-
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 Revisions - Part 3
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- Status
- 1,997
- 633
I have an rather stupid question here, but You just said in the Original Discussion that Dimensional Tiering shouldn't be considered anymore and that a higher D construct isn't necessarily infinitely larger than a lower-D one. So for example a Low 2-C feat (space time continuum) will still be considered more than infinitely stronger than a 3-A or High 3-A feat (simply space)? I mean what would happen to Low 2-Cs (or even High 2-As) in general?
Btw Option 3 seems the most convincing thing to me.
Btw Option 3 seems the most convincing thing to me.
- 1,154
- 659
Well, the current "fight" is Option 2 vs 3, so it'd be preferable if you vote for one of them instead. I can put your vote in both, but it'll be weird XD.Udlmaster said:
As I prefer Option 3, I'll hence explain/argue for it.
The difference is Low 1-A+ in Option 2 is being made into a tier, 1-A, in Option 3. The arguments against this were :
-not a lot of characters in that tier
-it makes it so that the core of Option 3 is "Infinite-layers above baseline", which is weird.
I believe those were solved, as :
-In the last thread it seems like no less than 6 verses (or was it 7?) would have this rating, tho I'm not too sure about that. And the new tier, High 1-B in 2 and 3, was made while less verses qualify. In addition, as @Ovens said : "We get to keep both Low 1-A and High 1-A, which I feel holds a lot more weight than just a simple +, especially on this scale. It will also avoid the occassional mistake that a Low 1-A and a Low 1-A+ are the same thing (God knows that has happened with 2-B and 2-A)."
-The core of 1-A being "Infinite levels above baseline" actually reflects and goes in hand the Hyperversal part present in both options, where Low 1-B represent finite numbers above baseline, the "core" 1-B represents Infinite-levels, and High 1-B uncountable.
So with the issues one would possibly have with this option mended, what stays is an option with a neater divison of Outerversal tiers, and the same division of lower tiers. The Outerversal part mirroring the Hyperversal is also a small bonus in my books.
That is my view.
- 6,104
- 5,106
@Ant
There can be any number of differences between reality and fiction in a verse. In one series it can be a dimension-like difference, in another it can refer to plot manipulation, and in another it can the difference between a 3D and 0D. So statements like that are arbitrary and we shouldn't automatically subscribe to them to get higher results.
Ultima is correct in that we can measure outerversal things, but that does not mean reality-fiction statements or metaphorical ratio comparisons can be equalized since they don't always mean the same thing.
There can be any number of differences between reality and fiction in a verse. In one series it can be a dimension-like difference, in another it can refer to plot manipulation, and in another it can the difference between a 3D and 0D. So statements like that are arbitrary and we shouldn't automatically subscribe to them to get higher results.
Ultima is correct in that we can measure outerversal things, but that does not mean reality-fiction statements or metaphorical ratio comparisons can be equalized since they don't always mean the same thing.
- 1,154
- 659
Before I go to bed...
Is there any point in delaying this and keep counting the votes anymore? I said this before jokingly :
52 posts in this thread and still no sign of advancing to any sort of next phase, and this is worrying me.
Unless we're waiting for most of the staff to vote or something of the sort, if so then my apologies.
Have a nice day everyone.
Is there any point in delaying this and keep counting the votes anymore? I said this before jokingly :
but this is starting to be the truth. Option 3 has 38 votes, Option 2 21. Option 3 is four votes away of being the double of Option 2's. So what are we waiting for? If we're still waiting for votes then how long do we still have to wait? a 4th thread?Nepuko said:
52 posts in this thread and still no sign of advancing to any sort of next phase, and this is worrying me.
Unless we're waiting for most of the staff to vote or something of the sort, if so then my apologies.
Have a nice day everyone.
- 20,084
- 10,872
Btw, why is this a staff only CRT?
- 1,305
- 613
Did you change Option 2 between threads? It looks ugly now.
@Nepuko Because of that and since the part of Option 3 I didn't like is seemingly gone, I change my vote to Option 3.
39 to 20.Who's gonna be the drama queen who puts the nail on this coffin?
This time I'm commenting on the basis of my right to vote.
@Nepuko Because of that and since the part of Option 3 I didn't like is seemingly gone, I change my vote to Option 3.
39 to 20.
This time I'm commenting on the basis of my right to vote.
