Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[KingPin0422]

DontTalk and AKM haven't posted since my earlier summary, which I have lightly edited here. Ultima has sent some messages, but hasn't given his own opinion on it, I don't think.

1. Should vague "destroyed multiple universes" with no elaboration be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two (i.e. "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C")?
2. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but without explicit confirmation or denial that time was affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?
3. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but with explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?

My opinion is that the first and third scenarios should just be 3-A, and the second one should be "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C." What about cases where we know that time was affected, but not that the universes are separate spacetimes, though?

 

[Eficiente]

My opinion is that the first and third scenarios should just be 3-A

Same there.

 

[Agnaa]

@Pain_to12 Why High 3-A? Those universes aren't known to be infinitely large spatially.

@KingPin0422 I guess I'll add that to the list.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@Pain_to12 Why High 3-A? Those universes aren't known to be infinitely large spatially.

I was kind of thinking a more concise post, but let me just say it in summary

If this revision is going to pass, we will need a tier between 3-A and High 3-A maybe 3-A+
Reasons:
The difference between someone who can destroy one observable universe (3-A) and two observable to multiple (not up to infinity) universes are tiers apart and deserve a separate tier, this is not accounting the possible space that may be in between the said universes while he is performing the feat which would add to the things he will have to destroy.

So it does not really sit with me, if we group someone who can destroy 1 universe and 256182671717 universe in the same tier.
Unless each level/number of universe they have been shown to destroy will be notified on the page, but this alternative will put a damp on vs matches and people will just go “he has been shown to be able to destroy 20 more so he is way stronger”.
So I still prefer the former alternative, which is a tier between 3-A and high 3-A, for destruction of universes not up to infinity.

 

[Antvasima]

Pain_to12 seems to make sense in his last post above.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about all this?

 

[Agnaa]

That's the sort of suggestion that would need to be very carefully considered. Here's a smattering of thoughts on it:

1. There are currently 502 3-A characters.
2. Since 3-A is a value reached through joules, it seems a bit strange to use the + modifier for it.
3. I have seen other people float around the idea of making the current 3-A "Low 3-A", using 3-A for multiple universes, and leaving High 3-A as is.
4. If we do include a tier for the physical destruction of multiple universes, we'd need to consider how many universes should qualify, and how we should derive the baseline.
   1. Do we do the same thing we currently do for 3-A but with an increased distance? Or just a flat * n multiplier?
   2. How should the distance increase as more universes are added?
   3. How many numbers of universes should we calculate standard destruction values for?

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa seems to make good points in his last post above as well.

 

[PrinceofPein]

That's the sort of suggestion that would need to be very carefully considered. Here's a smattering of thoughts on it:

1. There are currently 502 3-A characters.
2. Since 3-A is a value reached through joules, it seems a bit strange to use the + modifier for it.
3. I have seen other people float around the idea of making the current 3-A "Low 3-A", using 3-A for multiple universes, and leaving High 3-A as is.
4. If we do include a tier for the physical destruction of multiple universes, we'd need to consider how many universes should qualify, and how we should derive the baseline.
   1. Do we do the same thing we currently do for 3-A but with an increased distance? Or just a flat * n multiplier?
   2. How should the distance increase as more universes are added?
   3. How many numbers of universes should we calculate standard destruction values for?

I don’t really mind whether it’s the low 3-A or 3-A+ Or another option, but there should just be something that can differentiate someone who can destroy one universe and someone who can destroy multiple.

And I think the n*multiplier works fine.

As for the way it will Be determined, something like this works, although this is a draft and I’m sure there are better options but I think the expansion of 3-A should be similar to this

1. Low 3-A, - destruction or creation of one observable universe sized construct

2. 3-A - destruction of 2-1000 observable universe sized construct

3. 3-A+ - destruction of 1001-any number bar infinity number of observable universe sized construct

 

[KingPin0422]

You know, Pain, me and a couple other people have plans to change tier 2 because we see it as inaccurately defined, and your idea actually happens to sort of fit what we want to do. I don't want to go into more detail at the moment, though.

 

[Antvasima]

You know, Pain, me and a couple other people have plans to change tier 2 because we see it as inaccurately defined, and your idea actually happens to sort of fit what we want to do. I don't want to go into more detail at the moment, though.

Please try to coordinate your ideas with DontTalk, and preferably AKM, and myself as well, in private, so we all end up on the same page.

 

[KingPin0422]

Oh, I wouldn't say these are my ideas, per se. I believe Ultima was the one who initially felt that tier 2 is flawed, with Aeyu and myself following suit. But yeah, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but you should preferably properly inform our bureaucrats, especially DontTalk, about these types of important tiering system revisions in private beforehand if you want them to be accepted.

