• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultima_Reality said:
I also have no clue what all of this about the FAQ being wrong or outdated is about. Multiple infinitely large multiverses being, tiering-wise, the exact same as a single one (Unless stated otherwise by the verse) is something that has been decided a while ago, and not really anything that needs fixing. If people are indexing characters in opposition to these guidelines, then they are the wrong ones in this case, not the FAQ.
Click to expand...
I was planning on handling it in the tier 2 thread, but something like that is wrong and not really how it should be treated, I will DM you to clarify it or we can wait till the tier 2 thread also, it would be brought up
Reiner said:
@KLOL506 @Firestorm808 @Antvasima @Pain_to12 I guess as ultima has made it clear that FAQ is correct and is not outdated, changes in high 3a definition can be applied as per? Unless we want to treat same sized structures as different lvls of the same tier, 2>2?
Click to expand...
Again dude, there can be higher levels of high 3-A
Tier 2 =/= tier 3.
You don't even realize that all tier 2 structures are of the same size
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
I'd go for something a bit more general in place of the "who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe," since, as KingPin pointed out, it is feasible for a lower-dimensional space to have physical quantities comparable to our own universe. Something like "who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe."
Click to expand...
I personally think that the 3-D part should remain for Tier 3, as below 3-D is already covered by Tier 11 and above 3-D by time(4-D) or separate space-time continuum (Tier 2) and higher dimensions(Tier 1).
Also, regarding the feasibility for a lower-dimensional space to have physical quantities comparable to our own universe like mass or other scalar quantities is already clarified in the FAQ page.
 
Pain_to12 said:
Again dude, there can be higher levels of high 3-A
Tier 2 =/= tier 3.
You don't even realize that all tier 2 structures are of the same size
Click to expand...
? Reasoning that has been used in both are literally same that is continuum hypothesis, I only brought up FAQ page because you weren't listening or understanding to what I was saying. Ultima has clarified that FAQ page is right and infinite number of multiverses is exactly same as single multiverse, so we can stop with it may will change or whatsover, because it is right and it won't change.

Also haven't we discussed it before that if FAQ page isn't misleading then that means high 3a definition is?

Ultima has clarified that bringing characters doesn't mean anything. So changes should be done on the basis of logic and maths.
 
Last edited:
Reiner said:
Ultima has clarified that FAQ page is right and infinite number of multiverses is exactly same as single multiverse, so we can stop with it may will change or whatsover, because it is right and it won't change.
Click to expand...
Again Ultima and I can be wrong, anyone can be wrong, but yes we will table the arguments anyway and we will handle the tier 2 in the next thread and the FAQ part that I see as misleading will be brought up.

Anyway seeing as you are the only one with this view, it's not really a problem.
The thread is concluded the faq will be dealt with in the next thread
 
Reiner said:
Ultima can be wrong, FAQ page can be wrong, I can be wrong. Ok whatsover

Anyway, as it's literally means that our “High 3a” definition is wrong then it's a fandom problem me pointing it out or anyone else doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
If the pages can't be wrong then we have no need for revisions, like we are currently having.
Reiner said:
Also if literal argument against me is that ultima and faq is wrong then good, I'll let it be again.
Click to expand...
Your literal argument is the FAQ cannot be wrong.
But as you can see we are currently fixing the tiers, so changes are bound to come.

BTW ultima = FAQ, he made the page.

Anyway this has gone long enough, if you have any problem you can bring it up in the tier 2 thread.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
I'd go for something a bit more general in place of the "who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe," since, as KingPin pointed out, it is feasible for a lower-dimensional space to have physical quantities comparable to our own universe. Something like "who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe."

I also have no clue what all of this about the FAQ being wrong or outdated is about. Multiple infinitely large multiverses being, tiering-wise, the exact same as a single one (Unless stated otherwise by the verse) is something that has been decided a while ago, and not really anything that needs fixing. If people are indexing characters in opposition to these guidelines, then they are the wrong ones in this case, not the FAQ.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply.

So something like this then?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, 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 to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for 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.
 
Antvasima said:
Characters who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space
Click to expand...
Uh, ultima meant to focus on "any kind of space" as long as they can hold a same amount of mass as of our observable universe, so adding on "that covers the entire space" becomes un needed anymore.

But there is a problem, is just destroying mass equal enough to the mass present in entire observable universe is enough to get you 3a? Shouldn't the distance between celestial bodies plays a role? Because if we add on whole mass at a single place and disregard the distance they have btw them then it wouldn't be good enough as any 3a we treat right now, same if lower dimensions has the same mass, as @KingPin0422 has pointed out before all the mass present in entire universe is not 3a.

To be more specific if a character destroys same amount of mass as of entire observable universe but on 2d space then it'll be infinitesimal smaller feat than current 3a feat which covers the entire 3d space of atleast observable universe.

So it'll not be same as the definition we had a moment before or current one.

@Ultima_Reality is it a problem or I am missing or misunderstanding something?
 
