-
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)
- Thread starter Matthew_Schroeder
- Start date
- Status
- 30,487
- 32,399
I agree with the removal of Tier 0.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Guys.
Just keep Tier Zero and redefine it to what Matt's proposing while removing High 1-A.
We keep a huge part of the site's history, the logical inconsistency is solved, and all we lose is a subtler.
It's purely cosmetic, so I see no reason this should be opposed beyond personal preference.
Just keep Tier Zero and redefine it to what Matt's proposing while removing High 1-A.
We keep a huge part of the site's history, the logical inconsistency is solved, and all we lose is a subtler.
It's purely cosmetic, so I see no reason this should be opposed beyond personal preference.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I'll say it again: we don't have to trash Tier 0 for anything other than cosmetic reasons. If we remove High 1-A and redefine Tier 0 we get the exact same result.
- 610
- 164
Why is Tier 0 so important to keep anyway?
- 2,031
- 988
It seems fine to me....
- 165,921
- 73,634
@EvilMegaCookie
Our visitors like when we keep our tiers easy to overview with the wiki navigation bar links, and it sounds a lot better.
The problem is that it tricks our visitors into thinking that the characters within it are absolute and cannot be exceeded.
Our visitors like when we keep our tiers easy to overview with the wiki navigation bar links, and it sounds a lot better.
The problem is that it tricks our visitors into thinking that the characters within it are absolute and cannot be exceeded.
- 30,487
- 32,399
I still personally prefer High 1-A over Tier 0 to describe High Outerverse level characters. 0 isn't technically a number that's used on tiering lists and #1 is technically the general term to describe, the best. So by definition, Tier 0 isn't that much different than let's say Tier -1; (obviously that's never coming back). I'm fine either way, just stating my opinion. And the obvious agreement is that no one's truly Omnipotent regardless.
- 15,636
- 5,391
However, we have been using 0 to signify the absolute highest on the site for a rather long time. Since our new definition for High Outerverse level would be at the top of the proverbial totem pole, it would make more sense to me to just shift that to Tier 0.DarkDragonMedeus said:
For one, we would have a category dedicated to this tier as opposed to it being looped into the Tier 1 category, and would give the tier much more distinction, as it wouldn't be a sub part of Tier 1, but it's own thing, representing the strongest characters on the site.
Otherwise it's just blended into the rest of Tier 1 and wouldn't hold that much of a special place on the site until you read the fine text. And that's boring, and unappealing to me.
We should merge up to Tier 0 to keep what we see as the most powerful characters in fiction under a unique label. Otherwise we either blend it into Tier 1 with categories or we start doing subtier categories, which is something nobody here wants.
Seeing a special number to indicate the best of the best is appealing to new users. One of the first things I did here was read through Tier 0, and it got me interested in reading through the site.
Let's change the definition if it's wrong, but keep the label. It means more than a number on a page to a lot here.
But if more people want to throw that away to be numerically consistent, sure.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I also think the desision to call High Outerverse level Tier High 1-A or Tier 0 should be left to a community vote. It poses no difference to the definition changes, and since it's entirely based on personal opinion the vast majority of the site should have some say.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Non-staff: Stop commenting unless it's absolutely necessary. I feel like we should just start removing any nonstaff comments from the thread at this point.
- 15,196
- 9,606
Agree with everything here
id keep tier High 1-A IMO
id keep tier High 1-A IMO
- 15,636
- 5,391
I don't see how it's confusing.
It's literally just a number.
It's called exactly the same, defined exactly the same. I'm just saying to separate it by a number and a category to make it special and interesting.
But as I've said, if more people want to lump it into Tier 1 for sake of nothing but personal preference, whatever.
It's literally just a number.
It's called exactly the same, defined exactly the same. I'm just saying to separate it by a number and a category to make it special and interesting.
But as I've said, if more people want to lump it into Tier 1 for sake of nothing but personal preference, whatever.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I'll post a poll when I get back to my place.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Uh, you're fine. To be completely honest I didn't notice what even happened for like five minutes.
