Tier 1 AP & Range Separation?

[Agnaa]

Oh sure, higher-dimensional melee fighters sound fine, but people were taking this in the other direction; saying that characters could have higher-D range for, say, being small 9-D aliens, without being able to affect the entirety of a higher-D space.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Oh sure, higher-dimensional melee fighters sound fine, but people were taking this in the other direction; saying that characters could have higher-D range for, say, being small 9-D aliens, without being able to affect the entirety of a higher-D space.

Yeah, but that's kinda the same, isn't it? Like, a 9-D alien might have really small range in the High D's, but so does the melee fighter. If the range they affect is the same, then they should get the same ranking, regardless whether the dimension beyond their range is large or not, no?

Of course, that line of thought would have as a consequence that Tier 1 Range characters don't necessarily have infinite 3D range, but that should be a given anyway.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd think that Interdimensional range would be more suitable in cases like that, if you can affect melee range across many layers of reality.

 

[OnsokunoSonic]

Please ignore this comment, I've looked back at it and damn.

 

[Greenshifter]

the character need to proof they're superior than the 4D universes in size and not just volume to gain the Low Complex Multiversal range.

Size = volume. Literally.

Anyways DT summed up my argument pretty well.

 

[OnsokunoSonic]

My bad, you can correct what I said if you feel like it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'd think that Interdimensional range would be more suitable in cases like that, if you can affect melee range across many layers of reality.

In that case we would probably need to revise range the other way around. Pretty sure many fighters don't have demonstrated infinite range on all levels

 

[Agnaa]

In that case we would probably need to revise range the other way around. Pretty sure many fighters don't have demonstrated infinite range on all levels

Yeah I think that's gonna be an issue or an inconsistency regardless. If we don't do anything, why would 4-D and 5-D range be treated differently? Being able to affect a small portion of 4-D space only gives interdimensional range, but doing the same for 5-D gives proper 5-D range?

EDIT: Double-checking the Range page's wording it gets a bit inconsistent. For 4-D it says "reach anywhere within", for 5-D to 11-D it's "reach throughout X-dimensional space", for most above that it's just "reach X-dimensional space/a certain hierarchy", with Low Outerversal bucking the trend with "reach through...".

 

[Sevil Natas]

i think revising range is the proper thing to do here.

just make sure that tier 1 ranges require being able to affect infinite or universal distances. and include affecting regular higher dimensional entities in interdimensional range to make it clearer. that's my suggestion here.

Edit: i forgot to mention an important detail. while affecting the entirety of a higher dimensional object is interdimensional. not everyone with interdimensional or higher could entirely affect the things with HDE. While yes they can cover more distance. they need to be able to move in the same axes of motion as the higher dimensional entity I.E they need to show feats of affecting higher dimensional entities of the same dimensionality or higher. if not then they'd only reach an infinitesimal slice of the object. just wanted to make this clear

 

[Everything12]

While I agree to the proposal. I do believe that we might have got sidetracked from the threads original purpose.

 

[Agnaa]

While I agree to the proposal. I do believe that we might have got sidetracked from the threads original purpose.

Yeah, now that you mention it, there is kind of a difference between "How much of a higher-D space do you need to affect to reach a range rating" and "Do higher-D spaces need to qualify under the tiering system for the purposes of range ratings".

But there is still a link between them; affecting a small portion of a, say, 1-C realm doesn't always (yet sometimes does) qualify you for 1-C, which may interact with our range standards.

 

[OnsokunoSonic]

While I agree to the proposal. I do believe that we might have got sidetracked from the threads original purpose.

It is true, but we're still on the topic here (which is range), and revising the range page seems more logical. Just like DT and Agnaa said.

 

[Greenshifter]

While I agree to the proposal. I do believe that we might have got sidetracked from the threads original purpose.

Not really, I argued what DT did and then Mav made a thread about it to clarify. So it can’t really be derailing.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

So have you reached any conclusions here already?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Basically, if you occupy 5 dimensions or affect a construct that is stated to be 5-dimensional, yet the dimensions in question are not stated to be a higher level of infinity or qualitatively superior, would you still receive Low Complex Multiversal Range?

Frankly, I'd rather not have anyone attempt to answer this question authoritatively, now that I look back at our Range page and realize how inconsistent and barebones it is. Regardless of what anyone thinks, the written standards on the matter are not clear at all, as shown by this, for example:

Universal+: Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within a single 4-dimensional space-time continuum.

