Tier 5 Revision

[Epyriel]

I would like to propose a revision to Tier 5 and Tier High 5-A, as well as a minor correction to Tier 5-C’s description. [Thread creation by non-staff member approved by Antvasima]

Currently Tier High 5-A uses erroneous scientific nomenclature as it is named “Dwarf Star level” and is described as “Characters or objects that can create/destroy very small stars” despited the associated Attack Potency page making it clear the tier is supposed to instead refer to Brown Dwarfs (which are distinct sub-stellar objects that are not stars at all) with the associated standard body used to mark the lower edge of the tier being OTS 44 (a Brown Dwarf) yet erroneously referred to as a “Brown Dwarf star” (there is no such thing, this is a mashing of two mutually incompatible distinctions).

For some context, brown dwarfs are an independent category of celestial objects that are neither planets nor stars. When an object goes above ~13 Jupiter masses it begin to fuse deuterium - which is what defines brown dwarfs. When an object goes above ~78 Jupiter masses it begin to fuse protium (the most common isotope of hydrogen) - this is what defines a star.

So objects below ~13 Jupiter masses are planets or lesser objects, those above ~78 Jupiter masses are stars, and those between ~13 Jupiter masses and ~78 Jupiter masses are brown dwarfs (which are not dwarf stars despite popular confusion).

Proposed Changes:​

Tiering System:​

• Dwarf Star level -> Brown Dwarf level
• “Characters or objects that can create/destroy very small stars.” -> “Characters or objects that can create/destroy brown dwarfs.”

Attack Potency:​

• Dwarf Star -> Brown Dwarf
• “Dwarf Star level: Brown Dwarf star (specifically, the OTS 44).” -> “Brown Dwarf level: Brown Dwarf (specifically OTS 44).”

Lifting Strength:​

• “The weight a solid object can reach before the gravitational collapse to a small star.” -> “The weight a solid object can reach before the gravitational collapse to a brown dwarf.”

Striking Strength:​

• Dwarf Star level -> Brown Dwarf level

Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, GarrixianXD, KLOL506
Neutral: Everything12

While we are at it, the Moon Tier’s description currently reads: “Characters or objects that can destroy a moon, or an astrological object of similar proportion” which confuses astronomy (the scientific study of celestial objects and cosmological phenomena) with astrology (the pseudoscientific superstition about relating astronomical phenomena with the dates of birth of people as predictors of personality).

Proposed Change:​

Tiering System:​

• “Characters or objects that can destroy a moon, or an astrological object of similar proportion” -> “Characters or objects that can destroy a moon, or an astronomical object of similar proportion” [Accepted]

The whole Tier 5 category is also misnamed as ‘Planetary‘ despite also including non-planetary objects such as moons, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs and other stellar remnants like EF Eridani B. I’m not the first to point out the inaccuracy being a point of confusion. A more accurate term enclosing all such objects would be ‘Substellar’:

Proposed Change:​

Tiering System:​

• Tier 5: Planetary -> Tier 5: Substellar

Agree: GyroNuts, Everything12
Disagree:
Neutral: DarkDragonMedeus

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

While we are at it, the Moon Tier’s description currently reads: “Characters or objects that can destroy a moon, or an astrological object of similar proportion” which confuses astronomy (the scientific study of celestial objects and cosmological phenomena) with astrology (the pseudoscientific superstition about relating astronomical phenomena with the dates of birth of people as predictors of personality). It should be changed to “Characters or objects that can destroy a moon, or an astronomical object of similar proportion”.

This part is just a wording error, so I went ahead and fixed it for you.

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

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think the tier probably also includes some dwarf stars on the upper end and the term "brown dwarf star", while perhaps technically incorrect, is still in frequent colloquial use.
I think changing the description is fine, changing the name seems like much effort for little gain.

 

[Epyriel]

I think the tier probably also includes some dwarf stars on the upper end and the term "brown dwarf star", while perhaps technically incorrect, is still in frequent colloquial use.
I think changing the description is fine, changing the name seems like much effort for little gain.

The upper limit for the tier is defined by VB 10, one of the smallest known red dwarfs in existence. Its mass is 0.0881 solar masses, which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible star (~0.075 solar masses). The number of non-brown dwarfs inside the High 5-A Tier is far smaller than the number of moons in the Small Planet Tier for example.

