- 4,325
- 732
You don't need to prove that?
-
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 2 characters CRT
- Thread starter Zamasu_Chan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- multiverse universe
- Status
- 8,215
- 1,939
Apparently not, I just find it strange how strict we are here, but lax in other areas.
And used that as my example.
- 26,160
- 3,653
Well, that's not really how things are here.
Something it matches better is being Low 1-C for transcending a Low 2-C reality.
But I prefer not to get too much into anything above High 1-B, so I'm not really able to tell of standards for that.
- 3,566
- 879
Would destroying the space-time of the present universe count as a High 3-A feat?
- 10,398
- 4,564
This does not exist. Unless you’re only talking about space only and time as a consequence. But that’d still wreck it in the past and future.
And if you’re talking about blowing pieces from the timestream then that’s hax or whatever we decide to put it at. But this definitely shouldn’t be the default assumption.
Last edited:
- 8,215
- 1,939
Edit: If you destroy future or present, there is no past, and the same goes the other way around. Because that's how the concept of time works. "Past" is just the time before the present leading on into the future, so "past" cannot exist without present or future.
Last edited:
- 4,451
- 1,949
So, how do you distinguish between someone threatening to destroy the space-time continuum by a chain reaction or by their direct attack?
- 3,566
- 879
As long as you have been stated to have the ability to destroy the entire space-time then it should scale to your AP unless shwon otherwise
- 21,469
- 30,790
You can't unless it's a direct statement.
You shouldn't even take threats into consideration unless there's proof of it being able to be accomplished w/out chain reaction
- 8,215
- 1,939
My guess is they would need a statement like.
"My attack destroyed the past, present, and future of the space-time continuum." and it be somehow illustrated.
This all seems like too much imo. It's way too nitpicky of a standard, and too hard to apply to all of our profiles.
And what about tier 3? Are we just gonna put all of the profiles that this affects in that tier without separating destroying infinite present space-times from one present space-time?
Would that be High 3-A? So we'd be saying that destroying a single space-time that is infinite is the same as destroying infinite space-times? This would also affect our tier 2 stuff.
Yes, the implications of this would also give immeasurable speed to all tier 2s.
"My attack destroyed the past, present, and future of the space-time continuum." and it be somehow illustrated.
This all seems like too much imo. It's way too nitpicky of a standard, and too hard to apply to all of our profiles.
And what about tier 3? Are we just gonna put all of the profiles that this affects in that tier without separating destroying infinite present space-times from one present space-time?
Would that be High 3-A? So we'd be saying that destroying a single space-time that is infinite is the same as destroying infinite space-times? This would also affect our tier 2 stuff.
- 6,452
- 1,667
If a character can react too, dodge, or block an omnidirectional Low 2-C attack/blast (with Space time continuum range)
Does this mean attack speed for the Attacker is immeasurable? Does this also mean the defender have immeasurable speed/reactions?
As what were saying is stuff about past, present, and future involved within the attack.
Does this mean attack speed for the Attacker is immeasurable? Does this also mean the defender have immeasurable speed/reactions?
As what were saying is stuff about past, present, and future involved within the attack.
- 15,442
- 15,410
This thread needs a lot more staff input, but even then, this is not exactly the time to have such a big revision like this and we should probably wait
- 10,398
- 4,564
This would also happen in a chain reaction. I don’t fully get Ultima’s reasoning for considering it a chain reaction but I assume he will elaborate on how to differentiate in a different thread.
- 1,577
- 350
I would also like to know this.
- 4,451
- 1,949
Well, say, we get a statement of "That's going to destroy the space-time continuum!" How do we know that it's going to ACTUALLY destroy the space-time continuum by itself, and not as a chain reaction?
- 3,566
- 879
We are just going to assume that he is actually going to destroy it as whole via AP unless shown otherwise? It's simple
- 4,451
- 1,949
That would put every universe buster at tier 2 if they destroy all the space and it isn't specified if they destroyed the time.
- 2,256
- 391
"That's going to destroy the space-time continuum!"
Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, when I was conceptualising a statement of destroying the space time continuum I was thinking of the (practically speaking) vastly different statements like "He's going to destroy the space-time continuum!" or "She's going to destroy the space time continuum!" or, hell, this is kind of embarrassing to say but "They are going to destroy the space time continuum!" with maybe even 3 unnecessary exclamation points.
Saying that we should be unsure of basic assumptions relating to the simplest ******* abilities fictional characters have is just absurdity and I really don't have the effort to make an obvious argument from absurdity against that point.
"That would put every universe buster at tier 2 if they destroy all the space and it isn't specified if they destroyed the time."
