Tiers Through State/Size

[Jin2188]

So what's the consensus here so far? I feel like we generally agree that logical contradictions should be considered valid by default, and that it should be acceptable to scale 1-A characters via size, although we disagree on the reasoning.

In light of that discussion, I approve of either options 1 (starting at 1-A) or 2, but strongly disapprove of option 3. I also think that High 1-A+ and Tier 0 need to be rethought, might make a thread about that with approval from a staff member.

 

[Vietthai96]

So what's the consensus here so far? I feel like we generally agree that logical contradictions should be considered valid by default, and that it should be acceptable to scale 1-A characters via size, although we disagree on the reasoning.

In light of that discussion, I approve of either options 1 (starting at 1-A) or 2, but strongly disapprove of option 3. I also think that High 1-A+ and Tier 0 need to be rethought, might make a thread about that with approval from a staff member.

This is staff thread, you need to have permission from staff member to comment, do you have permission?, or else i have to delete your comment

Edit: i have deleted your comment since you couldn't show permission from staff members. While this seem harsh, rule need to be uphold properly

 

[Jin2188]

This is staff thread, you need to have permission from staff member to comment, do you have permission?, or else i have to delete your comment

Edit: i have deleted your comment since you couldn't show permission from staff members. While this seem harsh, rule need to be uphold properly

Permission was granted by @Antvasima, I stated that earlier in the thread, but I had my username changed so maybe that confused you a bit. Sorry.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT

Have you reached any agreements here?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't mind, between any of the three options I presented in the OP, so it's very easy for me to agree with others.

It's a bit hard to follow since we spent time on some other topics.

I could try to reread to give a summary of everyone's view on everything, but DT's view on the OP was

Ignoring logic manipulation related points I will get back to at some point probably, I basically agree.
For an attack potency like stat the character should have an ability to "significantly affect" a reference structure in question.
I have argued that for lesser tiers as well in the past, for character who are the whole universe but have shown no ability to significantly affect their own body on the grand scale.
Generally, it depends on how the size contextually works and all. A living universe that walks around would IMO qualify even without strict destructive feats.

For the higher tiers you mention I would pretty much give the same standards. So yeah, I guess we should decouple High 1-A+ and Tier 0 Tiers from AP and rank them by what kind of AP-like power they can actually produce. Although for Tier 0, I suppose the practical option here is to just redefine the Tier 0 standard AP as "inapplicable" or something, as none of them have any kind of AP on grounds that they can't have qualifying feats.

The scenario seems imaginable. I think there could also be Low 1-A characters that qualify as sufficiently above dimensions to qualify but have no way to interact with dimensional space or anything else for that matter.
One could even go a step further and talk about a character that is 1-A by level of existence, but utterly incapable of taking any actions whatsoever.
So I think one can extend the general idea of having the state of existence but not the attack power towards the ranking, although it is more nieche.

So, Option 1 from the OP, presumably starting at Low 1-A.

Yeah, I think 1 is pretty clearly the option the system presupposes currently. The general idea between the qualitative tiers is just a kind of power that fully dominates some given plurality of things while being irreducible to it, i.e. The power can't be divided down into the plurality so as to be exhausted by it, and the plurality can't be added up to itself (Or to anything else) to match the power. So for example: Low 1-A has no quantitative endpoint at all, you can just go on forever into it, hence a character that has full domain over arbitrarily big Low 1-A realms has a sort of power that can't be equated with any one of these realms nor gauged up as a "sum" of them all, thus resolved into a different sort of infinity altogether (=qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, greater). Likewise a High 1-A character would have power over any and all extensions of 1-A, while not being exhausted by any one of these potential effects.