No specification for the size that this spacetime continuum has to be at, something which, if applied straightforwardly, would mean being able to access all points in space across a time interval of, say, two seconds, would be enough to get you Universal+ range (And that's not even getting into the fact that it neglects cases where all four dimensions are spatial). The same applies to all other higher ratings: They largely just say "Attacks and abilities able to reach throughout n-dimensional space," without specifying the size of those spaces, and it gets even worse at Hyperversal and up, which just list "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach 12/infinite/uncountably infinite-dimensional space and above."

As for my take on what the standards should be: I'll admit I am a bit split, in that regard. Firstly, it should be noted that, even if a higher-dimensional being is finitely powerful, it will naturally always have infinitely more volume than a lower-dimensional one, being itself comprised of infinitely-many cross-sections of one dimension lower, and so by that token, one could argue that being able to affect (Or occupying) every point of a higher-dimensional volume would be equivalent to infinite range.

However, on the other hand, it should be intuitively obvious that a higher-dimensional being might not necessarily be able to affect all points of a lower-dimensional space, even if the latter has 0 volume compared to them, because the numerical values that they themselves have may differ heavily. For example, imagine a board that extends infinitely in the x-axis and the y-axis, but has no extension in the z-axis, and is thus a 2-dimensional plane; even if you, as a 3-dimensional being, have infinite volume compared to it, I don't think you'd claim to be able to reach through the entire board at once (Unless you're on some serious drugs, of course).

So, given that, you could end up just giving Interdimensional range to such beings (Higher-dimensional "melee fighters," as it were), like DontTalk and Agnaa discussed above.

What the other ways are concerned: There are definitely ways to get there without statements of qualitative superiority.
I'm not sure about the 3. requirement, though...
For 1. we actually don't demand infinity, but only proof of significant size (i.e. it should not be rolled up quantum mechanics stuff). That much was confirmed in the ToAru revisions after the system change, where it was checked whether they should stay tier 1.

Honestly I think confusion in that regard is largely on us. To once again quote the Tiering System 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.

As you may notice, we don't really make it at all clear what a dimension being "fully-sized" means, and this ambiguity may prove very problematic for us. You can interpret it as being anything from "infinite" (Like R itself is) to "as large as our observable universe."

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, Ultima.

I would appreciate further input here from @DontTalkDT , @Agnaa , and @KingPin0422 .

 

[Agnaa]

I largely agree with Ultima;

• Current range page is barebones.
• I'd prefer giving interdimensional range to higher-dimensional characters whose attacks can't reach a universal distance.
• The Tiering System FAQ page also has some misleading wording that should be cleared up.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Ultima;

• Current range page is barebones.
• I'd prefer giving interdimensional range to higher-dimensional characters whose attacks can't reach a universal distance.
• The Tiering System FAQ page also has some misleading wording that should be cleared up.

Okay. I suppose that you, Ultima, and some of our other knowledgeable members will have to discuss how we can best solve the problems then.

@DontTalkDT @First_Witch @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @QuasiYuri @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12 @RatherClueless

 

[PrinceofPein]

I largely agree with Ultima;

• Current range page is barebones.

Well we can add more to it especially the Universal+ range, we have characters gaining this just from destroying a universe.
There should be a note that it’s for characters that their range can extend to any point in time, but this again would need to be clarified further so we don’t grant everyone with immeasurable speed universal+ range.

• I'd prefer giving interdimensional range to higher-dimensional characters whose attacks can't reach a universal distance.

Agreed, it should not be a range feat but something similar to hax else we would be giving anyone who can open a portal to another dimension similar ranges.
Although the example is bad but I can’t find something better.

The Tiering System FAQ page also has some misleading wording that should be cleared up.

Which part of it?
Like there are a lot of it that needs to be cleared up but which is particular to this thread?

 

[First_Witch]

For what exactly do you require my assistance for?

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Ultima;

• Current range page is barebones.
• I'd prefer giving interdimensional range to higher-dimensional characters whose attacks can't reach a universal distance.
• The Tiering System FAQ page also has some misleading wording that should be cleared up.

Apparently input regarding what was mentioned above.

 

[First_Witch]

Well, if we have concrete proposals I would be able to give my opinions on them. Not knowledgeable enough to propose sweeping changes myself

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if we have concrete proposals I would be able to give my opinions on them. Not knowledgeable enough to propose sweeping changes myself

Okay. Can somebody here help out with explanations in that regard please?