No it wouldn't, what the **** are you talking about? Like, I'll try to argue in good faith here and see how you think this is a response to the e s t e e m e d Gohanblanco217 in any conceivable way.
Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, when I was conceptualising a statement of destroying the space time continuum I was thinking of the (practically speaking) vastly different statements like "He's going to destroy the space-time continuum!" or "She's going to destroy the space time continuum!" or, hell, this is kind of embarrassing to say but "They are going to destroy the space time continuum!" with maybe even 3 unnecessary exclamation points.
Saying that we should be unsure of basic assumptions relating to the simplest ******* abilities fictional characters have is just absurdity and I really don't have the effort to make an obvious argument from absurdity against that point.
"That would put every universe buster at tier 2 if they destroy all the space and it isn't specified if they destroyed the time."
No it wouldn't, what the **** are you talking about? Like, I'll try to argue in good faith here and see how you think this is a response to the e s t e e m e d Gohanblanco217 in any conceivable way.
- 3,566
- 879
I mean if a character has a statement like "I will destroy the whole space and time" then this should clearly qualify for low 2-C and it should scale to AP unless it was to be only via chain reaction
- 4,451
- 1,949
How do we make the distinction though? If we have no solid way to make the distinction, why do we assume it's via raw AP?
- 21,469
- 30,790
Baseless assumption
- 8,846
- 9,507
- Thread starter
- #143
What Axx is trying to say is that destroying space would result in destroying time in the universe.
- 4,451
- 1,949
Yeah, and how do we assume that the character who destroyed the space also destroyed the time, instead of the time being destroyed via chain reaction?
- 21,469
- 30,790
How do you link space and time...
- 2,256
- 391
"He destroyed a building in one punch"
"Well what's saying it wasn't a chain reaction and he didn't actually destroy the pillars the building was being held up by in one punch? We can't make a solid distinction."
"He called on this bear to fight for him"
"Well what's saying he didn't use probability manipulation to make a chain reaction involving him touching the insects on the ground as the first step to just annoy the bear and make it attack the opponent in primal rage? We can't make a solid distinction"
"The entire planet, pulverised by him in an instant"
"Well what's saying he didn't use matter manipulation to collapse the sun and turn it into a black hole, drag the planet into the black hole but beyond the event horizon by using his non AP scale-able planetary lifting strength along with his gravity manipulation resistance and then gradually rubbed it away over time? While it would look like an instant from the outside, time dilation would have meant it would have taken a significantly longer time for him to do it. We can't make a solid distinction"
"Well what's saying it wasn't a chain reaction and he didn't actually destroy the pillars the building was being held up by in one punch? We can't make a solid distinction."
"He called on this bear to fight for him"
"Well what's saying he didn't use probability manipulation to make a chain reaction involving him touching the insects on the ground as the first step to just annoy the bear and make it attack the opponent in primal rage? We can't make a solid distinction"
"The entire planet, pulverised by him in an instant"
"Well what's saying he didn't use matter manipulation to collapse the sun and turn it into a black hole, drag the planet into the black hole but beyond the event horizon by using his non AP scale-able planetary lifting strength along with his gravity manipulation resistance and then gradually rubbed it away over time? While it would look like an instant from the outside, time dilation would have meant it would have taken a significantly longer time for him to do it. We can't make a solid distinction"
- 4,451
- 1,949
Here's the thing though, those aren't equally as likely scenarios, and aren't exactly comparable. With universes, both things are equally as likely. If we see a building get destroyed, we can assume that it was through raw AP since the building was visually destroyed by the attack.
Even if a universe gets visually destroyed by the attack, it's literally a baseless assumption to say that the time was also destroyed by the attack, is it not? That isn't accurate in all scenarios, and the wiki is supposed to strive for accuracy, so how do we assume one of 2 just as likely scenarios happened? Is a statement all that's needed to make the distinction when it comes to universes?
Even if a universe gets visually destroyed by the attack, it's literally a baseless assumption to say that the time was also destroyed by the attack, is it not? That isn't accurate in all scenarios, and the wiki is supposed to strive for accuracy, so how do we assume one of 2 just as likely scenarios happened? Is a statement all that's needed to make the distinction when it comes to universes?
It's a space-TIME continuum for a reason, they can't exist without each other.
- 2,256
- 391
"Even if a universe gets visually destroyed by the attack, it's literally a baseless assumption to say that the time was also destroyed by the attack, is it not? That isn't accurate in all scenarios, and the wiki is supposed to strive for accuracy, so how do we assume one of 2 just as likely scenarios happened? Is a statement all that's needed to make the distinction when it comes to universes?"
Well if you are specifically talking about it being a visual event then I don't see how "assume" comes in, unless you are getting all Cartesian on me. Also yeah we can't see time getting destroyed while we could potentially see a building getting destroyed, 'course these weird, esoteric things called statements and books exist.