(To be clear I say the logic holds true regardless of whether the lower tier has a determinate sum or not, hence Tier 0 is superior to High 1-A+, the latter being sort of like the differentiated "expression" of the former, by the same line of thought even as High 1-A+ is supposed to be a completed 'space.' But the indefinitely rising nature of the tiers immediately below 1-A and High 1-A helps illustrate it)

Rating the AP of that as just "Arbitrarily into Low 1-A" or "Arbitrarily into 1-A" doesn't really make sense in my eyes because it's not like their power is indeterminate (Even under a hypothetical where it has no causal influence on its own level of reality). It's an entirely determinate thing that actually, and not just potentially, encompasses and exceeds all possible lower levels (The generative "wellspring" behind all the effects they cause, so to say), which the aforementioned move fails to note, and noting that in their durability section is obviously really awkward, just off the fact that "Attack Potency" is widely viewed as just the explanatory correlative of the "Tier" stat. So the only sensible solution to my mind is modulating the definition of AP a little (At least for these tiers) such that it doesn't include just the external effects that a character dishes out but also the potency those effects emerge from. And this is especially apt given that, from 1-A and up, the "potency" in question generally just identifies itself with the "physiology" (so-to-speak) of the character, save in the odd-case where it's a 3-D character with hax or hax-adjacent amps mimicking a 1-A scope.

And Ultima also seems to hold a similar view, presumably starting at 1-A.

 

[Jin2188]

I agree with Option 1 starting at 1-A, but my reasoning is different from Ultima's and DT's. I also think that High 1-A+ and Tier 0 still need to be addressed, probably in a different thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information. I also support option 1 starting at Low 1-A.

 

[Antvasima]

Do we have sufficient staff consensus to apply anything here?

 

[Agnaa]

Do we have sufficient staff consensus to apply anything here?

We have four staff that are fine with option 1 from the OP, but there's a bit of disagreement on what tier that should start applying from.

I believe we don't have staff that have endorsed the other options (except for me, since I'm fine with all of them).

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information.

Which staff members think that we should start applying option 1 from which tiers?

 

[Agnaa]

Ultima believes it should start applying from 1-A and above (and for the lowest parts of 11-C).

DT initially went with Option 1 applying from Low 1-A and above, but now that I reread the thread, he's made recent comments endorsing Option 2 instead.

After I summarised some earlier stuff, you said you were fine with Option 1 applying from Low 1-A and above.

I think that, based on the practicalities, if we are to go with Option 1 it should start from Low 1-A. Although I do slightly prefer Option 2.

@Vietthai96 commented but I don't think he gave a precise indication of the option he preferred.

 

[Vietthai96]

@Vietthai96 commented but I don't think he gave a precise indication of the option he preferred.

I prefer option 1

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. I don't think that it seems like we have a sufficient consensus here yet in that case.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

I still support my earlier stated option here.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm commenting here to bump and also to say that I think my opinion has changed.

To list Boundless in the AP section implies the ability to affect/destroy a Tier 0, which is patently not possible, even for themselves.

Tier-wise, we can list them as Tier 0, and I still agree that qualifying for a tier via size is fine, but their actual AP section should not be Boundless, it should be High 1-A+.

Their durability, though, can be Boundless, since now nobody would qualify for that potency and thus it would render them immune to any change as is proper.

I'll concede there is no 'clean' way to do this, since the system itself is now inconsistent on what a tier means, but this would be my preference for not making any substantial changes to the tiering system itself while still adhering to all the actual logic we've set forth for Tier 0.

 

[Jin2188]

I'm commenting here to bump and also to say that I think my opinion has changed.

To list Boundless in the AP section implies the ability to affect/destroy a Tier 0, which is patently not possible, even for themselves.

Tier-wise, we can list them as Tier 0, and I still agree that qualifying for a tier via size is fine, but their actual AP section should not be Boundless, it should be High 1-A+.

Their durability, though, can be Boundless, since now nobody would qualify for that potency and thus it would render them immune to any change as is proper.

I'll concede there is no 'clean' way to do this, since the system itself is now inconsistent on what a tier means, but this would be my preference for not making any substantial changes to the tiering system itself while still adhering to all the actual logic we've set forth for Tier 0.

Well, Tier 0 is fundamentally different from any other tier, so I think it's acceptable to treat it differently.

Tier 0s can also affect High 1-A+ structures from the outside, which no other tier can do (not even High 1-A+ itself, according to the current standards), so I think it's acceptable to still give them Tier 0 AP, since they can do something that no other tier can, even if they can't affect a Tier 0 proper.