- 1,561
- 130
i hope this stays staff thread and i hope non staff (except nepuko as he's only permitted to comment) should not comment here as it would create a lot of messages. ill be deleting this comment in 30 minutes so i hope you guys can see it
- 179
- 9
Someone ask the Russian staff member to help us translate the verse of Govolachov the dude who made undoubtedly first
- 20,084
- 10,872
That's not even a good reason to make this staff only. This is a MASSIVE change to the wiki. Making this staff only, AKA not letting the rest of the wiki give their two cents is very counterintuitive to the whole "let everyone express their opinion"Maxnumb231 said:
- 6,198
- 16,504
- Thread starter
- #55
Except that a bunch of non-staff already wheighted in not only in the previous thread, but in this one too, and at this point we may as well just choose Option 3 due to the sheer quantity of votes it has in relation to the others. So
- 20,084
- 10,872
So again, why is this a staff only thing, nothing is accomplished here by just limiting the amount of people here that can give their inputs here.
- 6,198
- 16,504
- Thread starter
- #57
Because people already gave their inputs in the previous threads, this was just to formally decide which option we are going to choose based on the number of votes and move on, unless someone here has a problem with anything.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Nep "For those that find it weird that "Infinite" stuff is "the core" of Outerversal in Option 3, I'll ask you to look at what 1-B, the "core" of Hyperversal, represents in both options : " infinite higher dimensions/levels/layers gets moved back to 1-B "."
I already addressed this, there's more merit to listing countable and uncountable infinity separately because those terms can cause confusion to people and not indicate the exact difference right off the bat. No one will see "infinite layers of X outerversal" in an AP justification and not realize what the exact power gap is, infinite layers above baseline outerversal.
On top of that, creating a bridge tier between haudroff dimensions and outerversal is one of the main purposes of this revision, and uncountable infinite dimensions being its own tier is essential for that. It's not like 1-B being an infinite tier is just bring ignored, it isn't ideal either, its just far more necessary than making infinite outerversal its own tier and shouldn't justify making another deviation from the convention in cases where it can be helped
@Ovens ". It will also avoid the occassional mistake that a Low 1-A and a Low 1-A+ are the same thing (God knows that has happened with 2-B and 2-A)."
These are the most heavily monitored of profiles we are talking about and new low 1-As are only going to pop up occessoonally after this revision. The chance of such mistakes happening are slim and are minor enough that they shouldn't matter if they aren't going to be happening on frequent basis, and creation of outerversal profiles would certainly not be happening on a frequent basis by members who wouldn't reliable enough to follow the conventions properly
I already addressed this, there's more merit to listing countable and uncountable infinity separately because those terms can cause confusion to people and not indicate the exact difference right off the bat. No one will see "infinite layers of X outerversal" in an AP justification and not realize what the exact power gap is, infinite layers above baseline outerversal.
On top of that, creating a bridge tier between haudroff dimensions and outerversal is one of the main purposes of this revision, and uncountable infinite dimensions being its own tier is essential for that. It's not like 1-B being an infinite tier is just bring ignored, it isn't ideal either, its just far more necessary than making infinite outerversal its own tier and shouldn't justify making another deviation from the convention in cases where it can be helped
@Ovens ". It will also avoid the occassional mistake that a Low 1-A and a Low 1-A+ are the same thing (God knows that has happened with 2-B and 2-A)."
These are the most heavily monitored of profiles we are talking about and new low 1-As are only going to pop up occessoonally after this revision. The chance of such mistakes happening are slim and are minor enough that they shouldn't matter if they aren't going to be happening on frequent basis, and creation of outerversal profiles would certainly not be happening on a frequent basis by members who wouldn't reliable enough to follow the conventions properly
- 167,862
- 76,484
@Sera
Hmm. You do have a point, but I do not want us to start massively inflating 1 or 2 layers of reality-fiction differences in comparison to baseline Low 1-A:s to ridiculous degrees, when Umineko no Naku Koro ni and Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou have infinite numbers of them in order to qualify for the new highest tiers. An important point of this revision is to make a distinction between different types of Outerversal natures.
Hmm. You do have a point, but I do not want us to start massively inflating 1 or 2 layers of reality-fiction differences in comparison to baseline Low 1-A:s to ridiculous degrees, when Umineko no Naku Koro ni and Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou have infinite numbers of them in order to qualify for the new highest tiers. An important point of this revision is to make a distinction between different types of Outerversal natures.
