• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrackishBrineBroth said:
I'm glad that tier 0 will no longer stretch into infinity like it does now. I prefer there to be a hard stop; otherwise calling it tier "0" when it has so many layers to it feels arbitrary.
Click to expand...
I’m of the opposite. There is no limit in fiction. At a certain point we should decide that comparing size is meaningless and we should look at other factors. That should be tier 0
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I’m of the opposite. There is no limit in fiction.
Click to expand...
Or maybe, there's. One can go around creating one character after another stronger than before, or might choose to create one, stronger than all.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
At a certain point we should decide that comparing size is meaningless and we should look at other factors. That should be tier 0
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly what is being proposed.
 
From what I heard once these tier revisions pass. Every tier 0s in the new tier system just automatically becomes the same person in a cross-universe match-up?
 
Undylan said:
Every tier 0s in the new tier system just automatically becomes the same person in a cross-universe match-up?
Click to expand...
I mean, you neednt necessarily go as far to imagine some sort of shared identity between them, but they essentially serve the same role in all verses they would appear in, which we would be choosing to rate as omnipotent, and thus there would be no way for one of them to "win" against the other.
 
Reiner04 said:
I was wondering if Tier 0 characters or those who possess oneness, will get every abilities or haxes in their verse or not.
Click to expand...
They will get every ability on the site, technically.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
The real question, will a creater god with R>F over the cosmology have all the abilities of the verse? Even though technically those abilities are fictional and cannot do anything at the creator’s level?
Click to expand...
If they do, they should only have those abilities on a fictional level.
 
Da3ggman said:
Since "He" was brought up before in these threads, would The Divine Comedy's God be allowed here?
Click to expand...
Some characters from the Divine Comedy are on the site, but I am not sure any discussion has been had on whether the "God" character would be allowed. It's possible he wouldn't be, given how it sort of straddles the line of just straight up scaling a real world religion.
 
Deagonx said:
Some characters from the Divine Comedy are on the site, but I am not sure any discussion has been had on whether the "God" character would be allowed. It's possible he wouldn't be, given how it sort of straddles the line of just straight up scaling a real world religion.
Click to expand...
I don't see why it would be, more than characters from contemporary series that are meant to straight up be real-world religious figures.

It's referenced a lot more culturally, but it's not actually considered canon to any religion, as far as I'm aware.
 
Agnaa said:
It's referenced a lot more culturally, but it's not actually considered canon to any religion, as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
TBF, it has gone on to imbed a lot of its "rules" into the vast majority Christian's beliefs, (EX: "Suicide will condemn you to Hell!")
 
Agnaa said:
I don't see why it would be, more than characters from contemporary series that are meant to straight up be real-world religious figures.

It's referenced a lot more culturally, but it's not actually considered canon to any religion, as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
I'd definitely agree that there are a wealth of fictional deities who, to varying degrees, are just straight up identified within the verse to be the God that Christians in that verse actually worship. I suppose the distinction I would draw with the Divine Comedy is the extent to which this is the case. It is expressly a story that explores the actual religious beliefs of that time. It has hundreds of quotes from the actual bible, and goes as far as to introduce numerous members of the church, and has been described as the "Summa Theologica in book form."

Moreover, the actual Catholic church has extolled the work and Dante himself more than a few times, even praising the accuracy of certain elements.

In Dante’s work, we find a splendid treatise of Mariology. With sublime lyricism, particularly in the prayer of Saint Bernard, the poet synthesizes theology’s reflection on the figure of Mary and her participation in the mystery of God:
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not saying this would definitely be sustained as an objection to its presence here, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was.
 
Lou_change said:
How is the new tier 0 going to deal omnipotence paradox if it obeys logic?
Click to expand...
Ultima_Reality said:
Q: Is Tier 0 paradoxical?

