- 31,471
- 34,338
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.
-
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
- 18,393
- 14,323
Which one precisely? I don't think they are the same in any sense.
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
- 20,550
- 17,466
I guess two or three look fine.
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,074
- 6,002
Took a few days break and this descended, where are we starting from?
- 9,982
- 10,821
Read since ultima last comment here. Tier 3 now includes 1d, 2d, 3d.
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 605
- 637
@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.
- 18,393
- 14,323
This will really mess up if we allow destroying infinite 1-D to be high 3-A.
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
- 18,393
- 14,323
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.
Infinite 1-D is now high 3-A but also not compared to infinite 3-D (3 factors being infinite > 1 factor being infinite).
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.
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
If ultima is suggesting it then he must have a answer I suppose and when his suggestion is true it's more of messed up.
- 18,393
- 14,323
In my opinion, tier 11 should remain. And an infinite 1D and infinite 2D should not be scaled to infinite 3D, as they are not comparable (@KingPin0422 shares the same opinion).
This is my suggestion, differently, you need to fix the whole tiering system under low 2-C. Because the amount of energy requires for Planet level, for instance, could be also done in a 1-D place and will be “scaled” equivalent.
I don't see any need for a rush here, we can discuss further it as much information and details missing if the 2 or 3 are applied.
This is my suggestion, differently, you need to fix the whole tiering system under low 2-C. Because the amount of energy requires for Planet level, for instance, could be also done in a 1-D place and will be “scaled” equivalent.
I don't see any need for a rush here, we can discuss further it as much information and details missing if the 2 or 3 are applied.
- 2,127
- 1,726
Reiner seems to make good point.
- 7,550
- 7,739
- Thread starter
- #658
- 18,393
- 14,323
So we agree on removing tier 11? Since if 3 or 2 is applied, that tier makes no sense to stay there.
- 32,835
- 38,108
- 9,982
- 10,821
And would like to add that I don't think that any current tier 11 character will qualify for tier 3 (atleast most of) either as for that they should be capable of distroying infinite 1D or 2D (which I don't think any of them have did). And as per our standards being higher dimensional doesn't mean that we are stronger than lower dimensionals, so a character who can destroy infinite 1d or 2d space can be way more powerful than 3D beings, so it won't contradict anything either.
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,323
Mhm thanks for ping. This is really important topic to discuss, the staff want to rush it but forget this significant factor.
- 7,550
- 7,739
- Thread starter
- #663
Please refrain from derailing from the Tier 3 discussion. Discussions of other tiers will be handled in a different thread.
- 18,393
- 14,323
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.
- 1,280
- 1,123
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.
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.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Can we wait for Ultima confirmation at least?
- 1,280
- 1,123
I really don't see how that's necessary. I already linked to the FAQ saying that higher-dimensional beings are not infinitely stronger than lower-dimensional ones by default, which Ultima has already said is not wrong or outdated. That's all the confirmation we need as far as I'm concerned.
- 18,393
- 14,323
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?
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
Last edited:
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 605
- 637
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 -
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?
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
So all now left is tier 3 wording that accumulate infinite 1D and 2D in high 3A as mentioning " qualitative superiority" can may not exist between 1D, 2D and 3D seems awkward when we are specifically talking about axiomatic dimensions, succeeding dimensions always have qualitative superiority when axiomatic. Tier 11 can be done within seprate thread.
So from the definition you suggested will removing "in cases where lower dimensions are not proven to be existentially inferior to higher ones"- this part will be better?
So New and better wording ?
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
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.
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.
- 2,127
- 1,726
You can all argue about tier 11 afterwards. Even now after tier 3 revision tier low 2-c and tier high 3A are gonna clash so just make tier 11 revision afterwards like forthcoming tier 2 revision
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 605
- 637
I might just quote the FAQ -
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.
While, it is sensible enough to use mass and energy to quantify most of the feats in fiction since most verses deal with 3-D, once we get to more unintuitive sizes and start to deal with infinities, it would be better to quantify them based on structure instead of mass and energy.
And anyways, a line with infinite mass would always be a line and never spread to a structure like a 3-D volume. Same with a plane of infinite mass, it will still never spread to 3-D volume. So, what I am proposing is infinite 1-D and 2-D should be restricted to Tier 11 based on structure instead of High 3-A, since the FAQ already clarifies that a lower dimensional being can be stronger than the higher dimensional one, but its effects will not spread to higher dimension and be only restricted to lower dimensional structures.
- 9,982
- 10,821
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".
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 605
- 637
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 clarified
I added the * part just now to make it more clear
*Edit: Oh, I get what u meant. My wording was incorrect. Scalar quantities are treated as same for all dimensions. The dimensions are still different tho as I have already implied.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
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 dimensional *beings are different from higher dimensional *space.
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 605
- 637
A higher dimensional empty void (which has nothing and hence no mass) vs our universe which has mass?
- 9,982
- 10,821
Higher dimensional empty space.
- Status
