The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[Tanin_iver]

Currently, it depends on the specific hax and its mechanisms and resistance to said haxes.
Whether beings with HDE should be immune to hax of Lower-D beings could depend on multiple things. If the hax is range dependent then HDE beings may have resistance or could evade due to higher axes of movement while those based on potency like higher ontological layers or those that are independent of range should still affect them.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Considering Ultima's definition of logical omnipotence is based off of Leisniz's Possible Worlds / Modal Realism... I wonder what he thinks of how to tier Extended Modal Realism, since from what I remember of it it's basically the possible worlds theory but including worlds that have true contradictions / impossible worlds as well.

 

[Agnaa]

Right, but I believe unanimous is saying that this change will largely redact that. There's no reason why mind hax or concept hax would be limited by the dimensionality of the user/target if we are no longer equating them to ontological differences.

This is really wrong. C'mon man, our pages explain this sorta thing really clearly.

The tl;dr is:

1. Abilities which partially circumvent durability (attacking internal organs) don't work, as they're uncountably infinitely stronger.
2. Abilities which need to effect a notable amount of the character's physical body (EE of bodies) don't work, as their bodies are uncountably infinitely larger than their highest AoE feats.
3. Abilities which need to be able to target some immaterial aspect of the character (soul/mind hax) are unfathomably unlikely to work, as there's essentially a 0% chance for the character's soul/concept/mind to be found in the tiny chunk the attacker's range can reach. Although, probability manipulation could likely save characters in this regard.
4. Abilities which effect reality itself (law manip, fate manip) would only function on the parts of the opponent in reality, but this typically just limits attack options.
5. Abilities which cause the target to affect themselves (madness manip type 2) still function, as their own senses and body reach out to receive and implement the effects of the ability.

I see no reason for any of this logic to change alongside the revision.

This is true, but the question is, if I erase an infinitesimal slip down the half of you, can you survive being severed in half.

And this question of immunity only is for beings with HDE. 3D beings with higher d attack potency and durability will definitely get their entire volumes affected.

1. There's already infinitesimal slices through us, most of our bodies are empty, because atoms are very empty.
2. Those slices are extraordinarily unlikely to go down the middle of such a character, and are far more likely to just slice off a finger or something.
3. This argument only works for beings one dimension above, once you get higher you're effectively creating an infinitely thin tube within them, or a new empty point within them, which are clearly meaningless.

 

[Deagonx]

Abilities which need to be able to target some immaterial aspect of the character (soul/mind hax) are unfathomably unlikely to work, as there's essentially a 0% chance for the character's soul/concept/mind to be found in the tiny chunk the attacker's range can reach.

I can't really agree with this reasoning, as it assigns immaterial notions to locations in a physical body. If souls exist I don't know that it could be said that my soul is "within" any specific chunk of my body.

Abilities which need to effect a notable amount of the character's physical body (EE of bodies) don't work, as their bodies are uncountably infinitely larger than their highest AoE feats.

I could also see an argument for this being specious depending on the mechanics behind such an ability.

 

[Agnaa]

I can't really agree with this reasoning, as it assigns immaterial notions to locations in a physical body. If souls exist I don't know that it could be said that my soul is "within" any specific chunk of my body.

1. That's how a LOT of soul-based abilities function within fiction. It's one thing if a verse explicitly shows that they don't, but assuming they exist externally seems like a bad default assumption.
2. If they don't, then we'd still need to assume some mechanism for being able to pick out the target's soul from all souls that exist, and most of these I can conceive of would fail against higher-dimensional characters (unless the attacker had infinite speed, unlimited time stop, or really good probability manip). Whether it's another ability that associates something they can see with a soul, or a correspondence between proximity in the physical and spiritual worlds, or just looking through an ethereal list of all souls for something that matches what the attacker expects.

 

[Deagonx]

That's how a LOT of soul-based abilities function within fiction. It's one thing if a verse explicitly shows that they don't, but assuming they exist externally seems like a bad default assumption.