 

[KLOL506]

You know, Pain, me and a couple other people have plans to change tier 2 because we see it as inaccurately defined, and your idea actually happens to sort of fit what we want to do. I don't want to go into more detail at the moment, though.

Yeah uh, I talked with Ultima, Pain's proposals for Tier 3 don't bear much similarity with what Ultima plans for Tier 2 at all.

I don’t really mind whether it’s the low 3-A or 3-A+ Or another option, but there should just be something that can differentiate someone who can destroy one universe and someone who can destroy multiple.

And I think the n*multiplier works fine.

As for the way it will Be determined, something like this works, although this is a draft and I’m sure there are better options but I think the expansion of 3-A should be similar to this

1. Low 3-A, - destruction or creation of one observable universe sized construct

2. 3-A - destruction of 2-1000 observable universe sized construct

3. 3-A+ - destruction of 1001-any number bar infinity number of observable universe sized construct

Uhhhhhhh, why?

Y'all are just overcomplicating 3-A for the sake of overcomplicating it.

If you're confirmed to only blow up the space portion of that many number of universes, just find the combined diameter of the number of universes you're blowing up, halve the diameter, that's your explosive radius, then just inverse-square law it to get the power of the boom at the epicenter. And this is low-balled to assume that there is no space between the universes and that they're just stuck to each other. If there is a quantifiable distance, just add that to the explosion radius. If the distance is infinite, High 3-A it is.

2-1000 universes? Find the combined diameter of 2-1000 universes, halve the diameter to get explosive radius, then dump into the inverse-square law method we used to get our values for current baseline 3-A.

Same deal for 1001+ universes assuming time is not shown to be destroyed. Find the number of universes affected, find their combined diameter, halve the diameter to get explosive radius, inverse-square law and there's your answer. 3-A literally has a joule value to any higher finite number for a reason.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I agree with KLOL. I seriously see no point in changing tiers in such a dramatic way. Seems ultimately pointless in the long run.

 

[Agnaa]

If you're confirmed to only blow up the space portion of that many number of universes, just find the combined diameter of the number of universes you're blowing up, halve the diameter, that's your explosive radius, then just inverse-square law it to get the power of the boom at the epicenter.

This assumes that all the universes are stacked up in a 1-D line, causing the result to be much higher. Something that'd lowball it a bit more would be if we treated the universes as spheres packed in a 3-D environment, you'd want the radius needed to cover N observable-universe-sized packed spheres. However, this would probably make destroying 3 universes take the same AP as destroying 5 universes.

 

[KLOL506]

If you're confirmed to only blow up the space portion of that many number of universes, just find the combined diameter of the number of universes you're blowing up, halve the diameter, that's your explosive radius, then just inverse-square law it to get the power of the boom at the epicenter.

This assumes that all the universes are stacked up in a 1-D line, causing the result to be much higher. Something that'd lowball it a bit more would be if we treated the universes as spheres packed in a 3-D environment, you'd want the radius needed to cover N observable-universe-sized packed spheres. However, this would probably make destroying 3 universes take the same AP as destroying 5 universes.

So basically, assume that the universes are contained within a container-like environment?

Then calculate the diameter of the widest portion of the 3-D container enviroment (Sphere, cube, whatever the container shape may be), halve it and that's your explosive radius.

But the point still stands. At the end of the day, it's still gonna be in joules, it's not becoming infinite 3-D energy anytime soon. I literally see no reason why tiers below High 3-A should need to be this overtly complicated. 3-A is perfectly fine as it is with its current "10^92 J to higher finite value" requirement.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

I guess that people would want further tiers around there since a fair few fictional verses could fall under that umbrella, and they don't want them all being collapsed under 3-A. Even if they are defined by joules, they'd still want more tiers for categorization purposes.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah.

I guess that people would want further tiers around there since a fair few fictional verses could fall under that umbrella, and they don't want them all being collapsed under 3-A. Even if they are defined by joules, they'd still want more tiers for categorization purposes.

I honestly don't see the point. It'd be stat padding for the sake of stat padding at its finest, by that logic you might as well give speed more tiers between MFTL+ and Infinite speed.

We have tiers that have massive and ludicrous gaps between them, but we don't give those extra tiers, like High 4-B or High 4-A or even High 3-C or High 3-B.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah uh, I talked with Ultima, Pain's proposals for Tier 3 don't bear much similarity with what Ultima plans for Tier 2 at all.


Uhhhhhhh, why?

Y'all are just overcomplicating 3-A for the sake of overcomplicating it.

If you're confirmed to only blow up the space portion of that many number of universes, just find the combined diameter of the number of universes you're blowing up, halve the diameter, that's your explosive radius, then just inverse-square law it to get the power of the boom at the epicenter. And this is low-balled to assume that there is no space between the universes and that they're just stuck to each other. If there is a quantifiable distance, just add that to the explosion radius. If the distance is infinite, High 3-A it is.

