Tier 2 Revision: Merging 3D Spaces and Destroying Empty Space

[Antvasima]

Okay. Where exactly in our Tiering System page should that text be placed, more specifically?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. Where exactly in our Tiering System page should that text be placed, more specifically?

Preferably in the Tier 2 section.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Okay. Where exactly in our Tiering System page should that text be placed, more specifically?

The "Note" section, it becomes note 4

 

[Antvasima]

I can add the text segment in question, but you have to reach an agreement regarding where I should place it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump, its been 4 weeks.

 

[KLOL506]

I will try tagging DT and Ultima again, but don't expect them to respond. They're too busy with other work.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

 

[Deagonx]

This has been accepted, to an extent, so we just need to update the pages.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will try to write up a reasonable draft for the first one.
The second one was accepted by Ultima with some exceptions to it based on his last posts. And since most supports him we can tag them back to see if they have changed their stance.

 

[KLOL506]

Basically we just need to add this as Pein said based on the responses from staff:

Note that merging universes/realms does not necessarily warrant a Tier 2 rating, unless said universes/realms are provably separate spacetimes.

In a place where it will be suitable in the Tiering System page within the Tier 2 scenario. You said it would be Note 4?

 

[KLOL506]

Bump.

Has anyone figured out where to put the note?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

Has anyone figured out where to put the note?

The "Note" section, it becomes note 4

Is this acceptable?

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[KLOL506]

Looks good.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality This look good to you?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Looks good.

Should we close this?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Should we close this?

Since the change finally got applied, closing.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Apparently, @PrinceofPein wanted to discuss some more things, so reopened

 

[PrinceofPein]

It's about proposal 2, we have not come to a proper conclusion on it.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It's about proposal 2, we have not come to a proper conclusion on it.

What's proposal 2?

 

[KLOL506]

What's proposal 2?

Proposal 2: The destruction of a universe-sized space is often tiered based on the content of the space itself. However, if that space is considered empty it should not be considered tierable for AP as nothing has properly been destroyed, and should only be considered range. We tier destruction feats based on the energy required to destroy something, but there is no logical way to tier the destruction or creation of a space in which there is no matter.

AFAIK, it was rejected at large by myself, DDM, Glass, Clover and Ultima.

Glass, Clover, DDM and I rejected this proposal being applied to High 3-A at least and that it'd apply only to 3-A and below, but Ultima seems to have disagreed with the proposal on all tiers, stating to simply use the size of the empty space in question to get AP.

Here are some of Ultima's reasons for disagreeing with Proposal 2 outright: Here, here, here and here.

 

[Planck69]

Fine with Proposal 1. I share the same sentiment as Theglassman12, DDM and KLOL in regards to High 3-A spaces when it comes to Proposal 2.

 

[KingTempest]

Fine with Proposal 1. I share the same sentiment as Theglassman12, DDM and KLOL in regards to High 3-A spaces when it comes to Proposal 2.

I second this

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I was under the impression that proposal 2 was already rejected, indeed. I seemed to remember that. But yeah, agree with the others, particularly Ultima and KLOL.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Fine with Proposal 1. I share the same sentiment as Theglassman12, DDM and KLOL in regards to High 3-A spaces when it comes to Proposal 2.

I second this

I was under the impression that proposal 2 was already rejected, indeed. I seemed to remember that. But yeah, agree with the others, particularly Ultima and KLOL.

I've already applied proposal 1. I have no opinion on proposal 2.

 

[Eseseso]

Proposal 2: The destruction of a universe-sized space is often tiered based on the content of the space itself. However, if that space is considered empty it should not be considered tierable for AP as nothing has properly been destroyed, and should only be considered range. We tier destruction feats based on the energy required to destroy something, but there is no logical way to tier the destruction or creation of a space in which there is no matter.

When you talk about removing empty space, will this affect tier 2 scaling based on the distance between universes (which prevents multipliers from affecting Tier 2 stuff)?

