The problem with tier 11

[KingPin0422]

Introduction​

So, while I wait for some other projects to wrap up (which are moving slowly, might I add), I might as well knock out a considerably smaller thing while I'm at it, because this is one of many things regarding the system that has been bothering me for a while now: the misapplication of tier 11 ratings to certain profiles.

What do I mean by that? Well, simply put, I feel as though many characters currently rated at tier 11 do not deserve to be there and, unless we can find better evidence to support them, should have those ratings changed. I know some of you will think this is a weird revision to be doing, but trust me when I say that it is important that we strive for accuracy in our system, regardless of the level.

With that out of the way, I'll start by giving some much needed background on tier 11 and dimensions in general.

Dimensions for Wiki Purposes​

For our purposes, the relationship between higher dimensions and lower dimensions is by default not one of superiority. To quote the tiering system FAQ:

Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely stronger than lower-dimensional equivalents?

Unintuitive as that may be: Not necessarily, as a number of characteristics through which we quantify the strength or power of a character can remain unchanged when transitioning between higher and lower dimensions. For example: Mass is a quantity that is detached from the dimension of the object which it is inherent to, and unlike volume is not divided in units corresponding to each particular dimension (1-volume [length], 2-volume [area], 3-volume, 4-volume...). It is singular in nature and its units equally apply to all dimensions; whether it is distributed over an area or a volume only tells us about the span of space in which it is spread, not about the quantity itself.

As a consequence of that, much of the calculation methods which are used to measure strength apply equally to both higher and lower dimensions, as they do not care about the extra variables and often work with a single one of them. Examples of this are kinetic energy (Ek=0.5*M*V^2), force (F=M*A), work (W=F*d), and etc.

An intuitive example of that is found in the general definition of Work as defined in physics: In essence, as work itself denotes the energy applied to an object as it is displaced along a given path, the basic formula for calculating it only takes into account a single variable, and the path itself is treated as an one-dimensional object, regardless of the dimension of the space in which the action itself takes place.

Hence, a higher-dimensional entity can be both stronger or weaker than a lower-dimensional one, and thus, they are usually quantified based on their own feats, instead of dimensionality alone. If a character is merely stated to be higher-dimensional and simultaneously has no other feats to derive anything noteworthy from, then they are put at Unknown, and the same applies to lower dimensions as well.

Take note of the last paragraph: a higher-dimensional entity can be weaker than a lower-dimensional one, being stated to be higher-dimensional and having no feats or other context is not enough to be any tier, but most importantly, the latter sentence applies to lower-dimensional beings as well. In other words, just as being higher-dimensional alone isn't enough to be tier 2 or higher, being lower-dimensional should not allow us to slap tier 11 on a profile if there's no evidence to substantiate that such a character is infinitely inferior to any 3-D being. The reason for this is, of course, that mass and energy (the foundations for most of our tiering system) are dimensionless constants, meaning that they are the same variables no matter how many dimensions you're working with.

The Offenders​

Now that we've established the above, let's look at the profiles being challenged here, going alphabetically:

A Square/Arthur Square​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level

Surprise, surprise. For our first profile(s), the justification for 11-A is... nothing! We don't get any explanation, it's just thrown in there and we're expected to believe it. Who the hell thought this was a good idea? And while we're at it, why are there two profiles for this particular character and not for anyone else in the verse? It makes no sense.

Bill Cipher​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level (Originally came from the 2nd dimension, which he described as flat. Burned and destroyed said dimension with every 2-Dimensional being in it. Would describe gaining a 3-Dimensional physical form is "a multi-dimensional makeover")

The "2nd dimension" being flat means nothing from a power scaling perspective. To quote the FAQ again:

However, lower-dimensional beings being stated to be "flat" in comparision to higher-dimensional aliens is not necessarily grounds for assuming the latter has infinitely more power (For reasons outlined in the answer above), and thus, such scenarios must also be analyzed case-by-case.

