• 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.

Tiering System Dimensions and Mathematics Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
It does involve Tier 2 as a whole correct?

No, just Low 2-C.

Well, not that it matter since I thought we also have address certain things behind Tier 2 since one can make the interpretation that compactification does involves pocket dimensions as well and also I can not see how we can exclude pocket dimensions in this case and pocket reality as well.

I don't think that's true. From what I remember, these compactified dimensions are insanely tiny. They're not relevant for building-sized pocket realities.
 
Cat said:
The 1st epsilon nought is used when there is to many * or + of a omega, it's not used for ^ cases as this already maps a new cardinal and satisfied a power set for omega, assuming the continuum hypothesis is true.

Omega^Omega is equivalent to a 2^Omega how can you not confuse them..?
Click to expand...
Omega^Omega is an extension of the natural number line, while 2^Omega is talking about a different mapping entirely. Omega^Omega can be uncountable, but it was of a different cardinality a long time ago. You're either talking about one, or the other and we were explicitly talking about the one pertaining to countable infinity.

Agnaa said:
So which of these options do you prefer sir?

I prefer Option 3.

Option 2 makes more sense to me, as 1 is too subjective, and thus restrictive and Option 3, the one you seem to be rooting for kind of makes the changes to the tiering system pointless as we are still placing two extraordinarily varying characters on the same playing field even if it's only in the the realm of durability.

It puts them on the same playing field because they kind of are. An infinitely large 5-D character and a human-sized 5-D character would both (if their 5-D-ness qualifies for this) be unable to be harmed by 4-D attacks.
Click to expand...
Option 2 was made to take that into consideration already (though in hindsight it probably needs more work).
Agnaa said:
Sure, there would be a huge gap between them, but that'd be inevitable unless we split up each of those higher tiers further, which doesn't seem likely, given that they already merge multiple dimensions together.
Click to expand...
Dimensions that they can't significantly effect, which is kind of a big part of the tiering system. Like I said, option 3 makes everything irrelevant because it is inherently contradictory. You're basically saying they can't hurt themselves, which besides a very few higher dimensional characters, is easily proven to not be the case (also, yeah, dimensions>= layers, didn't mean to repeat myself).

Agnaa said:
Two things wrong with this. As stated before in the blog we already use plot relevance as a reasoning behind our profiles. This is not to get plot relevance usage "accepted". This is to make this kind of argument an integral part of the way we do things since as an indexing site plot relevance is something we should take into consideration first and foremost, as a recording or analysis of what actually happens.

To me, plot relevance feels like more of a tie breaker, if other ways of reaching conclusions contradict each other. To the point where I find it hard to fathom what it would mean to put plot relevance above other sources of information.
Click to expand...
It's not just a tie breaker. It completely changes how we tier characters. Like multiple versions existing across the multiverse, as in continuities, or different canons, or whether the abilities of a character depends on a certain mechanism all of which would be resulting in a need for different keys, and in turn everything else...etc etc.

Putting plot relevance above everything else just seems to make things tidier from what I've seen so far, to be honest, and allows a wider range of interpretations, meaning a wider range of calcs, meaning a wider range of statistics, meaning a more objective point of view in which to rate characters (which, might I add, is kind of a universal phenomenon).
Agnaa said:
The only reason why I don't think it's necessary to go out of our way to portray the levels of durability is because they can quite easily be noted in the feats section, a very important section that almost every profile ignores, seemingly preferring to cram them in every other category regardless of how relevant they are to the actual rating.

100% agree here, I would like to include a feats section in every profile I make, from now on.
Click to expand...
I'll add it to the list.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't think that's true. From what I remember, these compactified dimensions are insanely tiny. They're not relevant for building-sized pocket realities.
Click to expand...
I not sure if what you claim is true especially we trying to apply scientific logic to fictional logic and we both know that isn’t just good enough as it stands as well to a extent mathematical logic too.

