Tiering System Revisions

[KingPin0422]

I agree with Andy in that the core 1-A tier should be "beyond the Hausdorff measure entirely, and thus, beyond any possible Hausdorff dimensionality, including spatio-temporal dimensionality." An infinite outerversal level can be represented with a + next to the AP, because honestly, it's obscure and only a small handful of characters are at that level.

As for the thing with "uncountably infinite dimensions" being High 1-B or Low 1-A... honestly, I don't mind either way. But I think that making it Low 1-A would remove the need to bump down the current 1-B and High 1-B tiers, meaning less work needs to be done, meaning this revision can be dealt with sooner rather than later.

So, I will change my vote again, this time to option 4.

 

[Nepuko]

Imo the argument of "less work" is kinda weird in a revision like this, as the goal is still to do it the best way, regardless of the amount of work. But that's my opinion :3. Two options were created because of that after all XD.

But yea, Option 4 has the least amount of work among the 4 options, even compared to 2 and 3.

Also, Done @KingPin

 

[HAKKAIDER]

New scientific research suggests that the fourth dimension is not of time but another spatial dimension. , here the video link. It is in Portuguese, but there must be something in English about the same search. anyone who understands could find please, alias if this is true how this would change the site tier system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ytB0UM0wZY)

 

[Dvorak1902]

There's not a "fourth" dimension though. Even if we find out there's another axis of space, that doesn't prevent time from being it's own thing.

 

[Agnaa]

There's three English articles on it linked in the description. If true it would have no affect on the tiering system, because fiction still treats objects as 3D.

Also, that research has been known about since 2001.

Knowing that research from a few years ago shows that on the macro-scale there's exactly 4 spatiotemporal dimensions makes me think that you (or the creator of the video) is drawing a misinterpretation of the science.

 

[Antvasima]

I am still very uneasy with muddling together characters bound by space and time and stacking infinities, and ones that transcend this, into the same tier, so I think that the current option 4 seems like a bad idea.

 

[Andytrenom]

I am still very uneasy with muddling together characters bound by space and time and stacking infinities, and ones that transcend this, into the same tier, so I think that the current option 4 seems like a bad idea.

Even if that was the case, wouldn't it be the exact same thing as Low 2-C? Tier 2 in general is about multiversal characters but low 2-C is being able to destroy a single universe in its entirety

I do get where you come from since initially I had the exact same problem with option 4, but now thinking about it further and taking this precedent into account it doesn't seem like it would be either as strange or as problematic as its being made out to be

Low 2-C is also kinda like a bridge between power bound to one universe and power bound by multiple, so low 1-A can serve a similar purpose, in fact, I think providing a smooth transition from high 1-B to 1-A was one of the main reasons for even creating new tiers

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies for being blunt, but several wrongs do not make a right, and in addition, this distinction is considerably more significant and important than simply putting all 4-D universal space-time continuums, from 1 to infinity, into the same overall tier.

 

[Andytrenom]

Why exactly is the multiversal category having a non multiversal tier less important than the outerversal category having a tier not completely transcendent of time-space? This kind of issue with grouping has no reason to be less or more important just because you are looking at different parts of the scale

 

[Agnaa]

It seems fine for multiverses, which are 4-D, to include 4-D levels of universal destruction. Or at least, I can see how that's more acceptable than including uncountably infinite dimensions in the same tier as beyond dimensions (to use shorthand, I know this terminology isn't exactly accurate).

Maybe there's also a bit of, there's not a great alternative for moving Low 2-C while there are fine alternatives to option 4.

 

[Antvasima]

Characters bound by time, space, and degrees of infinity, and characters that qualitatively transcend any degree of them have a completely different nature, whereas characters that can destroy or create one universal space-time continuum and ones that can destory or create two of them are far more similar. That is quite self-evident as far as I am concerned.

Also, the focus should rather be that we may have made a mistake with tier Low 2-C, than making somewhat similar but far worse mistakes in other parts of the tiering system.