Burning said dimension could be relevant to this tier... if we had more context as to its relation to the 3rd dimension. Finally, the "multi-dimensional makeover" bit, again, doesn't mean anything without more context. So, yeah, no tier 11 here.

Buttercup (Horse Destroys the Universe)​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level (Exist as a virtual construct over the internet or inside the Hyper-Meadow)

I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure of our standards on digital beings and what makes some 11-A and others 10-C, but this should be analyzed regardless because just being a virtual construct doesn't convince me.

Disembodied Thought​

Attack Potency: Varies from Hypoverse level (Can possess 1-Dimensional Feedback Spheres) to High Universe level (Can continuously possess larger and larger universes infinitely. The physical universe of Everything is smaller than a quark which resides within another universe which is smaller than a quark which resides within another universe which continues this loop infinitely) depending on what it is possessing or what form it has taken

Yeah, no. Just being called "one-dimensional" is far from sufficient evidence in the same way that we don't give anyone 1-C just because they're called eight-dimensional anymore. Get rid of it.

Gomez (Fez)​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level (2 dimensional character)

See above.

King of Lineland​

Attack Potency: Hypoverse level (One-dimensional)

See above, again.

Little Circle​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level | Below Average

Great! Another unexplained 11-A rating! Kill it.

Mister Mxyzptlk (Cosmic Adventures in the 8th Grade)​

Attack Potency: Low Complex Multiverse level (Is a 5th dimensional being who views 3rd dimensional reality as flat and is beyond the 4th dimension of time) | High Complex Multiverse level (After amping himself up with his emotion machine, he had become 10th Dimensional) | High Hypoverse level (As punishment for attempting to destroy all of reality, Mxyzptlk's race transforms him into a 2nd dimensional being)

If lower dimensions being flat to higher dimensions is all there is to it, then no tier 1 or 11.

Monarch of Pointland​

Attack Potency: Low Hypoverse level (He is a 0-dimensional being)

This one might be fine, actually, since a zero-dimensional point is much smaller than the set of real numbers cardinality-wise, but I'd still like someone to fact-check this anyway because the explanation is lacking.

Queens of Lineland​

Attack Potency: Hypoverse level (One-Dimensional)

Jesus Christ, why are these """justifications""" so common among tier 11 profiles?

RPC-703​

Attack Potency: Varies, High Hypoverse level (Has become 2-Dimensional) to Unknown (Was able to destroy its containment and was able to change the temperature of its testing chambers)

The same profile says that this entity set its moles to 0, so use that for the 11-A justification instead.

Soul-Sucking Death Worm​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level (Is bound to its book)

What the hell does this have to do with being on a lower level of existence? I don't get it.

The Boneless (Doctor Who)​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level (The Boneless are 2-dimensional beings), higher via Hax (Can affect higher-dimensions with hax)

Is it hax, or is it evidence that maybe 2-D isn't infinitely less than 3-D?

The Pedestrian​

Attack Potency: High Hypoverse level physically (As a 2 Dimensional being, The Pedestrian is unable to physically affect anything of a higher dimensionality, thought they have proven more than capable of interacting with other 2D objects), higher with abilities (Their influence has been shown to affect 3-Dimensional objects, such as making papers fall, and more, can move around signs, batteries used by The Pedestrian can power 3D Devices such as large doors, elevators, and more)

So they're unable to physically affect anything with more than two dimensions, but they can influence 3-D objects? Which one is it?

Conclusion​

Honestly, the lack of quality control on these sorts of profiles is daunting. I get that it's the lowest tier and so people aren't as inclined to care about them, but please, we need to resolve this issue before it gets any worse. Letting these profiles remain as they are would set a bad precedent with how much they contradict site standards. Let's think about what else we can use to give them ratings, and if there's nothing, then just make them Unknown, if they even have anything noteworthy to us at all.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I half agree that Tier 11 characters in general are about as rare as Tier 0 characters, and that being 2-D or less does not automatically make someone 11-A or less, since plenty of them could be as strong as various 10-C to High 3-A or even Low 2-C and above characters. It's just small size. But the tiers do exist for ones that don't have "Upper dimensional power levels" for their size. Similar to how human sized characters could be all the way up to Low 1-A and what not.

