- 2,127
- 1,726
Bump.
-
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 Requirements and Examples Revision
- Thread starter Firestorm808
- Start date
- Status
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
What are the agreed things on 3-A again?
And for the big bang too
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #403
3-A - All Matter in an at least observable universe / At least observable universe sized Pocket Dimension
High 3-A - All Matter in an infinitely sized universe / Infinite sized Pocket Dimension, Up to Infinite quantity of 3-D Pocket dimensions
The stuff involving time will be clarified in the next thread.
High 3-A - All Matter in an infinitely sized universe / Infinite sized Pocket Dimension, Up to Infinite quantity of 3-D Pocket dimensions
The stuff involving time will be clarified in the next thread.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
This can be added since it is agreed upon by everyone.
The tier 2 thread can be made
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #405
We never did clarify what clues to look out for to say if a moment of time versus an entire timeline was made. This will be in the next thread.
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #406
Copy. Will draft new thread.
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #408
Proposed Changes
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends up to an infinite number of finite or infinite sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
Last edited:
- 1,280
- 1,123
I'd be careful with saying "create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe," since I recall that we consider all the mass in the observable universe to only be 4-A. I think we should specify somewhere (even if just as a note) that all the space in between needs to be affected as well, in the same way 4-A and 3-B work.
- 15,441
- 5,031
This would depend on what we mean by space-time, so we should be a bit more clear on the wording.
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #411
Revised
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #412
We'll be discussing the time/4D specifics in the other thread. For now, we only have the 3-D stuff settled upon.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
A better wording will be
Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of time (in its entirety).
Don't know if we should add what's in the bracket to it
But it should be something that just say it's space and no time
- 1,280
- 1,123
How about this?
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternatively those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time.High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, affecting an infinite 3-D space, or affecting an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,819
That covers the entire space*? Considering all celestial bodies can simply be a single planet in that comparable size. A void space that is.
To be precise destroying that single planet will as well fullfill the stated definition if we won't say that it must covers entire space of comparable size.
Last edited:
- 1,280
- 1,123
Added it. Tell me how it looks now.
- 9,982
- 10,819
Nice (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.)
- 4,630
- 1,615
I see my comments was deleted.
In any case, the revised definitions for Tier 3 is definitely good.
In any case, the revised definitions for Tier 3 is definitely good.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
This wording is fine
If we can get two or three more approval, we can finally apply it and move forward
- 9,982
- 10,819
Wait there is something wrong.
In agreed upon definition, there is no set limit over 3a definition that separates it from high 3a. But it's more like high 3a is a type of 3a rather than entirely separate tier.
Like:-
"of comparable size but not infinite".
It's like 3a is a set of all possible size's of universes and high 3a is an element within it.
In agreed upon definition, there is no set limit over 3a definition that separates it from high 3a. But it's more like high 3a is a type of 3a rather than entirely separate tier.
Like:-
"At least observable universe size" but there is no limit that it shouldn't be infinite.
Same thing here, it should be like
"of comparable size but not infinite".
It's like 3a is a set of all possible size's of universes and high 3a is an element within it.
Last edited:
- 7,486
- 7,677
- Thread starter
- #421
"At least the size of the observable universe but still finite."
- 9,982
- 10,819
Yes better wording
- 9,982
- 10,819
Also significantly affect as per note will be better to use than simply "affect".
I don't think there is anymore correction to it, everything else is fine.
Last edited:
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
Instead of multi-posting, you can edit your last post to include the new messages
- 4,630
- 1,615
That is true even though it technically doesn’t mention about it not being a set limit for Tier 3A
Anyway, this is fine.
- 1,280
- 1,123
I think you're just nitpicking at this point. Anyone should be able to tell that an infinite 3-D size falls under High 3-A and not just 3-A by looking at the definitions for both. In fact, High 3-A essentially is a type of 3-A to begin with - I mean, it literally is the high end of 3-A by its very name and nature, in the same way that High 6-B is the high end of 6-B, High 4-C is the high end of 4-C, etc.