 

[KLOL506]

When you talk about removing empty space, will this affect tier 2 scaling based on the distance between universes (which prevents multipliers from affecting Tier 2 stuff)?

No. 3D logic can't be applied on higher-dimensional space.

 

[PrinceofPein]

AFAIK, it was rejected at large by myself, DDM, Glass, Clover and Ultima.

Glass, Clover, DDM and I rejected this proposal being applied to High 3-A at least and that it'd apply only to 3-A and below, but Ultima seems to have disagreed with the proposal on all tiers, stating to simply use the size of the empty space in question to get AP.

Here are some of Ultima's reasons for disagreeing with Proposal 2 outright: Here, here, here and here.

well this was Ultima's last post on the matter and if all of you agreed with him, it was not rejected like you claimed

I'm speeding a bit to tackle threads I've been neglecting as of late, and all things considered this one isn't so high in the priority list, so, if there's anything left to settle after this post, I'll probably take a bit to respond. Anyway:


It's inherently a physics-breaking thing, yes, as I pointed out above. That said, DontTalk expressed an opinion in the aforementioned EE thread that I find myself very much agreeing with, namely:



I apply the same rhetoric to this case.


Personally, I'd apply the above logic to this case as well. Just tier it by however large the space in question is.

Proposal 1 can probably be placed as a brief note in the Tiering System page. Something like "Note that merging realms does not necessarily warrant a Tier 2 rating, unless said realms are provably separate spacetimes."

Tldr: empty spaces destruction do not count unless it is done through explosion e.t.c.

 

[KLOL506]

well this was Ultima's last post on the matter and if all of you agreed with him, it was not rejected like you claimed

Tldr: empty spaces destruction do not count unless it is done through explosion e.t.c.

That is not what was agreed upon by most of us here, not to mention what DT's quote said regarding the EE stuff. Which clearly implied Ultima was more than accepting to let other hax like creation, shockwaves, reality warping, or any other form of "significantly affecting" as counting.

But alas, we can wait for Ultima himself to respond on that front.

@Ultima_Reality

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I honestly don't have a real opinion on the second perposal, I'm on the fence. Whatever is decided, I not going to make a fuss over.

 

[PrinceofPein]

That is not what was agreed upon by most of us here, not to mention what DT's quote said regarding the EE stuff. Which clearly implied Ultima was more than accepting to let other hax like creation, shockwaves, reality warping, or any other form of "significantly affecting" as counting.

But alas, we can wait for Ultima himself to respond on that front.

@Ultima_Reality

DT comment says they do not scale to AP, treat it like environmental destruction/creation if.you want to add it to the AP section, because even though they are self-evident, they are not quantifiable and Ultima largely agree with it.

Anyway let us wait for Ultima to clarify himself.

 

[KLOL506]

DT comment says they do not scale to AP, treat it like environmental destruction/creation if.

You do realize that ED is still a kind of AP, yes? Non-combat applicable because it's usually a side-effect of a feat, but still AP nonetheless, and thus, indexable.

Why do people automatically assume that AP relates to Striking Strength right off the bat? We've done shit like "X physically, Y with Z power" (For cases where the opponent can truly destroy spaces offensively without it being a side-effect) or "X physically, Y Environmental Destruction with Z power" where correlation between supernatural power and striking strength are not concrete.

Also, you might wanna read this:

I think the first bullet point should mention that it's only environmental destruction if it doesn't correlate with the attack potency of the technique itself, and otherwise should be listed as "Universe level+ via [name of the technique]". Environmental Destruction is non-combat applicable AP, while this may be a separate form of combat applicable AP, after all.

As for your other point:

you want to add it to the AP section, because even though they are self-evident, they are not quantifiable and Ultima largely agree with it.

Well, what should I say?
I'm generally still of the opinion that it (and other similar hax for that matter, like reality warping) should be treated by the same standards as for creation.

