• 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.
The_2nd_Existential_Seed said:
Um. Question. I’m aware of The Root and everything, but wouldn’t describing The Root as a Monad be an example of the type of ‘descriptions’ that The Root completely surpasses and creates a Idea with those descriptions ?
Click to expand...
Monad (not one that human think) itself is without a description. It is the same as the absolute omnipotence.

Refer to this Ultima post.
Ultima_Reality said:
Technically "Omnipotence" (Defined as "Limitless power") wouldn't really exist as a separate attribute within the Tier 0, since its utter undifferentiation would prevent it from having any such plurality within itself (So "Omnipotence," "Omnipresence," and whatever others would just be referring to one and the same thing). But that's less because it's "beyond omnipotence" and moreso because we can't conceive of omnipotence to begin with. So it's a distinction between "Our mental notion of Omnipotence as lesser beings" and "Omnipotence as it really is in-and-of-itself," not "Omnipotence" vs "Beyond omnipotence."
Click to expand...
 
Agnaa said:
No need, I've already made Ultima concede.
Click to expand...
Making the Yap God concede?
kramer-seinfeld.gif
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
Good question but no.
Looks like a case where their nature is 5/6-D and power is 1-A (assuming the R>F is truly legit for this verse)
This was why I suggested to tweak BDE definition and add BDE Type 3 to accommodate "Dimensions beyond dimensions"

Edit: Also if they have countless axis their nature should be "countless"-D, was the 5/6D from r>f or a lowball to quantify "countless" axis? The former sounds suspicious.
Click to expand...
They have r>f over multiverses. The axis is a bonus and currently doesn't grant them any tier due to a statement of their superiority over each other than +1 direction being unknown. It only grants them HDE (large size) and my question is regarding the new changes.

tldr; 5D dudes who also happen to occupy countless or infinite axis
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
Out if curiosity was there anything you agreed with Ultima on?
Click to expand...
Mostly things that aren't very material, like whether certain statements qualified, or how to treat certain potential challenges, that I wasn't sure he held a sensible view on.

Most of Ultima's stuff here I just view neutrally, as I have for years of other people talking about similar things. You can make a consistent system out of it, if you iron out a few kinks, but I prefer something similar to the current meta.

Although, moving BDE to V is probably good regardless, since Ultima and DT seem to have moved away from the reasoning for putting it at aleph-3 in the first place.
 
So, to qualify for 1-A in the new system, you need to have both a R/F transcendence, and be stated to be superior to dimensionality? Or is it just the former?
 
TheGatememer said:
So, to qualify for 1-A in the new system, you need to have both a R/F transcendence, and be stated to be superior to dimensionality?
Click to expand...
All characters with R>F Transcendence are beyond dimensionality, but not all characters beyond dimensionality have a R>F Transcendence, pretty much. If you have sufficient evidence of the former you're fine even without the latter.
 
I do want to see how the standards for qualitative superiority (both R>F transcendence and Existential Superiority)will be written out. It should be clear and concise. Most preferably a checklist.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
Good question but no.
Looks like a case where their nature is 5/6-D and power is 1-A (assuming the R>F is truly legit for this verse)
This was why I suggested to tweak BDE definition and add BDE Type 3 to accommodate "Dimensions beyond dimensions"

Edit: Also if they have countless axis their nature should be "countless"-D, was the 5/6D from r>f or a lowball to quantify "countless" axis? The former sounds suspicious.
Click to expand...
R>F is a state of power and existence in this system... So, if you were throwing R>F at X, but your existence depends on or is within X, I think that would be an anti-feat. So... If you supposedly have R>F but are still a 5D being or in it, I guess that would be an anti-feat Same as BDE and TD.

And with this system BDE, TD and R>F will become damn very hard... Either all three together or nothing at all ☠️
 
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
755
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
180K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top