Also I will have to disagree as compactified dimensions was used in string theories.

https://www.ipht.fr/Docspht/articles/t13/042/public/Notes.pdf

Reminder, I don’t recall it ever stated that compactified dimensions is restricted to being extremely tiny so odds are you misremembering specific things.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
I not sure if what you claim isn’t true especially we trying to apply scientific logic to fictional logic and we both know that isn’t just good enough as it stands as well to a extent mathematical logic too.

Also I will have to disagree as compactified dimensions was used in string theories.

https://www.ipht.fr/Docspht/articles/t13/042/public/Notes.pdf

Reminder, I don’t recall it ever stated that compactified dimensions is restricted to being extremely tiny so odds are you misremembering specific things.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Aren't string theory dimensions explicitly stated to be planck length and as such is the main reason why we have so much difficulty noting them IRL?
 
Dimensions that they can't significantly effect, which is kind of a big part of the tiering system. Like I said, option 3 makes everything irrelevant because it is inherently contradictory. You're basically saying they can't hurt themselves, which besides a very few higher dimensional characters, is easily proven to not be the case (also, yeah, dimensions>= layers, didn't mean to repeat myself).

Ahh, so that's why we haven't implemented that solution yet. In which case I'd go with what we currently have now, except maybe with a better acknowledgement that sometimes their hax only works on lower-tiered characters. Some characters in the same tier will be far stronger/weaker than others, but that's inevitable with those tiers anyway.

It's not just a tie breaker. It completely changes how we tier characters. Like multiple versions existing across the multiverse, as in continuities, or different canons, or whether the abilities of a character depends on a certain mechanism all of which would be resulting in a need for different keys, and in turn everything else...etc etc.

I don't really see how it changes things in those examples.

And, as an aside, I see plot relevance as more of a tie breaker since it can't introduce new information by itself; it's a lens to analyse information that we get through other routes. Plot relevance cannot give a character a resistance to an ability, but WoG, character statements, visual depictions can. It's just that information from the works has an associated amount of plot relevance.

Putting plot relevance above everything else just seems to make things tidier from what I've seen so far, to be honest, and allows a wider range of interpretations, meaning a wider range of calcs, meaning a wider range of statistics, meaning a more objective point of view in which to rate characters (which, might I add, is kind of a universal phenomenon).

Since I don't really comprehend what you mean, it's hard for me to see how it'd play out unless we talked some details about a verse we're both familiar with, and we probably don't share any verses like that....

@HammerStrikes219 I am very confident that compactified dimensions are really tiny. I believe that at least part of the reason they're considered is because some physics stuff only checks out in higher dimensions, but our reality clearly only has 4 large dimensions, and so for those to work the dimensions would have to be compactified. I suspect that this puts them as smaller than any pocket reality we'd find in fiction.
 
CosmicWreck said:
Omega^Omega is an extension of the natural number line, while 2^Omega is talking about a different mapping entirely. Omega^Omega can be uncountable, but it was of a different cardinality a long time ago. You're either talking about one, or the other and we were explicitly talking about the one pertaining to countable infinity.
Click to expand...
Ah sorry I just looked at the hypothesis again and realised a omega 1 is actually many omega amount of omega^omega, so a epsilon nought on the countable omega ordinal has the same cardinality of omega^omega or just omega.
 
“In string theory, the string length is not taken to be the Planck length,



ℓ𝑃=ℏ𝐺𝑐3‾‾‾‾√.ℓP=ℏGc3.
Rather, we expect strings, should they exist, to be approximately around this scale but from my knowledge of the literature and many introductory texts, there is no claim it is precisely ℓ𝑃ℓP.

The energy scale of the quantum theory itself is believed to also be around the Planck mass, 𝑀𝑃MP. The Einstein-Hilbert action can be expanded in powers of 𝑀−1𝑃MP−1and this is believed to be the relevant coupling in the quantum theory.

The reason quantum gravity does not appear to affect everyday life is that the scale the LHC probes, that is, the electroweak scale 𝑀𝐸𝑊MEW has 𝑀𝐸𝑊/𝑀𝑃∼10−15MEW/MP∼10−15.”
 