 

[Sevil Natas]

As for my take on what the standards should be: I'll admit I am a bit split, in that regard. Firstly, it should be noted that, even if a higher-dimensional being is finitely powerful, it will naturally always have infinitely more volume than a lower-dimensional one, being itself comprised of infinitely-many cross-sections of one dimension lower, and so by that token, one could argue that being able to affect (Or occupying) every point of a higher-dimensional volume would be equivalent to infinite range.

it's infinite relative to the lower-dimensional being cus the higher one occupies infinitely many more slices of space than it. but objectively speaking. it's distance could still be finite.

 

[Agnaa]

Universal+ to Multiversal+ seem fine.

Interdimensional is technically fine, I'd need to ask people who had the impression that small higher-D range doesn't fall under it to explain why.

The higher ranges mostly just need "throughout" changed to "anywhere within".

Hyperversal should be more like "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within 12-dimensional or above space, without reaching through an infinite number of dimensions."

I'd change High Hyperversal to "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within an infinite number of dimensions of space and/or time."

For the rest it's still mostly just adding in "anywhere within".

For the parts of the Q&A that may need further attention...

The "Q: When are higher dimensions not viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?" section gave Greenshifter and Sevil Natas the impression that mass or qualitative superiority is the only important thing; that an attack could affect all of a Low 1-C construct without being Low 1-C, which goes against our standards. I'm not sure how to reword this section to rectify this.

The "Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?" section doesn't make it clear what a dimension being "fully-sized" means, which makes our standards unclear. Given what I believe the current standards are, "be fully-sized in order to qualify" should probably be changed to something like "be at least as large as the observable universe in order to qualify".

Also, I'm not sure where, but with that last change, we'd probably want a note somewhere that in those cases, a character would have to affect the entirety of that fully-sized dimension in order to qualify. I'm not sure what sort of wording to give to this; my only ideas are overly clunky and don't distinguish between "Affected the entirety of 6-D and ignored all other dimensions", "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D, 4-D, 3-D, 2-D, and 1-D, and that's all that exists", and "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D... when 7-D and 8-D also exist", while a distinction does need to be drawn; the first wouldn't qualify, and the second and third would qualify and would reach the same tier.

 

[Antvasima]

Universal+ to Multiversal+ seem fine.

Interdimensional is technically fine, I'd need to ask people who had the impression that small higher-D range doesn't fall under it to explain why.

The higher ranges mostly just need "throughout" changed to "anywhere within".

Hyperversal should be more like "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within 12-dimensional or above space, without reaching through an infinite number of dimensions."

I'd change High Hyperversal to "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within an infinite number of dimensions of space and/or time."

For the rest it's still mostly just adding in "anywhere within".

For the parts of the Q&A that may need further attention...

The "Q: When are higher dimensions not viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?" section gave Greenshifter and Sevil Natas the impression that mass or qualitative superiority is the only important thing; that an attack could affect all of a Low 1-C construct without being Low 1-C, which goes against our standards. I'm not sure how to reword this section to rectify this.

The "Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?" section doesn't make it clear what a dimension being "fully-sized" means, which makes our standards unclear. Given what I believe the current standards are, "be fully-sized in order to qualify" should probably be changed to something like "be at least as large as the observable universe in order to qualify".

Also, I'm not sure where, but with that last change, we'd probably want a note somewhere that in those cases, a character would have to affect the entirety of that fully-sized dimension in order to qualify. I'm not sure what sort of wording to give to this; my only ideas are overly clunky and don't distinguish between "Affected the entirety of 6-D and ignored all other dimensions", "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D, 4-D, 3-D, 2-D, and 1-D, and that's all that exists", and "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D... when 7-D and 8-D also exist", while a distinction does need to be drawn; the first wouldn't qualify, and the second and third would qualify and would reach the same tier.

Thank you for helping out.

What do you think, @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality ?

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, on top of what I've already said, I'd hope that there's a better word to use than "dimension", maybe something more like the Tiering System page, such as "Reach anywhere within realms with a size equivalent to X-dimensional real coordinate spaces".

 

[Antvasima]

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[KingPin0422]

So, here are my thoughts:

• Interdimensional Range should be adjusted to something like: "Can reach into higher-dimensional spaces, but these higher dimensions are not proven to be inherently superior to lower dimensions and the character/attack/ability can only cover a finite amount of distance in these higher dimensions."
• Universal+ Range should probably be looked into as well. Not only does it ignore the possibility of the fourth dimension being spatial, but even under its current definition, its existence excludes characters who can only reach into the past/future up to a certain interval or to a certain point in the past/future.
• LCM Range and up can follow Agnaa's suggestions.
• The "fully-sized" part of the FAQ mentioned above should be changed to "extend infinitely in all directions." I have never seen Aeyu, Ultima, or anyone else seriously treat "as large as the observable universe's diameter" as the benchmark for extra spatial dimensions being valid for tiering, only "infinitely large" - and even then, I don't think even that should be enough, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm pretty sure I've seen Aeyu and Ultima take that idea seriously in the past, but idk if they agree with it now. The idea is that it needs to both be as large as the observable universe's diameter, and the feat must encompass all of the size in all dimensions that exist in the verse (punching an observable-universe sized hole in 6-D space doesn't count, but destroying the entirety of a 6-D universe would).

