• 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 Problems With Tier 0 (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is that there are entities that are completely unfathomable and qualitatively transcendent to regular 1-A characters.

I am fine with merging together tiers High 1-A and 0, but definitely not with getting rid of them altogether. It would leave the top tier completely undefined, pointless, and unappealing to our visitors.

I also don't have a problem with some more characters qualifying for it. You argued yourself for that it should not be defined as absolute and impossible to exceed.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I don't want anything above High 1-A / 0. That's my main point, it'll just start the problem all over again.
Click to expand...
Okay. My apologies. I thought that you and Azathoth suddenly wanted tier 1-A to be the highest in our wiki.
 
I was under the impression that this was literally "merge the two tiers", no?

The requirements should be the same as before.

Also, I don't have any strong opinion about keeping High 1-A or 0 as the name. It's not particularly relevant as long as the requirements for the tier itself are well explained
 
Okay. Agreed. Then we are all on the same page regarding that issue.
 
1) Artist and canvas

2) Conscious and unconscious forms of God

I see such options due to which the number of high 1-ðÉ for each verse can be limited.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
@Ant

I can assure you that's definitely not what I want.

I was expressing that if we just turn High 1-A into "1-A but better" (which Matt is also against), then it doesn't really have any reason to exist, as it is effectively just 1-A.

I believe this to be a bad thing.
Click to expand...
If High 1-A is "1-A but the top two from each verse" then we still have the problem we have right now of beings from 1-A being stronger than beings in a higher tier. I believe this to be a much worse thing than High 1-A being "1-A but strong".

A tiering system where a character from a lower tier is objectively stronger from every measurable statistic than a character in a higher tier is a bad tiering system in my opinion.
 
Not too sure about the proposal, but I do have one thing to say.


The fact that Tier 0 has the infamous omnipotence paradox unto itself is when you know we gonna have problems of proving it to be an omnipotent being. As stated earlier in Matt's OP, the contradictions is enough to the point we need to merge Tier 0 with Tier High 1-As or that we can remove the Tier 0. The former sound more appealing to me on a personal level.


However on the other hand, we can not prove nor can prove omnipotence exist solely on the fact we have no evidence of an omnipotent being. It is basically subjective at this point simply because lack of evidence as well as the fact as I mentioned earlier due to the omnipotence paradox centering on God (God as in from the Christianity one) that have created intense controversy in the first place.

Either way, I will stay neutral toward the proposal leaning toward agree with it as well at the very least.
 
Below is a very rough draft building on what Matthew suggested, just to get the discussion moving in a constructive direction again. Useful input would be very appreciated.

High 1-A: High Outerverse level

Characters that far exceed the requirements for Tier 1-A. Such characters will usually stand hierarchically above everything, including existence and nonexistence, possibility, causality, dualism and transdualism, the concepts of life and death, etcetera.

Take note that being infinitely superior to a regular 1-A character does not automatically make another character qualify for a High 1-A rating. The ones that do qualify should be so much higher than baseline 1-A characters that it can not be estimated or comprehended from their perspectives. That is, to even be considered for High 1-A, a character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed tier 10 or 11.

It is also important to note that such characters are not omnipotent, as such a concept isn't well suited for our tiering system (See the Omnipotence page for further explanations). High outerversal characters, although immeasurably powerful, can display minor weaknesses and limitations, and be rivaled or even surpassed by other beings within their respective verses.
 
High 1-A can obviously be replaced with 0 in the text if that is deemed more appropriate.
 
Okay. Thanks. Let's wait for Azathoth and DarkLK to give input as well.
 
Well, we solved the main problem? That is, there will be a limited number of such creatures for each verse or not?
 
"That is, to even be considered for High 1-A, a character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed tier 10 or 11."

I think this line is unnecessary. I mean, the difference from 10-C to 1-A, and High 1-B to 1-A are functionally the same.
 
Just reword it into "That is, to even be considered for High 1-A, a character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed characters bound by dimensions." Sounds more accurate.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I think this line is unnecessary. I mean, the difference from 10-C to 1-A, and High 1-B to 1-A are functionally the same.
Click to expand...
Yep. It is better to simply write that the difference between a dimensional object and beyond dimensional one. Or something like that.
 
