• 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.
I am not certain about if the new tier 11 is a good idea or not. More well-informed input is necessary.

Just to clarify, revisions to tier 11 won't be considered until the revisions for tier 2 and above have been finalized and implemented.

For tier 0, if the requirement is to transcend a tier High 1-A in the same manner as they transcend a Low 1-A, I am not sure if any of our characters even qualify. For example, Featherine did technically reach the The Creator, but all characters who do so are automatically absorbed into its being. She somehow managed to avoid this fate though.

Apparently Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, and The Creator are likely to qualify for that tier 0.
 
Yes but I don't see any point to push for a system that has High 1-A and Tier 0. It's entirely superfluous and contradictory.

It's the same problem there was before and it'll just create confusion until it gets removed again.

I'll say once more, Option 2 and Option 4 are the only viable options for a functional and comprehensive tiering system, and people are vastly overthinking this.
 
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.
 
Sera EX said:
We do not need a revised Tier 11, at all...
Click to expand...
The finer details can be revised and discussed as long as we are in agreement of the definitions of Tier Low 1-C onwards.
 
Why is it people want infinite outerversal to be a Tier of its own anyways? It is extremely obscure and even Sera has already said that while those characters exist, they are very few. Just put a "+" sign next to a character's AP to denote how high they are and be done with it, since that's what the modifier is for in the first place: Denoting characters who are at the high-end of their tier, and the sole exceptions to this standard are Low 2-C and 2-A.
 
Well, it's up there as an option, and it got the majority votes, so I don't think it should be ignored (not saying it's...anyone's intention, "just saying"). And since there's already precedents, why not. Also, pretty sure each AP with a + sign got their own tiers : Low 2-C and 2-A. I personally prefer 3, also as a stylistic choice, and as far as I go the morecategorized Outerversal is, the better. It was too broad, so I am of the opinion that if we gonna categorize, better do it all the way in, regardless of few characters being there. And we don't just give 1-B a "+" sign when they go infinitely-higher, they got their own tier : High 1-B. Destroying an Infinite Universe is also not 3-A+ afaik, but High 3-A, etc.

Also as far as I know, the only tiers with a "+" sign are Low 2-C and 2-A, so should they be called exceptions if they're the only ones? owo
 
Ultima Reality said:
Why is it people want infinite outerversal to be a Tier of its own anyways? It is extremely obscure and even Sera has already said that while those characters exist, they are very few. Just put a "+" sign next to a character's AP to denote how high they are and be done with it, since that's what the modifier is for in the first place: Denoting characters who are at the high-end of their tier, and the sole exceptions to this standard are Low 2-C and 2-A.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Except High 1-B, 2-A and High 3-A are vastly more common tiers than Option 3's 1-A, which is restricted to a select few characters that effectively belong in the same hierarchy, anyways. Really, a modifier does the job just as well and is far smoother as an option.
 
Sera EX said:
Also, pretty sure each AP with a + sign got their own tiers : Low 2-C and 2-A.Nope. Only Low 2-C and 2-A. For example, Solar System level+ is not High 4-B, it's just 4-B. It's crystal clear on the Attack Potency page.
Click to expand...
Aight.


@Ultima says the dude who was for Option 1..owo
 
Making the baseline for 1-A the absurdly high 1-A from Option 1, which by Aeyu's own words is for ridiculously high 1-As like Featherine, is way too strict and can get messy real fast.

Imagine a system where the baseline for outerversal is the Overmonitor. That's the site's future if we go with this "Low 1-A+" stuff.
 
Now that I think about it, yeah. Regular 1-A should just be the outerversal hierarchy. Why make that Low 1-A to Low 1-A+?
 
I still maintain that making normal outerverse level represent the absolute highest extent of outerversal strength in the site is quite ridiculous. Core tiers are usually for the typical situations, such as 4-C representing what is usually assumed if a character is known to be a star buster, similarly 1-A should be the typical situation of someone trancsending either time space or some other metric that comes after transcending time space.

You may argue the problem still exists with 1-B, but in that case there's a legit reason for creating two tiers. Uncountable and countable infinity isn't a distinction the average user will know, so having the tiers of countable and uncountable infinite dimensions seperated would be preferable to communicate that.

With 1-A if you just note a character is on top of infinite hierarchies in their AP explanation no one will be confused about what kind of gap there is from the previous tier, giving them a different tier comes more from personal disgruntlement with two vastly different levels of power being in the same tier than there being legitimate merit in seperating the tiers when it comes to giving information
 
That is a fair point, although in that case, we could just have Option 1, which was always meant to be Option 4, which leaves most of the rearranging for the 1-A ratings.

Low 1-A = Uncountably Infinite Dimensions/Layers/Higher Planes. The "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier I proposed in Option 1

1-A = Baseline Outerversal and up, with infinitely-layered meta-hierarchies being "Outerverse level+"

High 1-A = Transcending any and all extensions of an Outerversal Hierarchy (or hierarchies, whatever)

0 = Being completely above High 1-A, the same way High 1-A is above 1-A.
 
You know, option 4 does sound pretty good now. It leaves everything but 1-A intact and keeps 1-A something that makes sense as the core tier.

I think I'll change my mind to that
 
I still extremely strongly prefer to keep Outerverse level (transcending all degrees of space and time and stacking infinities) and Hyperverse level (being bound by space and time and stacking infinities) very distinct and separate from each other, not muddle them together as option 4 suggests. So I continue to support option 3 or 2.
 
Anyway, given that options 3 and 2 are almost the same, and together have 50 votes, is that enough to proceed to the next phase of discussion of hammering out the specifics based on that?
 
I agree with Ant, options 3 and 2 are the most voted ones, so they should serve as the basic for the new system. We would still need to figure out the the whole Low 1-A+ vs High 1-A argument tho.
 
Antvasima said:
I still extremely strongly prefer to keep Outerverse level (transcending all degrees of space and time and stacking infinities) and Hyperverse level (being bound by space and time and stacking infinities) very distinct and separate from each other, not muddle them together as option 4 suggests. So I continue to support option 3 or 2.
Click to expand...
It doesn't muddle them together, though. Low 1-A is above stacking infinities, but it's more like that in the context of it, you achieve that by virtue of sheer size, rather than some type of fundamental superiority (like being ontologically +1 over infinitely-layered things or something), hence why I called it a "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier.
 
What does "Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies". Mean? That a single trascendance is enough?
 
Ultima Reality said:
It doesn't muddle them together, though. Low 1-A is above stacking infinities, but it's more like that in the context of it, you achieve that by virtue of sheer size, rather than some type of fundamental superiority (like being ontologically +1 over infinitely-layered things or something), hence why I called it a "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier.
Click to expand...
"Uncountably Infinite Dimensions/Layers/Higher Planes" makes it sound like you are mixing them together. In any case, I think that options 2 and 3 seem more straightforward and easier to understand in this regard.
 
I'm fine for waiting until this current burst of discussion dies down before we count the votes and decide on which option we pick. I think "when voting and discussion have both slowed down massively" is a fine deadline.
 
Agnaa said:
I'm fine for waiting until this current burst of discussion dies down before we count the votes and decide on which option we pick. I think "when voting and discussion have both slowed down massively" is a fine deadline.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about counting the votes, just look about 8 posts before yours, I got that covered ;-).

The deadline you proposed seems reasonable as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
2
Views
492
Phoenks
Phoenks
JimedBro2020
I think I'm starting to understand what exactly High 1-A+/High Outerversal+ (VSBW) means
Replies
0
Views
320
JimedBro2020
JimedBro2020
About the New Tiering System
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
31
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
41K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top