- 16,606
- 1,788
But yall are changing the definitions to revolve more around hierarchies. I'm saying that if they are changing then the new definitions should still highlight that this is primarily based on qualitative differencesUltima Reality said:
-
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
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 1,561
- 130
the hierarchies having quality superiority like the gates in mythos or the umineko stuff. the heirarchies is just there when defining how many hierarchies and their quality superiority to each lower whatever heirarchy there is.Iapitus The Impaler said:
- 3,293
- 1,268
I guess I support option 3.
But to be honest, I just don't see what is the point or reason to seperate Outerversal into sub categories. The term baseline Outerversal seems silly to me. The so called hierarchies are all verse-specific and completely arbitrary when compared to other verses.
It would be like comparing Coca-Cola and Pepsi and saying Coca-Cola wins because they have more employees.
But to be honest, I just don't see what is the point or reason to seperate Outerversal into sub categories. The term baseline Outerversal seems silly to me. The so called hierarchies are all verse-specific and completely arbitrary when compared to other verses.
It would be like comparing Coca-Cola and Pepsi and saying Coca-Cola wins because they have more employees.
- 1,561
- 130
well wanna know why sub tiers should exist? there are outerversal characters as any options that are baseline or just beyond the baseline but still within low 1-A tier. this new tiering will be about quality difference. let's say demonbane, they dont have hierarchies or some sort like umineko or daimou but outerversal feat like demonbane would put EGD at low 1-A. i wouldnt say arbitrary when comparing other verses cosmologies, just like how kami tenchi was tier 0 in the old tiering bcuz he's the strongest in his verse but in this new tiering we need to look of the quality that kami tenchi has.Iamunanimousinthat said:
- 14,879
- 12,379
Because we can still measure them and compare them.Iamunanimousinthat said:
If the competition was which had more employees, then that would be a fair way of doing things. When measuring AP of a verse, we measure AP, and that's an okay thing to do. Being in a higher tier isn't a comment on how good a verse is. Being the highest tier isn't an accolade to win.
- 3,293
- 1,268
@Agnaa @Max
Like I mention in the last thread, what were measuring isn't definite and completely subjective. An infinite hierarchy in one verse could be 5 levels in another. How do we even decide what an objective tool of measure that isn't just arbitary.
Like with my soda analysis, if we choose a winner based on something arbitrary like number of employees, that's fine. But we have make sure the parameters are specifically stated. Number of employees is very specific and the same across all companies, hiearchy is not specific and not the same across all verses.
Like I mention in the last thread, what were measuring isn't definite and completely subjective. An infinite hierarchy in one verse could be 5 levels in another. How do we even decide what an objective tool of measure that isn't just arbitary.
Like with my soda analysis, if we choose a winner based on something arbitrary like number of employees, that's fine. But we have make sure the parameters are specifically stated. Number of employees is very specific and the same across all companies, hiearchy is not specific and not the same across all verses.
- 1,561
- 130
yeah sure infinite hierarchy vs another verse that has like uncountably infinite hierarchies can happen but if characters who is beyond scale beyond their respective hierarchies that would grant them high 1-A bcuz of its description. but if we compare characters that basically is within those two hierarchies one can be superior bcuz of how many hierarchies the other verse has. Yes and it is true all of this stuff is arbitrary hence when tiering them u gotta find a common ground to measure their strength.
- 14,879
- 12,379
Like I mention in the last thread, what were measuring isn't definite and completely subjective.
Sure but this applies to all tiers above 3-A.
An infinite hierarchy in one verse could be 5 levels in another.
It could be, but we don't take that into account until we have reason to think so. If one verse puts an infinite hierarchy in five steps, then we'd take that into account. If you're just spitballing off of what authors could theoretically write, then a city-tier character in one verse could be building-tier in another verse, we just have to tier them based on what they show.
How do we even decide what an objective tool of measure that isn't just arbitary.
All measuring tools for all tiers above 3-A are arbitrary, we just choose one that we can equalize all other verses to.
Like with my soda analysis, if we choose a winner based on something arbitrary like number of employees, that's fine. But we have make sure the parameters are specifically stated. Number of employees is very specific and the same across all companies, hiearchy is not specific and not the same across all verses.
To be specific, AP is based on size not hierarchy, and we tier verses based on what sizes they demonstrate with their hierarchy.
Sure but this applies to all tiers above 3-A.
An infinite hierarchy in one verse could be 5 levels in another.
