- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #281
I second this.
-
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.
Universe level CRT
- Thread starter Zamasu_Chan
- Start date
- Status
- 10,873
- 12,277
Is "significantly affect" clear enough? Our lesser tiers mention only create and/or destroy. For tier 2+ stuff such formulations work since we are talking about infinite differences between tiers, but for a finite tier like this, I think putting that aspect into the "equivalent feats of power" category seems clearer. It avoids debates about whether, for example, shacking all planets & stars would qualify as "significantly affecting".
Formulation wise I would also reorder the sentence a bit since on the first read it isn't clear whether "via an omnidirectional explosion" applies to just destruction or also creation. If one thinks about it for a moment it's obvious, but still...
So maybe:
- 167,684
- 76,264
Thank you for helping out.
It seems safer to use something similar the following definition though:
"Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes, or have displayed equivalent feats of power. Creation and/or destruction of a finite universe of at least comparable size to the real world observable universe, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time, falls under this tier as well."
This is to avoid misunderstanding regarding that simply creating physical matter of equivalent amount to what is present in our universe is enough to qualify, and that pocket universes the size of a solar system are enough as well, for example.
It seems safer to use something similar the following definition though:
"Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes, or have displayed equivalent feats of power. Creation and/or destruction of a finite universe of at least comparable size to the real world observable universe, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time, falls under this tier as well."
This is to avoid misunderstanding regarding that simply creating physical matter of equivalent amount to what is present in our universe is enough to qualify, and that pocket universes the size of a solar system are enough as well, for example.
- 353
- 218
I see, that does make sense and I agree.
I would like to hear what non-staff members, preferably the ones arguing or debating earlier, for their opinion on this solution for the CRT.
Imo, this is the best solution.
Edit: I'm going to sleep. It's already 11:54pm where I'm at so I might not be able to reply.
Last edited:
- 10,873
- 12,277
Would be ok for me too.
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #286
With that out of the way. I don’t think it's a good idea to assume ALL verses operate on a low 2-C universe. After all, there are a lot of theories on what the universe is. Some theories suggest that space and time don’t exist and the universe is just matter, some use the spacetime continuum for a set universe, or even those theories that say the universe is 11D.
Since the "universe" has so many meanings, perhaps universe busting should depend on the verse itself. For example:
I think it's only fair if we're not gonna assume every verse operates on a low 2-C universe.
Since the "universe" has so many meanings, perhaps universe busting should depend on the verse itself. For example:
Universal destruction: 3-A
Universal destruction: Low 2-C (As long as it's the entire thing)
I think it's only fair if we're not gonna assume every verse operates on a low 2-C universe.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Thank you. Is my earlier suggestion acceptable for you as well @Ultima_Reality ?
- 3,759
- 1,615
Yes, of course except stated otherwise.
Yes on a universal scale.
Obviously they are.
Destroying a space-time continuum is easily low-2C.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Not quite. We know that our universe is much larger than the observable universe. As far as I understand, we simply use 93 billion lightyears as a convenient minimum size, and for speed calculations in lack of better options.
- 3,759
- 1,615
Ok,Thank you.
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #294
No it isn’t. Like Somebody Data said, low 2-C is assumed for every verse in terms of cosmology.
- 240
- 106
when I first looked at this wiki I was honestly questioning why 3-A and high 3-A even exist, since every character I looked up who can destroy the universe was low 2-C
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #296
I shit you not, it took me a whole year to find out 3-A existed when I knew about low 2-C
- 1,280
- 1,123
The one difference I can find is that, if the verse establishes that there is a multiverse, then universal destruction would be Low 2-C by default. If no such multiverse is known to exist, and if the universe is not directly identified with the space-time continuum, then universe destruction would be 3-A, as it is now. This is a difference because IIRC, even if a multiverse is known to exist within some fictional setting, we do not assume that destroying one of these universes is Low 2-C, even though we assume that the member universes of the multiverse are separate space-time continua, and consider affecting multiple of them to be 2-C or higher.
Naturally, context is still very important for evaluating feats of this nature. For example, if the person who threatens to destroy any given universe within the multiverse states that their destruction will only affect the matter of that universe (such as by specifying that they will destroy everything inside the universe, or if it's a case like MCU Thanos where he explicitly mentions tearing the universe apart on the atomic level), then the default assumption of Low 2-C won't work. If characters can go back in time to prevent the destruction of the universe from taking place, then that is also hard evidence against Low 2-C, and 3-A should be used instead.