Well if you are specifically talking about it being a visual event then I don't see how "assume" comes in, unless you are getting all Cartesian on me. Also yeah we can't see time getting destroyed while we could potentially see a building getting destroyed, 'course these weird, esoteric things called statements and books exist.
- 6,198
- 16,506
It's indeed quite a strange standard that we've held since the beginnings of the wiki, way before I even got to revise the Tiering System, I think. Of course, saying that destroying any amount of spacetime is enough for Low 2-C sets an extremely bad precedent and is bound to inflate a bunch of feats, and that is exactly why I am going to make a thread regarding feats like this in the near future: This is also a response to anyone who is asking about feats where spacetime is destroyed locally, but not universally, by the way.
What you are saying is the whole purpose of this thread, though: Distinguishing between cases where the universe's spacetime was explicitly destroyed entirely and cases where there is no evidence that anything beyond its material contents was directly affected. If a character says "I am going to destroy this spacetime!" and we have reason to believe they are capable of doing so, then we assume they are going to do exactly that, rather than going by interpretations with no basis.
Can you substantiate these statements, at least? I already explained why destroying spacetime at a single point in time is nonsensical and just an oxymoron (Which Greenshifter already pointed out up there), and I am fairly sure this goes against our standards on the matter. To extend the argument I made up there: If a character says they are going to destroy a planet, we don't really assume it'll be done through a chain reaction unless there is some good basis for that.
- 6,452
- 1,667
- 8,846
- 9,507
- Thread starter
- #151
Ask that in the immeasurable speed thread.
- 15,441
- 5,031
I agree with Matt and more or less agree with Medeus (I would have standards a bit more strict than what he said but agree with the overall idea).
@Ultima_Reality What you fail to see is something that what other experienced and reliable persons have also failed to see. When you talk about time you can be talking about time from the start and end of a timeline or simply all the present time. This is as simple as someone asking how's the time outside and another one not saying it's cloudy, sunny, hot, and cold, I hope you get the idea. Yes time, space and matter are connected and stuff but this is by no means taking into consideration all of time from the start to end of a timeline, otherwise we as a world would have already permanently f*cked up many areas of the planet with experiments messing with time by moving things fast.
@Ultima_Reality What you fail to see is something that what other experienced and reliable persons have also failed to see. When you talk about time you can be talking about time from the start and end of a timeline or simply all the present time. This is as simple as someone asking how's the time outside and another one not saying it's cloudy, sunny, hot, and cold, I hope you get the idea. Yes time, space and matter are connected and stuff but this is by no means taking into consideration all of time from the start to end of a timeline, otherwise we as a world would have already permanently f*cked up many areas of the planet with experiments messing with time by moving things fast.
- 31,463
- 34,328
So here are some list of pointers that have been pointed out based on a combinations of Sera's past input, things Ultima said on previous threads, what Azathoth said back when he was a purple name, and some things I have said.
- Generic Universe busting feats are simply 3-A such as "I'm going to destroy the universe", but destroying "The entire universe" or "Destroying all existence" being used in universal context is generally Low 2-C according to Sera.
- From Azathoth, the destruction method also indicates which end. If they destroy it via typical means such as giant lasers or explosions, it's 3-A unless specifically stated to be effecting all time and space. But causing the dimensional or space-time collapse of an entire universe is Low 2-C.
- When it comes to Big Bangs and universal creations, most fictional stories portray Big Bangs are nothing more than giant explosions. Those are just 3-A. Unless it's specially stated to be birthing time and space. But creator gods having a creation feat described as "Giving birth to the universe from the Chaos of Creation" is Low 2-C. I mentioned and so have many others that the latter is one of the most commonly brought up things in mythology classes.
Last edited:
- 2,029
- 317
I agree with Ultima tbh. We don't treat EE like that right? Otherwise a lot of people would receive High-Godly simply regenerating via universal EE.
For the sake of clarity, I will elaborate.
If you get a certain feats because it is specified (e.g. past, present, future), then it is fine. However, leaving thing as space-time continuum can leave personal interpretation. Not about the character/verse feats, but for the standard itself. It can be misused by certain verses to upgrade or downgrade what shouldn't be. I mean, just look at this thread. So many people have different interpretation about space-time continuum destruction. It's just too vague.
However I understand the low bar is to raise many verses into Low 2-C level and above. Most verse I know don't mention timeline, leave alone past, present, and future.
For the sake of clarity, I will elaborate.