Agnaa said:
If High 1-A is "1-A but the top two from each verse" then we still have the problem we have right now of beings from 1-A being stronger than beings in a higher tier. I believe this to be a much worse thing than High 1-A being "1-A but strong".

A tiering system where a character from a lower tier is objectively stronger from every measurable statistic than a character in a higher tier is a bad tiering system in my opinion.
Click to expand...
A 1-A shouldn't be stronger than a High 1-A, because ideas like "strength" have become completely irrelevant, at that point.

If a 1-A character is objectively stronger than something that is High 1-A (which, on its own, seems difficult to actually prove outside the confines of a single verse, but I get the idea), that is less a problem with the tier itself and more with some specific characters.

Because the general idea of "strength" is not really being applied here, High 1-A characters should have some sort of unique quality that makes them High 1-A.
 
I always felt like Tiers such as High 1-A and 0 were more signifying of their placement in the hierarchy of a single verse as opposed to being placed in a hierarchy that consists of every verse we catalog like other tiers.

After you get past dimensional boundries, there isn't much of a basis you can use to objectively call a character stronger as they already ascend past anything scientific theory can postulate, other than in-verse statements like "X character is stronger than Y character by this degree".
 
You actually can measure them from that point onwards.

Simply put how many times it´s done the High 1-A to 1-A thing to the character.

For example, A baseline High 1-A only trascends a baseline 1-A, or a group of 1-As that are comparable to each other (for example, Kami Tenchi).

An High 1-A above baseline High 1-A should trascend another High 1-A which trascends a 1-A, and so this continues like this.

What about infinite outerversal hierarchies, you may say? We simply count how many of those the character trascends, just like when we measure the power of 2-As infinitely above baseline.
 
That's not how High 1-A works right now, and I don't think we're changing it to be like that.

Degree of transcendence isn't really relevant for them, as what makes them that tier is more an idea than "this is how powerful they are".
 
I agree with Matt, and heavily disagree with Bob, no offense.

You can argue for that kind of heirarchy in a single verse, yes. However that's literally all it is, a heirarchy of power.

You can't compare that to the heirarchy of another verse as Outerversal characters are already beyond anything science can measure in regards to dimensions. Counting how many times a character transcends something is like counting how far ahead a 1-A is from a High 1-B, it's pointless.
 
How exaclty it´s pointless to count how far ahead a 1-A is from a High 1-B?

If we just go to the idea that they are "simply beyond measurements", then we´ll basically be going to the -1 tiering thing JBW often uses.

Why it the world we can´t just compare the trascendence levels? It´s like what we do in 1-B, after all, it´s like the difference between two baseline 1-As, there is no AP, or to be exact, stat gap between the two, it´s as simple as that.

Just like how we made an standart for Vs. threads about the tier gap, we can also make a standart with what I said when regarding Vs. threads with 1-A or abve stuff involved, at least.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
A 1-A shouldn't be stronger than a High 1-A, because ideas like "strength" have become completely irrelevant, at that point.

If a 1-A character is objectively stronger than something that is High 1-A (which, on its own, seems difficult to actually prove outside the confines of a single verse, but I get the idea), that is less a problem with the tier itself and more with some specific characters.

Because the general idea of "strength" is not really being applied here, High 1-A characters should have some sort of unique quality that makes them High 1-A.
Click to expand...
Ideas like "strength" aren't actually irrelevant at that point. This seems awfully close to saying that they're above tiering systems to me.

If you don't like the word "strength", then I could say what's being used in the tiering system is "Superiority" or "Size", and if a lower-tier character can affect constructs of a higher metaphysical analogue for size than a higher-tier character can that seems like a failure of the tiering system. How is this a problem with the characters themselves and not the tiering system?

@Dargoo There are definitely ways to compare hierarchies of Outerversal characters even though they're above physical sciences (as they're not really above mathematics, philosophy, and logic), but they'd be a departure from the rest of our tiering system which is based around dimensionality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpadeZ
Questions about tier 0
Replies
7
Views
656
SpadeZ
SpadeZ
Requiem_Yoriichi
Tier 0 Entities: Why is there only one?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Kev_Nino36U
Question about Tier 0/High 1-A
Replies
2
Views
1K
OMNIVERSAL-KING
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
Tiering System Revisions: Tier 0
5 6 7
Replies
251
Views
106K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top