case, at least not one that doesn't involve some heavy restructuring of Tier 9, and so that issue can be ignored. Meanwhile, for this particular instance there is an easy alternative: have "Large Planet level" be reclassified as "High 5-B" and let "Dwarf Star level" take up all of 5-A.
High 3-A, Low 2-C, and 2-C
Perhaps the more serious issue as I have seen it be talked about a lot, there is not only the concern with High 3-A including both infinite 3-D power and less-than-universal 4-D power, but I myself also take issue with the 2-C category.
Starting with High 3-A, its inclusion of both 3-D and 4-D power is extremely awkward and in all honesty, it seems to be a remnant of VS Battles' older days when the site was considerably less "structured". Really, a small 4-D continuum is vastly different from an infinite 3-D expanse of space, so it's not wise to put them both in one tier.
As for Low 2-C and 2-C, it goes back to the standard of number-letter tiers previously outlined when I talked about 5-A and High 5-A. Having a "Low Multiverse" rating in a separate parameter from "Multiverse level" goes against that standard, and with the objective differences in scale usually seen when going from one number-letter tier to the next (7-C to 7-B, for example) compared to subtiers being more-or-less similar in scale (6-A and High 6-A are both considered as ultimately being "Continental" in scale), there's no reason to have the creation/destruction of a single space-time continuum be in the same parameter as the creation/destruction of 2 to 1,000 space-time continua.
Conclusion
With these points in mind, I would like to suggest the following changes to the tiering system:
5-A and High 5-A
I attempted to have these tiers addressed at one point, but the suggestion was quickly shot down. Admittedly, it was my fault for refusing to elaborate on why the 5-A category was flawed, but in this thread I will be more thorough with the problems.
The point I want to make is this: giving a tier two subtiers with completely different names contradicts this site's precedent with number-letter tiers. As an example, 6-B is divided into "Small Country", "Country", and "Large Country" levels. Despite surely being different overall tiers, they all fall under the same "Country level" parameters of 6-B. Another example is 4-C, which is split into "Small Star", "Star", and "Large Star" levels. Again, different subtiers of one tier, and they are covered by the "Star level" parameter set by 4-C.
So what's the problem with 5-A? Well, we should look into not only the 5-A subtiers, but also the 5-B subtiers as well. Low 5-B is "Small Planet level", and 5-B is "Planet level". So far, so good, but then... 5-A is "Large Planet level", and High 5-A is "Dwarf Star level".
Yeah, this is definitely a problem. When larger planets share a tier with dwarf stars and not average-sized and small planets, it shows an inconsistency within the tiering system and a direct contradiction to a precedent made with the other tiers.
I am aware that we have a similar case with "Small Building level" being 9-A and not "Low 8-C", but to be completely honest there is not really any other option in that case, at least not one that doesn't involve some heavy restructuring of Tier 9, and so that issue can be ignored. Meanwhile, for this particular instance there is an easy alternative: have "Large Planet level" be reclassified as "High 5-B" and let "Dwarf Star level" take up all of 5-A.
High 3-A, Low 2-C, and 2-C
Perhaps the more serious issue as I have seen it be talked about a lot, there is not only the concern with High 3-A including both infinite 3-D power and less-than-universal 4-D power, but I myself also take issue with the 2-C category.
Starting with High 3-A, its inclusion of both 3-D and 4-D power is extremely awkward and in all honesty, it seems to be a remnant of VS Battles' older days when the site was considerably less "structured". Really, a small 4-D continuum is vastly different from an infinite 3-D expanse of space, so it's not wise to put them both in one tier.
As for Low 2-C and 2-C, it goes back to the standard of number-letter tiers previously outlined when I talked about 5-A and High 5-A. Having a "Low Multiverse" rating in a separate parameter from "Multiverse level" goes against that standard, and with the objective differences in scale usually seen when going from one number-letter tier to the next (7-C to 7-B, for example) compared to subtiers being more-or-less similar in scale (6-A and High 6-A are both considered as ultimately being "Continental" in scale), there's no reason to have the creation/destruction of a single space-time continuum be in the same parameter as the creation/destruction of 2 to 1,000 space-time continua.
Conclusion
With these points in mind, I would like to suggest the following changes to the tiering system:
- "Large Planet level": 5-A -> High 5-B
- "Dwarf Star level": High 5-A -> 5-A
- "High Universe level" (4-D): High 3-A -> Low 2-C
- "Universe level+": Low 2-C -> 2-C
- "Low Multiverse level": 2-C -> Low 2-B