Well, we don't have to hash this out here, but my stance on it is the opposite. In verses where the soul/concept/etc are assigned some physical location I would agree with your statement, but I feel pretty strongly that the default should be not to treat the soul (for instance) like an organ which is located somewhere in the body. If anything I would liken it to an "essence" that permeates the entire body, so access to the body in any capacity -- even an infinitesimal slice -- would be sufficient to use the ability on a higher dimensional character.

If they don't, then we'd still need to assume some mechanism for being able to pick out the target's soul from all souls that exist, and most of these I can conceive of would fail against higher-dimensional characters (unless the attacker had infinite speed, unlimited time stop, or really good probability manip).

I wouldn't think so, personally. If a character demonstrates an ability to use a soul-based ability from a distance, like looking at someone, I would assume by default that seeing a higher dimensional character suffices.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, we don't have to hash this out here, but my stance on it is the opposite. In verses where the soul/concept/etc are assigned some physical location I would agree with your statement, but I feel pretty strongly that the default should be not to treat the soul (for instance) like an organ which is located somewhere in the body. If anything I would liken it to an "essence" that permeates the entire body, so access to the body in any capacity -- even an infinitesimal slice -- would be sufficient to use the ability on a higher dimensional character.

If it's truly spread out over the body, as you imagine, then why would affecting an infinitesimal part of it do anything?

I wouldn't think so, personally. If a character demonstrates an ability to use a soul-based ability from a distance, like looking at someone, I would assume by default that seeing a higher dimensional character suffices.

Why would seeing an infinitesimal slice of them suffice? That'd be like seeing, well, a single quark of a character, and being able to use a soul-based ability from that.

And still, we generally assume a limit for soul-based abilities, even if they can be done on sight. If a character has used soul-hax from 20m away, and can see 4km away, we don't assume it would work on a character 4km away.

 

[Deagonx]

If it's truly spread out over the body, as you imagine, then why would affecting an infinitesimal part of it do anything?

Because my thinking is not that you can only affect a fraction of a soul relative to the fraction of a physical body that you have access to (absent any in-verse explanation that would justify such an approach.) My inclination is that, by default, the soul isn't even necessarily divisible nor is it something that exists in any physical location.

Why would seeing an infinitesimal slice of them suffice? That'd be like seeing, well, a single quark of a character, and being able to use a soul-based ability from that.

Absent any explanation for how a character "finds" a soul in an ability that seems to work based on vision, I would not be willing to disqualify that ability based on a presupposition that an atom is too small to activate the ability, or think that some arbitrary fraction of the physical body is a requirement.

And still, we generally assume a limit for soul-based abilities, even if they can be done on sight. If a character has used soul-hax from 20m away, and can see 4km away, we don't assume it would work on a character 4km away.

That's fine, but if character had very stretchy limbs and reached his arm 4km forward such that the very tip of his finger was 19.9m away from the opponent, I'd assume it would still work even though it's just the tip of the guys finger. Similarly if some portion of a higher-d character was 19.9m away from the opponent I would assume it would work.

 

[Agnaa]

Because my thinking is not that you can only affect a fraction of a soul relative to the fraction of a physical body that you have access to (absent any in-verse explanation that would justify such an approach.) My inclination is that, by default, the soul isn't even necessarily divisible nor is it something that exists in any physical location.

Seems weird to both say that, and that it's spread across the body.

Absent any explanation for how a character "finds" a soul in an ability that seems to work based on vision, I would not be willing to disqualify that ability based on a presupposition that an atom is too small to activate the ability, or think that some arbitrary fraction of the physical body is a requirement.

That's fine, but if character had very stretchy limbs and reached his arm 4km forward such that the very tip of his finger was 19.9m away from the opponent, I'd assume it would still work even though it's just the tip of the guys finger. Similarly if some portion of a higher-d character was 19.9m away from the opponent I would assume it would work.

Meh, regardless, the important part is that hax/resistances were defined in a way that doesn't equate higher-D with ontology, so if you want to treat souls differently, that'd need its own thread, rather than being an implication of the tiering system changing.