Despite the common misunderstanding of brown dwarfs being labelled stars, it is still actually the current designation that causes the most confusion, as the Small Star Tier is full of red dwarfs and the Star Tier is full of yellow dwarfs, both of which can be misleading if you have a “Dwarf Star Tier” that is full of non-star brown dwarfs, while all the actual dwarf stars are in different tiers.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think the tier probably also includes some dwarf stars on the upper end and the term "brown dwarf star", while perhaps technically incorrect, is still in frequent colloquial use.
I think changing the description is fine, changing the name seems like much effort for little gain.

Agreed

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think the tier probably also includes some dwarf stars on the upper end and the term "brown dwarf star", while perhaps technically incorrect, is still in frequent colloquial use.
I think changing the description is fine, changing the name seems like much effort for little gain.

The upper limit for the tier is defined by VB 10, one of the smallest known red dwarfs in existence. Its mass is 0.0881 solar masses, which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible star (~0.075 solar masses). The number of non-brown dwarfs inside the High 5-A Tier is far smaller than the number of moons in the Small Planet Tier for example.

Despite the common misunderstanding of brown dwarfs being labelled stars, it is still actually the current designation that causes the most confusion, as the Small Star Tier is full of red dwarfs and the Star Tier is full of yellow dwarfs, both of which can be misleading if you have a “Dwarf Star Tier” that is full of non-star brown dwarfs, while all the actual dwarf stars are in different tiers.

Agreed

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

This seems quite important. What do you think?

 

[Epyriel]

I think changing the description is fine, changing the name seems like much effort for little gain.

If the main opposition to the full change is just that it will take too long to change all the pages that individually reference the tier, then upon acception I will do the work personally for all open pages and compile all the closed ones here.

 

[Elizhaa]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

This seems quite important. What do you think?

I also agree with DontTalkDT's point. Having to do edits for over 300 pages seems to much compared to the simpler alternative.

 

[Epyriel]

I also agree with DontTalkDT's point. Having to do edits for over 300 pages seems to much compared to the simpler alternative.

As above, I’m willing to do all 500 edits myself if that is the main pushback simply because of how much the inaccuracy annoys me.

 

[Antvasima]

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame

Would any of you be willing to apply this name change to all of the following 385 pages if necessary?

Tier High 5-A

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame

Would any of you be willing to apply this name change to all of the following 385 pages if necessary?

Tier High 5-A

vsbattles.fandom.com

Sure, it would only take a few minutes with a bot.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you greatly for helping out.

 

[Catzlaflame]

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame

Would any of you be willing to apply this name change to all of the following 385 pages if necessary?

Tier High 5-A

vsbattles.fandom.com

To be certain, the accepted change is "Dwarf Star" -> "Brown Dwarf Star" correct?

 

[Epyriel]

To be certain, the accepted change is "Dwarf Star" -> "Brown Dwarf Star" correct?

Not yet accepted, but it is: “Dwarf Star” -> “Brown Dwarf”

There is no such thing as a brown dwarf star, as a brown dwarf by definition cannot be a star as covered above.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but let's wait with applying this change until we receive more staff agreements here. I cannot just unilaterally approve this kind of significant change, and nor do I want to do so without safety evaluations.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Ah, I see, so the tag was only to see if people were willing? Well in that case, yes, I am willing to help out with this if it comes to that.

 

[SamanPatou]

Seems fine, but "Brown Dwarf" albeit accurate, is a quite uncommon term and I feel it is a bit unfit to be the name of a whole tier.
Is there any more colloquially - friendly term we could use?

 

[Epyriel]

Seems fine, but "Brown Dwarf" albeit accurate, is a quite uncommon term and I feel it is a bit unfit to be the name of a whole tier.
Is there any more colloquially - friendly term we could use?

Brown dwarf is the only commonly used term for the object in question. The only other terms I know of are ‘planetars’ or ‘hyperjovians’ which are even more scarcely used than ‘brown dwarfs’.