- 6,104
- 5,102
Besides, so far, you guys are just redesigning Tier 0, not truly getting rid of it. So I disagree with DarkLK that calling it 0 will make it seem like a completely different tier because that's exactly what everyone is doing anyway. Matt's suggestion basically even stated it was essentially for "supreme beings" above 1-As. That's literally the defintion of Tier 0 without the questionable omnipotence and differentiation from High 1-A, but it's the same "Almighty God" nonsense.
My suggestion is to remove that definition entirely since it's no different than omnipotence, and we just need a simplified definition of High 1-As/0s without that. I'm sorry but we've evolved as a wiki beyond the necessity for "omnipotent characters" in any form. They do not exist, or exist in such a small number it makes little sense to pay them any attention simply because visitors like omnipotents.
My suggestion is to remove that definition entirely since it's no different than omnipotence, and we just need a simplified definition of High 1-As/0s without that. I'm sorry but we've evolved as a wiki beyond the necessity for "omnipotent characters" in any form. They do not exist, or exist in such a small number it makes little sense to pay them any attention simply because visitors like omnipotents.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Here is what I have in mind for the community poll. Should I highlight it as well, as it seems we're fine with the definition changes regardless?
- 32,344
- 20,269
- Thread starter
- #148
I agree with Sera about omnipotents.
- 15,636
- 5,391
0 is a number.Chartate101 said:
What definition is attached to it is what matters. If anything, making it called Tier 0 is much more beneficial, as you'd be able to assign the pages a unique category.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Poll is up: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2374147
- 6,594
- 1,707
So out of curiocity, will the FC/OC Vs Battles Wiki also follow through on these changes when they are installed here?
- 15,111
- 12,959
@Read A High 1-A could not damage a truly boundless being, but it's impossible to prove true boundlessness, and claims of true boundlessness are NLF, so we go by the hierarchy below them, and by that metric some High 1-As are stronger than current 0s.
An omnipotent can exist in fiction as much as a character who could defeat anything in one punch could; it could exist but it's NLF and impossible to prove.
"Nigh omnipotence" doesn't make sense, it's not like omniscience or omnipresence.
An omnipotent can exist in fiction as much as a character who could defeat anything in one punch could; it could exist but it's NLF and impossible to prove.
"Nigh omnipotence" doesn't make sense, it's not like omniscience or omnipresence.
- 15,636
- 5,391
Keep in mind that what we label the new definition is entirely subjective and it's just the definition that has meaningful inpact.
- 15,111
- 12,959
The thing is. An author could prove someone omnipotent in their own verse.
They can't prove it, they can only state it. There is no evidence within the text they can provide to demonstrate omnipotence, they can only claim it.
High 1-A is basically saying they are boundless, but also not boundless. or saying they are at the absolute maximum any character can reach/truly infinite. But that also requires nlf and assumptions. Along with the fact that their are sometimes characters on greater levels than them. The idea that someone can be limitless but not omnipotent just doesnt make sense.
High 1-A is not saying they're boundless. The example definition given for the new High 1-A only includes boundless in quotes to show that they're not actually boundless.
And the main issue is that people are given high 1-A seemingly for no real justified reason. For example. If we take the overvoid from dc, its best level of transcendence is a few degrees above baseline 1-A. Yet the gods of the masadaverse show tens of levels of transcendence and they are ranked below the overvoid simply because of the way the overvoid transcends normal 1-A. There is no true requirement for high 1-A other than looking supreme and all powerful.
Not all transcendence is equal. Being stronger than someone is transcendence, and so is seeing them as fiction, and so is seeing them as an ant, but all these types of transcendence mean different things for their power. High 1-A does have a real justified reason, see a 1-A as a 1-A sees a tier 11.
On top of that, many of the high 1-A and tier 0 wouldnt even have their ratings if the 1-A beings didnt exist within their own verse. Really it is just a way of trying to quantify 1-A which is my main concer
Well, they technically could exist without 1-A beings if there were instead 1-A constructs that they perceived as those 1-A constructs perceive tier 11 constructs, but that's kinda semantics. All of the tiering system requires transcending things. A character can't be planet level if no planets exist in the verse to destroy.
