• 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: Low 2-C to 2-A standards

If you want to include cases where the universes are not together in some bigger space, then I guess. I always assumed that we are usually going with the assumption that universes lie together within the bigger 5-D space.


Well, I am pretty neutral regarding the issue to begin with, so I will leave these explanations to you.
 
We do go with the assumption that the 4-D universes are lined up as branes along a 5-D axis, yes. Does that complicate Kepekley's suggestion?
 
Not exactly. It can actually be integrated into my argument as an additional example.
 
We still need to decide on how to concisely word and where to clarify these new standards though.
 
It would likely just need to be the sixth note in the page. In which case, give me a minute or two.
 
Okay, but I am going to bed now. It will have to wait until tomorrow.
 
Feel free to write up a suggestion.
 
Kepekley plans to write a draft for a clarifying note at the bottom of the Tiering System page.
 
We need to reach some sort of practical conclusion here. Can somebody please politely remind Kepekley about this thread?
 
I'll leave a message on his wall. This may have been one of the threads that got in-followed for him.
 
Yes. Thank you.
 
I believe we don't need to write an overtly long note, just one that gets the point across. In which case:

"Note 6: Due to the fact that the distance between any given number of universes is currently unknowable, it's impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it's not allowed to upgrade a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A."

How does this look?
 
I think that any mention of a 5-D axis just makes it confusing, even if that is the assumption. But I do like Kep's rewording. However, is it meant to say a character twice as strong as Low 2-C is 2-C? Was that decided while I was away?
 
I think that note seems good and to get the point across. What do the rest of the staff think?
 
Okay. I am fine with adding the footnote then.
 
Now can I ask which profiles are getting affected by this?
 
For now i heard Thanos [Other Marvel char.] and Gurren Lagaan.
 
I do not know. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
LordGriffin1000
Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
31
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
3K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
Back
Top