I think the infrequent colloquial use of the term ‘brown dwarfs’ can be chalked up to the fact that the category of celestial object in question isn’t commonly referred to at all (outside astronomy circles), by any name.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @DarkGrath @Dereck03 Would it be fine with you if we renamed High 5-A from "Dwarf Star level" to "Brown Dwarf level" to account for how the tier is based on destroying brown dwarfs, which aren't stars by definition?

 

[The_Impress]

the little shit tier frfr

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Is there no better name for this? I'm trying not to sound childish, but it just sounds like something you'd discover in a toilet, not a statistic rating for characters.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Dwarf Star level" to "Brown Dwarf level" to account for how the tier is based on destroying brown dwarfs, which aren't stars by definition

I don't see why changing it is necessary. Dwarf Star conveys the same idea in my view and reads better.

 

[Epyriel]

I don't see why changing it is necessary. Dwarf Star conveys the same idea in my view and reads better.

Because ‘dwarf star’ is a different designation that is mutually incompatible with the designation of a brown dwarf. Red dwarfs and yellow dwarfs are both dwarfs stars but correspond to tiers Low 4-C and 4-C respectively.

It is problematic if you have a tier named ‘Dwarf Star level’ that has no dwarfs stars in it but rather brown dwarfs which aren’t dwarf stars, and differently named tiers that have all the dwarf stars.

It is a complete mess astronomy wise.

 

[Epyriel]

Is there no better name for this? I'm trying not to sound childish, but it just sounds like something you'd discover in a toilet, not a statistic rating for characters.

Already answered above:

Brown dwarf is the only commonly used term for the object in question. The only other terms I know of are ‘planetars’ or ‘hyperjovians’ which are even more scarcely used than ‘brown dwarfs’.

I think the infrequent colloquial use of the term ‘brown dwarfs’ can be chalked up to the fact that the category of celestial object in question isn’t commonly referred to at all, by any name.

 

[Arkenis]

Why not just put it as Substellar? Jupiter fits this description as well.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Why not just put it as Substellar? Jupiter fits this description as well.

That would need to be worded as "Substar level". Discuss.

 

[Arkenis]

That would need to be worded as "Substar level". Discuss.

Substellar is cooler

But yeah it definitely fits as a better title than Brown Dwarf level

 

[Epyriel]

Why not just put it as Substellar? Jupiter fits this description as well.

That would need to be worded as "Substar level". Discuss.

Substellar is cooler

But yeah it definitely fits as a better title than Brown Dwarf level

Exoplanets and other smaller objects are included in the definition of a substar. But the lower bound of Tier High 5-A is OTS 44 (a brown dwarf vastly larger than most exoplanets) which means the name would imply inclusion of objects of lower tiers not part of High 5-A.

The tier’s values are strictly bounded by brown dwarfs, and using an inaccurate name in its stead simply because it isn’t ‘cool’ enough seems a poor reason.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Brown Dwarf level sounds meh. But neutral about Substar level.

 

[Arkenis]

Exoplanets and other smaller objects are included in the definition of a substar. But the lower bound of Tier High 5-A is OTS 44 (a brown dwarf vastly larger than most exoplanets) which means the name would imply inclusion of objects of lower tiers not part of High 5-A.

The tier’s values are strictly bounded by brown dwarfs, and using an inaccurate name in its stead simply because it isn’t ‘cool’ enough seems a poor reason.

Brown Dwarf level sounds meh. But neutral about Substar level.

The tier although it includes exoplanets, can just be described as a tier that applies to the upper limits of Substar. Or another option, likely unlikely, instead of just large planet, it can be named 5-A - Substar level, High 5-A - Large Substar level.

 

[Epyriel]

The tier although it includes exoplanets, can just be described as a tier that applies to the upper limits of Substar. Or another option, likely unlikely, instead of just large planet, it can be named 5-A - Substar level, High 5-A - Large Substar level.

MacMillan’s original proposed classification of a substar included objects as small as moons and rocky planets. To make this definition fit with varying qualifying adjectives you would have to rename Tiers 5-C, Low 5-B, 5-B, and 5-A in addition to High 5-A. Replacing common terms like ‘moon’ and ‘planet’ with something like ‘tiny substar’ and ‘small substar’ makes no sense.