I do not agree with getting rid of Tier 11 outright, but I'm neutral on whether or not we can condense the current Tier 11 stuff and make more borders for the 10-C stuff. Which I am not 100% certain, but I knew Zark had plans for those a while back iirc.

But still, DontTalkDT is busy atm, but this is the type of thread we need people like him.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

I do not agree with getting rid of Tier 11 outright

I don't think this has ever been proposed by OP, just higher quality control.

I agree, for the record. If anyone wants some examples of valid tier 11 characters, SCP has many that gain their ratings from reality-fiction differences, and it could easily be given to a number of the characters that Derp listed if "dimensions" have more explanation given other than just "flat".

 

[KieranH10]

For the Pedestrians case, the Profile clearly mentions that the 11-A is only their physical power, which is relevant information here. Only their abilities are capable of affecting 3-D objects.

Physically, The Pedestrian is unable to affect any 3-D object in the series, however through their abilities they can affect the actual 3-D world around them. The shown inability to affect 3-D objects physically should be enough justification no? They are a 2-D being bound to surfaces such as signs and screens.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I think the idea with the Soul Sucking Worm is that before it gets summoned it exists in the narrative of the book?

 

[Ogurtsow]

I guess Flatland and Flatland reference characters can just be changed from 11-B and 11-A to Unknown.

The Disembodied Thought should be changed from 11-B to 10-C as the lowest tier in the range. It can jump in smaller and smaller universes, which are just blatant copies of our universe, but of an extremely tiny scope. Their inhabitants are so tiny that they perceive our world's quantum as a universe or even multiverse. The Disembodied Thought can reach sizes 10^1000 times smaller than a quantum, and that's not the limit. It's a hilariously low 10-C but still.

Also: what should we do with Type 9 Small Size? How about replacing Lower-Dimensional with Sub-Quantum (For characters like the Disembodied Thought)?

 

[KieranH10]

I've always thought that Type 9 Small Size shouldn't be Lower Dimensional, it makes pretty much no sense.
Lower dimensional characters can still be 6ft tall, or even the size of a planet, just because they don't occupy volume or mass does not mean that they cant be enormous on the dimensions they inhabit.

Type 9 should be removed and made into its own ability tbh.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Guys I feel like that’s a CRT to make separate from this one

 

[Nehz_XZX]

I've always thought that Type 9 Small Size shouldn't be Lower Dimensional, it makes pretty much no sense.
Lower dimensional characters can still be 6ft tall, or even the size of a planet, just because they don't occupy volume or mass does not mean that they cant be enormous on the dimensions they inhabit.

Type 9 should be removed and made into its own ability tbh.

That's an interesting thought. Small Size and Large Size appear to be mostly about height and don't seem to consider the other proportions but you could still argue that lower dimensional constructs still have a height in some sense. So, we would make Lower-Dimensionality an ability the same way Higher-Dimensional Existence is one?

 

[KieranH10]

It is a subject for another thread, as has been mentioned. But yes, it should absolutely be its own power as it barely relates to actual tangible scale in the ways Large Size and Small Size do.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

It is a subject for another thread, as has been mentioned. But yes, it should absolutely be its own power as it barely relates to actual tangible scale in the ways Large Size and Small Size do.

Okay.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein @AKM sama @DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I mean, one needs evidence to argue a character is strong, not to argue that a character is weak. We rank characters as the lowest level that is plausible by their feats. E.g. Saitama is High 6-A not because we think that's necessarily his precise tier, but because that the lowest level he could possibly be by his feats.

For a regular 3D being the lowest level they can plausibly be while interacting with the world around them is 10-C. For a healthy adult the lowest level they can plausibly be would be 10-B.
For a 2D or 1D character the lowest plausible level is Tier 11.
The characters in question would end up in the tiers on the profile just by not having any other feats.