Agnaa said:
Dimensions that they can't significantly effect, which is kind of a big part of the tiering system. Like I said, option 3 makes everything irrelevant because it is inherently contradictory. You're basically saying they can't hurt themselves, which besides a very few higher dimensional characters, is easily proven to not be the case (also, yeah, dimensions>= layers, didn't mean to repeat myself).

Ahh, so that's why we haven't implemented that solution yet. In which case I'd go with what we currently have now, except maybe with a better acknowledgement that sometimes their hax only works on lower-tiered characters. Some characters in the same tier will be far stronger/weaker than others, but that's inevitable with those tiers anyway.
Click to expand...
Alright then.
Agnaa said:
And, as an aside, I see plot relevance as more of a tie breaker since it can't introduce new information by itself; it's a lens to analyse information that we get through other routes. Plot relevance cannot give a character a resistance to an ability, but WoG, character statements, visual depictions can. It's just that information from the works has an associated amount of plot relevance.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Well, I don't think there's anything else we failed to cover. I'll just mull over everything for a bit before I come back and update the OP with what was discussed so people don't have to slog through all of this.

Ultima mentioned that he wanted to comment so I'll wait. Depending on what I decide I might just get someone to close this thread though 🤷‍♂️ (though this shouldn't be necessary as I think there was one or two agreements).
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Even the Wikipedia article for String Theory mentioned compactified dimensions can apply to 4D it seems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions
Click to expand...
I am aware that compactified dimensions can be added to an otherwise 4D spacetime. It's still not relevant in any way to the tiering of pocket reality feats. We do not count compact dimensions for tiers. The dimensions involved in pocket reality feats are too large to be considered compactified.
 
Agnaa said:
I am aware that compactified dimensions can be added to an otherwise 4D spacetime. It's still not relevant in any way to the tiering of pocket reality feats. We do not count compact dimensions for tiers. The dimensions involved in pocket reality feats are too large to be considered compactified.
Click to expand...
Pocket Reality feats that ranges from solar system to galaxy if not higher.
I kinda have to disagree in this regard ngl as I usually think of 4 dimensional (3D spatial with 1 temporal dimension) or 3 Dimensional if the pocket reality explicitly stated to not containing time itself.
In additional to that, there are certain assumptions to being taken into account for the fact pocket dimensions do varied in size greatly as nothing say that pocket dimension can not been infinitesimal small .
However, I do think we should acknowledge the fact pocket dimensions can exist on both lower dimensional and higher dimensional levels tbh.
 
Edited my responses, but from my viewpoint, the assumption that pocket dimensions can exist between lower and higher dimensional levels does come to mind.
Edit: Also we don’t have evidence of pocket dimensions existing irl. Just theories regarding the existence of pocket dimensions to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Updated OP with the current results of discussions so no one has to read all the conversations in the thread in their entirety to gain a basic understanding of what's being discussed.

Some proposals weren't taken into consideration, though, as they didn't properly fit into any category and went beyond the scope of this thread thus would be better handled elsewhere.
 
CosmicWreck said:
Updated OP with the current results of discussions so no one has to read all the conversations in the thread in their entirety to gain a basic understanding of what's being discussed.

Some proposals weren't taken into consideration, though, as they didn't properly fit into any category and went beyond the scope of this thread thus would be better handled elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Thanks as pocket dimensions has been discussed in the past IIRC.

