Tier 10 level names

[Skalt711]

Hmmm, so, do I have permission to do the change?

 

[Antvasima]

Let's wait for the other staff members to agree first.

 

[Skalt711]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Overlord Your point? We call 5-B Planet level, the tier below it Small Planet level and the tier above it Large Planet level. Calling 10-B Human level and the tiers around it being <synonym for inferior> human level and <word for an above average human> level would be consistent with that

Saying 10-B should be "average human level" to clarify what kind of human we're referring to is the same as saying 5-B should be "Earth level" to clarify what kind of planet we're referring to

 

[Antvasima]

@Andytrenom

So you think that we should keep Human level as a description?

I personally don't think that the term is confusing when taken in context.

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah, I think we should. Human level sounds better, is used more often and doesn't create the kind of confusion it's being claimed to create

 

[Antvasima]

@Andy

Okay. I agree with you about that point.

 

[Skalt711]

@Andytrenom

Average Human level looks and sounds better, harmonious towards Below Average Human level and Athlete level when placed in between them, makes more at least logical sense, concretizes its original meaning: "A definition for an average, ordinal human", and is overall more elegant.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Skalt Which one is used more often? I won't debate what sounds better since that's obviously subjective

 

[Skalt711]

Human level seems to be the most common variation for Tier 10.

It may be subjective, but that's exactly why we take time to choose the best name for the Tier 10 names. We choose them not only for the personal interests, but for the interests of foreign people as well, as well as for the sake of accuracy and objectivity.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I need to point out that Building level is the power required to blow up a building, with Planet level being the energy required to disperse the GBE of the planet. So by that logic, Human level could be misinterpreted as energy required to completely destroy a human body, which would be Wall level.

Average Human level is not the same thing as "Earth level". Earth is a very specific name for a specific planet. If someone said "Insert name of a famous Olympic Athlete here" level for 9-C, that would be an example of what Earth level would mean. Earth is what we consider the average size for planet, even though Earth is technically below average for planet sizes.

Anyway, I agree with Skalt's proposal regarding the Tier 10 names. Below Average Human level for 10-C, Average Human level for 10-B and Athlete level for 10-A.

 

[Andytrenom]

Being a specific name isn't the point, the point is that you can name a tier after something that varies in size, strength or other paramaters without needing to specify you are talking about averages or specific planets in the name itself.

Also I guarantee you that no one is going to misinterpret the tier as being able to destroy a human completely

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't mind Human level too much, and agree it's better than Average level, but I still prefer Average Human level for those reasons.

 

[Andytrenom]

But it's less widespread and even if average human level is better, the difference between the two isn't so much that the extra effort would be justified

 

[Skalt711]

Skalt's checking in.

The use of the name isn't much about its popularity, but rather its objectivity, flexibility, accuracy and easiness.

 

[Andytrenom]

You are speaking as if I'm only considering that one factor, Human level makes sense considering the rest of the system and isn't at all as likely to create confusion as it being made out to be, and because it is usable as a name considering important factors, the current popularity cam be used to tip the scale between it and the other option in its favour

 

[Skalt711]

Both '''Average Human level''' and '''Human level''' don't cause any confusion at all.

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah, and that's one of the reason why I don't feel there's reason to do more work and pick Average Human lev over Human level

 

[Skalt711]

Still, Human level sounds too generic-ish.

 

[Andytrenom]

What kind of justification is that?

 

[Skalt711]

For Dark's reasons

 

[Andytrenom]

I think I have addressed most of that comment

 

[Imaginym]

For what it's worth, I also think Average Human Level is better. Just "Human Level" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. As said, humans range from 10-C to 9-C, & destroying them can be 9-B.

Unlike all the other tiers, where the name has an inanimate object in it for which we can assume standardized measurements, humans are a species, & have great variation among their strongest & their weakest.

And no, we don't specify "Average Building Level", but we do have tiers like Small or Large Building Level which imply that it's an Average sized building. Similar, there's stuff like Small City & Large Mountain Level.

We shouldn't give up objectivity, accuracy & clarity of meaning just because it sounds better. If we did, why not replace official terms with slang that sounds nice & conveys similar enough meaning?

 

[Skalt711]

^ Awesome arguments ^_^

 

[Andytrenom]

What difference does being an inanimate object make at all? And as for great variation in terms of associated attack potency, since that's what we are talking about here, Planets and Star vary far, far more than humans

And the surrounding sub tiers making it clear things like "Building level " are talking about average? how does that not apply to Human level as well?

you are trying to make a distinction between things , but you are not giving any meaningful or accurate points to make those distinctions at all

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Andy that a change does not seem necessary.

 

[Skalt711]

Hmmm. Then the '''Average level''' mention in the tiering system could be replaced with '''Human level'''? '''Average Human level''' still sounds better imo.

 

[Skalt711]

Also, it seems that people lean towards Average Human level.

 

[Imaginym]

@Andytrenom: I would assume people think of inanimate objects as more standarized, & may not think of their variations as much as with species. Admittedly, that may be a bit fallacious.

Still, I think "Average Human Level" is better for having less ambiguity compared to "Human Level", especially without context that newcomers could lack. Even if no one's assuming it means destroying a human completely, they might still assume an athletic or physically fit one, or maybe even a below average one.

I'm not sure the drop in clarity is worth the brevity we gain, & using it because it "sounds better" doesn't seem like a good enough premise, I think. Why should tiers for informative purposes be named based on subjective preferences?

Also, regarding such subjectivity, I think it could be argued that Average Human Level fits well between Below Average & Athlete Level.

 

[Kepekley23]

I need to point out that Building level is the power required to blow up a building, with Planet level being the energy required to disperse the GBE of the planet. So by that logic, Human level could be misinterpreted as energy required to completely destroy a human body, which would be Wall level.

And the exact same potential misinterpretation applies to Average Human level. It doesn't magically become more specific just because it has an "average" attached to it.

 

[Kepekley23]

Anyway, I personally think this is a waste of time, micromanaging and needless focus on semantics when the current system is already efficient enough.

 

[Skalt711]

10-B has different names in the Attack Potency and Tiering System pages, however.

 

[Kepekley23]

Easy. Just change it to the one being used. Aka '''Human level'''.

 

[Skalt711]

Is everybody agreed with Kepekley23's suggestion? I'd prefer if you would appreciate it.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Imagi I do not think that most people are really going to interpret "Human level" as something other than average human if they're looking at it without further context.

You usually do not assume an extreme case of a group instead of an average case if you find a member of that group at random, that's the basically the point of averages

 

[Kepekley23]

Just for example, we widely rejected renaming Low 4-C, 4-C and High 4-C to "Low/Light Star level" and "Dense Star level" when we revised Tier 4 and found out that larger stars are actually easier to destroy than smaller stars due to their lower density. And, contrary to this revision, that had the potential to be an actually important and legitimately confusing issue. Yet we still rejected it because the current system was efficient and still got the point across.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. We should use the name in the Attack Potency page. I probably just forgot to update the Tiering System name.

 

[Antvasima]

I updated the Tiering System page so there is no contradiction.

Anyway, I agree with Kepekley.

 

[Skalt711]

Well, the change has already been applied. So, I guess, the discussion is over.

 

[Antvasima]

Are the rest of you fine with if we close this thread?