And I'm not a huge fan of your suggestion on interdimensional range, since by use of the "and" it doesn't include "higher-dimensional melee fighters".

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, interdimensional range is simply intended to mean the ability to either teleport or shoot energy beams from one universe to another, and similar. I do not think that it needs to be adjusted.

 

[Sevil Natas]

Interdimensional Range should be adjusted to something like: "Can reach into higher-dimensional spaces, but these higher dimensions are not proven to be inherently superior to lower dimensions and the character/attack/ability can only cover a finite amount of distance in these higher dimensions."

I don't really get why we need the "are not proven to be inherently superior to lower dimensions" part since affecting a higher dimensional entity that is superior to lower-dimensional ones does not inherently mean that the higher dimensional entity is bigger than those who don't have such superiority. you need to demonstrate being able to affect an HD realm with infinite or universal distance. a realm with an established superiority over lower dimensions does not inherently have that.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @KingPin0422 @Pain_to12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Everything12 @Confluctor

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Universal+ to Multiversal+ seem fine.

Interdimensional is technically fine, I'd need to ask people who had the impression that small higher-D range doesn't fall under it to explain why.

The higher ranges mostly just need "throughout" changed to "anywhere within".

Hyperversal should be more like "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within 12-dimensional or above space, without reaching through an infinite number of dimensions."

I'd change High Hyperversal to "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within an infinite number of dimensions of space and/or time."

For the rest it's still mostly just adding in "anywhere within".

For the parts of the Q&A that may need further attention...

The "Q: When are higher dimensions not viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?" section gave Greenshifter and Sevil Natas the impression that mass or qualitative superiority is the only important thing; that an attack could affect all of a Low 1-C construct without being Low 1-C, which goes against our standards. I'm not sure how to reword this section to rectify this.

The "Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?" section doesn't make it clear what a dimension being "fully-sized" means, which makes our standards unclear. Given what I believe the current standards are, "be fully-sized in order to qualify" should probably be changed to something like "be at least as large as the observable universe in order to qualify".

Also, I'm not sure where, but with that last change, we'd probably want a note somewhere that in those cases, a character would have to affect the entirety of that fully-sized dimension in order to qualify. I'm not sure what sort of wording to give to this; my only ideas are overly clunky and don't distinguish between "Affected the entirety of 6-D and ignored all other dimensions", "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D, 4-D, 3-D, 2-D, and 1-D, and that's all that exists", and "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D... when 7-D and 8-D also exist", while a distinction does need to be drawn; the first wouldn't qualify, and the second and third would qualify and would reach the same tier.

I agree with Agnaa’s post here
So if there are more agreement, the changes can be applied

 

[Antvasima]

Universal+ to Multiversal+ seem fine.

Interdimensional is technically fine, I'd need to ask people who had the impression that small higher-D range doesn't fall under it to explain why.

The higher ranges mostly just need "throughout" changed to "anywhere within".

Hyperversal should be more like "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within 12-dimensional or above space, without reaching through an infinite number of dimensions."

I'd change High Hyperversal to "Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within an infinite number of dimensions of space and/or time."

For the rest it's still mostly just adding in "anywhere within".

For the parts of the Q&A that may need further attention...

The "Q: When are higher dimensions not viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?" section gave Greenshifter and Sevil Natas the impression that mass or qualitative superiority is the only important thing; that an attack could affect all of a Low 1-C construct without being Low 1-C, which goes against our standards. I'm not sure how to reword this section to rectify this.

The "Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?" section doesn't make it clear what a dimension being "fully-sized" means, which makes our standards unclear. Given what I believe the current standards are, "be fully-sized in order to qualify" should probably be changed to something like "be at least as large as the observable universe in order to qualify".