- 3,708
- 1,759
Since we reached soms type of conclusion about how we treat 3-A [I think]
There are some cases:
1-If a verse in fiction has a multiverse, or that the universe is a space-time or something along the lines.
Then the destruction of the universe [the entire thing] along with statement such as "I will destroy THE ENTIRE/THE WHOLE/ EVERYTHING IN the universe and the universe itself" should automatically give low 2-C result since in these situations, the universe is a low 2-C structure , thus the destruction of the universe itself [and not just matter, but the whole thing] should be by default low 2-C.
2- if a verse treats the universe as just 3-A or high 3-A then the destruction of the whole universe would just be 3-A or high 3-A as our general assumption.
Tho this would lead to some problems, thus I say we should create some sort of requirements in order for a universe to be a space time in order for us to treat its destruction as low 2-C. [Like we do with lazer/light speed stuff, we have 4 requirements in order for a beam to have lightspeed, we just make the same thing for a universe] if a universe doesn't meet one of the qualification, it would simply be 3-A [unless proven otherwise].
3- as for requirements, I suggestqwe either create a thread for them, or post them in this thread
4- Tho, we generally should assume every universe is low 2-C, but when it fails the requirements or it broke some rules, it will get downgraded to 3-A or high 3-A
There are some cases:
1-If a verse in fiction has a multiverse, or that the universe is a space-time or something along the lines.
Then the destruction of the universe [the entire thing] along with statement such as "I will destroy THE ENTIRE/THE WHOLE/ EVERYTHING IN the universe and the universe itself" should automatically give low 2-C result since in these situations, the universe is a low 2-C structure , thus the destruction of the universe itself [and not just matter, but the whole thing] should be by default low 2-C.
2- if a verse treats the universe as just 3-A or high 3-A then the destruction of the whole universe would just be 3-A or high 3-A as our general assumption.
Tho this would lead to some problems, thus I say we should create some sort of requirements in order for a universe to be a space time in order for us to treat its destruction as low 2-C. [Like we do with lazer/light speed stuff, we have 4 requirements in order for a beam to have lightspeed, we just make the same thing for a universe] if a universe doesn't meet one of the qualification, it would simply be 3-A [unless proven otherwise].
3- as for requirements, I suggestqwe either create a thread for them, or post them in this thread
4- Tho, we generally should assume every universe is low 2-C, but when it fails the requirements or it broke some rules, it will get downgraded to 3-A or high 3-A
- 20,529
- 17,434
The general difference has more to do with energy expenditure than anything else. 3-A and High 3-A are very high end 3-Dimensional energy units that focus on destroying three dimensional space. Destroying the material components of a universe without destroying the space-time that it sits on is a 3-A. Destroying something in that absolute scale is what gets you Low 2-C.
SSG Goku and the MCU IG if you take Thanos' statement at face value are 3-A. Their statements are about destroying the material components of their universes, not absolutely destroying them.
Edwin's sphere of annihilation or the Annihilargh that destroys an entire Space-Time to the point of non-existence is Low 2-C.
In the case of Fused Zam I'd say that he'd be either Low 2-C or eventually 2-C given enough time. Though that form of his scales to no one other than Zeno.
SSG Goku and the MCU IG if you take Thanos' statement at face value are 3-A. Their statements are about destroying the material components of their universes, not absolutely destroying them.
Edwin's sphere of annihilation or the Annihilargh that destroys an entire Space-Time to the point of non-existence is Low 2-C.
In the case of Fused Zam I'd say that he'd be either Low 2-C or eventually 2-C given enough time. Though that form of his scales to no one other than Zeno.
- 353
- 218
I agree, but the way it gets destroyed is what should be questioned and can't be low 2-C just because a character said he'll destroy the universe with no supporting evidence.
- 353
- 218
1. Again, such statements are too vague to be taken into account. "I'll destroy the entire universe" could still mean all the matter in it "I'll destroy the universe itself" as well has the same issue. The statements are just too vague.
2. I think that would be unnecessary but it also isn't a bad idea and if that gets agreed upon I have no problem with it. Universes generally have a space-time and the method of destroying said universe is what should be questioned not the universe itself. For example: the clashes of Beerus and Goku were said to destroy the universe. It's clear that's a 3-A feat since the only thing shown is that they only destroyed the matter portion of the universe and not the space-time part.
