- 167,872
- 76,497
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.
Never mind, I misinterpreted this admittedly.The other issue is that it's weird for an explosion to have (Countable or Uncountable) infinite range but not (Countable or Uncountable respectively) infinite power/energy unless there's 0 pressure and thus not actually an explosion or upper-dimensional range but not upper-dimensional power. If it's for feats not involving destruction or isn't omnidirectional such as simply reaching someone from another timeline via portals or telekinesis sure, but not an omni-directional big bang like explosion. Inverse Square Law applies to Tier 2 and above explosions too.
There was no contention that destruction of a universe is way lower than 2 universes.Personally, I'm pretty neutral regarding many of the details.
If universes share the same 3D space (like the bubble universes in the sense Agnaa defines them in my understanding) that's just 3-A, as they are objectively smaller than an infinite universe.
For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
When it comes for assumptions I would usually assume universes have different spacetimes, unless characters can simply fly between them or something. That assumption is because the most used definition of universe is something like "all of space and everything in it".
Not sure if uncountable will necessarily apply here as again that is basically saying it is Tier High 3A all the same to me.The thing I am saying, destruction of uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe will be higher than destruction of infinite universes at the present without accounting for any higher dimensions or time.
Do I? I'm generally fine with how we currently handle things.Anyway what’s your proposal, as it seems you want us to change what is currently on the tiering page.
Let me give you an example of what uncountable infinite means in this sense, there is an infinite number between 1 sec and 2 secs. The destruction I mean is for one that would destroying the said uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe across all of time.Not sure if uncountable will necessarily apply here as again that is basically saying it is Tier High 3A all the same to me.
How it isn’t? If we exclude higher dimensions and/or time, this is a example of it being Tier High 3A, not low 1C.Let me give you an example of what uncountable infinite means in this sense, there is an infinite number between 1 sec and 2 secs. The destruction I mean is for one that would destroying the said uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe across all of time.
That’s not high 3-A.
How we handle most things is different from what is the tiering page saysDo I? I'm generally fine with how we currently handle things.
Timeline destruction would still be High 3-A to low 2-C and even 2-A, depending on context.Honestly, kinda don't like the idea of ranking timeline destruction above multiverse level, because... I have seen literally no fiction ever follow that. Given, that's just my personal subjective opinion.
Post in thread 'Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision'How it isn’t? If we exclude higher dimensions and/or time, this is a example of it being Tier High 3A, not low 1C.
Aside from that, this seems to needlessly complicated things when it seems more simplified in matters like this
In the Tiering system, it went out and say countable infinite system and I thought we already throw out the assumption that the distance between other universes is “5D” to say the least.Post in thread 'Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-requirements-and-examples-revision.124078/post-4837143
At that point for 2-A, it is not a singular timeline though. It is a infinite amount of timelines/parallel worlds, and so on.Timeline destruction would still be High 3-A to low 2-C and even 2-A, depending on context.
“Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[2], creating and/or destroying a countably infinite number of space-time continuums.”The current wording on the Tiering System page says that the entire space-time continuums must be destroyed/created/affected.
For this part, do you recall the specific cases? This seems to being the exception rather than the rule as normally you could technically argue that there are even localized timelines as part of a universe as this is going off the assumption that it is a singular timeline, which in my opinion, isn’t necessarily the case since I tend to think that to assume it is just a singular timeline seems off since it isn’t strictly just one time but technically multiple ones if we going by this particular logic.I'm pretty sure I've heard of a few cases like that, where each timeline also contains multiple universes/realms within it.
That is provided that it is a bubble universe and going off the assumption it follows a singular flow of time (which I honestly don’t remember it being the default assumption since there are arguments time doesn’t strictly go by a single flow IIRC).That does not indicate separate timelines. Two bubble universes can have different histories and physics while still being part of the same timeline
Perhaps so, but if we going by this logic alone, it isn’t that sufficient since it excludes parallel worlds, parallel timelines, and so on.If the story indicates otherwise, then it indicates otherwise.