 

[Sera_EX]

I've called out the Low 2-C issue numerous times. During the Universe level revisions I suggested we make the Observable Universe Low 3-A, an Infinite Universe 3-A, and space time High 3-A. That way Tier 2, starts with 2-C/Low Multiversal. After all Tier 2 is called Multiversal. It was reject because some staff don't like High Universe level as a name for space time for whatever mundane reason.

Let's not make the same mistake twice.

 

[Antvasima]

Agreed. Thank you for the support.

 

[Andytrenom]

Alright

I still think it should either be option 4 or option 2 if that isn't possible

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[FanofRPGs]

If more people support option 4 I will go for it; I prefer it, I just want either option 2 or 4

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Frankly, I don't really care which arrangement of the tiers we choose, at this point, I just want us to reach some closure on this matter at once. This thread has already been derailed to the depths of hell and back at this stage because people kept wanting to introduce more and more options, and it doesn't help certain folks keep being nitpicky over the most irrelevant minutia there are.

Seriously, what even are people's options on the subject itself at this point?

 

[Nepuko]

Are you suggesting we pick the option with the highest number of votes and just move on to the next stage? And I agree. Discussions obviously slowed down, as did voting, so I guess it wouldn't be unreasonable to move on.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Yeah, do whatever. I just don't want this to continue into other 30 threads of people worrying over semantics.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Please, no Option 3. If thisi s really happening, pick Option 2 or Option 4 and move along. It may have a lot of votes but most of them are from random users.

 

[Antvasima]

There is still almost no difference between option 2 and option 3, and the latter gained the most votes.

 

[Nepuko]

@Matt

Votes are still votes, whether one likes it or not. Why give us the freedom to choose if you guys are gonna go "don't care about the number of votes, Option X is shit and most of those who voted are blue names" :/.

And even if we count "colored names", option 2 has 5 while option 3 has 7.

Fair is fair.

 

[Andytrenom]

It makes the core tier of 1-A represent the most extreme cases of time-space transcendent characters instead of typical cases, and makes it contain a very few number of characters, there absolutely is notable difference between them

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

There is still almost no difference between option 2 and option 3, and the latter gained the most votes.

There is a significant difference, and going through things solely because of popularity is always a terrible idea.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

What do you perceive to be the difference between options 2 and 3? I didn't notice anything except what I mentioned previously.

 

[Dvorak1902]

What does "Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies". Mean?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The reason I advocate for Option 4 is because there is absolutely no need for altering the Tiering System beneath 1-A to such an extent. The options of making High 1-B different than what it already is only so one can separate countable and uncountable infinities is just unnecessary, as are a lot of my problems with how High 1-A is being handled in Option 3, essentially making it indistinguishible from Tier 0 and just starting that whole problem over again.

Basically the only reason people voted for Option 3 is because it adds more Tiers than it is necessary and people don't like to have to think too much to tell when a character is stronger than another. If we're being honest, Option 4 is also objectively the best because it's by far the most straightforward and easy to understand option, while 3 is the worse.

Also, taking the very option which the guy responsible for these revisions admittedly describes as the worst of all feels very insulting to all his effort to making this happen.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Again, having 1-A be such a ridiculously extreme tier as is, followed by two even more ridiculously extreme levels solves nothing whatsoever, it's just a way to make people feel even more entitedly superior to each other when they invariably manage to push characters they like to those levels. And people will still try to make Vs Matches involving characters in such levels and it'll be terrible.

Option 2 meanwhile, much like Option 4, has a much more reasonable definition of 1-A, while still maintaining the very high level. And while I would still prefer to not have any High 1-A at all, their definition is much less crazy and contradictory than Option 3's.

 

[Nepuko]

@Matt

as are a lot of my problems with how High 1-A is being handled in Option 3, essentially making it indistinguishible from Tier 0 and just starting that whole problem over again.

Again, the difference was explained above by Ultima. Also, if you have that problem with High 1-A and 0 in Option 3, then you should have the same in Option 2 with 1-A and 0, Option 1 with 1-A and 0, and Option 4 with High 1-A and 0.

0 is the same in all options. The tier just below it is also the exact same in all options.

1-A (1) = 1-A (2) = High 1-A (3) = High 1-A (4)

Same with the definition. Option 2 has the same defitnition as Option 1, and Option 3's definition is a copypaste of 1. Option 4 not exactly copy-paste, but means the same.