 

[Deagonx]

Seems weird to both say that, and that it's spread across the body.

Well, I said "if anything" along the lines of "if we are forced to assume some kind of physicality to the location of the soul" but I'd say in general we aren't really required to assume that, and even if we do IMO it does not force divisibility on the concept of the soul either.

Meh, regardless, the important part is that hax/resistances were defined in a way that doesn't equate higher-D with ontology, so if you want to treat souls differently, that'd need its own thread, rather than being an implication of the tiering system changing.

No problem, I'm not really in the loop about this sort of stuff (as I am sure you can tell), I was mostly riffing off of the explanation provided by someone else in the thread about how things are. I rarely interact with these sorts of things on the forum if I can avoid it. Same with calc issues, for instance.

 

[Jozaysmith?]

I'm more interested in seeing how this will affect things outside the wiki. Like it or not, this place is effectively the nexus of battleboarding, so, will be funny to see how ******* SCP TikTok scalers and the like react.

Tensura fans are already reacting anyways ranting about how this Veldanava person is 1-A
Arcues too
And MGK

 

[CloverDragon03]

Tensura fans are already reacting anyways ranting about how this Veldanava person is 1-A
Arcues too
And MGK

Also as far as other sites go, I believe the Character Stats and Profiles Wiki has treated "beyond dimensions" as being 1-A for some time, so that's pretty interesting to me. I don't believe R>F is, though

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

1. There's already infinitesimal slices through us, most of our bodies are empty, because atoms are very empty.
2. Those slices are extraordinarily unlikely to go down the middle of such a character, and are far more likely to just slice off a finger or something.
3. This argument only works for beings one dimension above, once you get higher you're effectively creating an infinitely thin tube within them, or a new empty point within them, which are clearly meaningless.

If we are going to take subatomic particles into the conversation, I think it changes things a lot.

For one, the spaces inside atoms, while extremely minute, wouldn’t be infinitesimal. But before we even talk about, how does the wiki view atoms and subatomic particles in terms of higher dimensions?

The whole, “nD objects are made of uncountably infinite n-1D objects” comes into question. A can of soda is made of a finite amount of atoms, which are made of a finite amount of subatomic particles which are made of an indefinite* but finite number of particles which are fundamental.

*(particles pop in and out of existsnce but the average still remains)

These fundamental particles are widely considered to be 0D, simply points. They are also considered to be 3D cloud where the actual particle is somewhere at a given chance. But the most important takeaway is that these particles cannot be broken down any further, are not made of anything, and cannot be taken apart.

If you slice that soda can into 2D slices, are there enough particles to make an uncountably infinite amount of slices of that 2D can? Current physics says no.

Further more, 2D objects can have mass. This mass is the same mass that 3D objects have. Since 3D objects do not have infinite mass. They are not made of uncountably infinite 2D slices. Of course the 2D objects and slices would be 2D lattices of matter. Would those count as actually 2D in regards to the wiki?

The same thing would apply for higher Dimensional beings. They would only be made of a finite number of particles spread out in higher Dimensional space. If you were to only affect a cross section, it wouldn’t necessarily be an infinitesimal slice. It would be a quantifiable finite portion.

So I would ask, now that ontological differences is removed for higher dimensional beings, are these resistances even that pronounced if you take in atomic structure?

 

[Agnaa]

If we are going to take subatomic particles into the conversation, I think it changes things a lot.

For one, the spaces inside atoms, while extremely minute, wouldn’t be infinitesimal.

What do you mean?

But before we even talk about, how does the wiki view atoms and subatomic particles in terms of higher dimensions?

The whole, “nD objects are made of uncountably infinite n-1D objects” comes into question. A can of soda is made of a finite amount of atoms, which are made of a finite amount of subatomic particles which are made of an indefinite* but finite number of particles which are fundamental.