It could be, but we don't take that into account until we have reason to think so. If one verse puts an infinite hierarchy in five steps, then we'd take that into account. If you're just spitballing off of what authors could theoretically write, then a city-tier character in one verse could be building-tier in another verse, we just have to tier them based on what they show.
How do we even decide what an objective tool of measure that isn't just arbitary.
All measuring tools for all tiers above 3-A are arbitrary, we just choose one that we can equalize all other verses to.
Like with my soda analysis, if we choose a winner based on something arbitrary like number of employees, that's fine. But we have make sure the parameters are specifically stated. Number of employees is very specific and the same across all companies, hiearchy is not specific and not the same across all verses.
To be specific, AP is based on size not hierarchy, and we tier verses based on what sizes they demonstrate with their hierarchy.
- 3,293
- 1,268
To be specific, AP is based on size not hierarchy, and we tier verses based on what sizes they demonstrate with their hierarchy.
Which is why I ask, why do we have such a thing as baseline outerversal, since all outerverses have indefinite size. In fact, the concept of size is meaningless, since the outerverse is dimensionless. We could never say, this character wins because their outverse is bigger than there's, since there is no such thing as bigger. Size is defined by dimensions, without dimension you have no size.
So how can there be a baseline. It's either you are or you aren't.
Which is why I ask, why do we have such a thing as baseline outerversal, since all outerverses have indefinite size. In fact, the concept of size is meaningless, since the outerverse is dimensionless. We could never say, this character wins because their outverse is bigger than there's, since there is no such thing as bigger. Size is defined by dimensions, without dimension you have no size.
So how can there be a baseline. It's either you are or you aren't.
- 1,561
- 130
EGD is baseline outerversal or low 1-A if u say he's above baseline there needs to be some context of quality difference between the lowest 1-A in demonbane vs EGD
- 14,879
- 12,379
For one, outerversal will no longer be based on being "dimensionless" as described in the OP. For two, even if it doesn't make sense, fiction still has some characters be effectively larger/stronger than others in outerversal realms, because fiction isn't bound by making sense. Fiction has characters beyond logic that we have to logically fit into our systems. Fiction has characters beyond knowledge which we have to know about and make profiles for. And because fiction has these things, we have to be able to account for them.
- 165,117
- 72,041
Agreed about the simplicity and not alienating audiences, but, if I understood correctly, option 3 seems to be the exact same thing with slightly different naming procedure. I think that 1-A sounds better and more distinctive than Low 1-A+, and don't mind a High 1-A rating.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 165,117
- 72,041
I am not so sure. Sera made some very good points about that being qualitatively superior to all dimensions of space and time should still be a qualifying factor, as you cannot reach such a level by stacking infinities either.
- 14,879
- 12,379
Sure but I wasn't quite sure how to succinctly phrase this...Antvasima said:
The basis of outerversal will no longer be based on being "dimensionless", but being dimensionless would still let you get in. like how right now High 2-A is based on being 5-dimensional but simply seeing an infinite multiverse as fiction lets a character get into High 2-A.
- 5,466
- 12,476
- Thread starter
- #217
But yall are changing the definitions to revolve more around hierarchies. I'm saying that if they are changing then the new definitions should still highlight that this is primarily based on qualitative differences
Not necessarily hierarchies or planes of existence, no. This is just based around qualitatively greater sizes on an 1-A scale, which is usually demonstrated in fiction by higher levels, but doesn't have to
Then there is the fact that we literal─║y can assign a size to "muh outerverses" anyways. It's literally in the OP and in this post.
Not to mention that, the mere idea we cannot measure or quantify any tier is already absurd in-of-itself. Those things are literally made up by ourselves and exist within a defined formal background, of course they can always be quantified. This is exactly the kind of shit that these revisions are trying to fix: Make 1-A more uniform and straightforward, and get rid of all this mythic, wanked misconceptions regarding it.