2-1000 universes? Find the combined diameter of 2-1000 universes, halve the diameter to get explosive radius, then dump into the inverse-square law method we used to get our values for current baseline 3-A.

Same deal for 1001+ universes assuming time is not shown to be destroyed. Find the number of universes affected, find their combined diameter, halve the diameter to get explosive radius, inverse-square law and there's your answer. 3-A literally has a joule value to any higher finite number for a reason.

This will be okay and all but you are forgetting one important factor that comes with destroying universes, which is the space between them or what separates them, Either quilted or bubbled. Unless you think observable universes that are infinitely expanding are expanding into each other and there is no space between them?

Using maths to calculate the destruction of more than one universe is something that will be extremely inaccurate so yes I still prefer categorizing them accordingly.

 

[Agnaa]

A quilted multiverse can expand without the universes "expanding into each other" (I'm assuming you think they'll collide). iirc expansion can be modeled perfectly fine as just the scale factor of space changing, which would not result in universes "expanding into each other".

 

[PrinceofPein]

A quilted multiverse can expand without the universes "expanding into each other" (I'm assuming you think they'll collide). iirc expansion can be modeled perfectly fine as just the scale factor of space changing, which would not result in universes "expanding into each other".

Not at all, I’m not saying they collide, I am saying Klol version of 3-A, assumes the universes expands into each other, with nothing in between them

 

[Agnaa]

Which seems like a fine lowball.

 

[KLOL506]

This will be okay and all but you are forgetting one important factor that comes with destroying universes, which is the space between them or what separates them, Either quilted or bubbled. Unless you think observable universes that are infinitely expanding are expanding into each other and there is no space between them?

By default the space between them is not infinite, but unquantifiable, unless of course as usual, statements exist in the verse, so as a low-ball this is kind of the best option you have.

Also my version never assumed that they expand, just that they were placed alongside each other like beads on a string, or packed into a box or bowl. Not like it matters anyway in the long run. I also never assumed that they'd then collide into each other.

Using maths to calculate the destruction of more than one universe is something that will be extremely inaccurate so yes I still prefer categorizing them accordingly.

I disagree, it will still not be approaching anywhere near High 3-A levels of energy and you're just arbitrarily stat-padding just for the sake of it.

3-A is perfectly fine as is.

 

[PrinceofPein]

By default the space between them is not infinite, but unquantifiable, unless of course as usual, statements exist in the verse, so as a low-ball this is kind of the best option you have.

Also my version never assumed that they expand, just that they were placed alongside each other like beads on a string, or packed into a box or bowl. Not like it matters anyway in the long run. I also never assumed that they'd then collide into each other.


I disagree, it will still not be approaching anywhere near High 3-A levels of energy and you're just arbitrarily stat-padding just for the sake of it.

3-A is perfectly fine as is.

Well I already said it’s either that or N*multiplier. Seems like everyone is with the multiplier

And it’s not stat padding for the sake of it. Same way we differentiate between tier 2 universe destruction unless you think that’s stat padding too?.
The current 3-A is a very broad tier, as it is the equivalent of tier low 2-C to 2-A.
Which was why i suggest categorizing them

 

[Firestorm808]

Tier 3-A and below = How many Joules

High 3-A = How many 3-D Universes

Tier 2 = How many timelines

Tier 1 = How many layers on infinity

This is basically how the tiering system is divided.

I'm apathetic on splitting High 3-A.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[KLOL506]

Well I already said it’s either that or N*multiplier. Seems like everyone is with the multiplier

And it’s not stat padding for the sake of it. Same way we differentiate between tier 2 universe destruction unless you think that’s stat padding too?.

Tier 2 is separated on the basis that it's 4-D and can't be measured in joules. 3-A has no such basis, heck, everything below High 3-A right now relies solely on joule value. I see no reason to deviate from that to make things even more overtly complicated for the sake of being overtly complicated.

The current 3-A is a very broad tier, as it is the equivalent of tier low 2-C to 2-A.
Which was why i suggest categorizing them

Again, I see no point. We have loads of broader tiers.

 

[Firestorm808]

So regarding Tier 2, what are some examples we can list that would qualify for Tier 2?

As I mentioned before,

Like our lightspeed standards, we should have minimum requirements to say if a feat is Tier 2 or not properly.

E.G
Meet at least 3 of these 5 descriptions

1. Time/Space-time was affected
2. Inability to travel to the destroyed universe for time travelers?
3. Something
4. Something
5. Something

 

[Antvasima]

So regarding Tier 2, what are some examples we can list that would qualify for Tier 2?

As I mentioned before,

Like our lightspeed standards, we should have minimum requirements to say if a feat is Tier 2 or not properly.