They can't prove it, they can only state it. There is no evidence within the text they can provide to demonstrate omnipotence, they can only claim it.
High 1-A is basically saying they are boundless, but also not boundless. or saying they are at the absolute maximum any character can reach/truly infinite. But that also requires nlf and assumptions. Along with the fact that their are sometimes characters on greater levels than them. The idea that someone can be limitless but not omnipotent just doesnt make sense.
High 1-A is not saying they're boundless. The example definition given for the new High 1-A only includes boundless in quotes to show that they're not actually boundless.
And the main issue is that people are given high 1-A seemingly for no real justified reason. For example. If we take the overvoid from dc, its best level of transcendence is a few degrees above baseline 1-A. Yet the gods of the masadaverse show tens of levels of transcendence and they are ranked below the overvoid simply because of the way the overvoid transcends normal 1-A. There is no true requirement for high 1-A other than looking supreme and all powerful.
Not all transcendence is equal. Being stronger than someone is transcendence, and so is seeing them as fiction, and so is seeing them as an ant, but all these types of transcendence mean different things for their power. High 1-A does have a real justified reason, see a 1-A as a 1-A sees a tier 11.
On top of that, many of the high 1-A and tier 0 wouldnt even have their ratings if the 1-A beings didnt exist within their own verse. Really it is just a way of trying to quantify 1-A which is my main concer
Well, they technically could exist without 1-A beings if there were instead 1-A constructs that they perceived as those 1-A constructs perceive tier 11 constructs, but that's kinda semantics. All of the tiering system requires transcending things. A character can't be planet level if no planets exist in the verse to destroy.
- 1,459
- 248
I suggest keeping the omnipotence page and have it be our rationale for not using it as an ability on profiles. Maybe rename it to "VSBW's Stance on Omnipotence" or something similar
- 32,344
- 20,269
- Thread starter
- #158
Yes, we most definitely aren't.
It seems most normal users want Tier 0, no surprise given the appeal of the page, but most staff members want to go for High 1-A as the set limit.
I personally favor the later, as there are very good reasons to remove Tier 0 as an idea. Namely, the fact that it gives users the false impression that it is a transcendent and unreachable Tier separate from the rest, as DarkLK pointed out before.
It seems most normal users want Tier 0, no surprise given the appeal of the page, but most staff members want to go for High 1-A as the set limit.
I personally favor the later, as there are very good reasons to remove Tier 0 as an idea. Namely, the fact that it gives users the false impression that it is a transcendent and unreachable Tier separate from the rest, as DarkLK pointed out before.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I'm not sure if you can see who voted on there so I might be wrong, but Myself, Andy, Nedge, Sera, and Monarch outright agreed to it. Granted I'm not entirely sure exactly which staff disagreed with it as there was a lot who commented before I brought my idea up and then didn't comment again.Matthew Schroeder said:
I... don't understand how it could give users a false impression of the tier. If it's called High Outerversal, if it's described like you did here, and if it needs to be justified like it was outlined here, to put in your own words it's a "cosmetic difference". Even then, given that matches between them aren't even allowed and it would only take a couple of seconds of reading to get the jist of them not being true omnipotents or "questionable" omnipotents, I don't see any major consequences.
The only difference I could see is the perceived importance of the Tier, and I think what we consider as among most powerful on the wiki seems like a pretty important distinction.
And there are plenty of benefits too. Organization-wise, we'd have all the High Outerversals in one seperate tier that has its own category, which makes it easier to browse through and acess them instead of wading through the massive list of Tier 1s. And no, the majority of users won't use the quotation search trick.
- 165,921
- 73,634
@TitanCrusher101
For gawd's sake, immediately stop spamming and derailing this important thread. You are not allowed to respond here in the first place.
@Matthew
What do you think? Would renaming tier 0 to High Outerverse level and adding your clarifications be enough to avoid most misunderstandings of the characters within it as absolute?
For gawd's sake, immediately stop spamming and derailing this important thread. You are not allowed to respond here in the first place.
@Matthew
What do you think? Would renaming tier 0 to High Outerverse level and adding your clarifications be enough to avoid most misunderstandings of the characters within it as absolute?
- Status