A: Not inherently, no. Specific Tier 0s from specific verses can do paradoxes, if the author wants, but the concept of Tier 0 in-and-of-itself doesn't entail anything paradoxical. It's unintuitive, sure, but no more of a "paradox" than something like an incorporeal being, or a living concept, or something above spacetime.
Click to expand...
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
On side note,

How many layers of meta hierarchy can there be? I personally feel as though if there’s a layer of reality above, then the lower layer can’t be really be meta.
Click to expand...
Any amount.
LazyDaoist said:
I don't get it, isn't the revision basically making all tier 0 equal? if one of them can do paradoxes then they all can
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's another concern I have, although now that I look, I don't think I've explicitly written that out, so I'll go edit it into my latest post.
 
Kairach said:
Aren't the Digimon pages very lacking? Like I've seen a bunch of stuff through vs debates. One thing I heard about was the Digimon God, which from reading the wiki article about it makes it sound just like the Christian God, it might just be an axed concept or just not used in debates.
Click to expand...
The page are lacking cuz there's so many to update and we have just 2 editors, we're slowly fixing them one by one and making reworks of fully outdated ones.

Nowadays God mostly refers to Yggdrasil, other times it's either Homeros or Homeostasis and sometimes 4 Holy Beasts are also referred as gods.

Executor had made a blog explaining it in past.
 
Last edited:
AuraMugen said:
The page are lacking cuz there's so many to update and we have just 2 editors, we're slowly fixing them one by one and making reworks of fully outdated ones.

Nowadays God mostly refers to Yggdrasil, other times it's Homeros or Homeostasis and sometimes 4 Holy Beasts are also referred as gods.

Executor had made a blog explaining it in past.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification, I was thinking that God was a collective of all Digimon "Gods" from what Digimon fan wikis were saying, might just be me not looking into it enough.
 
Kairach said:
Thanks for the clarification, I was thinking that God was a collective of all Digimon "Gods" from what Digimon fan wikis were saying, might just be me not looking into it enough.
Click to expand...
Digimon fan wiki lists any character that was ever called god in the series. One of them even listed a human who called herself a goddess, even though it was a reference to her Digimon being based on a mythological goddess.
 
Robo432343 said:
what happens if ultimas tier 0 thread gets rejected
Click to expand...
The next thread, that was going to be made anyway, about precise tier placements, would decide on what to do.

The main options, imo, being:
  1. Delete tier 0, the system caps at High 1-A.
  2. Have 0 be a standard repetition of High 1-A, as it has been for the history of this tiering system.
  3. Move High 1-A to tier 0, leaving nothing in its place. There could also be a bit more shuffling; Ultima's suggested Low 1-A could be 1-A, 1-A could be High 1-A, and High 1-A could be 0.
 
Agnaa said:
Delete tier 0, the system caps at High 1-A.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that make a big problem with scaling differences? I mean there will always be stronger and stronger characters so not showing the difference between characters would be a big mess. Lets say character A has a High 1A tier and character B has a High 1A tier, people are comparing these characters to see who would win, character B has was better feats in every aspect but the only people who could speak on that are people knowledgeable on character B. This leads into the ultima revisions, with the system being capped at High 1A and tier 0 being for monads, how will the characters in High 1A get their differences shown? I don't know any solutions to this problem but I'll leave the question up to you.
Agnaa said:
Have 0 be a standard repetition of High 1-A, as it has been for the history of this tiering system.
Click to expand...
Like being able to stack High 1A concepts to reach 0? I think the whole idea of tier 0 being for monads is weird and hard to prove, leading to certain verses to get tier 0 even with less impressive cosmology than others, but stacking, I believe is just as weird, as it allows less thought out verses to reach tier 0 while the verses that would reach tier 0 through monad argument would be left behind with the less impressive cosmology.
Agnaa said:
Move High 1-A to tier 0, leaving nothing in its place. There could also be a bit more shuffling; Ultima's suggested Low 1-A could be 1-A, 1-A could be High 1-A, and High 1-A could be 0.
Click to expand...
I think what is being shown right now is fine with some little tweaks needed, except the monad stuff, so cutting off tier 0 from the debate would be weird, instead of finding common ground.