3. Look above.
4. Yes, I agree with that but instead of requirements the method of destruction should be taken into account. If there isn't any evidence of destroying space-time but they still destroyed the universe then it should 3-A.
Last edited:
- 14,195
- 2,574
Correct me if I'm wrong but we can sum up the thread as to be a debate of whether we should assume Low 2-C or 3-A as the default rating for universal destruction?
A reason that keeps coming up is the use of how universe is defined, but if I could nip that in the bud, usually dictionary definitions aren't the first things that come to mind for authors when they write universal destruction.
I mean it's the same case with the word 'dimension' which even in this thread everyone keeps using as an alternative space when dimension only relatively recently has been used like that in a few dictionaries. Most still subscribe to the original definition.
Zamasu_Chan
The standards you're proposing don't add up to how universes work; all universes are at least low 2-C unless they don't have time (somehow) or another complex factor. Multiverse or not, it doesn't change what tiering the universes get. It also has no relation to whether an attack destroys only the physical universe or all its spacetime.
The issue here isn't the universe itself but what the attack actually does.
A reason that keeps coming up is the use of how universe is defined, but if I could nip that in the bud, usually dictionary definitions aren't the first things that come to mind for authors when they write universal destruction.
I mean it's the same case with the word 'dimension' which even in this thread everyone keeps using as an alternative space when dimension only relatively recently has been used like that in a few dictionaries. Most still subscribe to the original definition.
Zamasu_Chan
The standards you're proposing don't add up to how universes work; all universes are at least low 2-C unless they don't have time (somehow) or another complex factor. Multiverse or not, it doesn't change what tiering the universes get. It also has no relation to whether an attack destroys only the physical universe or all its spacetime.
The issue here isn't the universe itself but what the attack actually does.
- 353
- 218
Bingo!
That is exactly what is now being discussed. The original proposal (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should assume that universe destructions should be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
The attack used should be taken into account and what that attack does. If we assume that it's low 2-C just because someone said that "it'll destroy the universe" that would be a stretch since that statement could mean a number of things and should require supporting evidence.
- 167,684
- 76,264
- 6,163
- 16,275
That seems okay to me as well.
- 167,684
- 76,264
@Ultima_Reality
I made the following change. Is it acceptable?
vsbattles.fandom.com
I am uncertain if the part about merging universes should be kept though. Wouldn't merging them always include space-time per definition?
I made the following change. Is it acceptable?
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com
I am uncertain if the part about merging universes should be kept though. Wouldn't merging them always include space-time per definition?
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #313
Merging them?
- 353
- 218
Yes, I believe it should be removed, just in case, to avoid confusion. Though you could say that you're only merging the non space-time part of the universe, such as only merging all the celestial bodies.
You can go both ways, to be honest.
- 167,684
- 76,264
I am inclined to agree, but would prefer input from @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality first.
- 10,873
- 12,277
I think merging being 3-A is rare enough for it to make a bad example.
Didn't we also have some debate about when sustaining structures was a feat and when not? Do we have the results of that written down somewhere? If we have, we should probably link to that if we mention sustaining a universe with one's existence. 'cause IIRC not all feats of sustaining qualify.
Didn't we also have some debate about when sustaining structures was a feat and when not? Do we have the results of that written down somewhere? If we have, we should probably link to that if we mention sustaining a universe with one's existence. 'cause IIRC not all feats of sustaining qualify.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com
The "significantly affect" note got removed without other tiers that used it having it removed too. I don't think it should have been removed, to this day I got people ignoring what we meant on "significantly affect" by interpreting whatever out of it, not even having that explanation will just increase the wank.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Oh. I did not know that other parts of the page used it as well. That needs to be fixed then.
@Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT : Would either of you be willing to handle it, or should I try to do so instead?
@Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT : Would either of you be willing to handle it, or should I try to do so instead?
- 167,684
- 76,264
I tried to handle it:
vsbattles.fandom.com
So should we remove the "merge universes" part of the reference note?
Edit: Never mind. The note works well where it is used elsewhere: Meaning tiers 2-C to 2-A, but we should probably use an alternative for 3-A.
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com
So should we remove the "merge universes" part of the reference note?
Edit: Never mind. The note works well where it is used elsewhere: Meaning tiers 2-C to 2-A, but we should probably use an alternative for 3-A.
- Status
