- 31,372
- 34,119
I was kind of behind on the topic, but I thought I already saw the new descriptions for 3-A to High 3-A and think they're alright.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which one precisely? I don't think they are the same in any sense.I was kind of behind on the topic, but I thought I already saw the new descriptions for 3-A to High 3-A and think they're alright.
Ant, they're not just different wordings anymore, they're same as long as we see them from perspective of mass and energy as that will be infinite in all of dimensions but entirely different from perspective of structures as ultima one's suggest that infinite 1d can be high 3a as well, which is not wrong but seems bit off and leaves alot of questions behind.Thank you. There are currently three different suggested wordings that I listed above though.
But are you sure it makes sense to have 1d, 2d, 3d within same tier contrary to what we had for so long? Former one's are basically 11B and 11A in current tiering system.I guess two or three look fine.
Read since ultima last comment here. Tier 3 now includes 1d, 2d, 3d.Took a few days break and this descended, where are we starting from?
@KingPin0422 Will destroying an infinite line or an infinite area be equal to Tier 11-B and Tier 11-A respectively in this case or High 3-A? I didn't understand this part.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.
But considering infinite mass and energy is considered high 3a, it's not wrong either as per our current tiering system and not to mention that yeah it'll mess up badly.This will really mess up if we allow destroying infinite 1-D to be high 3-A.
It is just, the fiction will never recognize it as such if it is ever mentioned explicitly, we will give them a high 3-A based on it.But considering infinite mass and energy is considered high 3a, it's not wrong either.
True and I don't see any point in tier 11B and 11A to be a thing. I mean what kind of feat is to destroy infinite 1D or 2D unless high 3a.Also, in this sense, we need to fix the rest of tiering system under low 2-C. Tier 11 is also 3D, even tho you have no joule of energy.
My point was that infinite 1-D is greater than finite 3-D, but infinite 3-D would still be greater.
So we agree on removing tier 11? Since if 3 or 2 is applied, that tier makes no sense to stay there.
@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT Thoughts?So we agree on removing tier 11? Since if 3 or 2 is applied, that tier makes no sense to stay there.
Mhm thanks for ping. This is really important topic to discuss, the staff want to rush it but forget this significant factor.@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT Thoughts?
There were nothing to derail. What is point of tier 11 if 3 or 2 is applied? We are messing up the whole tiering system with this. I don't see any point of rushing.Please refrain from derailing from the Tier 3 discussion. Discussions of other tiers will be handled in a different thread.
It's not about character but a structure, 1D, 2D will always be smaller than 3D with R> F and I do stand with a that point as well that infinite 1D and 2D are high 3a but tier 11 should be something specific to be lowest tier like space of 1D or 2D that are part of tier 11 can be destroyed with energy lower than all succeeding tier or something. I mean making limitation over size of 1D or 2D in some specific manner.Characters who are levels of R>F beneath the baseline reality do exist
Ok, I understand that lower dimensional beings are not infinitely lesser than higher dimensional beings, but if the being's verse is inherently only limited to just a line or just a plane, how will it destroy anything more than an infinite line or an infinite area which is already what Tier 11 is. I mean I get what u are trying to say but -Tier 11 doesn't need to be removed. Characters who are levels of R>F beneath the baseline reality do exist, they just aren't necessarily lower-dimensional nor does being lower-dimensional inherently make you infinitely lesser than 3-D beings.
Can the same principle not be extrapolated into High 1-B or even Low 1-A then (albeit to a lower extent, but still it is infinite energy or mass which is dimensionless and the principles should apply to higher spatial dimensions )? Why restrict to High 3-A in this case?Anyway, I still stand by my proposed rewriting, especially as no one has properly addressed my reasoning for why infinite 1-D length and infinite 2-D area should be High 3-A (to a lower degree than infinite 3-D volume, but still) and not 11-B/11-A.
Also, This suggestion seems fine, I agree, new qualifications for tier 11 can be made later on. Currently infinite 1D and 2D seems fine in tier 3.Tier 11 doesn't need to be removed. Characters who are levels of R>F beneath the baseline reality do exist, they just aren't necessarily lower-dimensional nor does being lower-dimensional inherently make you infinitely lesser than 3-D beings. Any changes that should be made to it (such as updating characters to match the new qualifications for tier 11) are best saved for their own thread, like we are doing for tier 2.