I'm not an expert on power scaling, just giving me 2 cents, but pushing other arguments out of the conversation is wrong, best course is to talk it out and find common ground, instead of ignoring each others opinions on how the tiering system should work. The way I see it is two or three sides arguing points, not making common ground, then one side winning by popular opinion. Not an expert, like I said, but that is just what I take away from the discussions, tell me I'm wrong and I will gladly take the L.
 
Kairach said:
Wouldn't that make a big problem with scaling differences? I mean there will always be stronger and stronger characters so not showing the difference between characters would be a big mess. Lets say character A has a High 1A tier and character B has a High 1A tier, people are comparing these characters to see who would win, character B has was better feats in every aspect but the only people who could speak on that are people knowledgeable on character B. This leads into the ultima revisions, with the system being capped at High 1A and tier 0 being for monads, how will the characters in High 1A get their differences shown? I don't know any solutions to this problem but I'll leave the question up to you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the tradeoff we face. Our levers are "how many tiers there are", "how close in power characters within each tier are", "how many different series land in each tier". I think we've got a pretty decent tradeoff, right now the issue people seem to have is how many tier 0 characters are from SCP, which would really only be worsened by trying to create more tiers for differentiation.

And in general, I think there's other places where it's better to focus our efforts if we care about this; there are 6,380 9-B pages, but only 131 High 1-A pages, and 48 tier 0 pages. If we're gonna make more space, I'd rather we separate out the more cluttered tiers first.
Kairach said:
Like being able to stack High 1A concepts to reach 0? I think the whole idea of tier 0 being for monads is weird and hard to prove, leading to certain verses to get tier 0 even with less impressive cosmology than others, but stacking, I believe is just as weird, as it allows less thought out verses to reach tier 0 while the verses that would reach tier 0 through monad argument would be left behind with the less impressive cosmology.
Click to expand...
idk what you mean by "stack High 1-A concepts", but what I mean is that 0 could be reached by transcending High 1-A the same way High 1-A transcends 1-A; by establishing a new hierarchy, a new way of being more powerful within that setting, which completely dwarfs the previous way.

idk why you'd think of this as being less thought out, and honestly, establishing a monad would qualify for such a jump regardless.
Kairach said:
I think what is being shown right now is fine with some little tweaks needed, except the monad stuff, so cutting off tier 0 from the debate would be weird, instead of finding common ground.

I'm not an expert on power scaling, just giving me 2 cents, but pushing other arguments out of the conversation is wrong, best course is to talk it out and find common ground, instead of ignoring each others opinions on how the tiering system should work. The way I see it is two or three sides arguing points, not making common ground, then one side winning by popular opinion. Not an expert, like I said, but that is just what I take away from the discussions, tell me I'm wrong and I will gladly take the L.
Click to expand...
I've offered many points of compromise throughout Ultima's revisions. While some were integrated due to being seen as legitimate contradictions (separating out reality-fiction differences and being beyond dimensions to different tiers, making being beyond dimensions "beyond all of standard mathematics" rather than "beyond all of mathematics"), all my other suggestions have been entirely rejected. Similarly, I haven't been offered an easing of the standards; those prior two were spurred by my own suggestions.

Not sure whether to treat this as finding common ground or not. I guess it just depends on how much of a middlground you expect with this sort of thing.
 
Under Ultima's system is it possible for a verse to have a High 1A+ but not a 0? If so, how?
 
Agnaa said:
Yeah, that's the tradeoff we face. Our levers are "how many tiers there are", "how close in power characters within each tier are", "how many different series land in each tier". I think we've got a pretty decent tradeoff, right now the issue people seem to have is how many tier 0 characters are from SCP, which would really only be worsened by trying to create more tiers for differentiation.
Click to expand...
I've said before that I like the tier 0 being a cap to the tiering system, still do, but if we follow this cap you would still need to figure out how to differentiate characters within the High 1A tier. I don't think making more tiers below 0 for certain characters that people don't like would make people mad, it still lower than the peak so it wouldn't cause too much of a problem. Even with these revisions SCP will still be a high tier verse. Not saying you need to make whole new tiers for this between of High 1A and 0 (as it is unimaginably, there would be zero end to it) but to figure out how to allow people to know how high a verse goes into High 1A, could make cosmology pages more in depth and to be used in heavily in verse debates for High 1As.
Agnaa said:
idk what you mean by "stack High 1-A concepts", but what I mean is that 0 could be reached by transcending High 1-A the same way High 1-A transcends 1-A; by establishing a new hierarchy, a new way of being more powerful within that setting, which completely dwarfs the previous way.