I have to go through old threads regarding pocket dimensions anyway
 
Gonna use the summary.
1. Depends on context and is hence case-by-case 🎶 For lots of fictions physical size is a meaningless indicator as their power system isn't structured around that but more qualitative ideas.
2. I assume I can skip these. Disagree in any case.
3. Plot relevance and ordinals seem like meaningless indicators of scale. Just containing more stuff that countable infinite universes doesn't IMO suffice to reach Low 1-C. A non-significantly large 5th dimension also can contain more stuff, after all.
4. We currently mostly tier being beyond any logical system as all being the same rank (i.e. ZFC rank). That's a practice I don't like either, although I have different opinion on how I would prefer things to be ranked. Conceptual Transcendance as a tiering tool is fine in my book, though. Just that it should not all end up in a "transcends logical system" tier but rather as evaluated relative to what is in the fiction.
5. aleph_4 for Tier 0 would be too low, as that would be one aleph for infinite levels of infinity. It would make more sense to say: Below 1-A is infinite dimension stuff, 1-A starts as Aleph_2, High 1-A at Aleph_omega and tier 0 at Aleph_2*omega or something. That way an infinite hierarchy of levels of infinity is 1-to-1 matched by an infinite hierarchy of alephs. But any revisions of such nature can't be done in a middle of some thread like this and personally I don't think it's the right time.
6. No. Not just Durability but also AP and Speed ratings vary to some degree based on amount of damage done and stuff. Such unquantifiable factors are in all our stats. Ideally we should always give a range of stats, but that is just unrealistic in terms of effort. Our rating systems are simplified in many ways and assigning each character one rating for the consistent peak feats is one such aspects. I don't think it should be changed.
7. Honestly, don't think we need a mathematical example. Only suits the mathematical verses anyway, nothing else cares. Of course, if there is some good one we could add it somewhere, but it is a complicated debate and I don't care for it.

So... I guess put me down as disagree for 1-6 and neutral on 7.
 
@DontTalkDT idk if you looked at the alternate suggestions, but just in case:

1. This would (with the alternative) just involve putting a note down, or just being careful, about the difference between, say, an infinitely-large 5D character, or a character who can manipulate an entire large 5D realm, and a character who gets Low 1-C by seeing a timeline as fictional. The last of those should be weaker than the former two, and would not be able to use hax on the first one.

4. I thought we didn't do that anymore (after you and I disagreed with Ultima about it in this thread), but according to the OP this is still done in some places, so the alternate would be that a note should be placed somewhere about our different standards, and any verses that still do "Beyond all logical systems = Beyond ZFC" should be downgraded.

6. The OP's alternative suggestion is that profiles should more readily use the Feats section (perhaps even backed up by calcs) and that we can chuck all the nuance there, for whenever it's relevant in a fight.

@HammerStrikes219 Pocket universes are, well, universe-sized, so they're not really useful for the pocket realities discussion.
 
Agnaa said:
@HammerStrikes219 Pocket universes are, well, universe-sized, so they're not really useful for the pocket realities discussion.
Click to expand...
That is true normally, but that pocket realities containing a universe is at that point considering 3A, High 3A, or low 2C.

Also I am currently looking through old threads as well as it is technically a standard we still used even after 5+ years I think and that is always rated pocket dimensions by size as well as other things I might have to look into as any theories relating to pocket dimensions in physics require some time on my end
 
Inflationary theories that involve pocket universes have all of those universes as part of the same space-time, and as only being finitely large, so they'd be 3-A, but wouldn't generalise to all fictional depictions.
 
Agnaa said:
Inflationary theories that involve pocket universes have all of those universes as part of the same space-time, and as only being finitely large, so they'd be 3-A, but wouldn't generalise to all fictional depictions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is fair.
Wait, isn’t there a theory of worlds being small as a atom and so on?
I remember something about having universes or worlds being as small as a atom or something which at that point, it is technically not even considered a pocket dimension and is actually smaller than the actual universe as a whole.
 
I don't know of a serious theory of physics putting that forward. But I know that branches of philosophy/metaphysics have suggested that before.
 
Agnaa said:
1. This would (with the alternative) just involve putting a note down, or just being careful, about the difference between, say, an infinitely-large 5D character, or a character who can manipulate an entire large 5D realm, and a character who gets Low 1-C by seeing a timeline as fictional. The last of those should be weaker than the former two, and would not be able to use hax on the first one.
Click to expand...
Reminds me once again that I have to do that hax revision again sometime.

I think hax should usually work between them. They are on the same level of existence, after all. Of course the AP of the former two is larger than that of the latter, though, yeah.

