• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sera EX said:
Option 3 is supposed to be
Low 1-A = vague outerversal

1-A = infinite outerversal hierarchy

High 1-A or 0 = beyond the outerversal hierarchy

That's it. Option 3 would also add a Low 1-B because Aeyu seems to be concvinced that there's many verses with untountably infinite dimensions so the 1-B would go like this:

Low 1-B = 12D to transfinite-D

1-B = Infinite-D

High 1-B = Uncountanly Infinite-D

1-C would be left alone.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Uncountably have the same meaning (or a similar meaning) as Infinite?

Also, Vague Outerversal? What that means? Either a character is Outerversal or it isn't.
 
@Stefano

Uncountable infinite > countable infinite. "Vague outerversal" refers to every character that is 1-A currently due to being "beyond all forms of space time". Or in simple terms "baseline" 1-A.

@Moritzva

The more I become aware of what the new system actually is, the more I don't like it.
 
What are your specific issues with it, Sera?
 
Since option 2 seems to almost be the way that I would prefer, with the exception that I would like to replace Low 1-A+ with 1-A and 1-A with High 1-A, would it be acceptable for the rest of you to use that slightly different wording instead?
 
@SeraEx You helped suggest Option 3, and everybody began referring to it as "I like Sera's idea, I vote 3", so I automatically counted you in lmao. Alright, I'll remove you!
 
@Moritzva

I don't think I can say it without offending someone, somehow.

@Nepuko

Yes, I suggested Option 3 based on Ant suggesting a possible Option 3. I personally don't feel comfortable with revising the system in this manner for numerous reasons but it seems it'll be done anyway.

@Stefano

Pretty much.
 
The current option 2 and old option 3 seem almost identical, with the exception of the naming for Low 1-A+/1-A and 1-A/High 1-A, or have I misunderstood something?
 
Well, that shouldn't be very controversial. Or so I hope.
 
Antvasima said:
I also do not at all appreciate that mine, Sera's and Nepuko's option was not listed as an alternative in the first post, even though it gained the most support in the previous thread.
Click to expand...
Ant, the version Sera and Nepuko proposed is the option 3 described above, I just forgot to note that 1-B does change in it. You're concerning yourself over semantics.
 
It is not tho. Unless if by "Low 1-C to High 1-B is unchanged" you meant the ones from Option 2, it is not the option 3 that was proposed, Ultima.

I posted how it's supposed to be above, but I can repost it :

  • 1-C remains unchanged
  • The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
  • The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
  • High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
  • Low 1-A: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it.
  • 1-A: Infinite Outerversal Hierarchies. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
  • High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
  • 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.
If you meant this then no problem, but maybe you should precise that the "Low 1-C to High 1-B" in Option 3 are from Option 2, and not the current system :).
 
There is no High 1-A unless we just replace 0 with High 1-A
 
The higher tiers are from Option 1.

->1-B from Option 1 became Low 1-A,

->High 1-B became 1-A,

->1-A became High 1-A.

->0 from Option 1...stays 0.

Unless you have some modifications for Option 3 in mind? Because that's pretty much what was agreed to there. The principle was to take the higher tiers of Option 1 with the lower tiers of Option 2 after all.

Outerversal and above = Option 1

Below Outerversal = Option 2
 
I'm sorry if I'm offending, but if I do that that wouldn't be the Option 3 I suggested, or what was going on in the previous thread. If the High 1-A part is removed I'll rather go back to Option 1. It'll just be Option 2 in that case....... So please elaborate.
 
High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale. 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.

What does that even mean? What's the difference between High 1-A and 0? Who would be High 1-A in this version? These are questions no one asks when dealing with any of these options and is why I don't like this entire thing to begin with.
 
Sera EX said:
Option 3 is supposed to be
Low 1-A = vague outerversal

1-A = infinite outerversal hierarchy

High 1-A or 0 = beyond the outerversal hierarchy

That's it. Option 3 would also add a Low 1-B because Aeyu seems to be concvinced that there's many verses with untountably infinite dimensions so the 1-B would go like this:

Low 1-B = 12D to transfinite-D

1-B = Infinite-D

High 1-B = Uncountably Infinite-D

1-C would be left alone.
Click to expand...
I guess it's this one.