What placing it in the AP section is concerned: I would do it if it's particularly notable, i.e. above the characters usual tier. Noting the Tier 9 character can erase planets from existence seems in interest of the reader of the profile. It's a technique which self-evidently is much stronger than everything else the character has and deserves to be given particular attention. Otherwise, the character would just seem misrepresented.

This goes double when we get to incorporeal Tier 1 god characters that fight exclusively via reality warping and other technically not quantifiable yet self-evident stuff.

Personally, I'd apply the above logic to this case as well. Just tier it by however large the space in question is.

What part of this tells you that either DT or Ultima is saying "It is not quantifiable"? Now you're just making things up.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality Can you please help clarify your position on Proposal 2?

 

[PrinceofPein]

You do realize that ED is still a kind of AP, yes? Non-combat applicable because it's usually a side-effect of a feat, but still AP nonetheless, and thus, indexable.

Why do people automatically assume that AP relates to Striking Strength right off the bat? We've done shit like "X physically, Y with Z power" (For cases where the opponent can truly destroy spaces offensively without it being a side-effect) or "X physically, Y Environmental Destruction with Z power" where correlation between supernatural power and striking strength are not concrete.

ED does not scale to AP, it never has, it is non combat applicable, which is the same thing I said.

What part of this tells you that either DT or Ultima is saying "It is not quantifiable"? Now you're just making things up.

Maybe if you read the thread to context you will know where the conversation is coming from instead of jumping in and claiming I am making things up. Destruction of an empty space is not quantifiable and a physics breaking thing, that's the whole point this and the back and forth of me and Ultima is how we tier such cases.

I am not interested in dealing with you and frankly, I'd rather not, so let Ultima speak for himself.

 

[KLOL506]

ED does not scale to AP, it never has, it is non combat applicable, which is the same thing I said.

laughs in ED Storm feats that have been decreed as AP feats since forever even if it didn't scale to physical striking strength

Maybe if you read the thread to context you will know where the conversation is coming from instead of jumping in and claiming I am making things up.

I was on the thread Pein, I'd know.

Destruction of an empty space is not quantifiable and a physics breaking thing, that's the whole point this and the back and forth of me and Ultima is how we tier such cases.

Tier 2 and above as a whole break physics and would thus be unquantifiable IRL, doesn't stop us from tiering it on this site tho, he was referring to that as well, IDK why you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this.

I am not interested in dealing with you and frankly, I'd rather not,

Nor I, so I suggest we both stop it, with a heavier emphasis on you, and wait for Ultima to respond. If at all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

laughs in ED Storm feats that have been decreed as AP feats since forever even if it didn't scale to physical striking strength

Environmental Destruction describes a character's capability to damage and destroy an area around themselves, but not necessarily their capacity to realistically harm their opponent. In practice, this is essentially a non-combat applicable

It will be nice of you to read the standards on ED.
Since it is a case by case basis but something like this falls under the case where it cannot scale.

Snip

Do you still hold the view of treating proposal 2 like the new EE standard also?

 

[KLOL506]

Environmental Destruction describes a character's capability to damage and destroy an area around themselves, but not necessarily their capacity to realistically harm their opponent. In practice, this is essentially a non-combat applicable

It will be nice of you to read the standards on ED.
Since it is a case by case basis but something like this falls under the case where it cannot scale.

Non-combat applicable =/= not indexable

Hopefully you got the point across. It can still be indexed.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Non-combat applicable =/= not indexable

Hopefully you got the point across. It can still be indexed.

Tag where I said it cannot be indexed.
Like just anywhere. I only said it is not combat applicable, and you disagreed so stick with what you said please and stop disagreeing just for the sake of antagonizing.

 

[KLOL506]

ED does not scale to AP, it never has, it is non combat applicable, which is the same thing I said.

Are you purposefully miscommunicating for the sake of miscommunicating now, Pein?