Agnaa said:
4. I thought we didn't do that anymore (after you and I disagreed with Ultima about it in this thread), but according to the OP this is still done in some places, so the alternate would be that a note should be placed somewhere about our different standards, and any verses that still do "Beyond all logical systems = Beyond ZFC" should be downgraded.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm... we won't do Beyond Mathematics = Tier 0. In fact, we might not give a special meaning to beyond mathematics in general. However, as large cardinals are still High 1-A baseline we still kinda equate transcending some logical system (which could be mathematical, so also ZFC stuff) to being "beyond standard ZFC" (which might be hard to precisely define...). Not that I necessarily like that practice, but that's what we do.

Agnaa said:
6. The OP's alternative suggestion is that profiles should more readily use the Feats section (perhaps even backed up by calcs) and that we can chuck all the nuance there, for whenever it's relevant in a fight.
Click to expand...
Qp45SP1P3PbbO.gif

You can voluntarily add as much detail to any character as you like. Like, you can literally post a scan of every time they were hit. Just don't make it a rule and don't expect people to care too much about low-end showings when there are consistent high-end showings that contradict them.
 
I think hax should usually work between them. They are on the same level of existence, after all. Of course the AP of the former two is larger than that of the latter, though, yeah.

I disagree because characters who see realities as fiction usually gain their hax by manipulating those fictional realities, and are sometimes just ordinary humans on their layer of existence. I don't think it makes sense to say that they can hax people on the same level of existence as them.

Hmmmm... we won't do Beyond Mathematics = Tier 0. In fact, we might not give a special meaning to beyond mathematics in general. However, as large cardinals are still High 1-A baseline we still kinda equate transcending some logical system (which could be mathematical, so also ZFC stuff) to being "beyond standard ZFC" (which might be hard to precisely define...). Not that I necessarily like that practice, but that's what we do.

I guess I'm just not really understanding why that's considered accepted, considering that thread rejected the OP, which was suggesting "MUH, modal realism, and apophatic theology should be High 1-A, not just (Low) 1-A". The OP was working off the premise that encompassing/being beyond formal systems was currently accepted at only 1-A at best. It would be very weird for, after that upgrade's rejected, for those statements to be as high as the upgrade was pushing for.

You can voluntarily add as much detail to any character as you like. Like, you can literally post a scan of every time they were hit. Just don't make it a rule and don't expect people to care too much about low-end showings when there are consistent high-end showings that contradict them.

I guess OP's just pushing for further adoption. As I said, I work on a verse which uses that to some extent, having a character with 9-A dura, but scratching/bruising him doesn't scale to 9-A since his 9-A dura feat caused far more damage to him than that. But it sounds like that sort of thing isn't done very often.
 
Agnaa said:
I think hax should usually work between them. They are on the same level of existence, after all. Of course the AP of the former two is larger than that of the latter, though, yeah.

I disagree because characters who see realities as fiction usually gain their hax by manipulating those fictional realities, and are sometimes just ordinary humans on their layer of existence. I don't think it makes sense to say that they can hax people on the same level of existence as them.
Click to expand...
Hax that doesn't even scale to their own level of existence is a different story, of course. I assumed you meant characters who had at least demonstrated that much, just not on a large scale.

Agnaa said:
Hmmmm... we won't do Beyond Mathematics = Tier 0. In fact, we might not give a special meaning to beyond mathematics in general. However, as large cardinals are still High 1-A baseline we still kinda equate transcending some logical system (which could be mathematical, so also ZFC stuff) to being "beyond standard ZFC" (which might be hard to precisely define...). Not that I necessarily like that practice, but that's what we do.

I guess I'm just not really understanding why that's considered accepted, considering that thread rejected the OP, which was suggesting "MUH, modal realism, and apophatic theology should be High 1-A, not just (Low) 1-A". The OP was working off the premise that encompassing/being beyond formal systems was currently accepted at only 1-A at best. It would be very weird for, after that upgrade's rejected, for those statements to be as high as the upgrade was pushing for.
Click to expand...
It's technically lower, as it is High 1-A instead of Tier 0. Anyway, you know what is needed to reach High 1-A currently and you see on the tiering page that it is equated to Large Cardinals. So unless we edit the tiering page, I would assume those two things are still equated.

Agnaa said:
You can voluntarily add as much detail to any character as you like. Like, you can literally post a scan of every time they were hit. Just don't make it a rule and don't expect people to care too much about low-end showings when there are consistent high-end showings that contradict them.