You were wrong on the 0 tho. 0 is the same as Option 1's tho. In Option 1, 1-A is above the Outerversal Hierarchy and 0 becomes "a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system ". Zero is still above what is above the whole Outerversal hierarchy. So maybe this is a misunderstanding from your part, because if High 1-A gets removed from Option 3, 0 should also get removed from Option 1, basically.
 
@Sera

I would appreciate if you could please repeat yourself regarding your views about this in that case. I juggle so many tasks at once that it is hard to keep track, and this is extremely important.
 
Sera EX said:
High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale. 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.
What does that even mean? What's the difference between High 1-A and 0? Who would be High 1-A in this version? These are questions no one asks when dealing with any of these options and is why I don't like this entire thing to begin with.
Click to expand...
If you're familiar with the discord "terms", then High 1-A (which is 1-A in Option 1) is "Stratoversal", being outside of the whoel Outerversal hierarchy be it countably or uncountably Infinite-Outerversal transcendences.

Ask Ultima he's the one who made Option 1 owo 0 is even beyond that.
 
That doesn't make any sense. The options should be about how the tiers are arranged, not what they are intrinsically.

The definitions of the tiers should not be messed with. We just need a better/more accurate explanation for dimensional tiering. That's what this thing was supposed to be before people started getting a big head and decided to change the inherent standards of these higher tiers simply because they don't like them.

That is not how this was supposed to go down.
 
Well, all 4 options have what I quoted above you know. The "Baseline Outerversal till finite transcendence" (X), then "Infinite outerversal hierarchies" (Y) , then "transcending the whole Outerversal Hierarchy" (Z), then 0 being basically "transcending Z the same degree Z transcends X".

All four options.

So I'm confused now.

Edit : Option 4 isn't the same in the beginning, as it puts X and Y in a same tier. But the rest is the same.
 
Sera makes a valid point about tier 0. My impression was that the difference between this and tier 1-A according to the new system would be similar to the difference between Featherine Augustus Aurora and The Creator (Umineko no Naku Koro ni). The former transcends the system, and the latter encompasses all characters that transcend the system. However, perhaps this is a bad idea?
 
Antvasima said:
@Sera

I would appreciate if you could please repeat yourself regarding your views about this in that case. I juggle so many tasks at once that it is hard to keep track, and this is extremely important.
Click to expand...
As I told Moritzva, I can't go into too much detail because someone may get offended for whatever reason. I'll just simply say I don't like how we're messing with the definitions of the tiers when we were simply supposed to find a more accurate explanation for dimensional tiering.

Though in all honesty, it's not like I have a clue what Ultima and DontTalk were talking about these past seven months. It was a private discussion. At this point I don't even know what happened in between the seven months this whole thing was being discussed.

We went from just "higher dimensions don't automatically grant higher tiers until proven otherwise"

To an entire rearrangement of the upper portion of the tier system.

In addition to the terrible new names I keep seeing being proposed, there's also a difference between Options 1 and 2/3 that shouldn't be there other than the tiers being compressed or not. Apparently Option 1 has a different version of Tier 0 than Option 2.

I'll say it again. I'm not at all comfortable with how this being handled.
 
Honestly, I'm a bit confused by the existence of Tier 0 myself. Like, Tier High 1-As (and its equivalent in other options) are above all outerversal hierarchies, but then there's Tier 0 which is "all-encompassing" (whatever it means) and above High 1-A the same way High 1-A is above Low 1-A.
 
The same thing happened with the Tier 0 revisions. There is not supposed to be more than one Tier 0. What we were supposed to do, is simply stop forcing Tier 0s to be "omniscient" and then downgrade them if they aren't, since we don't subscribe to Omnipotence, and get rid of High 1-A. But the thread concluded with "there can be more than one 0", basically just merging the old High 1-A and 0.
 
I still like Option 3 the best, edit, I say option 3 is different. And it looks more like Option 4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
154
Laxxius
Laxxius
About the New Tiering System
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Sticky
1-A / High 1-A / Tier 0 Revisions Hub
8 9 10
Replies
383
Views
123K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Back
Top