Also, I'm not sure where, but with that last change, we'd probably want a note somewhere that in those cases, a character would have to affect the entirety of that fully-sized dimension in order to qualify. I'm not sure what sort of wording to give to this; my only ideas are overly clunky and don't distinguish between "Affected the entirety of 6-D and ignored all other dimensions", "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D, 4-D, 3-D, 2-D, and 1-D, and that's all that exists", and "Affected the entirety of 6-D, 5-D... when 7-D and 8-D also exist", while a distinction does need to be drawn; the first wouldn't qualify, and the second and third would qualify and would reach the same tier.

I agree with Agnaa’s post here
So if there are more agreement, the changes can be applied

I would much prefer input from @DontTalkDT first.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What do you think that we should do here?

For the updates to the Range page, my suggestions are pretty much the same as Agnaa's. Although I'd also elaborate a bit on two ratings:

Universal+: Attacks and abilities that are able to reach anywhere within an infinitely large 4-dimensional space.

Interdimensional: Attacks and abilities that can reach beyond the conventional space-time of a single universe, such as into external pocket realities or parts of other universes, but that may not necessarily travel a universal distance. Affecting and/or operating within finitely-large higher-dimensional spaces also falls under this label.

For the others...

The "Q: When are higher dimensions not viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?" section gave Greenshifter and Sevil Natas the impression that mass or qualitative superiority is the only important thing; that an attack could affect all of a Low 1-C construct without being Low 1-C, which goes against our standards. I'm not sure how to reword this section to rectify this.

Can you elaborate more on the issue here? Of course, Greenshifter and Sevil can do the same if they like.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality

Thank you for helping out.

Can you explain your reasoning for the following addition please?

"Affecting and/or operating within finitely-large higher-dimensional spaces also falls under this label."

@DontTalkDT

Your further help would also be appreciated here.

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh, it seems that Ultima only wants to consider infinitely-large spatial dimensions as, by default, being able to qualify for larger tiers; not just universe-sized ones.

Can you elaborate more on the issue here? Of course, Greenshifter and Sevil can do the same if they like.

I think they took the statements about "higher-dimensional beings" as applying to higher dimensions in general, interpreting that as meaning that to qualify for tier 2 or above you are required to have statements of infinite superiority. You can see this in some stuff they said...

To sum it up mass is an undimensioned property and as such you need the superiority stuff to get tier 1 AP. So it's perfectly possible for say an omnidirectional attack to have the same range as an attack that's Low 1-C in AP without actually being Low 1-C in AP for the former.

the Q&A seems to imply that volume can be infinitely bigger but what really matters is the mass in said volume to actually qualify for tier 2 or 1.

TL DR: being higher dimensional would grant you infinitely more Volume than lower dimensions. but that does not necessarily translate into infinitely more mass or energy. thus you would not qualify for tier 1 AP unless you prove superiority over other dimensions. that's why you need to prove qualitative superiority to begin with. this is what the pages say. if anybody has a problem with it then go make a CRT to change it

I'm not quite sure how to rectify this impression.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let me say that after the last Tiering Revision the agreed about standard was that evidence of non-insignificant size for dimensions being enough for higher tiers.
To quote:

I don't actually mind To Aru remaining High 1-C, after giving a read to some of the excerpts in the blog. The Universe in which the series takes place is pretty clearly 11-dimensional, and as far as I see this is enough for one to qualify for High 1-C, as the dimensions in this case don't seem to be insignificantly-sized and assuming so is sorta the epitome of nitpicking, even if they are described a bit vaguely. I may change my mind on this topic later on, but as of now, this is my stance on it.

So, few hundred meters is non-insignificant now?

Just asking for general purposes.

Is there a particular reason to assume they only extend this far, though?

No, though there isn't a particular reason to assume the opposite either.

So do we default to assuming that dimensions not on the microscopic scale are universe sized?

@DontTalk

Well, unless the dimensions in question are described super vaguely and aren't too elaborated upon, it could be something along those lines, yes. For instance, if a Universe is described as higher-dimensional and the dimensions themselves are not compactified, I don't see much ground to assume the whole thing is so small in relation to its additional axes.

That's the standard we are currently applying.

Personally, I also think it is a reasonable standard. The point of excluding certain dimensions was to not include dimension mentions without any context and not to include random string theory stuff that isn't meant as "proper" higher dimensional spaces (i.e. microscopic dimensions that exists only as technicality rather than an expanse one could properly move around in).

I think the standard we have sufficiently does so and am not in favour of making it more restrictive now, for no reason.

---

What the original topic of the thread is concerned, I have to say that separating how far one can attack and how many dimensions one can attack in would be the cleanest solution.


If that is too much work, I suppose throwing all Tier 1 range characters that don't have infinite range in all those dimensions into Interdimensional works as well.