And, I mean, in general, we accept higher dimensions as signs of higher power if they are infinite or of significant size, being able to embed lower-dimensional universes and stuff. Regular 3D space meets those criteria in relation to 2D or lower spaces.

And I doubt those characters have infinite density anyway

 

[KingPin0422]

I'll respond to your points after work, but I'm just going to say now that what you're saying doesn't line up with our standards on higher/lower dimensions.

Also:

• I'm not advocating for the erasure of tier 11 altogether. I just want better quality control on the tier 11 pages, as Crimson said.
• The Small/Large Size stuff is better saved for a separate thread.

 

[KingPin0422]

Okay, real quick: for Mister Mxyzptlk, I forgot that temporal dimensions do automatically qualify for higher tiers provided they are large, and Mxyzptlk is stated to be beyond the dimension of time. Still, the profile needs updating anyway because it lacks sources for its claims.

Anyway, I think I will be home in about an hour and a half, so I can give DontTalk a response by then.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Flatland ones should be fine. They are as litteral and mathematic as one gets.

 

[KingPin0422]

Flatland ones should be fine. They are as litteral and mathematic as one gets.

I already said that the Monarch of Pointland is likely fine at their current tier because 0-D is in fact smaller than the set of real numbers cardinality-wise. It's like comparing a line to a single specific point existing on said line. Every other Flatland profile, on the other hand, either has one of the most effortless explanations I've ever seen or straight-up doesn't explain the rating at all, and it's genuinely daunting that we allowed these profiles to exist in these states for so long. If there is evidence to substantiate tier 11 Flatland, present it.

(I hate typing out long posts on my phone so don't expect me to comment again until I'm home and at my computer)

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are helping out here.

 

[KingPin0422]

I mean, one needs evidence to argue a character is strong, not to argue that a character is weak. We rank characters as the lowest level that is plausible by their feats. E.g. Saitama is High 6-A not because we think that's necessarily his precise tier, but because that the lowest level he could possibly be by his feats.

That's not necessarily true, though. We simply use the ratings that make the most sense for the given feats, which need not be the lowest possible ratings. I thought you would understand that, being a former(?) calc group member and all.

For a regular 3D being the lowest level they can plausibly be while interacting with the world around them is 10-C. For a healthy adult the lowest level they can plausibly be would be 10-B.
For a 2D or 1D character the lowest plausible level is Tier 11.
The characters in question would end up in the tiers on the profile just by not having any other feats.

What I said above also applies here, but I would like to add that defaulting lower-dimensional beings to tier 11 is equivalent to defaulting higher-dimensional beings to tier 2 or 1, which we threw out long ago with the tiering system revision. In fact, the OP even highlights the relevant part of the tiering system FAQ, which I'd say adequately addresses this point.

And, I mean, in general, we accept higher dimensions as signs of higher power if they are infinite or of significant size, being able to embed lower-dimensional universes and stuff. Regular 3D space meets those criteria in relation to 2D or lower spaces.

Again, this isn't always the case, and neither is it the assumption we default to whenever someone is mentioned as existing in more or less than three dimensions. I once again refer to the FAQ:

However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify.

Basically, we require evidence that higher-dimensional spaces are infinitely greater than lower-dimensional ones, whether that be in the form of embedding the lower dimension as a subset of itself or higher-dimensional existence being directly equated to a greater ontological status. If no such evidence exists, then we cannot say that being higher-dimensional confers qualitative superiority over lower-dimensional beings, whether that be 3-D relative to 2-D or 4-D relative to 3-D.

EDIT: To clarify this last point, extra spatial dimensions do not necessarily embed uncountably many lower-dimensional spaces into themselves because a higher-dimensional space need not exist as some kind of higher layer superimposed over a lower-dimensional one; it can just be a parallel universe whose overall mass is comparable to the universe with fewer dimensions. After all, mass and energy are scalar values, so there's no such thing as "3-D vs 4-D mass" as far as real world physics is concerned.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think about the preceding post in this thread, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's not necessarily true, though. We simply use the ratings that make the most sense for the given feats, which need not be the lowest possible ratings. I thought you would understand that, being a former(?) calc group member and all.