Although it is a good idea to rename the tier category from ‘Tier 5: Planetary’ to ‘Tier 5: Substellar’ since the tier includes a whole bunch of non-planetary objects like moons, white dwarfs and brown dwarfs. I will add that to the proposal.

But for Tier High 5-A, could we please just use the actual astronomical term instead of trying to fit inaccurate and confounding terms into a tier that is precisely defined by brown dwarfs?

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Common VSBW L

 

[GyroNutz]

I like the substellar change.

Our rankings should strike a balance between being scientifically accurate and being understandable to the thousands of people who read the tier list. People can visualize how strong a character is if they're rated as being strong enough to destroy a building, or a city, or a planet. I'd wager that very few people know how strong someone would have to be to destroy a brown dwarf.

On a side note, does anyone know where one could find the thread/page giving a baseline for each tier? E.g. the destruction of a mountain that would actually be in mountain level? Because from what I remember, only a select few mountain busts would actually be baseline 7-A. Could be mistaken.

 

[Epyriel]

I like the substellar change.

Our rankings should strike a balance between being scientifically accurate and being understandable to the thousands of people who read the tier list. People can visualize how strong a character is if they're rated as being strong enough to destroy a building, or a city, or a planet. I'd wager that very few people know how strong someone would have to be to destroy a brown dwarf.

Counterpoint: if few people know how strong they need to be to destroy a brown dwarf, even fewer know how strong you need to be to destroy a substar, as it is an even less known and far broader and vaguer classification. While brown dwarfs are precisely and narrowly defined, substars can range from tiny moons to massive stellar remnants, meaning it is far less useful for giving people an idea of how powerful the feat is. Not to mention the problem of encroachment on lower tiers as discussed above.

On a side note, does anyone know where one could find the thread/page giving a baseline for each tier? E.g. the destruction of a mountain that would actually be in mountain level? Because from what I remember, only a select few mountain busts would actually be baseline 7-A. Could be mistaken.

Standard bodies used for tier baselines are given here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/New_GBE_Formula:_Revised_Attack_Potency

Mountain feat scaling requirements are given here:

Mountain and Island Level Requirements

We are going to figure out how much energy it really takes to bust mountains of different sizes. For a minimum size of a mountain to have Mountain level yield at minimum via: (4.184e17 Joules) / (8 Joules/cc) = 5.230e16 cm^3, or 5.230e10 m^3 destroyed. Assuming that a mountain is considered a...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[GyroNutz]

Counterpoint: if few people know how strong they need to be to destroy a brown dwarf, even fewer know how strong you need to be to destroy a substar, as it is an even less known and far broader and vaguer classification. While brown dwarfs are precisely and narrowly defined, substars can range from tiny moons to massive stellar remnants, meaning it is far less useful for giving people an idea of how powerful the feat is. Not to mention the problem of encroachment on lower tiers as discussed above.


Standard bodies used for tier baselines are given here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/New_GBE_Formula:_Revised_Attack_Potency

Mountain feat scaling requirements are given here:

Mountain and Island Level Requirements

We are going to figure out how much energy it really takes to bust mountains of different sizes. For a minimum size of a mountain to have Mountain level yield at minimum via: (4.184e17 Joules) / (8 Joules/cc) = 5.230e16 cm^3, or 5.230e10 m^3 destroyed. Assuming that a mountain is considered a...

vsbattles.fandom.com

For the latter, thanks but I had another thread in mind. Though I suppose that indicates that very few mountains meet the mountain busting requirement, considering fragmentation.

For the former, I feel like the implication of destroying a substellar object is pretty clear? Based on the prefix alone, one would assume that it's an object that is not as big as a stellar body but still not so much smaller than it can be compared to it, in the same way that sub-relativistic refers to speeds close to but below relativistic speeds. Astronomically speaking, brown dwarf makes more sense, but I don't see it being generally clearer than substellar as a descriptive term.

 

[Epyriel]

For the former, I feel like the implication of destroying a substellar object is pretty clear? Based on the prefix alone, one would assume that it's an object that is not as big as a stellar body but still not so much smaller than it can be compared to it, in the same way that sub-relativistic refers to speeds close to but below relativistic speeds. Astronomically speaking, brown dwarf makes more sense, but I don't see it being generally clearer than substellar as a descriptive term.