Now, since I've seen a few people then and there complaining about the fact that the New System uses some slightly odder Mathematics to justify its higher-end stuff, I'd like to point them all to something Aeyu has stated off-site:
Okay, all these misconceptions about the system have to stop. The system is -not- going to be defined by overly verbose mathematical terms; this revision is only to give a concrete basis to what we already do. Someone mentioned "qualitative" superiority - that is what Low 1-A and 1-A both have. By saying Low 1-A is "weakly inaccessible" we are saying that it is outside all arrangements and extensions to even an uncountably infinite number of dimensions. Therefore you cannot reach it by "stacking infinities" - the difference is simply larger than infinity, period; doesn't matter if that's infinity ^ infinity ^ infinity ^ infinity...etc it will never reach uncountability. An uncountable number of universes is qualitatively larger than a 4-D size and on par with a 5-D space. That's the real point of the math, to give the system uniformity. We're not relaxing the standards on anything, nor are we requiring them to use verbose mathematical definitions. I thought it was already well understood that we're only throwing out insignificant or vague dimensional statements like "lol i'm (x)-d" or using string theory/compactified dimension concepts in tiering since they contradict the higher dimensions ALWAYS = higher tier fallacy. And as for Low 1-A and 1-A/High 1-A, the lower one represents the weakly inaccessible (uncountable level beyond uncountable/infinite dimensional hierarchies or similar). 1-A/High 1-A represents true inaccessibility, or strong inaccessibility. This is to represent states beyond hierarchy and higher infinities completely, even uncountable ones conceptually.
Please, keep that in mind. The Tiering System page, for example, isn't going to be filled with verbose mathematical terms and obtuse concepts that are alien to most visitors, those are effectively the schematics and clockwork which will stay under the hood, and be explained in entirely separate pages, which even then will be simplified down to the maximum. What all of this math is trying to do is give some basic meaning to what is present in the system itself: You don't really need to see the gears moving to understand that a clock tells time, but they are still necessary for the clock to work in the first place.
Not necessarily hierarchies or planes of existence, no. This is just based around qualitatively greater sizes on an 1-A scale, which is usually demonstrated in fiction by higher levels, but doesn't have to
Why do you keep ignoring what I say and worrying over what is effectively pure semantics? For ****'s sake just read what I posted above: The new primary definition of 1-A naturally includes current shit like "transcending all forms of space and time", it just makes the rating more straightforward to understand and less filled with needlessly convoluted, esoteric blah blah like "lul beyond dimenshunz!1!1111!".Antvasima said:
That is incorrect and seems to mostly be based on massively overthinking what 1-A is supposed to be. Being "beyond dimeshuns" doesn't, in any way, shape or form, equates to you existing beyond the concept of size altogether: Sure, you can exist "beyond size" from the perspective of lesser beings, but from a greater perspective you could still be smaller or bigger than another entity just fine. This sort of thing heavily depends on how the author chooses to portray a character of this level anyways, so I have no idea why try to apply this vague, mythical standard to literally all of fiction.Iamunanimousinthat said:
Then there is the fact that we literal─║y can assign a size to "muh outerverses" anyways. It's literally in the OP and in this post.
Not to mention that, the mere idea we cannot measure or quantify any tier is already absurd in-of-itself. Those things are literally made up by ourselves and exist within a defined formal background, of course they can always be quantified. This is exactly the kind of shit that these revisions are trying to fix: Make 1-A more uniform and straightforward, and get rid of all this mythic, wanked misconceptions regarding it.
Now, since I've seen a few people then and there complaining about the fact that the New System uses some slightly odder Mathematics to justify its higher-end stuff, I'd like to point them all to something Aeyu has stated off-site:
Okay, all these misconceptions about the system have to stop. The system is -not- going to be defined by overly verbose mathematical terms; this revision is only to give a concrete basis to what we already do. Someone mentioned "qualitative" superiority - that is what Low 1-A and 1-A both have. By saying Low 1-A is "weakly inaccessible" we are saying that it is outside all arrangements and extensions to even an uncountably infinite number of dimensions. Therefore you cannot reach it by "stacking infinities" - the difference is simply larger than infinity, period; doesn't matter if that's infinity ^ infinity ^ infinity ^ infinity...etc it will never reach uncountability. An uncountable number of universes is qualitatively larger than a 4-D size and on par with a 5-D space. That's the real point of the math, to give the system uniformity. We're not relaxing the standards on anything, nor are we requiring them to use verbose mathematical definitions. I thought it was already well understood that we're only throwing out insignificant or vague dimensional statements like "lol i'm (x)-d" or using string theory/compactified dimension concepts in tiering since they contradict the higher dimensions ALWAYS = higher tier fallacy. And as for Low 1-A and 1-A/High 1-A, the lower one represents the weakly inaccessible (uncountable level beyond uncountable/infinite dimensional hierarchies or similar). 1-A/High 1-A represents true inaccessibility, or strong inaccessibility. This is to represent states beyond hierarchy and higher infinities completely, even uncountable ones conceptually.