If you get a certain feats because it is specified (e.g. past, present, future), then it is fine. However, leaving thing as space-time continuum can leave personal interpretation. Not about the character/verse feats, but for the standard itself. It can be misused by certain verses to upgrade or downgrade what shouldn't be. I mean, just look at this thread. So many people have different interpretation about space-time continuum destruction. It's just too vague.
However I understand the low bar is to raise many verses into Low 2-C level and above. Most verse I know don't mention timeline, leave alone past, present, and future.
Last edited:
- 15,441
- 5,031
Seems dumb to me, it can be destroying the universe, destroying space and the present time, or destroying the whole timeline. Why would the standard take be the highest possible one? Does Sera think that's the most used take in fiction? Because I disagree. I get that some definitions of universe include time, but then again, where is the proof this takes in all time from the beginning to end of a timeline? Because regular people certainly doesn't use the word universe that way most of the time.
- 31,463
- 34,328
The character having an Ego or prone to hyperboles is a different story. But if the Omniscient creator of the universe/multiverse who never lies describes an entity having said ability, I'd take their word for it as said character would literally know whether or not said entity can destroy the entire cosmology of the verse. Not saying the latter example is the most common one, but if context where it's clearly made literally, it does qualify.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Well, language is language, words and sentences having more or less emphasis having to necessarily mean their highest take is a dogmatic take that ignores how the lesser takes can still get emphasized just as much the bigger takes, especially when the lesser takes are as absurd as the universe (not as in timeline). I see the same meaning from "universe" than "the entire universe" unless other context may point otherwise, as I believe 99% of the people in the world would.
It seems bias, if a character crosses over the entire universe we would easily take that as a regular speed feat with limited speed and all, that's the most likely take on the words given, but then we say that destroying the entire universe is Low 2-C via the stuff said before? That's nonsense, why is the other example a speed feat in the present due to being more likely and this has to be Low 2-C, destroying the universe is also easier to assume for the very same reasons. This being an example of course.
Hyperboles and such I believe are their own matter that we should very much be able to deal with.
It seems bias, if a character crosses over the entire universe we would easily take that as a regular speed feat with limited speed and all, that's the most likely take on the words given, but then we say that destroying the entire universe is Low 2-C via the stuff said before? That's nonsense, why is the other example a speed feat in the present due to being more likely and this has to be Low 2-C, destroying the universe is also easier to assume for the very same reasons. This being an example of course.
Hyperboles and such I believe are their own matter that we should very much be able to deal with.
- 2,256
- 391
I also disagree with the "entire universe" shit.
It doesn't really work at the very basic level that there isn't a semantic difference between "I destroyed the universe" and "I destroyed the entire universe"- destroying something means ending something's entire existence in the first place, hell, even the figurative definition of the verb means (objectively, according to the OED cause why not) complete victory ("defeat (someone) utterly, e.g: "Northants have the batting to destroy anyone"). You don't say "I destroyed this ruler" when really you just snapped a bit off the end (unless it was intentional hyperbole), or in this case a more apt example would be in regards to an infinitesimal fraction of said ruler.
...I was gonna say something else but it would be good if Sera visited this thread when she has the time
It doesn't really work at the very basic level that there isn't a semantic difference between "I destroyed the universe" and "I destroyed the entire universe"- destroying something means ending something's entire existence in the first place, hell, even the figurative definition of the verb means (objectively, according to the OED cause why not) complete victory ("defeat (someone) utterly, e.g: "Northants have the batting to destroy anyone"). You don't say "I destroyed this ruler" when really you just snapped a bit off the end (unless it was intentional hyperbole), or in this case a more apt example would be in regards to an infinitesimal fraction of said ruler.
...I was gonna say something else but it would be good if Sera visited this thread when she has the time
- 1,280
- 1,123
Yeah, why are people still voicing support for my old thing? It gets fairly basic information wrong and I still cringe a little bit on the inside whenever it's brought up.
And yeah, destroying the universe without additional context would default to 3-A, regardless of whether or not the word "entire" is added. It's pretty much an argument based on semantics, which is a problem that some people I have talked to have with this thread as is. As for feats/statements of "destroying all existence," how are those so different from "destroying the universe" type things that we should default them to Low 2-C? There's probably something more nuanced to it that I'm not seeing, but right now, I don't think there's a significant difference.
The other two points Medeus brought up seem fair enough.
And yeah, destroying the universe without additional context would default to 3-A, regardless of whether or not the word "entire" is added. It's pretty much an argument based on semantics, which is a problem that some people I have talked to have with this thread as is. As for feats/statements of "destroying all existence," how are those so different from "destroying the universe" type things that we should default them to Low 2-C? There's probably something more nuanced to it that I'm not seeing, but right now, I don't think there's a significant difference.
The other two points Medeus brought up seem fair enough.
- Status