*(particles pop in and out of existsnce but the average still remains)

These fundamental particles are widely considered to be 0D, simply points. They are also considered to be 3D cloud where the actual particle is somewhere at a given chance. But the most important takeaway is that these particles cannot be broken down any further, are not made of anything, and cannot be taken apart.

It's more accurate to say that they're excitations in fields that occupy however many dimensions exist. With that, we can look at the other arguments you make.

If you slice that soda can into 2D slices, are there enough particles to make an uncountably infinite amount of slices of that 2D can? Current physics says no.

If you tried to do this, most slices would have zero particles in them; only a finite amount would, since the particles which compose them are finite and (past a certain point) indivisible.

Further more, 2D objects can have mass.This mass is the same mass that 3D objects have. Since 3D objects do not have infinite mass. They are not made of uncountably infinite 2D slices. Of course the 2D objects and slices would be 2D lattices of matter. Would those count as actually 2D in regards to the wiki?

I don't quite know what's meant by this. A 2-D slice of space would have zero mass. To the extent that a lower-dimensional object can have mass, it's through an excitation in a 3-D field, such that a certain volume of it is termed as having a certain amount of mass, but a certain amount of area in it would still have zero mass.

The same thing would apply for higher Dimensional beings. They would only be made of a finite number of particles spread out in higher Dimensional space. If you were to only affect a cross section, it wouldn’t necessarily be an infinitesimal slice. It would be a quantifiable finite portion.

Since that drew from arguments of yours which I've pointed out issues with, I'll instead take this point to draw my analogy to higher-dimensional spaces. If we were to get chucked into a higher-dimensional space, we would begin to occupy that number of dimensions, and then attoseconds later we'd disintegrate as the bonds which hold our body now fail to do so as the drop off of forces with distance goes from d^2 to d^(n-1).

So I would ask, now that ontological differences is removed for higher dimensional beings, are these resistances even that pronounced if you take in atomic structure?

Again, our standards are not based on higher-D having an ontological difference. Read the thread, or the standards, and this should be clear. We even made an entirely different section in the standards for characters that have ontological differences!

 

[Ikelaggan]

I definitely think Higher D beings not having immunity to lower D hax would definitely open more flood gates to just NLF being made with how big a blanket that is especially when the gap between said dimensions is in levels of infinity which requires a really outlandish claim that any hax can bypass complex euclidean geometry with no feats

 

[Ultima_Reality]

To me, if he is going to use that as an example of true R>F, then the majority of characters with R>F are going to be downgraded to depths of hell.

Yes.

 

[Jozaysmith?]

Yes.

You're going to actually get a good load of request when all of this is achieved, both for upgrades and downgrades if that's the case, and knowing you, might ignore it might accept it, if its a big one

 

[Agnaa]

Speaking of, how are you planning on structuring that, Ultima?

I can see what the next 3-4 threads will be. One for deciding whether to create a tier for omnipotence, one for deciding where exactly to place all the agreed-upon tiers (possibly split into two, one for tier 1 and above, one for tier 11 and below), and one for deciding how to change all the other statistics and power pages that would have knock-on effects from this (there's a reason it took us, like, 3 years to finish implementing the last change to the tiering system).

But how would the implementation go? I assume there'd be a thread to organise it, but would it just be links to CRTs, will people plan CRTs there and then link to them, or will new ratings be wholly decided there?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

But how would the implementation go? I assume there'd be a thread to organise it, but would it just be links to CRTs, will people plan CRTs there and then link to them, or will new ratings be wholly decided there?

New ratings for specific verses are best decided in their own individual threads. I'll let the supporters of each verse work on that by themselves.

