• 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.

Tier 1 Review Thread 2

This thread's gathered dust, so let's check something-

The Above Entity doesn't seem to have a justification for the "possibly 1-A" bit, neither on its page or on the Solarverse page (she's just above a "At least Low 2-C, possibly far higher", as far as I can tell.)
 
Alice So is that just 1-A or 0 based on what you just said above

also Artemis

"Artemis has achieved her goal of ascending beyond godhood. She broke through the limitations and barriers that are set for every god no matter how powerful. She exists beyond all dimensions. Duality itself means nothing to her. She sees everything around her as fiction now. Artemis stands at the level of Chaos and Alice. Beings that are completely transcended and that are impossible to be understood remotely by even the most powerful gods"
 
Was it approved? I've been here for quite some time, and that Ruby wasn't Tier 1 until rather recently. If it was, I must've missed it-

At any rate, it couldn't hurt to go over it all again, for posterity. "How do dimensional cosmology and The Darkness function in the Cyverse?", "What is the context behind her fight against Blair as Ascended Warrior Blue Perfect?", etc.
 
I was planning on making the pages for Blair and co, but then I forgot you can make blog posts and cosmology and stuff. I'll be making that blog post that is long overdue now and then link it here. Only thing I can say right off the bat that most of the cosmology works very similary to what is seen in the Cthulhu Mythos, mostly due to the Cyverse being a combination of several things I like put into one. (Cthulhu Mythos, RWBY, Dragon Ball Metaseries, SCP Fandom being the four ones.)

Is there a time limit to making the blog posts for the Cosmology and etc?
 
And put the Cosmology on the Cyverse page. Which means that Arancia and Ruby both got updated a bit; the next few pages I'm making is the core concepts and the mechanics and bla bla bla. But yes, both Rubes and Arancia are now up for review now.
 
Edwardtruong2006 said:
I suppose I better use this thread for once

The Child Beyond Reality

Odiosis
Click to expand...
First one seems like a nice profile in the personality section, appearance shows some effort, but the profile really suffers from the lack of any kind of explanation of powers. The AP justification is fine, but nothing within powers and abilities (except creation) has any sort of explanation beyond types. Adding these and a notable attacks section would really improve the profile. As it stands, this is an OK profile and definitely isn't delete worthy.

The second profile does cover for what the first one has, except that this one still lacks a notable attacks section, however it gets its own problem from lacking appearance/personality sections. It's also an OK profile.
 
CrimsonSOng said:
So um, how about these guys: Radia, Malfegor, Omega (Shardsverse), Alpha (Shardsverse), Kinese, Chronos, Sychos. Is it okay for them to be in Tier 1?
Click to expand...
Most of these profiles have the same problems, so all of this applies to all of these profiles unless otherwise stated.

  1. Lack appearance/personality sections (except Radia)
  2. Lack notable attacks
  3. Redundant powerlisting powers.
  4. Kinese, Chronos, and Sychos don't really explain their powers (except on the abstract existence)
    • Even if it is obvious that soul immunity is through lacking a soul, you must justify it on every profile.
  5. Minor formatting errors such as bolding and spacing.
  6. Not necessarily a rule, but you should try to avoid using "at least" when you're in tier 1. This is due to the fact that it is very clear when you cross into another tier due to either the borders being very clear and fine, or in the case of High 1-B --> 1-A, it's from dimensions to the transcending stuff 1-A is.
These should be worked on, however, the AP justifications are good and the profiles are of good enough quality to not be deleted.
 
Drag-O-Drawgon said:
CrimsonSOng said:
So um, how about these guys: Radia, Malfegor, Omega (Shardsverse), Alpha (Shardsverse), Kinese, Chronos, Sychos. Is it okay for them to be in Tier 1?
Click to expand...
Most of these profiles have the same problems, so all of this applies to all of these profiles unless otherwise stated.
  1. Lack appearance/personality sections (except Radia)
  2. Lack notable attacks
  3. Redundant powerlisting powers.
  4. Kinese, Chronos, and Sychos don't really explain their powers (except on the abstract existence)
    • Even if it is obvious that soul immunity is through lacking a soul, you must justify it on every profile.
  5. Minor formatting errors such as bolding and spacing.
  6. Not necessarily a rule, but you should try to avoid using "at least" when you're in tier 1. This is due to the fact that it is very clear when you cross into another tier due to either the borders being very clear and fine, or in the case of High 1-B --> 1-A, it's from dimensions to the transcending stuff 1-A is.
These should be worked on, however, the AP justifications are good and the profiles are of good enough quality to not be deleted.
Click to expand...

Lacking notable attacks is a problem?? They are 1-A. Notable attacks aren't going to make a difference. In fact it'd be pretty odd for a 1-A to have a "Special move". Thats my two cents.
 
1-A doesn't make that true. The only time I can think of that logic working is with tier 0 characters. Treating a regular 1-A like this is a very easy way to make a Mary Sue. I did say they're not to the point of deletion, so if you really want to not do that, fine.

Redundant powerlisting powers are basically just banned from here due to redundancy. If there's something I'm gonna require, it's the removal of them. ok, I'm requiring this before I can give them the OK.
 
VelvetAngelzz said:
3 is nitpicky as well as 2. The idea of 1-A characters having notable attacks is silly
Click to expand...
Most characters have notable abilities. Flagg has Passive 1-A EE. That's pretty notable.
 
No they don't actually. Lots of people ignore that part. In any case a 1-A character having that is silly in actuality. They are supposed to be beyond the concepts, dimensions, duality itself. Matt said it himself and I don't get along with the guy "the idea of 1-A characters punching each other is rather silly"
 
VelvetAngelzz said:
No they don't actually. Lots of people ignore that part. In any case a 1-A character having that is silly in actuality. They are supposed to be beyond the concepts, dimensions, duality itself. Matt said it himself and I don't get along with the guy "the idea of 1-A characters punching each other is rather silly"
Click to expand...
The idea of most higher-dimensional characters punching eachother is rather silly.

The point is, abilities still need to explain things. Granted, at 1-A, these explanations become rather simple; "oh this EE is beyond blahblah and some concepts and whatever else 1-A justification", but they're still good to have.
 
VelvetAngelzz said:
I meant notable attacks and special moves not explaining the powers in powers and abilities. What kira said
Click to expand...
Usually, Notable Attacks is also used to explain any significant abilities they have.
 
So I just came here to let people know that our tiering system for Tier 1 will be changing soon.

However, where did 1-A's not having Notable Attacks and Techniques come from? It should be completely optional. You shouldn't have to have them, but you also have the right to legitimately have them (See Masadaverse). It's an artistic choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Colonel_Krukov
  • Sticky
Tier 1 & 0 Review Thread
5 6 7
Replies
255
Views
36K
CCMBROTTERFN
CCMBROTTERFN
Kev_Nino36U
Questions about Tier High 1-A+
Replies
1
Views
773
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Kev_Nino36U
Question about Tier 0/High 1-A
Replies
2
Views
933
OMNIVERSAL-KING
OMNIVERSAL-KING
NucleerChaos1922
Questions About the Tier System
Replies
3
Views
609
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Rule clarification for High 1-A+
Replies
11
Views
1K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
Back
Top