I guess OP's just pushing for further adoption. As I said, I work on a verse which uses that to some extent, having a character with 9-A dura, but scratching/bruising him doesn't scale to 9-A since his 9-A dura feat caused far more damage to him than that. But it sounds like that sort of thing isn't done very often.
Click to expand...
It indeed isn't. It's sometimes acknowledged in vs-threads, but rarely.
 
Agnaa said:
I disagree because characters who see realities as fiction usually gain their hax by manipulating those fictional realities, and are sometimes just ordinary humans on their layer of existence. I don't think it makes sense to say that they can hax people on the same level of existence as them.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity’s sake, any example that can been used for this? The assumption the hax doesn’t work on the same level of existence as other beings does seem weird to me since that will means they are resistant if not outright immune to those kind of haxes tbh.

I would say that as a case by case and not a default assumption
 
Hax that doesn't even scale to their own level of existence is a different story, of course. I assumed you meant characters who had at least demonstrated that much, just not on a large scale.

Ah yeah, if they can they can, ofc.

It's technically lower, as it is High 1-A instead of Tier 0. Anyway, you know what is needed to reach High 1-A currently and you see on the tiering page that it is equated to Large Cardinals. So unless we edit the tiering page, I would assume those two things are still equated.

Wack.

Just out of curiosity’s sake, any example that can been used for this? The assumption the hax doesn’t work on the same level of existence as other beings does seem weird to me since that will means they are resistant if not outright immune to those kind of haxes tbh.

I would say that as a case by case and not a default assumption

If they have their powers because they're ordinary humans who just operate as authors due to seeing those stories as fiction, I think it's a perfectly fine default assumption. An example would be, well, everyone in SCP.
 
Agnaa said:
If they have their powers because they're ordinary humans who just operate as authors due to seeing those stories as fiction, I think it's a perfectly fine default assumption. An example would be, well, everyone in SCP.
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting, but not sure on this.

“In a metafictional fight like this, you're not going to be settling the feud over a nice dinner at an Italian restaurant. No, the only way to settle this kind of dispute is with good old-fashioned murder, but that gets pretty complicated when you're trying to murder a fictional character. Authors can pull plot twists out their ass to save any character, especially ones as well-loved as these guys seem to be, and if their reader base suffers, it doesn't matter – so long as they're alive and able to fight the other side, they're not going to give a rat's ass about the authors they have to manipulate to stay that way.

Clearly, you can't kill a fictional character in fiction. So you have to lure them out into reality and then kill them, before finishing off any potential authors who might want to bring them back. We've had reports of authors who've been literally taken hostage and forced to write out the adventures of the kidnapper's comrade at gunpoint, and good old Kurt Vonnegut had to have a covert security detail monitoring him simply because of the possibility of metaphysical infiltration of his work.”

That is interesting as the example you using isn’t that solid.
 
In that tale, it shows that some individuals who have figured out a certain trick can bring weapons from fiction into reality, by traveling between the two. (And note that they have to get it created in the fictional reality and then bring it back to do this; they can't just apparate it straight into reality).

Still, separately from that, it shows that any author can bring characters into existence within fiction, pull out plot twists to save them, and create weapons for them, despite not being able to do that in reality.

Kurt Vonnegut sure as hell wouldn't need a security detail if he could just write a plot twist to save himself.
 
Agnaa said:
In that tale, it shows that some individuals who have figured out a certain trick can bring weapons from fiction into reality, by traveling between the two. (And note that they have to get it created in the fictional reality and then bring it back to do this; they can't just apparate it straight into reality).

Still, separately from that, it shows that any author can bring characters into existence within fiction, pull out plot twists to save them, and create weapons for them, despite not being able to do that in reality.

Kurt Vonnegut sure as hell wouldn't need a security detail if he could just write a plot twist to save himself.
Click to expand...
“
Remember, when you have control over what can come in and out of reality, you're not gonna bother with using something as pissingly weak as your dead-average pistol. These guys have been through so many genres and so many books that they've got the sense to not use anything even close to mundane.