Following that, I believe the most sensible course of action would be simply making a hub thread in which people can post CRTs to be evaluated. Perhaps two such hubs, even: One for 1-A CRTs and another for Tier 0 CRTs. (Though the latter will be notably rarer and done mostly by me, so, probably not much of a need for it)

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Also as far as other sites go, I believe the Character Stats and Profiles Wiki has treated "beyond dimensions" as being 1-A for some time, so that's pretty interesting to me. I don't believe R>F is, though

CSAP staff/user here:
The notion of R>F isn't formally part of the tiering system at all, there isn't even a page on it. Traditionally, it has also been treated as something akin to N+1 there, but I imagine there will be more profiles that have characters at 1-A because of R>F as a result of what's going on here, and we don't intend on forcing people to take a stance on which method of scaling is "more valid". As for 1-A itself, there's been some back & forth... it's gone from "beyond dimensionality" to "beyond the concept of space" (with Low 1-A being beyond dimensionality) to "beyond the concept of dimensionality" (with Low 1-A being unchanged) to the current system that removed Low 1-A and puts 1-A at "beyond dimensionality" again.

 

[Vietthai96]

New ratings for specific verses are best decided in their own individual threads. I'll let the supporters of each verse work on that by themselves.

Following that, I believe the most sensible course of action would be simply making a hub thread in which people can post CRTs to be evaluated. Perhaps two such hubs, even: One for 1-A CRTs and another for Tier 0 CRTs. (Though the latter will be notably rarer and done mostly by me, so, probably not much of a need for it)

So do you still want to make High 1-B+?????, i know we still keep Low 1-A for all the cardinal stuffs, but cardinal stuffs and the gap is big, so i think it is preferable if we have 2 tier dedicate to all these uncountable infinite stuffs

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Earlier, I was thinking High 1-B+ could be current Low 1-A and 1-A and Low 1-A be current High 1-A. Idk. As for current 0, I have no idea tbh, I guess Low 1-A+?

 

[Vietthai96]

Earlier, I was thinking High 1-B+ could be current Low 1-A and 1-A and Low 1-A be current High 1-A. Idk. As for current 0, I have no idea tbh, I guess Low 1-A+?

I also think this way

 

[Phoenks]

I mean personally I'd revise the entirety of Tier 1 if I had made the tiering system...

Low 1-C would be strictly 5-D (Just the amount of 5-D characters honestly warrants this in my opinion. It's the catch-all tier for god beings that transcend their realities)
1-C would be 6-D to 9-D (Usually pretty rare dimensionality-wise)
High 1-C would be 10-D to 26-D (A lot of quantum mechanic cosmologies fall within this range. It's a pretty big gap but it makes sense imo. Maybe you could split it somehow, but I still think this makes more sense than cutting off at 11-D)
1-B would be 26-D+
High 1-B would be Aleph-0-D
High 1-B+ would be Aleph-1-D up to any whatever the **** cardinality of dimensions (The amount of verses that actually make a distinction between infinite dimensions and higher-cardinalities of dimensions is probably incredibly limited, so it's probably fair to merge this all together)
Low 1-A would be a collection of all dimensions and space and math whatever you want to call it. Type IV Multiverse. Absolute Infinity. Von Neumann Universe.

After that I guess it's just the ultima stuff.

1-A is existential/ontological/qualitative superiority (relative to the concept of space) and hierarchies of said existential superiority (An example being chains of reality-fiction differences, like in Umineko or the SCP Foundation).
High 1-A is a form of superiority that is ontologically beyond even existential superiorities in the same way that form of superiority is superior to space. Every "layer" of High 1-A would then be another superior system of transcendence. With each one having its own, potentially endless hierarchy of layers as well.
0 is, of course, beyond all systems, superiorities, qualities, quantities, etc. Basically logical omnipotence or negative theology, I guess...

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

I mean personally I'd revise the entirety of Tier 1 if I had made the tiering system...

Low 1-C would be strictly 5-D (Just the amount of 5-D characters honestly warrants this in my opinion. It's the catch-all tier for god beings that transcend their realities)
1-C would be 6-D to 9-D (Usually pretty rare dimensionality-wise)
High 1-C would be 10-D to 26-D (A lot of quantum mechanic cosmologies fall within this range. It's a pretty big gap but it makes sense imo. Maybe you could split it somehow, but I still think this makes more sense than cutting off at 11-D)
1-B would be 26-D+
High 1-B would be Aleph-0-D
High 1-B+ would be Aleph-1-D up to any whatever the **** cardinality of dimensions (The amount of verses that actually make a distinction between infinite dimensions and higher-cardinalities of dimensions is probably incredibly limited, so it's probably fair to merge this all together)
Low 1-A would be a collection of all dimensions and space and math whatever you want to call it. Type IV Multiverse. Absolute Infinity. Von Neumann Universe.

