- 18,782
- 5,970
Option 4 is fine.
-
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 Dread Tiering System Revisions
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- 11,963
- 18,910
After seeing the new Option 4, it should be fine by me
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
@DarkDragonMedeus @Everything12 @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Firestorm808 Would you all be fine with the newly-added Option 4?
- 30,349
- 32,135
Pretty sure I already voted yes earlier.
- 7,017
- 6,840
Option 4 seems reasonable.
- 165,635
- 73,316
A question for @Ultima_Reality :
Can you please explain how or if splitting off 5-dimensional infinity to tier Low 1-C will affect the tier 2 multiverse statistics? I thought that all of these tiers are technically 5-dimensional feats to different degrees.
Can you please explain how or if splitting off 5-dimensional infinity to tier Low 1-C will affect the tier 2 multiverse statistics? I thought that all of these tiers are technically 5-dimensional feats to different degrees.
- 19,452
- 10,082
option 4 looks good
- 15,038
- 12,769
While tier 2 feats could be interpreted as reaching across some part of 5-D space (as infinitely large & long timelines would need an extra direction to be arranged on), since the timelines themselves have 0 size in this direction, they can all be included in an arbitrarily small amount of 5-D space.
It's kind of like how you can fit infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1; you'd have 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5... with the denominator covering every whole number. You can further divide every number in this sequence by any number to get an arbitrarily small segment that contains infinitely many points, so even 2-A could fit there.
This sort of thing is why there's some amount of justification for having "above multiverse-busting" be High 2-A or Low 1-C; there are both some similarities and some differences.
Still, we're not changing much at all about how that part of our system functions, so the distinctions make as much sense before as they do now.
Last edited:
- 10,885
- 9,639
I can't believe nobody told me about this!
I think option 4 is pretty good. I have a question though and it's about why we can't do 10-D to 26-D. Often times the string universes that use such cosmology are paired with higher-D branes or other context which do fit our quantitative superiority guidelines and I think they are common enough.
One example of that is Ben 10 iirc.
I also think that it helps group more characters together since there are 12-D and 13-D characters that are kinda lost in that extremely wide tier of 1-B.
I think option 4 is pretty good. I have a question though and it's about why we can't do 10-D to 26-D. Often times the string universes that use such cosmology are paired with higher-D branes or other context which do fit our quantitative superiority guidelines and I think they are common enough.
One example of that is Ben 10 iirc.
I also think that it helps group more characters together since there are 12-D and 13-D characters that are kinda lost in that extremely wide tier of 1-B.
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,782
- 8,992
Uhm, may I ask did you got permission to comment?
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #93
Honestly I'm 98% sure everyone will pick Option 4 anyway, but, for formality's sake, here's the counter:
- Option 1:
- Option 2:
- Option 3:
- Option 4: Ultima_Reality (thread starter), Antvasima, AKM Sama, DontTalkDT, Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Firestorm808, Celestial Pegasus, Everything12, Planck69, IdiosyncraticLawyer, Theglassman12, CloverDragon03
Last edited:
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #97
Noted.
- 10,530
- 11,671
Sure, we can go 4.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #99
Noted.
- 7,036
- 4,388
So after this thread, whose outcome is still up in the air, what is left to be done?
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #101
Afterwards, it's up to the supporters of each individual verse to revise them, if they believe the verses in question ought to be tiered differently with the new system. Most likely, I'll make a "hub" thread for all the CRTs that'll spawn out of these revisions.
- 7,036
- 4,388
So basically, the chaos will finally begin.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #103
It be like that.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
The vote is unanimous, so can we apply this thread now?
- 15,038
- 12,769
I'd still like to have time to go through all the huge instruction pages he's written up.
Plus, it's probably best to not actually apply this until we've sorted out new placements for the verses involved, so our pages don't spend weeks being wildly inaccurate.
Plus, it's probably best to not actually apply this until we've sorted out new placements for the verses involved, so our pages don't spend weeks being wildly inaccurate.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #107
That sounds like a pretty wonky way to go about it. Making a bunch of CRTs for a Tiering System that isn't even formally applied and exists mostly in the form of sandboxes sounds like bad practice overall. Far better to go with the approach I pitched up there.
For the matter, I don't mind waiting a bit either. I believe DarkGrath's told me she would also input here whenever possible, and I'd like her evaluation on these matters.
- 15,038
- 12,769
Having SCP maintain its 30 tier 0s under a system that says there's a maximum of one per verse is far wonkier, imo.