Anyway, I still stand by my proposed rewriting, especially as no one has properly addressed my reasoning for why infinite 1-D length and infinite 2-D area should be High 3-A (to a lower degree than infinite 3-D volume, but still) and not 11-B/11-A.
High 3A as suggested by kingpin, new qualifications for tier 11 will be done in seprate thread, current qualifications of tier 11 do not apply anymore.Alright then. Will destroying an infinite line or an infinite area be equal to Tier 11-B and Tier 11-A respectively in this case or High 3-A?
Mass and energy can be of same amount in any space of any number of dimensions. 1D can contain same amount of mass as of 3D whatsoover, but Tiers after tier 3 like tier 2 or high 1B aren't mass and energy dependent but are structure dependent. Destroying infinite mass will be high 3A and destroying infinite number of dimensions will be high 1B. Tiers upto tier 3 are divided on the basis of mass and energy after that everything is structure.Can the same principle not be extrapolated into High 1-B or even Low 1-A then (albeit to a lower extent, but still it is infinite energy or mass which is dimensionless and the principles should apply to higher spatial dimensions )? Why restrict to High 3-A in this case?
I might just quote the FAQ -Mass and energy can be of same amount in any space of any number of dimensions. 1D can contain same amount of mass as of 3D whatsoover, but Tiers after tier 3 like tier 2 or high 1B aren't mass and energy dependent but are structure dependent. Destroying infinite mass will be high 3A and destroying infinite number of dimensions will be high 1B. Tiers upto tier 3 are divided on the basis of mass and energy after that everything is structure.
While, it is kind of true that we are basing Tiers after Tier 3 based on structures, it would be a bit inconsistent with the FAQ. Since, the FAQ itself treats all higher dimensions the same as lower dimensions with respect to scalar quantities. So indeed choosing High 3-A or just infinite 3-D for infinite mass and energy is arbitrary in this case. The same energy will be able to affect any higher dimensions as well according to the FAQ.Not necessarily, as a number of characteristics through which we quantify the strength or power of a character can remain unchanged when transitioning between higher and lower dimensions. For example: Mass is a quantity that is detached from the dimension of the object which it is inherent to, and unlike volume is not divided in units corresponding to each particular dimension (1-volume [length], 2-volume [area], 3-volume, 4-volume...). It is singular in nature and its units equally apply to all dimensions; whether it is distributed over an area or a volume only tells us about the span of space in which it is spread, not about the quantity itself.
Hence, a higher-dimensional entity can be both stronger or weaker than a lower-dimensional one, and thus, they are usually quantified based on their own feats, instead of dimensionality alone.
Reverse it, FAQ treats scaler quantities such as mass and energy same for all dimensions, different dimensions itself aren't treated same with respect to anything as they're "different".Since, the FAQ itself treats all higher dimensions the same as lower dimensions with respect to scalar quantities.
Didn't I say the same thing tho, that higher dimensions are treated the same as lower dimensions only with respect to scalar quantities and also clarifiedReverse it, FAQ treats scaler quantities such as mass and energy same for all dimensions, different dimensions itself aren't treated same with respect to anything as they're "different".
I added the * part just now to make it more clearthat a lower dimensional being can be stronger than the higher dimensional one *(with respect to scalar quantities), but its effects will not spread to higher dimension and be only restricted to lower dimensional structures.
Yes, I took it into account and proceeded to say that they're not treated same with respect to anything but on contrary mass and energy are treated same for all these dimensions not the other way around.higher dimensions are treated the same as lower dimensions only with respect to scalar quantities and also clarified
Higher dimensional *beings are different from higher dimensional *space.I added the * part just now to make it more clear
A higher dimensional empty void (which has nothing and hence no mass) vs our universe which has mass?Higher dimensional *beings are different from higher dimensional *space.
Higher dimensional empty space.A higher dimensional empty void (which has nothing and hence no mass) vs our universe which has mass?