- 9,982
- 10,819
High 3a is not the high end of tier 3a, but rather it's a high end of tier 3 that is divided over 3c, 3b, 3a, high 3a. What's the point in making seprate tier of "high 3a" when as per same definition we can get any high 3a feats under 3a? why should they be separate tiers if we consider high 3a to be high end of 3a, then there is no point in separating them.
For example:- 2c wouldn't falls under low 2c, despite they both are divisions under 2c there is established limit between them.
I just tried to accurate the definition, obviously everyone knows what is high 3a and what is 3a.
A 3a feat can never be high 3a, considering high 3a it's high end is wrong.
Last edited:
- 4,630
- 1,615
The problem with this logic is assuming it divided over the lower ends since that isn’t how it being assumed especially since Tier High 3A is technically already higher than the lower end of Tier 3s.
So this is more of your opinion on the matter and interpretation on it.
Also Tier 3s is finite 3D while Tier High 3A deals with infinite 3D aka the spatial dimension are outright shown to being infinite.
- 9,982
- 10,819
^ thanx, let's refrain from saying anything any further, and let the thread be clear
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
Whether finite or not is added does not matter just a little redundant, since taking a look at H3A, you can easily see the difference between the two. And the "at least observable universe size" already signifies what 3-A is
- 42,612
- 36,890
Question: what would something effecting time that doesnt qualify for Low 2-C be? High 3-A?
- 9,982
- 10,819
So we are relying on high 3a to guess 3a? And high 3a will be considered high end of 3a? Despite one is finite and can never be high 3a regardless how "high" one go? Ok fine by me.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
Yes
Such as destroying a part of time
That's the entire point of it
3-A "at least observable universe sized"
High 3-A, infinite to anything but uncountable infinite
- 9,982
- 10,819
Tier 2 will be going under revision before that there is nothing which can be said about any of its devision. And about time:-
^ firestorm made it clear.
- 4,630
- 1,615
What? Why are you are assuming this is the case? We not relying on High 3A since there needs to being proof of high 3A to begin with. Also the irl universe (our universe) has never been stated to being infinite anyway, only theorized.
Firestorm is referring to what will qualify as Tier 2 as well.
- 9,982
- 10,819
So ignoring above post entirely.
When it comes to aleph naugh size (smallest infinity).
"Atleast" makes it very clear their is no limit established so high 3a would just fall under it.
Unrelated but, Considering that you have inherently implied here "infinite" seprate from "uncountable infinite" I'll take it as aleph 0, and if you're aware of "continuum hypothesis" then there no set "S" such that it exist between the set of "aleph naught and aleph one". So saying "infinite to anything but not uncountable infinity" is itself a flawed reasoning because prior is just only thing that exist, there is nothing more to it.
When it comes to aleph naugh size (smallest infinity).
- 4,630
- 1,615
Again with Aleph stuff and also nitpicking since it is still treated as a infinite cardinal and countable infinity anyway.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
We have High 3-A is still part of 3-A, anyway High 3-A is just saying what you need for 3-A (Destruction of an entire space) + Infinite size
This is unnecessarily complicating things, I am sure anyone can understand what I meant when I differentiated between infinite and uncountable infinite, the entire purpose of this threads are to make the tiering system more accessible and understanding to everyone.\
Simply put what I mean by infinite and uncountable infinite is this
High 3-A, Infinite 3-D space
Low 2-C, Uncountable infinite 3-D space (4-D)
Simple as that, but to dig deeper, this is not really all that serious or complicated, it is straightforward
So the reasoning is not flawed at all tier 2 is 4-D, and like every dimensionality, you need an uncountable infinite amount of it to get to the next Dimension.
length(1D), width(2D) and height(3D). Or anyhow you wish to arrange it.
Stack uncountable infinite 1D and you get 2D, simply stacking infinite amount of a length with no width wont give a structure with width, you will need an uncountable infinite amount of it.
Same with stacking uncountable infinite amount of 2-D (Length and width) will give you 3-D.
So now since tier 2(4D) would require an uncountable infinite amount of 3-D to get to, how do we get there?
By destruction or creation of something that equates to uncountable infinite 3-D, which in this case will be space.
So hence where the distinction of infinite and uncountable infinite (space) comes from.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
We are waiting on @Firestorm808 to update the page and create the new thread for tier 2 I guess
- Status