I agree with this. We should probably move on to start figuring out how to properly apply option 3.Ultima Reality said:
- 32,359
- 20,298
I am with Sera that I feel some of this is uneccessary
- 167,862
- 76,484
Just to clarify: I do not even care much about Umineko no Naku Koro ni, the Cthulhu Mythos, or Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou. I am just obsessed with structure, accuracy, organisation, and reliability. So I prefer to have neat and convenient systems that properly index different things.
Here is a list of the fictions that I like, if anybody is interested:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Antvasima
Here is a list of the fictions that I like, if anybody is interested:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Antvasima
- 1,154
- 659
@Andy
Which is why I'd rather have it its own tier rather than a modifier. As far as I know the latter breaks the convention (that is giving "Infinite" stuff their own tier) more than the first, when we already have something like High 3-A, 2-A, and now 1-B. And I could be wrong, but while I know of its importance, less than 5 tiers would apply for the new High 1-B, while going by Aeyu no less than 6 verses would apply for the "Infinitely-Outerversal" one. I could be wrong, but I think that alone already qualifies to make it its own tier. And I believe that in this case with an additional tier, a better organization.
Which is why I'd rather have it its own tier rather than a modifier. As far as I know the latter breaks the convention (that is giving "Infinite" stuff their own tier) more than the first, when we already have something like High 3-A, 2-A, and now 1-B. And I could be wrong, but while I know of its importance, less than 5 tiers would apply for the new High 1-B, while going by Aeyu no less than 6 verses would apply for the "Infinitely-Outerversal" one. I could be wrong, but I think that alone already qualifies to make it its own tier. And I believe that in this case with an additional tier, a better organization.
- 5,577
- 3,606
option 3
- 6,198
- 16,504
- Thread starter
- #65
so, since Option 3 has 40 votes now, I say we just choose it and move on.
- 5,336
- 1,216
I still think Option 2 is the best. Majority doesn't mean better.
- 1,305
- 613
We are never going to reach a consensus like that. Unless the Staff decides it among themselves.GojiBoyForever said:
- 1,484
- 169
Option 4. It is my vote.
- 6,104
- 5,106
Why would we need to separate the start of the hierarchy and any degree of ascendancy within it into two different tiers or sub-tiers? It's neater and more practical to keep it simple. We differentiate between the hierarchy and those who completely transcend that hierarchy:Antvasima said:
Measurable | Immeasurable | Boundless, or 1-A | High 1-A | 0 respectively (alternatively Low 1-A | 1-A | 0 as Matt mentioned on the previous thread).
We don't need three outerversal tiers.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Well, I no longer feel very strongly about the issue, but I personally prefer:
Finite | Infinite | Immeasurable | Boundless
Low 1-A | 1-A | High 1-A | 0
If most other staff members disagree, I would accept being outvoted though.
Finite | Infinite | Immeasurable | Boundless
Low 1-A | 1-A | High 1-A | 0
If most other staff members disagree, I would accept being outvoted though.
ProudLearner
She/Her- 1,232
- 443
- 6,104
- 5,106
Picture an infinite stairway. In Option 3, the first step would be Low 1-A while the rest of the staircase is 1-A. Those outside/beyond the stairway are High 1-A. There is no reason for that first step to be a lower tier than the rest of the stairway. Because it's still part of the same stairway.
The only reason to do so would be because some verses stop at baseline while others have higher levels of 1-A, but that's sort of bias to separate them for such a reason.
The only reason to do so would be because some verses stop at baseline while others have higher levels of 1-A, but that's sort of bias to separate them for such a reason.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Btw I also would prefer to have measurable outerversal as 1-A and immeasurable outerversal as High 1-A. (Option 2 has the former as low 1-A)
I really do not wish to tempt fate after everything the "minor" adjustment to option 2 (aka option 3) just caused, but, removing low from the first tier and adding high to the second really should result in the exact same system with superficial differences. Low 1-A also really doesn't seem to have much of a reason for existing other than technically bumping down a lot of current 1-As, since transcending space-time is the main basis of current 1-A and the principle behind option 2's low 1-A is that same thing in a more well defined manner
I really do not wish to tempt fate after everything the "minor" adjustment to option 2 (aka option 3) just caused, but, removing low from the first tier and adding high to the second really should result in the exact same system with superficial differences. Low 1-A also really doesn't seem to have much of a reason for existing other than technically bumping down a lot of current 1-As, since transcending space-time is the main basis of current 1-A and the principle behind option 2's low 1-A is that same thing in a more well defined manner
- Status
Similar threads