E.G
Meet at least 3 of these 5 descriptions

1. Time/Space-time was affected
2. Inability to travel to the destroyed universe for time travelers?
3. Something
4. Something
5. Something

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @KingPin0422

 

[Agnaa]

I can't think of anything besides "Affect the entire timeline" off the top of my head.

 

[KLOL506]

The only other thing I can think of is "The space inside said timeline should at least be universe-sized", at least that's what DontTalk once said for pocket-dimension related feats.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The only other thing I can think of is "The space inside said timeline should at least be universe-sized", at least that's what DontTalk once said for pocket-dimension related feats.

This is kind of the basic requirement for tier 2, same with light speed laser, the basic requirement is to be called lasers or light.
Then additional three or two requirements.
So this one too the basic requirement should be for the space/spaces destroyed should be universe sized.
We have three so far

1. Time/Space-time was affected
2. Inability to travel to the destroyed universe/universes for time travelers

3. Affects the entire timeline/timelines

I will like to add
4. Each universe in the multiverse operates on different timelines
5. Each universe in the multiverse is its own contained space-time (This is for bubbled multiverses only)
6.
7.


Tho number 5 needs to be reworded better

 

[KLOL506]

I will like to add
4. Each universe in the multiverse operates on different timelines
5. Each universe in the multiverse is its own contained space-time (This is for bubbled multiverses only)

Aren't these just "each space time continuum must be free from the influence of other space-time continuums, meaning affecting the past/present/future of one universe should not affect the past/present/future of other universes in tandem" requirement in all essentiality?

Of course, this is a case-by-case basis thing for some branched multiverses, where affecting the past of the core timeline leads to brand new alternate timelines where changing the past does not change the future of the timeline where the change took place and where the new timelines are no longer dependent on the core timeline.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Aren't these just "each space time continuum must be free from the influence of other space-time continuums, meaning affecting the past/present/future of one universe should not affect the past/present/future of other universes in tandem" requirement in all essentiality?

Of course, this is a case-by-case basis thing for some branched multiverses, where affecting the past of the core timeline leads to brand new alternate timelines where changing the past does not change the future of the timeline where the change took place and where the new timelines are no longer dependent on the core timeline.

I mean what I meant by 5 is that, there are multiverses in which all universes share the same timeline(or time flows in a single direction), but each universe in that multiverse has its own contained time, I.e. all of them contains their past, present and future inside the bubble. That destroying the bubble is destruction of everything from the past to present

 

[KLOL506]

I mean what I meant by 5 is that, there are multiverses in which all universes share the same timeline(or time flows in a single direction), but each universe in that multiverse has its own contained time, I.e. all of them contains their past, present and future inside the bubble. That destroying the bubble is destruction of everything from the past to present

Ah. So in this quilted multiverse of yours exists universes with their own flow of time separate from the rest of the quilted multiverse's flow of time, correct?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Ah. So in this quilted multiverse of yours exists universes with their own flow of time separate from the rest of the quilted multiverse's flow of time, correct?

Yes

 

[KLOL506]

Yes

Kinda still falls under the "each universe-sized realm regardless of their location must have its own separate flow of time completely free from the influence other neighboring space-time continuums" criteria if you ask me.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Kinda still falls under the "each universe-sized realm regardless of their location must have its own separate flow of time completely free from the influence other neighboring space-time continuums" criteria if you ask me.

I guess so.

Then I should clarify, also it should be on the page or on the FAQ, How do we treat destruction of two universe, time flows in the same direction but time flow in one is faster than another.

An example would be a xianxia novel: There are two realms, the larger and the lower realm. Both are of universe sized, but time in the lower realm flows much faster than time in the higher realm(a year in the higher realm is hundred years in the lower realm).
And they are not connected physically, as you need a portal to travel through them.

 

[Agnaa]

That already literally happens IRL; time passes at different speeds in different frames of reference.

 

[KLOL506]

I guess so.

Then I should clarify, also it should be on the page or on the FAQ, How do we treat destruction of two universe, time flows in the same direction but time flow in one is faster than another.

An example would be a xianxia novel: There are two realms, the larger and the lower realm. Both are of universe sized, but time in the lower realm flows much faster than time in the higher realm(a year in the higher realm is hundred years in the lower realm).
And they are not connected physically, as you need a portal to travel through them.

Another example I can possibly think of is God of War's Norse Pantheon, all the realms exist in the same physical space but are completely separate reflections of each other (They're not connected physically in any manner whatsoever, and you need the Bifrost Travel Realm to travel between realms), each having different flows of time. Jotunheim time travels faster than Midgard, and Hel time travels slower than Midgard, but one of the realm tears in the game in Niflheim is stated to threaten only Niflheim's fabric of reality. Kep's blog goes into more detail regarding the Norse Cosmology of God of War so not sure if that's the right example to use here.