The problem is that the intuition of a substar being near, but not quite the size of a star simply isn’t the case like it is for sub-relativistic and relativistic.

The difference between relativistic and sub-relativistic is a single order of magnitude.

The difference between star and substar encompasses eleven orders of magnitude, which stretches well into 4 other tiers besides the one we want to name.

If people are unfamiliar with brown dwarfs they can simply look it up or scroll through the attack potency page to get some idea of what it encompasses thanks to the neat and precise astronomical definition of a brown dwarf. If they try to do the same for a substar what they will find is a broad and vague definition that encompasses multiple other tiers that will only further confusion and hamper intuitions.

 

[Arkenis]

Astronomically speaking, brown dwarf makes more sense, but I don't see it being generally clearer than substellar as a descriptive term.

Yeah even if substellar is definitionally meant for other objects like moons and planets, on site it can mean objects somewhat smaller than average stars but bigger than planets. And with our tiers already covering moon and planet, I think it's clearer than Brown Dwarf.

If people are unfamiliar with brown dwarfs they can simply look it up or scroll through the attack potency page to get some idea of what it encompasses thanks to the neat and precise astronomical definition of a brown dwarf. If they try to do the same for a substar what they will find is a broad and vague definition that encompasses multiple other tiers that will only further confusion and hamper intuitions.

The site indexes tiers, why would we want/expect new viewers to go look up uncommon definitions outside our site?

 

[Epyriel]

Yeah even if substellar is definitionally meant for other objects like moons and planets, on site it can mean objects somewhat smaller than average stars but bigger than planets. And with our tiers already covering moon and planet, I think it's clearer than Brown Dwarf.



The site indexes tiers, why would we want/expect new viewers to go look up uncommon definitions outside our site?

The whole reason this thread exists in the first place is to fix the confusion present thanks to the site rewriting and confounding accepted astronomical definitions. With tiers already covering moons and 3 sizes of planets (all of which count as substars), following that up with a tier that is supposed to be brown dwarfs but called ‘substar‘ makes it far less clear to anyone who knows anything about astronomy, not more.

The people who use this site to look up astronomical scaling for fictional feats are exactly the kind of people who might look up unfamiliar terminology the site puts into its tiers. We can either promote scientific literacy among those new to astronomy and make a more intuitive scaling system for those who are already familiar with astronomical terminology, or we can spread scientific misinformation and confusion among the new and frustration among the familiar. The same argument on how people would just take the site’s word on what constitutes a ‘substar’ works even better for a brown dwarf as it is the actual appropriate name and wouldn’t cause confusion among those familiar or interested in the relevant terms.

At least ‘dwarf star’ erroneously encroaches on only 2 other tiers, ‘substar’ is pushing it to 4. I did not make this thread to double the problem.

Could we please not be allergic to using the actual name for the tier? There is literally nothing wrong with brown dwarf.

 

[Arkenis]

The whole reason this thread exists in the first place is to fix the confusion present thanks to the site rewriting accepted astronomical definitions. With tiers already covering moons and 3 sizes of planets (all of which count as substars), following that up with a tier that is supposed to be brown dwarfs but called ‘substar‘ makes it far less clear to anyone who knows anything about astronomy, not more.

The people who use this site to look up astronomical scaling for fictional feats are exactly the kind of people who might look up unfamiliar terminology the site puts into its tiers. We can either promote scientific literacy among those new to astronomy and make a more intuitive scaling system for those who are already familiar with astronomical terminology, or we can spread scientific misinformation and confusion among the new and frustration among the familiar.

No there really was no confusion on this tier for as long as its existed. The Brown Dwarf thing seems to be something never pointed out till now. Though since you are insisting on accuracy, tier 5 should be renamed Substellar shouldn't it? And we are not spreading "misinformation", its a term that conveys the tier in common terms compared to "Brown Dwarf" which has zero clarity as a title. You hear "substar level", you think less than star level. We aren't here to be 100% accurate in our terminology, we need to be understood with some accuracy, and Dwarf Star has worked fine as a description.