So, if you keep good tabs on these guys, we can lock up them and any paratech they've got right as they pop back into reality, and maybe you can be the one who's going to stop the next honest-to-god plasma cannon battle.”

This part is relevant since I have to skim through it, but I still go by case by case as this is just one example as interesting as it is.

Edit: The reason Kurt need a covet security detail is because of a possibility of metaphysical infiltration though
 
Last edited:
Everything I wanted to say has already been brought up but to further clarify....
DontTalkDT said:
Hmmmm... we won't do Beyond Mathematics = Tier 0. In fact, we might not give a special meaning to beyond mathematics in general.
Click to expand...
We used it as supporting evidence for the Cthulhu mythos god tiers for High 1-A, but that seems to have been removed recently.
DontTalkDT said:
You can voluntarily add as much detail to any character as you like. Like, you can literally post a scan of every time they were hit. Just don't make it a rule and don't expect people to care too much about low-end showings when there are consistent high-end showings that contradict them.
Click to expand...
My point is that there are moments in fiction when no such contradictions exist and yet the profiles as well as the versus thread still treat every other anti-feat as a contradiction despite no evidence to this being the case. (Of course this argument is only regarding those moments of consistent varying difficulty in performing the feats).
DontTalkDT said:
2. I assume I can skip these.
Click to expand...
I would have preferred you used the section where I listed what was already agreed upon tbh as some of your comments are kind of rehashing what we've already gone over.
DontTalkDT said:
3. Plot relevance and ordinals seem like meaningless indicators of scale. Just containing more stuff that countable infinite universes doesn't IMO suffice to reach Low 1-C. A non-significantly large 5th dimension also can contain more stuff, after all.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I remember DarkLk saying countable infinite universes are comparable to a non-significant 5-D construct.
DontTalkDT said:
4. We currently mostly tier being beyond any logical system as all being the same rank (i.e. ZFC rank). That's a practice I don't like either, although I have different opinion on how I would prefer things to be ranked. Conceptual Transcendance as a tiering tool is fine in my book, though. Just that it should not all end up in a "transcends logical system" tier but rather as evaluated relative to what is in the fiction.
Click to expand...
Basically, the first option of the agreed upon section. Got it.
DontTalkDT said:
5. aleph_4 for Tier 0 would be too low, as that would be one aleph for infinite levels of infinity. It would make more sense to say: Below 1-A is infinite dimension stuff, 1-A starts as Aleph_2, High 1-A at Aleph_omega and tier 0 at Aleph_2*omega or something. That way an infinite hierarchy of levels of infinity is 1-to-1 matched by an infinite hierarchy of alephs. But any revisions of such nature can't be done in a middle of some thread like this and personally I don't think it's the right time.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was already debunked by Ultima_Reality and Agnaa, though the latter went into much greater detail than the former.
DontTalkDT said:
6. No. Not just Durability but also AP and Speed ratings vary to some degree based on amount of damage done and stuff. Such unquantifiable factors are in all our stats. Ideally we should always give a range of stats, but that is just unrealistic in terms of effort. Our rating systems are simplified in many ways and assigning each character one rating for the consistent peak feats is one such aspects. I don't think it should be changed.
Click to expand...
We decided just noting it in a feat section would be better. As you bring up in a later post though, it wouldn't make much sense to make it a rule. It would just be a suggestion.
DontTalkDT said:
7. Honestly, don't think we need a mathematical example. Only suits the mathematical verses anyway, nothing else cares. Of course, if there is some good one we could add it somewhere, but it is a complicated debate and I don't care for it.
Click to expand...
Understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Type 1 Concept for space and dimensions in Honkai
Replies
34
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Wankbreaker
Tier 2 revision/question?
Replies
1
Views
709
Wankbreaker
Wankbreaker
Kev_Nino36U
Question about Tier 0/High 1-A
Replies
2
Views
1K
OMNIVERSAL-KING
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Flashlight237
Possible Popeye High-3A Downgrade
Replies
13
Views
1K
Rokim21
Rokim21
Back
Top