Plus your idea of letting the supporters of verses decide whether they want to make revisions in line with this sounds like it'd leave tons of pages from forgotten verses with grossly incorrect ratings.
Plus your idea of letting the supporters of verses decide whether they want to make revisions in line with this sounds like it'd leave tons of pages from forgotten verses with grossly incorrect ratings.
- 19,452
- 10,082
Couldn't we just do an evaluation thread where we go through every verse with a tier 0 and see if it qualifies or not? I did it with the Type 5 Acausals and Dimensional Manipulation users and that was able to kill all birds with one stone.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #110
SCP is an exceptional case because it's also in the process of being moved somewhere else and deleted. If it bothers you, it doesn't take much to just write down a big note in the verse page saying the verse is about to get thrown out and that, by extension, its ratings aren't going to be up to date with the recently-applied Tiering System.
It's also extremely impractical to go fishing for verses that may or may not be upgraded to 1-A due to these revisions, since they might well be spread through all of Tier 1. And if a verse is truly forgotten and no one on this site is knowledgeable on it, it's not like we'd be able to accurately assess the information about it, either. So what you seem to be suggesting isn't that good of an idea in comparison.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #111
Not really against that, at least in theory. Tier 0 is a fairly homogenous tier, so, shouldn't be difficult.
Last edited:
- 15,038
- 12,769
We've both been on the site for ages; isn't the thing I'm suggesting how every previous tiering system revision was done?
That's why we rarely do minor tweaks to the tiers between 10 and 3; because doing so requires someone to go through every single character in the relevant tiers, to check their calculations and determine whether they should be moved up or down. I don't think "Just let the supporters tackle it" has ever been seen as a viable excuse to skip out on that work.
At worst, we'd be able to assess it by the information on the page, and that'll have to do. Better than leaving 1-As through invocations of alephs at that tier.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #113
Yeah, that's a fair enough way to assess it. But I don't think it's a good reason to just keep these pages un-applied, still, because either way some degree of confusion is bound to happen during this transition period. Even under what you are suggesting, for example, some verses will be upgraded to 1-A while the Tiering System pages still give information saying they should be Low 1-C at most. That'd be just as confusing as (To draw from your earlier example) SCP having 30 Tier 0s because of big cardinals while we simultaneously have a huge explanation page talking about how that's haram.
Unless, of course, your plan is to make a CRT for each potential 1-A verse, but only apply them after they are all done, in a simultaneous fashion, at the same time as the application of the new standard pages. That'd be crazy impractical.
Last edited:
- 7,036
- 4,388
I'm against this idea, it's very impractical and requires knowledge of series that staff might not possess and would require knowledgeable users to provide the evidence for. I'm knowledgeable enough in enough series and have seen enough 1-A postulating in threads over the months, to know that their are multiple series that will require explanations that simply looking at the profiles won't give the sufficient context, especially with how important anti-feats and cosmology explanations are with this new tiering system.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
That's one of the justifications, but it's not the only one; the tiers would have enough metanarrative stuff to rest on even with the "cardinals" aspect invalidated. Tier 0 would have to become High 1-A on all those profiles, though.
- 15,038
- 12,769
Which idea specifically? Since both Ultima and I have suggested ways of handling this revision.
I don't think it'd be too impractical to keep a checklist of the relevant verses, and apply it once all/most are done (or once progress slows to a crawl on going through those). Not quite simultaneously, but within a few days rather than a few months.
But if y'all don't think so then fair enough; update the relevant pages immediately, but I'd still want a checklist to be maintained and explored by invested members, rather than leaving everything to supporters.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #117
I'm fine with that.
- 15,038
- 12,769
Simply whether a verse has been evaluated under the new system. These could be split into various levels of priority:
- High: Low 1-C, Low 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A, 0 (Significant changes to definitions that would effect many verses within them)
- Medium: 1-C, High 1-C, 1-B, High 1-B (Changes to R>F standards are reasonably likely to result in upgrades/downgrades to these)
- Low: Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, 2-A (Changes to R>F standards might result in a few upgrades/downgrades to these)
Last edited:
- 11,963
- 18,910
Where would semantics changes like accepted 6-D characters (for reasons that aren't R>F, transcending dimensions, etc.) becoming 1-C instead of Low 1-C fall under? Would those just be simple edits without need for evaluation?
Similar threads
- Locked
