• 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 High 1-A vs. Tier 0 Poll

Sir Ovens said:
I'm for changing all High 1-As to 0. It just feels off that the most powerful entities on this site are in the same league as other 1-As.
Click to expand...
But High 1-As have always been established as far above regular 1-As.
 
Yeah, but they are just 1-A with a High placed in front. Just doesn't seem as special as a tier 0.
 
Jobbo said:
I can't believe there's this many people who actually like 0.
Click to expand...
I think it's due to the fact that Tier 0 is its own tier, which signifies it being stronger than 1-A.
 
Question. Assuming the current tiering system, are there any 1-As from one verse that are more powerful than High 1-As from another verse?
 
It's just a name. We're even still going to call it "High Outerversal level".

The changes are happening no matter what, but we're just implementing them in a way that lets us keep a neat part of of the site.
 
Sir Ovens said:
Yeah, but they are just 1-A with a High placed in front. Just doesn't seem as special as a tier 0.
Click to expand...
Because it really isn't that special. I see no point in having a tier 0 if we're rejecting the notion of absolutely boundless beings. High 1-As have only ever been outerversal beings that sit near the very top of their hierarchy of their respective fiction, and regular 1-A it self can stretch infinitely without ever going beyond 1-A. It's still "outerversal" though and it's silly to divide outerversal into two separate tiers.
 
The poll does not seem to work properly. It constantly resets to apparently allow me to vote several times.
 
Antvasima said:
The poll does not seem to work properly. It constantly resets to apparently allow me to vote several times.
Click to expand...
Same thing happening to me.
 
Well, that likely makes the result unreliable then.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, that likely makes the result unreliable then.
Click to expand...
I tested this on my sandbox, you can as well if you're unsure. I reloaded and voted over and over again and the count didn't change.

You just have to re-enter your vote to check the count; it doesn't add a vote every time you do that.
 
Yes, the vote count isn't increasing everytime I vote. It changes only when I change my option.
 
Okay. Then it should be fine.
 
I voted for Tier 0, because I do believe there to be fictional beings that are unreachable, and a clear distinction of tiers is better for that than subtiers. The truly boundless beings shouldn't be in the same definition as those with limitations imo. Else it would confuse people why the both are grouped together. The whole Tier 1 has a lot of text to describe it, so people will understand the level the characters given this tier is at, while Tier 0 is short and simple, truly showing that you don't need much to define those beings which transcends everything and all, because defining them is to limit them. Sure, to some it can be confusing, but I see that more of a confirmation for it to stay, since it is a tier beyond our comprehension.

I can see the appeal of HIGH outerversal being HIGH 1-A instead of 0. It's easy to remember, and having the "high" in both helps defining both. It is a tiering-list made to be understood by as many as possible, and confusion would only mess with where people would place fictional characters. And 0 doesn't belong in a hierarchy, and as a number it has no value, so having 0 above 1 is weird in that sense.

But I do prefer us keeping Tier 0, despite that.

I saw one argument about it being that there was some high 1-A being stronger than some 0, but I remember that we have somewhere on the site saying that in some cases, that a character at a lower tier could defeat another character on a higher tier, especially if they're close to each other, like a high 8-A defeating a low 9-C. Same can be said between high 1-A and 0.

But since it seem that we're going to combine the two, I might be talking in a dead argument there.

And I could name a few things about omnipotence that some people seem to misunderstand, but that's beside the subject of this thread, so I'll save it for another time.
 
"If one's omnipotent, then he should be able to create a rock he cant lift, however if he can indeed create/or not create one- then he is not omnipotent". In my opinion omnipotence is extremely vague, it should be completely independent from tiers.
 
W0NDER3X said:
"If one's omnipotent, then he should be able to create a rock he cant lift, however if he can indeed create/or not create one- then he is not omnipotent".
In my opinion omnipotence is extremely vague, it should be completely independent from tiers.
Click to expand...
That's only the case if you assume an omnipotent would be bound by logic.
 
Agree with Jobbo, the omnipotence-rock paradox is not a way to disprove omnipotence, but rather a show of misunderstanding it.

But let us not derail the thread, if we need to discuss the subject of omnipotence, let us create a new thread about it. I'm willing to discuss it over there.
 
I don't agree with this. Simply put Tier 0 is far more impressive than tier 1.


Any number by one equals the number itself.


Any number by Zero equal a tier of infinity.


Any number by zero multiplied by the exponent of zero equals one.

Zero exponent can even turn infinity to 1.

Zero is closer to a concept of Omnipotence than one is.


Tier 0 should stay it's what make vsbattle wiki unique and more relevant.
 
Sorry but i got to vote high 1-A, tier 0 mean nothing is above you yet some tier 0 still far below other tier 0? What?
 
Chartate101 said:
btw, what does Suggsversal mean? I've heard it come up many times now in the Staff Only thread
Click to expand...


Its a really badly made fictional universe whose sole purpose is to be OverPowered, the author created and published it in order to spite the online vs battle community.


The universe is considered a joke and thus is considered at the bottom of the fictional food chain.
 
You'd be surprised how many people go through the site regularly but aren't active or don't have an account.

I'd still consider votes from people who regular the site as valid.

Ultimatly the result doesn't change anything that's happening on the other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kev_Nino36U
Question about Tier 0/High 1-A
Replies
2
Views
932
OMNIVERSAL-KING
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
NucleerChaos1922
Questions About the Tier System
Replies
3
Views
609
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
Kev_Nino36U
Questions about Tier High 1-A+
Replies
1
Views
772
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Rule clarification for High 1-A+
Replies
11
Views
1K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
Back
Top