Last edited:
@Reiner and @Pain_to12 Once again, stop with this childish behavior in the staff thread. No one really cares, who is wrong. Deal with it with manners.
Also, I don't see any rush, wait till further staff and especially Ultima and DT give a clear final conclusion.
 
Dread said:
@Reiner and @Pain_to12 Once again, stop with this childish behavior in the staff thread. No one really cares, who is wrong. Deal with it with manners.
Also, I don't see any rush, wait till further staff and especially Ultima and DT give a clear final conclusion.
Click to expand...
Again there was no childish behavior and this comment is unnecessary as it has been settled.
And thread is basically concluded, waiting on Firestorm.
I see no point in you sending this message
 
Firestorm808 said:
Here is the merged draft:

3-A: Universe level​


Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, 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 to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for 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.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Thank you for the reply.

So something like this then?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, 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 to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for 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.
Click to expand...
@Firestorm808 @KingPin0422 @DontTalkDT @KLOL506

Which of these versions do you prefer?
 
The first one is Firestorm's merged version, and the second is Ultima's suggested adjustment, as I understood it.
 
Here we go again:

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy the entirety of a universe or pocket dimension of at least equivalent mass to the observable universe without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy, such as by creating or destroying infinite mass, affecting the entirety of an infinite space, etc., up to affecting large numbers of infinite-sized universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Note that, in cases where lower dimensions are not proven to be existentially inferior to higher ones, infinite spaces of 1 or 2 dimensions should also qualify for this tier, albeit at a lower level than an infinite 3-D space. Also, being infinitely stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
 
Now it's accurately fine, while taking into account what ultima said as well.

Now that i think about what ultima meant, infinite 1d space, 2d space or 3d space can have the same amount of infinite mass, so destroying any of those spaces will be result in high 3a as we are exactly destroying infinite mass.

Although I am not sure if the same case applies to 3a.

Also is that all means our tier 3 definition will be based of only mass that is equivalent to the mass of observable universe for 3a and infinite for high 3a, will size of pocket dimensions be disregarded?
 
Last edited:
Also contrary to this belief that Tier 3 should be based of mass and energy, I suggest to make it based of structure (3D structure size) or else we will be having 1d, 2d and 3d within exact same tier because all of them can have exactly same mass regardless if those dimensions are void still it doesn't change the fact that it can still hold exact same massas of our universe.
 
No. They will not change. Our tiering system up until Tier 3-A is solely based off of the energy yield in joules. What mass those objects are, are completely irrelevant here.

3-A is based on the energy yield required to create an omnidirectional expansion as big as the observable universe while also still maintaining enough explosive power to destroy the most conventionally durable object in the universe, PSR J0348+0432, even as far as the edge of said explosion, via inverse-square law.

Dimensionality means nothing in these tiers. In fact, we don't even do dimensional tiering at all without heavy implications of superiority.
 
Reiner said:
Now it's accurately fine, while taking into account what ultima said as well.

Now that i think about what ultima meant, infinite 1d space, 2d space or 3d space can have the same amount of infinite mass, so destroying any of those spaces will be result in high 3a as we are exactly destroying infinite mass.

Although I am not sure if the same case applies to 3a.

Also is that all means our tier 3 definition will be based of only mass that is equivalent to the mass of observable universe for 3a and infinite for high 3a, will size of pocket dimensions be disregarded?
Click to expand...
No. Because in the end, mass plays no factor with our Tiering System at all except for Creation Feats below 5-C. 5-C to High 4-C use GBE, anything above uses the revised explosion calculations via Inverse-Square law that Assaltwaffle had calculated for us.
 
KLOL506 said:
3-A is based on the energy yield required to create an omnidirectional expansion as big as the observable universe while also still maintaining enough explosive power to destroy the most conventionally durable object in the universe, PSR J0348+0432, even as far as the edge of said explosion, via inverse-square law
Click to expand...
True,

But as ultima said, even lower dimensions can have same mass as of our observable universe and it makes sense, straight for atleast high 3a, infinite mass afterall, which has been applied by kingpin just now. It suggests that infinite 1d, 2d, 3d sized space can be within same tier. That's a way wider range than it should be.

An explosion capable of destroying even an most dense object in the universe if happens on infinite 1d scale will be qualified for high 3a regardless if that infinite 1d space do not contain any mass.
 
Last edited:
Reiner said:
True,

But as ultima said, even lower dimensions can have same mass as of our observable universe and it makes sense, straight for atleast high 3a, infinite mass afterall, which has been applied by kingpin just now. It suggests that infinite 1d, 2d, 3d sized space can be within same tier. That's a way wider range than it should be.

An explosion capable of destroying even an most dense object in the universe if happens on infinite 1d scale will be qualified for high 3a regardless if that infinite 1d space do not contain any mass.
Click to expand...
Except, neither 1-D or 2-D are measured in joules, which completely defeats the purpose.
 