idk why you'd think of this as being less thought out, and honestly, establishing a monad would qualify for such a jump regardless.
Click to expand...
I am not knowledgeable in vsbw's tiering system that is used as of right now, I meant it like stacking blocks that are High 1A in size to be able to reach tier 0, that is how I interpreted the gaps between 1A, High 1A, and 0. I believe both ways of thinking are flawed, but then again couldn't you come to an agreement that both of the ways could be used in the new system to reach tier 0, like you said the monad concept would be the same type of jump, so instead of just saying only monads can reach tier 0 why not also say characters who transcending High 1A so much that they could reach tier 0? You could put restrictions on what type of characters in each verse could reach this point, like characters that are all powerful but don't follow the monad proposal, so you could still have only one tier 0 per verse.
 
Kairach said:
I've said before that I like the tier 0 being a cap to the tiering system, still do, but if we follow this cap you would still need to figure out how to differentiate characters within the High 1A tier. I don't think making more tiers below 0 for certain characters that people don't like would make people mad, it still lower than the peak so it wouldn't cause too much of a problem. Even with these revisions SCP will still be a high tier verse. Not saying you need to make whole new tiers for this between of High 1A and 0 (as it is unimaginably, there would be zero end to it) but to figure out how to allow people to know how high a verse goes into High 1A, could make cosmology pages more in depth and to be used in heavily in verse debates for High 1As.
Click to expand...
Yeah that sorta knowledge typically already exists, people just don't really put it on profiles or communicate it too widely.
Kairach said:
I am not knowledgeable in vsbw's tiering system that is used as of right now, I meant it like stacking blocks that are High 1A in size to be able to reach tier 0, that is how I interpreted the gaps between 1A, High 1A, and 0. I believe both ways of thinking are flawed, but then again couldn't you come to an agreement that both of the ways could be used in the new system to reach tier 0, like you said the monad concept would be the same type of jump, so instead of just saying only monads can reach tier 0 why not also say characters who transcending High 1A so much that they could reach tier 0? You could put restrictions on what type of characters in each verse could reach this point, like characters that are all powerful but don't follow the monad proposal, so you could still have only one tier 0 per verse.
Click to expand...
We used to have that, back before 2019, but it ran into the issue where some characters in lower tiers were technically stronger than tier 0 characters. They'd have way more impressive feats/cosmologies, but because they're not treated as all powerful, they'd be given a lower tier.

We're pretty much stuck between those two alternatives. We either have to accept some series having characters that aren't supreme beings reach tier 0, and so being able to flood the tier, or we have to accept that some characters below tier 0 will be stronger than tier 0 characters, or we have to come up with one specific way of reaching tier 0 and say that anything else is inherently weaker (and still sorta run into that second issue, but maybe you can convince people otherwise).

We could, instead, look for another method of singling out and promoting supreme beings. Some other wikis have a prefix (I think one uses/used "sovereign"?) that can be attached to any tier, which denotes that character as being the supreme being of its series. We could use this to display supreme beings prominently, without giving false indications of power.

But I don't think people here care too much for that idea, and Tier 0 does have a ring to it that those prefixes might lack.
 