After that I guess it's just the ultima stuff.

1-A is existential/ontological/qualitative superiority (relative to the concept of space) and hierarchies of said existential superiority (An example being chains of reality-fiction differences, like in Umineko or the SCP Foundation).
High 1-A is a form of superiority that is ontologically beyond even existential superiorities in the same way that form of superiority is superior to space. Every "layer" of High 1-A would then be another superior system of transcendence. With each one having its own, potentially endless hierarchy of layers as well.
0 is, of course, beyond all systems, superiorities, qualities, quantities, etc. Basically logical omnipotence or negative theology, I guess...

Honestly, I rock with it.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

What do you mean?

My original thought experiment, was just imagining all objects as amorphous solid blocks, made of some uniform fundamental material. You could slice that material into infinitesimal slices. A cross section would just be one slice out of uncountably infinite.

But if you bring actual atoms in the thought, that of course goes away. You cannot slice objects into infinitesimal slices because there is fundamental limit that isn't infinitesimal in the strictly mathematical sense. A cross section would just be one slice out of a finite amount.

If you tried to do this, most slices would have zero particles in them; only a finite amount would, since the particles which compose them are finite and (past a certain point) indivisible.

I don't quite know what's meant by this. A 2-D slice of space would have zero mass. To the extent that a lower-dimensional object can have mass, it's through an excitation in a 3-D field, such that a certain volume of it is termed as having a certain amount of mass, but a certain amount of area in it would still have zero mass.

What I was picturing was something akin to brick of solid gold, and it would be cut into 2-D lattices. Those lattices would be the slices, and they would all have mass. There would be a finite number of lattices or slices. To me those lattices would be the minimum size that there could be slices off.

When you say a certain amount of area in it would still have zero mass what do you mean? If were to go back to my gold brick example. Any area with zero mass, I would not consider it to be apart of the gold brick.

Since that drew from arguments of yours which I've pointed out issues with, I'll instead take this point to draw my analogy to higher-dimensional spaces. If we were to get chucked into a higher-dimensional space, we would begin to occupy that number of dimensions, and then attoseconds later we'd disintegrate as the bonds which hold our body now fail to do so as the drop off of forces with distance goes from d^2 to d^(n-1).

To be honest, I never consider this, but I guess it would make sense that would happen.

 

[Vietthai96]

Why not make Low 1-B, we have Low 1-C to 1-C to High 1-C

I think we just keep Low 1-C and 1-C as of right now. Or we can make:
5D = Low 1-C, 6D = Low 1-C+
7D = 1-C-, 8D = 1-C, 9D = 1-C+

I like @Phoenks ideas that High 1-C cover from 10 to 26D, that is the range of higherdimensional theory like Brane, String Theory with 10D, Bosonic String Theory which have 26D, Super Symmetry, Super String, M-Theory with 11D and so one.

Low 1-B should be 27D to eh.....whatever end number you guys want??

1-B is whatever the highest end of Low 1-B up to countless D

High 1-B of course still is infinite D, Aleph-0

Then High 1-B+, Low 1-A, and probably even Low 1-A+

 

[CloverDragon03]

I mean, to begin with, we don't put a minus sign at the end of any tier so idk why we'd start now (with the 1-C- thing)

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

To be very honest everyone, you should format the tier letterings after you find out how many characters land where. No point in creating a whole tier for 5 characters.

 

[CloverDragon03]

To be very honest everyone, you should format the tier letterings after you find out how many characters land where. No point in creating a whole tier for 5 characters.