If you could present a feat for those characters which, if evaluated, would make more sense to be evaluated as 3D you would have a point. However, in lack of any such feats, they would be, like all characters, ranked as the lowest tier that makes sense. No 3D feat = No 3D rating, just as no Country level (or higher) feat would mean no country-level rating.

A two-dimensional character can be stronger than 2D given feats of such nature, but not without them.

And, as a calc group member (well, more or less. I'm involved in making all general rules), I can tell you that we do in fact tend to take always the lowest end, unless there the higher end is, for some reason, more likely/better (e.g. due to less steps in pixel scaling). It requires a concrete argument to be put forth why another end if better than the low-end, though. (IIRC Damage3245 did a thread confirming low-end usage relatively recently. I can find it if you want.)

What I said above also applies here, but I would like to add that defaulting lower-dimensional beings to tier 11 is equivalent to defaulting higher-dimensional beings to tier 2 or 1, which we threw out long ago with the tiering system revision. In fact, the OP even highlights the relevant part of the tiering system FAQ, which I'd say adequately addresses this point.

Wrong. Defaulting higher dimensional beings to Tier 1 would be faulty because that is a higher tier than they have feats for. Defaulting lower dimensional beings to Tier 11 is the opposite. It's defaulting them to the only tier they have feats for, as 2D beings interacting with their 2D world would at least have 2D feats.

Yes, as the tiering system FAQ says being of different dimensions can be both stronger or weaker and are usually judged by their feats. However, unless you can bring up any feats contradicting that the 2D thing interacting with the 2D world is 2D, ranking them as such is ranking them by their feats. (or their lack thereof)

Again, this isn't always the case, and neither is it the assumption we default to whenever someone is mentioned as existing in more or less than three dimensions. I once again refer to the FAQ:




Basically, we require evidence that higher-dimensional spaces are infinitely greater than lower-dimensional ones, whether that be in the form of embedding the lower dimension as a subset of itself or higher-dimensional existence being directly equated to a greater ontological status. If no such evidence exists, then we cannot say that being higher-dimensional confers qualitative superiority over lower-dimensional beings, whether that be 3-D relative to 2-D or 4-D relative to 3-D.

EDIT: To clarify this last point, extra spatial dimensions do not necessarily embed uncountably many lower-dimensional spaces into themselves because a higher-dimensional space need not exist as some kind of higher layer superimposed over a lower-dimensional one; it can just be a parallel universe whose overall mass is comparable to the universe with fewer dimensions. After all, mass and energy are scalar values, so there's no such thing as "3-D vs 4-D mass" as far as real world physics is concerned.

Real life physics is really not much of an argument here. If the 2D things had mass then, by real life physics, they should collapse into black holes due to having infinite density.

All evidence we demand is that the extra-dimensions are large, really. (or "full-sized" as the FAQ puts it) Anyway, we can check but I'm convinced nearly all those 2D verses are embedded into a larger 3D universe, which would mean they qualify exactly be the embedding criteria you mentioned.

Not that they don't qualify if not as, again, we don't speculate to higher rankings than shown by feats. The burden of proof is upon the one claiming the high rankings.

 

[QuasiYuri]

It's a huge double standard tho.

Higher D needs proof of R/F diff n stuff with the lower dimension, but lower Ds don't need the same kind of proof in relation to the higher dimension?

You either do both or neither, otherwise it's just bs.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk.

 

[Darksmash]

Real life physics is really not much of an argument here. If the 2D things had mass then, by real life physics, they should collapse into black holes due to having infinite density.

Not really? Mass is a more fundamental thing than density, and can simply be distributed over a 2D surface similar to 3D volume. You study the concept of 1 dimensional or 2 dimensional objects possessing mass all the time in high school physics.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Bump