Agnaa said:
Yeah that sorta knowledge typically already exists, people just don't really put it on profiles or communicate it too widely.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about how the problem could be solved by having people read through a cosmology page before a High 1A debate, you can bring up people not reading the pages and skipping to put in their vote, but you can counter this by having them give a valid argument for the side they're picking, if not then don't count their vote. Just my opinion.
Agnaa said:
We're pretty much stuck between those two alternatives. We either have to accept some series having characters that aren't supreme beings reach tier 0, and so being able to flood the tier
Click to expand...
Why not accept both ideas, use monad for a valid way to get to tier 0, but have a supreme being of a High 1A cosmology being able to transcend High 1A enough to reach tier 0, which could keep the one tier 0 per verse idea. Also having a strict rule on how much a character has to transcend to reach tier 0.
Agnaa said:
or we have to accept that some characters below tier 0 will be stronger than tier 0 characters
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate more on this? What I get from this is that if we only use the monad proposal then some High 1A characters would just outright be stronger than some tier 0, which I agree would be awful.
Agnaa said:
or we have to come up with one specific way of reaching tier 0 and say that anything else is inherently weaker (and still sorta run into that second issue, but maybe you can convince people otherwise).
Click to expand...
Having only one would run into the problem of tier 0s being weaker than most High 1As, but expanding the ways to reach tier 0 and the idea of tier 0 as a whole could fix it. Not an expert on the tier though.
Agnaa said:
We could, instead, look for another method of singling out and promoting supreme beings. Some other wikis have a prefix (I think one uses/used "sovereign"?) that can be attached to any tier, which denotes that character as being the supreme being of its series. We could use this to display supreme beings prominently, without giving false indications of power.
Click to expand...
I don't think the whole idea of supreme being is why everyone is up and arms for this, probably just people wanting to see their favorite verse succeed in scaling. If we're talking about a supreme being over a 1C verse becoming tier 0 then that's hilarious, in my opinion it should only hold weight inside either a High 1A or 1A verse, but then you could also make a supreme being of 1A verse jump into High 1A, just my thoughts.
 
Kairach said:
but you can counter this by having them give a valid argument for the side they're picking, if not then don't count their vote. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
It's not really practical to do this. All they really would have to do is refer to someone else's argument.

Kairach said:
Why not accept both ideas, use monad for a valid way to get to tier 0, but have a supreme being of a High 1A cosmology being able to transcend High 1A enough to reach tier 0, which could keep the one tier 0 per verse idea. Also having a strict rule on how much a character has to transcend to reach tier 0.
Click to expand...
Because the logic used to place a Monad at Tier 0 is incompatible with the idea that High 1-A transcendence could reach it.

Kairach said:
in my opinion it should only hold weight inside either a High 1A or 1A verse, but then you could also make a supreme being of 1A verse jump into High 1A, just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Again, the reasoning used for the proposal is incompatible with this.
 
I think Ultima should include everything he's implemented part from 0 being beyond the hierarchy nor that it should be Divine Simplicity as a ground basis. I actually like his idea of R>F a lot better than treating it as a dimensional jump.
 
Kairach said:
Why not accept both ideas, use monad for a valid way to get to tier 0, but have a supreme being of a High 1A cosmology being able to transcend High 1A enough to reach tier 0, which could keep the one tier 0 per verse idea. Also having a strict rule on how much a character has to transcend to reach tier 0.

Can you elaborate more on this? What I get from this is that if we only use the monad proposal then some High 1A characters would just outright be stronger than some tier 0, which I agree would be awful.

Having only one would run into the problem of tier 0s being weaker than most High 1As, but expanding the ways to reach tier 0 and the idea of tier 0 as a whole could fix it. Not an expert on the tier though.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that could fix it.

To simplify, either a limited number reaches it, and so the other characters who would have reached it (and thus kinda deserve to be at that tier) get disqualified, making High 1-As stronger than 0s. Or you let any number reach it, and so some series can flood 0 with characters.
Kairach said:
I don't think the whole idea of supreme being is why everyone is up and arms for this, probably just people wanting to see their favorite verse succeed in scaling. If we're talking about a supreme being over a 1C verse becoming tier 0 then that's hilarious, in my opinion it should only hold weight inside either a High 1A or 1A verse, but then you could also make a supreme being of 1A verse jump into High 1A, just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Yeah under Ultima's system a supreme being over a 3-A verse would become tier 0. The stuff you're describing is more similar to our current one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
3K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
2K
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
What would debunk the basis of the VSBW tiering system
Replies
6
Views
2K
Urshani
Boy.Line
Qualification issues.
Replies
7
Views
643
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
178K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top