Please, keep that in mind. The Tiering System page, for example, isn't going to be filled with verbose mathematical terms and obtuse concepts that are alien to most visitors, those are effectively the schematics and clockwork which will stay under the hood, and be explained in entirely separate pages, which even then will be simplified down to the maximum. What all of this math is trying to do is give some basic meaning to what is present in the system itself: You don't really need to see the gears moving to understand that a clock tells time, but they are still necessary for the clock to work in the first place.
- 6,104
- 5,102
What do you expect when you use terminology like "weakly inaccessible" without telling people what it means? (preferably in parentheses). Not everyone knows what these words or terms mean.
This should be explained in an elementary manner and not read like a Wikipedia page.
This should be explained in an elementary manner and not read like a Wikipedia page.
- 5,466
- 12,476
- Thread starter
- #219
Except that I already clearly explained what 1-A is supposed to be in the new system, multiple times both in this thread and the previous one. I never used "weakly inaccessible" to describe it, not even once.
- 32,327
- 20,209
Last I checked option 2 only has Low 1-A AND 1-a Ant. Most people I've spoken too off wiki prefer it as well.
- 5,466
- 12,476
- Thread starter
- #224
Low 1-A+ isn't a tier on its own, I should note. Just a modifier added next to a character's Attack Potency in case they scale to "infinite outerversal".
Anyways, @Nepuko
Matt has told me he is fine with both Option 2 and 4, should probably add that.
Anyways, @Nepuko
Matt has told me he is fine with both Option 2 and 4, should probably add that.
- 32,327
- 20,209
Honestly Option 4 now that I look at it is so smooth and easy to handle that we may as well go with it. I'm not sure making this such a big disorganized voting process was the best idea.
All I know is that Option 3 is the worst and shouldn't be used.
All I know is that Option 3 is the worst and shouldn't be used.
- 165,117
- 72,041
Because I am constantly distracted from juggling around 200 different tasks here every single day, so it is recurrently hard for me to keep track of exactly what has been said, and I simultaneously want to make sure that we do not make any destructive mistakes.
If qualitatively transcending space and time is still going to be a qualifying factor for Low 1-A, I am probably fine with it.
I do not appreciate that type of tone though.
If qualitatively transcending space and time is still going to be a qualifying factor for Low 1-A, I am probably fine with it.
I do not appreciate that type of tone though.
- 165,117
- 72,041
If option 2 and option 3 are identical except for moving Low 1-A+ to 1-A, and 1-A to High 1-A, I prefer option 3 as a stylistic choice. I do not understand why you are so strongly opposed to this.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 6,104
- 5,102
Me neither. Come on Matt, you're a very influential user and we want to hear you out, but you have to at the very least give us a reason as to why you think Option 3 is the worst. I for one don't even think we're on the same page.
- 6,301
- 6,303
I vote for option 3.
- 5,336
- 1,216
I assumed it meant Yay as in agree with the revisions in general, nay if you disagree with them, and nyeh woukd be neutral.Sera EX said:
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Option 3 looks better. Though it looks a bit similar to when hogh 1A was in used
- 1,092
- 919
I'm all-in-agreement for the Higher Dimensional portion of this revision but I disagree with the Outerversal stuff. I don't understand why there is such a desire to "measure" Outerversal characters in the way Option 1 and 3 does. There are no characters that trasncend an infinite number of outerversal hierarchies. They are all part of the same hierarchy.
You need some hard evidence to suggest there's multiple outerversal hierarchies that are qualtiviely superior to the previous. And I'm not talking about quality steps like in Umineko's Stairway to the Creator or quality power-scaling like Masadaverse. Give me one verse or character that is qualitatively superior to infinite outerversal hierarchies (where each hierarchy is as to the previous what a 1-A is to an 11-C), and isn't Tier 0. As far as I know, no such characters are on site.
You need some hard evidence to suggest there's multiple outerversal hierarchies that are qualtiviely superior to the previous. And I'm not talking about quality steps like in Umineko's Stairway to the Creator or quality power-scaling like Masadaverse. Give me one verse or character that is qualitatively superior to infinite outerversal hierarchies (where each hierarchy is as to the previous what a 1-A is to an 11-C), and isn't Tier 0. As far as I know, no such characters are on site.
- 10,654
- 1,591
Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou might, but I see your point.
- Status
Similar threads