What exactly does "scaling to AP" mean for you, Pein? AP is AP, whether it scales or not is irrelevant to indexing at hand. Literally says in the page:

"In practice, this is essentially a non-combat applicable Attack Potency".

Your sentence above clearly implies otherwise in the first line alone, that it cannot be indexed.

 

[Planck69]

Why is whether or not something scales directly to physicals even relevant here? We're evaluating the tier of a feat, nothing more.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Are you purposefully miscommunicating for the sake of miscommunicating now, Pein?

What exactly does "scaling to AP" mean for you, Pein? AP is AP, whether it scales or not is irrelevant to indexing at hand. Literally says in the page:

"In practice, this is essentially a non-combat applicable Attack Potency".

Your sentence above clearly implies otherwise in the first line alone, that it cannot be indexed.

I said it is not combat applicable. You decided to antagonize for the sake of doing it.

, it is non combat applicable,

Learn to read to context
I said it is non combat applicable.

This is not the first time you do this. You do this a lot

Try and relax not everything is an argument, also even if it was an argument how are you going to argue against me linking the universe page and saying only merging of what qualifies here is tier 2, when that is what you also support. You folks can be funny.

I literally did that and you attacked that also, I literally linked that page and you went hats out on it also, like what do you want?
You have no point, just being needlessly confrontational.

You did the same thing at the beginning of the thread, disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement without any reason.
Same thing with DT post and other threads.
I do not care if you do not like me, but you will not go about trying to bully me by disagreeing with everything I say even though you are saying exactly the same thing. Read a book instead, it is much better than all the negativity you are trying to bring.

Why is whether or not something scales directly to physicals even relevant here? We're evaluating the tier of a feat, nothing more.

It is relevant, since we decided while if it is done through hax, we keep it as (hax) that but if it is done through something that travels, it becomes ED like we now want to treat EE.
Klol has problem with me saying ED is non combat applicable, now that is what is irrelevant, since we don't treat ED as combat applicable and if he wants to change that, he can make a thread for it.

 

[KLOL506]

I said it is not combat applicable. You decided to antagonize for the sake of doing it.

Learn to read to context
I said it is non combat applicable.

This is not the first time you do this. You do this a lot



You did the same thing at the beginning of the thread, disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement without any reason.
Same thing with DT post and other threads.
I do not care if you do not like me, but you will not go about trying to bully me by disagreeing with everything I say even though you are saying exactly the same thing. Read a book instead, it is much better than all the negativity you are trying to bring.

Not this shit again, Pein.

You were going above and beyond wording it in a way to make it sound like it was also un-indexable. This isn't me antagonizing you, this is me calling you out for wording your shit wrong. Do not do this ever again in the future.

It is relevant, since we decided while if it is done through hax, we keep it as (hax) that but if it is done through something that travels, it becomes ED like we now want to treat EE.

AP is AP. Just elaborate how it's done, if it's combat applicable or not, and that's our job done. That has nothing to do with the actual tier of the ED itself.

Klol has problem with me saying ED is non combat applicable, now that is what is irrelevant, since we don't treat ED as combat applicable and if he wants to change that, he can make a thread for it.

No, what I do have a problem with is you wording it out to make it sound like it's not indexable. Please don't do that and twist my words around it.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

ED does not scale to AP, it never has, it is non combat applicable, which is the same thing I said.

Maybe if you read the thread to context you will know where the conversation is coming from instead of jumping in and claiming I am making things up. Destruction of an empty space is not quantifiable and a physics breaking thing, that's the whole point this and the back and forth of me and Ultima is how we tier such cases.

I am not interested in dealing with you and frankly, I'd rather not, so let Ultima speak for himself.

By this comment, you made it sound like we don't put it on the AP description, which is what KLOL was contesting. He himself acknowledged it's not combat applicable already, but that we do note it in the AP section nonetheless.

This is just a misunderstanding. You two should drop it now.