• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
About this thread itself I would have loved to give an opinion about it but it was too long too read.
 
About this thread itself I would have loved to give an opinion about it but it was too long too read.
I believe the topic we're currently discussing, which is changing the description of 3-A to make clearer and less confusing, started by the time I arrived.

So I suggest you start reading from around that point if you want, instead of reading through the entire thread.
 
After reading the latest posts here, I'm starting to lean towards keeping things the same here, more or less. Even though we acknowledge that universes are Low 2-C by default (on our very own page for universes, no less), I'm not sure how it follows that all universe destruction feats are Low 2-C unless proven otherwise. The issue has always been how such feats are portrayed, not what a universe is, which I hope no one here denies being a structure that, at large, is the requirement for Low 2-C.

We should preferably still require explicit evidence that time was affected, i.e., that it threatens not only everything that is (at the time of the attack), but also everything that was and will be. The best way to do this is obviously for the verse to show us the past and future being destroyed. Statements can also work, but what the feat depicts should take priority, and so, Low 2-C definitely shouldn't be given out if the destruction can be reversed through temporal means, nor should it be the first thing that we assume simply because the usual full scale of a universe is what defines the tier. This is also why destroying the Earth (since that was used as an argument) can either be higher or lower than 5-B, depending on how the feat goes. The point is that just because an object by itself is some tier, that doesn't mean that you need to be that tier to be labeled as someone who has destroyed it.
 
So in short

3-A is universal and low 2-C is universal

creating a universe is low 2-C cause you make the space and time

destroying a universe is either 3-A or low 2-C because author's suck at researching cosmologies and minor universal theories before saying that a character can wipe out a universe and then showing em destroying matter in the universe and not the continuum.

Thus context is important

but people confused 3-A with space times

so we needed to rephrase some stuff cause 3-A is just the extent of 3-B that is often called a universe in fiction cause that is the size of the observable universe.
 
3-A is universal and low 2-C is universal
3A is glorified 3B,
Universes structures are low2C, even if they are not separate time-spaces. As long as they have time-flow.

creating a universe is low 2-C cause you make the space and time
True
destroying a universe is either 3-A or low 2-C because author's suck at researching cosmologies and minor universal theories before saying that a character can wipe out a universe and then showing em destroying matter in the universe and not the continuum
True. Feats depends on type of destruction.
Thus context is important

but people confused 3-A with space times

so we needed to rephrase some stuff cause 3-A is just the extent of 3-B that is often called a universe in fiction cause that is the size of the observable universe.
True.
 
the first thing i meant as in statements. Both low 2-C and 3-A are often called universes and that was the point
 
Well, creating a universe can be 3-A as well, as far as I am aware, depending on if only the physical contents were created.
 
If a big bang is portrayed as just a big explosion, it's only 3-A. But if it's described as a "Cosmic inflation in time and space" it's tier 2.

Also, I do not think of the best examples where merging 2 or more universes ended up as 3-A, I have always seen it as 2-C as long as the universes are alternate realities. Unless it's a living world merging with the afterlife and stuff like that, then I could see 3-A.
 
Yes. Exactly, but the currently used reference note for the 3-A, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A sections says that merging them can be 3-A as well.
 
i mean if the two universes barely have any barrier between them then sure, high end 3-A

If not then you are dragging two universes across incomperhensible distances and fusing them together
 
The issue is that I think that merging two space-time continuums together may be 2-C per definition.
 
Okay. Thank you. The problem is that the same reference note is used for both tier 3-A and 2-C to 2-A, but I will try to update it, so we use two different versions of it instead.
 
I tried to handle the issue here:


Is my solution acceptable?
 
Yes. I just wanted to verify that with Ultima and DontTalk, since the tiering system descriptions were confusing in that regard.

I tried to correct that, and am waiting for input about it.
 
Yes. Thank you for being reasonable, and I apologise about being irritable earlier. I get like that at times when I am very overworked and get impatient in combination.

I want to wait for confirmations that my changes to the tiering system page were acceptable before you start a new thread though.
 
As I said, let's wait for @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality to check if my changes to the tiering system page were acceptable first.

 
As I said, let's wait for @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality to check if my changes to the tiering system page were acceptable first.

Looks ok to me
 
Should 'For example' be placed before 'via an omnidirectional explosion'?

'Cause an explosion wouldn't be the only way to destroy all the celestial bodies in the universe and there are other methods, such as the shockwaves from the clashes between two characters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top