Just adressing the "problem with High 1-A and 0 in option 3, definition etc" part.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I understood the difference, Nepuko. And no, High 1-A in Option 3 is very, very different than 1-A in Option 2. Ultima himself hates Option 3 so trying to act as if he defended it is very ironic. If you want to appeal to Ultima's opinion, then you should support Option 1 and nothing else. But even so he said he's fine with Option 2, but personally hates Option 3. I take his opinion as being far more valid and worth considering than that of any random who just chose Option 3.

Like I said before, just go through with the Draft Aeyu showed which is Option 2, more or less. No point in pushing for anything beyond that. All that's happened here is just people being troubling by arguing the most superfluous semantics and minutia ever.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Look at this Draft Made by Aeyu, everyone.
Personally, I think it can be accepted and applied immediate. It's simple, it's elegant, it covers all the basis, it's not contradictory, and it serves all the revision's needs. I don't knw why there is such controversy surrounding this still.

Also, the Math Explanations for the System should be in their own page, if at all. Or else the flow of the page will be irrevocably broken. The Tiering System Page's purpose should be to explain the tiers themselves, not to have a thesis.

High 1-A becomes 1-A

1-A becomes Low 1-A+ and done.

Tier 1-A is ridiculously hard to get in Option 2 by desig. That in itself will avoid 1-A Vs Matches and prevent stuff from being silly like that.

Here. How this is still going is beyond me.

 

[Nepuko]

@Matt No, it is not different at all from from Option 1 and Option 2's 1-A. They're the same.

Option 3 in the first place took the Higher Tiers of Option 1. if you think they're different, there's a problem then with how Ultima worded it. Because they're the same.

Option 1 : 1-A is made into a tier of its own, denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.

Option 2 : 1-A and 0 are basically the same as Option 1

Option 3 : High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.


Where are the differences?? You can see see for yourself in the OP, I did not change a single word of the definitions in the OP, Matthew..

I can understand your other points, but saying they're different is just plain wrong.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Nepuko

I was talking about Option 2 and Option 3, not Option 1.

Option 3 and Option 1 are fundamentally not the same, I'm not even sure what's the point.

The problem with Option 3 is that the definition is also goes with 1-A renders High 1-A utterly superfluous, there is 0 way of differenciating the two.

Both are supposed to be for beings who are beyond all outerversal hierarchies, the only difference is that the later uses more big words that make it seem more impressive than it is, but at this point it's all just boasting that one infinite and boundless thing is more infinite and boundless than another. It's utterly pointless.

Everything just muddles together and the Tiering System becomes ugly and unnecessarily complicated in places where it has no need to be. Which again, is why I insist that we go with the simplest possible options instead of overcomplicating thing. We aren't deciding on this simply for the handful of people who are active on the forums, but for the thousands of viewers we get. People almost never consider the audience here. Do you really think people will want something complicated? No, people want simple and to the point. Brevity is the soul of wit, and a thesaurus doesn't make gibberish sound more intelligent.

 

[Nepuko]

@Matt

You said this, Matthew : And no, High 1-A in Option 3 is very, very different than 1-A in Option 2.

Option 2's definition of 1-A in the OP is :" 1-A and 0 are basically the same as Option 1 "

Hence, talking about Option 2's 1-A is talking about Option 1's 1-A.

Also fair, that's an opinion, I only wanted to make it clear that in all options, the tier directly below 0 is the exact same. As you were claiming otherwise, as seen above. The problem with Option 3 is that the definition is also goes with 1-A renders High 1-A utterly superfluous, there is 0 way of differenciating the two. Again, no Matthew. 1-A is the same as High 1-B in 1, and low 1-A+ in 2, which represents infinite elvels of existence about Baseline Outerversal. They're clearly not the same.


PS : the draft Aeyu showed was for Option 3, not 2.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Why are you talking about Option 1 and 2, my dude. I'm talking about 2 and 3, what is your point in bringing this up? And why do you think Option 3 has in advantage over the others, if you're so insistant on them all being the same?