Nah, make an Azathoth tier. You'll never guess who falls into that tier

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Nah, make an Azathoth tier. You'll never guess who falls into that tier

A tier for every character whose name ends with -oth? I can get behind that!

 

[Vietthai96]

To be very honest everyone, you should format the tier letterings after you find out how many characters land where. No point in creating a whole tier for 5 characters.

I mean, 5 characters is big enough at least for a tier, i think

 

[Agnaa]

What I was picturing was something akin to brick of solid gold, and it would be cut into 2-D lattices. Those lattices would be the slices, and they would all have mass. There would be a finite number of lattices or slices. To me those lattices would be the minimum size that there could be slices off.

This wouldn't really happen. The slices would either be 3-D but very very tiny in one direction, with finite mass, or they'd be actually 2-D, and only correspond to an infinitesimal amount of mass.

When you say a certain amount of area in it would still have zero mass what do you mean? If were to go back to my gold brick example. Any area with zero mass, I would not consider it to be apart of the gold brick.

It would be within the particles' sphere of influence, the only thing we could describe as being a part of it, yet, due to it being an infinitesimal part of a volume which only has finite mass, that area would only have infinitesimal mass.

 

[Phoenks]

To be very honest everyone, you should format the tier letterings after you find out how many characters land where. No point in creating a whole tier for 5 characters.

In certain cases you simply have to.

Not many characters atm are 1-B (Only 69 out of 28,983, or 0.00238%), but it's necessary to have a tier that encompasses all the finite dimensionalities above a certain point, rather than just merging it with something else.

 

[CloverDragon03]

A tier for every character whose name ends with -oth? I can get behind that!

Finally, a tier for the goat himself

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I mean personally I'd revise the entirety of Tier 1 if I had made the tiering system...

That can be dealt with later.

 

[Jozaysmith?]

In certain cases you simply have to.

Not many characters atm are 1-B (Only 69 out of 28,983, or 0.00238%), but it's necessary to have a tier that encompasses all the finite dimensionalities above a certain point, rather than just merging it with something else.

Most popular tier is tier 2 afaik, looking at the popularity poll, but.... This new upgrade will make most of them tier 1
Tohou project is one
DT is literally a supporter, its going into tier 1 without any second thoughts

 

[Agnaa]

In certain cases you simply have to.

Not many characters atm are 1-B (Only 69 out of 28,983, or 0.00238%), but it's necessary to have a tier that encompasses all the finite dimensionalities above a certain point, rather than just merging it with something else.

Do you remember that there used to be a Low 1-B? It got merged with 1-B due to only having a dozen or so characters.

Overall, our tiers are very accommodating; they have minimum bars for being achieved. If there was only one character that was 7-D, and every other character capped out at 5-D, our tiering system would end at "Can create/destroy 5-D constructs".

When we first indexed a character that ended up lower than the conventional 11-C definition, we didn't add Low 11-C or tier 12, we changed the definition of 11-C from "0-D" to "0-D or lower".

So, no, how many characters land there is one of the primary considerations of tiers.

 

[Phoenks]

Do you remember that there used to be a Low 1-B? It got merged with 1-B due to only having a dozen or so characters.

No? I joined in late 2019, I don't remember that being a thing. What was Low 1-B?

Overall, our tiers are very accommodating; they have minimum bars for being achieved. If there was only one character that was 7-D, and every other character capped out at 5-D, our tiering system would end at "Can create/destroy 5-D constructs".

When we first indexed a character that ended up lower than the conventional 11-C definition, we didn't add Low 11-C or tier 12, we changed the definition of 11-C from "0-D" to "0-D or lower".

So, no, how many characters land there is one of the primary considerations of tiers.

I mean, I just don't think the concept of 1-B could be merged with something else lol. To merge finite dimensions with infinite dimensions, or to merge quantum mechanic cosmologies with every higher finite amount of dimensions seems pretty strange.

Do you think so?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

No? I joined in late 2019, I don't remember that being a thing. What was Low 1-B?

12-D.