I am just telling you that your piece of evidence which would supposedly prove separate timelines does not actually prove that. What you said was sufficient is not sufficient.
Yes which is part of me saying timelines destruction can be high 3-A to low 2-C or even 2-AAt that point for 2-A, it is not a singular timeline though. It is a infinite amount of timelines/parallel worlds, and so on.
I am well aware, which is why I said up above even destruction of 1-2 seconds of a universe can be low 2-C depending on contextI'd like to clarify, that I already heard the "Uncountable infinite number of snapshots" but I think that's commonly misunderstood. The actual time length/age of the timeline doesn't matter if it's 6000 years, 6 billion years, or "Having no beginning or no end" type of age. Since even 1 second contains an uncountable infinite number of snapshots given the uncountable infinite number of x/uncountable infinity numbers between 0 and 1.
My original statement isn’t that 100% incorrect.Again, pointless. "I know that this doesn't PROVE that they are not separate timelines, but what if the verse showed this other thing that did PROVE it!" Then that extra evidence would be enough, I guess. Your original statement is still incorrect, I do not care if you later add correct statements.
Yeah, fair enough.Yes which is part of me saying timelines destruction can be high 3-A to low 2-C or even 2-A
I am well aware, which is why I said up above even destruction of 1-2 seconds of a universe can be low 2-C depending on context
Oh, I most likely misunderstood you completely.Can you explain to me how two different bubble universes, which are definitionally part of the same space-time and separated only by a finite distance, could be in two different timelines?
It is also technically possible for a singular universe to being destroyed and created as well.What I mean by puzzle piece statements that described a "Phase transition event" as a "Cosmic Inflation in Time and Space". Same event also "Destroyed and recreated the universe" with the same event having statements that it effected many universes and much of the same universes effected also have the exact same "Birth of the Universe" origin lore story where they were all apparently the same universe destroyed by the same event but are all different universes with different flows of time and different astronomy structure that where still created from the same source. I basically am saying a minimum Low 2-C destruction feat that doubles as a Multiversal creation feat would be multiversal outright IMO
Agnaa makes sense to me above, but I am not the best person to ask, and it depends on what @DontTalkDT , @Ultima_Reality , and @AKM sama think as well.I'm not suggesting that a statement has to be 100% in our faces, just that the tier above "destroying 1 timeline" should be "destroying 2 timelines" not "destroying 2 universes but leaving the past/future intact". Getting over that default would require some extra work, but not a terribly large amount, imo. It'd only end up downgrading the most vague statements without supportive context.
There is then a stronger character who can eat universes.Legends say he created everything. not only all other gods from his universe, but also multiple universes. As he created everything, he might also be able to destroy everything.
It's these sorts of counterexamples that make me think that's a bad take. We never see characters fly between these universes, but with the knowledge I have now, I wouldn't want to put them above 3-A.For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
When it comes for assumptions I would usually assume universes have different spacetimes, unless characters can simply fly between them or something. That assumption is because the most used definition of universe is something like "all of space and everything in it".
On second thought, I don't think that it seems very realistic to only count destroying multiple timelines as tiers 2-C to 2-A, rather than spacetime continuums, which should also logically be equivalent. Almost all tier 2 characters would be downgraded to 3-A or High 3-A.Agnaa makes sense to me above, but I am not the best person to ask, and it depends on what @DontTalkDT , @Ultima_Reality , and @AKM sama think as well.
How can a spacetime be destroyed without affecting time? A spacetime would by definition be a four-dimensional construct made out of space and time.
- Should "destroyed multiple spacetimes" where there's explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?
My bad, my wording was sloppy to save on space. It has now been corrected.How can a spacetime be destroyed without affecting time? A spacetime would by definition be a four-dimensional construct made out of space and time.
Okay.My bad, my wording was sloppy to save on space. It has now been corrected.