 

[Nepuko]

......alright, since somehow I'm misunderstood, let me do a recap :

-You said : "

And no, High 1-A in Option 3 is very, very different than 1-A in Option 2. Ultima himself hates Option 3 so trying to act as if he defended it is very ironic. If you want to appeal to Ultima's opinion, then you should support Option 1 and nothing else. But even so he said he's fine with Option 2, but personally hates Option 3 "

Answer : I answered you that no, they're the exact same everywhere. Why did I use Option 1? To show you what the definition of Option 2 is.....since it's written "same as Option 1" in the OP, and made it clear that : High 1-A = Option 2's 1-A = Above characters infinitely transcending baseline Outerversal.

Also, I wasn't...appealing to anyone's opinion, I was referring to a purely objective explanation of the difference between High 1-A and 0 in all options, by Ultima. And if we're gonna go that way, Aeyu herself dosen't mind now whether it's 2 or 3, so....(and as I said 7 "coloured" names voted against 5, so...byt anyway. Let's not go down that way).


-You said :

"I was talking about Option 2 and Option 3, not Option 1. Option 3 and Option 1 are fundamentally not the same, I'm not even sure what's the point.The problem with Option 3 is that the definition is also goes with 1-A renders High 1-A utterly superfluous, there is 0 way of differenciating the two.[/I] Both are supposed to be for beings who are beyond all outerversal hierarchies, the only difference is that the later uses more big words that make it seem more impressive than it is"

Answer : I basically said : No, they have the same definition in the first place, and the exact same Outerversal Tiers definition, how you think they're different is honestly beyond me.


I don't know what you meant by "the definition goes with 1-A renders High 1-A utterly superfluous", but High 1-A shows characters transcending others Infinite levels of existence above Outerversal baseline. They're not the same. The difference between High 1-A and 1-A is the exact same difference as the one between 1-A and Low 1-A+, since, again, they show the same thing.

........how can the latter use big words if it's a copypaste of the former??


-You said :

" And why do you think Option 3 has in advantage over the others, if you're so insistant on them all being the same? "[/U]

Answer : I wasn't trying to show that they're all the same, the arrangement is obviously not the same, but I was showing that they have the exact same Outerversal and above defitions and tiers.

But well, Option 3 is basically Option 2 but with Low 1-A+ made into a tier, and it is also Option 1 but with lower tiers decompressed.

Basically it has the lower tiers of Option 2, and the outerversal and above of 1.


Originally, I chose Option 1 for it's neater separation of Outerversal and above, and since 3 is basically 1, but better (decompressed in the lower parts), I naturally chose it. Whether there aren't enough characters or not, I don't really care, but I prefer that instead of a..."modifier"-only option, that we outright make it into a tier as well. As far as I know most AP with "+" modifiers have their own tiers as well.


At the end of the day, it falls under an aesthetical point of view, rather than anything else.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Like I said Option 4 seems better one by reasons Matthew brought up. That or either Option 2.

 

[Nepuko]

Like I said Option 4 seems better one by reasons Matthew brought up. That or either Option 2.

You were in Option 4, in the vote count comment.

Since now is basically "2 vs 3", do you wish for me to put your vote in 2 instead?

I can also keep your vote for 4 and put it also in 2 if you wish.

 

[Crabwhale]

This thread is nearly at it's limit again.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. To summarise what I agree and disagree about from Matthew's arguments with limited available time.

Agree:

• The tiering system should be relatively easy to understand for our members and visitors.
• It does seem very unnecessary to create separate tiers for countably and uncountably infinite amounts of superior degrees of existence, whether by stacking infinities, dimensions, or otherwise.
• I also think that it will likely be hard to find proper distinctions between transcending an infinite outerversal hierarchy (Tier 1-A or Low 1-A+), transcending such a system altogether (Tier High 1-A or 1-A), and transcending that in turn like it transcends baseline Low 1-A (Tier 0).

Disagree:

• I still do not notice much difference between options 2 and 3.
• I do like that we will get better distinctions for different types of characters in the highest tiers.

Strongly disagree:

• I am very strongly opposed to mixing together characters bound by space and time and stacking infinities, with those that transcend them entirely, as option 4 suggests.

Are these points something that we can build upon for an agreement to take them into account?