KLOL506 said:
Except, neither 1-D or 2-D are measured in joules, which completely defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Energy isn't divided into arbitrarily many units for each number of dimensions like volume is. That is to say, there's no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc., just a single unit of energy that applies equally to all n-dimensional spaces for any natural number n. Our own Tiering System FAQ accepts this notion, too.
 
Last edited:
KingPin0422 said:
Incorrect. Energy isn't divided into arbitrarily many units for each number of dimensions like volume is. That is to say, there's no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc., just a single unit of energy that applies equally to all n-dimensional spaces for any natural number n. Our own Tiering System FAQ accepts this notion, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, and now I understood what you meant previously when you said infinite 1d, 2d can as well be high 3a. I was dumb to not get what you meant that time, lol.
 
Last edited:
KingPin0422 said:
Incorrect. Energy isn't divided into arbitrarily many units for each number of dimensions like volume is. That is to say, there's no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc., just a single unit of energy that applies equally to all n-dimensional spaces for any natural number n. Our own Tiering System FAQ accepts this notion, too.
Click to expand...
I will point out that is under the assumption that the energy will been considered a dimensionless unit by itself in this specific context.

Ie. It isn’t necessarily tied to a single dimensional space per se.
 
Also there is to taken into consideration the relationship between mass and volume, but in any case, it isn’t truly relevant in this case.
 
Reiner said:
Yes, and now I understood what you meant previously when you said infinite 1d, 2d can as well be high 3a. I was dumb to not get what you meant that time, lol.
Click to expand...
Just as a note though, there can been a argument that there is infinitely small energy in this specific case as we are treating energy as if it was independent that of physical dimensions to begin with.
By the same token, infinite 1D and 2D doesn’t truly become High 3A because by default, it will involve the existence of a infinite 3 dimensional space to begin with.

Hell, using a scalar quantity will actually backfire in this case due to energy (being treated as a dimensionless unit by itself) only applies in the sense of measuring how much energy is in 3 dimensional space stuff if anything and also not a strong indication of dimensional space as well.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
That is my point though. Since we already treated spatial dimensions as being physical to say the least, how do you think that will involve time which isn’t physical?
Click to expand...
Reiner said:
Also contrary to this belief that Tier 3 should be based of mass and energy, I suggest to make it based of structure (3D structure size) or else we will be having 1d, 2d and 3d within exact same tier because all of them can have exactly same mass regardless if those dimensions are void still it doesn't change the fact that it can still hold exact same massas of our universe.
Click to expand...
^ I have suggested something before already. Don't have any other alternative, let's see what ultima or dt or kingpin has to say on the matter.
 
Reiner said:
^ I have suggested something before already. Don't have any other alternative, let's see what ultima or dt or kingpin has to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
That is only if energy is deemed infinite. There is no assigned number to energy technically speaking. Hell, infinite isn’t … always applied to a dimensionless unit by default as well.

“Quantities having dimension one, dimensionless quantities, regularly occur in sciences, and are formally treated within the field of dimensional analysis. In the nineteenth century, French mathematician Joseph Fourier and Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell led significant developments in the modern concepts of dimension and unit. Later work by British physicists Osborne Reynolds and Lord Rayleigh contributed to the understanding of dimensionless numbers in physics. Building on Rayleigh's method of dimensional analysis, Edgar Buckingham proved the π theorem (independently of French mathematician Joseph Bertrand's previous work) to formalize the nature of these quantities.[5]”

That is from a Wikipedia article regarding that particular matter as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity#History
 
I'll suggest to wait for Donttalkdt or ultima, I myself not sure how high 3a or 3a going to turn out anymore as because of involvement of Lower dimensions, everything has been suggested or asked any further discussion from ourselves will not lead to answers but will make the page difficult to understand, waiting for the answers is only thing that has been left. I'll stop typing from here on as well.
 
Firestorm808 said:
Here is the merged draft:

3-A: Universe level​


Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, 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 to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for 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.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Thank you for the reply.

So something like this then?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, 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 to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for 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.
Click to expand...
KingPin0422 said:
Here we go again:

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy the entirety of a universe or pocket dimension of at least equivalent mass to the observable universe without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy, such as by creating or destroying infinite mass, affecting the entirety of an infinite space, etc., up to affecting large numbers of infinite-sized universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Note that, in cases where lower dimensions are not proven to be existentially inferior to higher ones, infinite spaces of 1 or 2 dimensions should also qualify for this tier, albeit at a lower level than an infinite 3-D space. Also, being infinitely stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Firestorm808 @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @AKM sama @KLOL506 @Wokistan

I would appreciate input regarding which of these versions you prefer and why. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Goshtama
Low 2-C | Finite or Infinite Timelines?
Replies
1
Views
900
Richard5128pm
Richard5128pm
Krazydog050
Stewie griffin 1-A Upgrade
Replies
27
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
ProfessorKukui4Life
Big Bang Questions & Clarifications
Replies
36
Views
4K
William_Joee
William_Joee
MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
443
ArcaneAbyss
Back
Top