• 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 Standards (Continued)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welp, sadly this discussion isn't going anywhere and many of our staff members seem to have lost interest. I'm sorry for Sera that she's been working hard on it and discussing it extensively which ticked her off a little.

But I'd say our best course of action for now is to leave this topic for future discussions and proceed with the agreed upon changes about High 3-A.
 
@AKM sama

Yup, it's not going anywhere as no one seems to agree on a single opinion yet.

Someone should organize a thread with the the merging work that causes 3-A and High 3-A to be merged as it seems to be being done as far as I can see.

Personally I think that for the safe side the 3-A lower border should stay as is to not bloat up this discussion any longer.
 
And common sense tells you that observable Universe isn't the full size of the universe. You'd have to think very little of the average person's intelligence to say they think observable universe is all there is.

That's why thinking an author is only talking about the observable universe when making universal feats is ridiculous.

Ask the average person how big the universe is, and they will either tell you the size of the observable universe or say they don't know or google it and then give you the size of the observable universe.

People can say a tomato is a vegetable all they want and even Google it. That does not change the fact that it's a fruit, and yes some sources suggest otherwise.

And also, other verse sites across the web use the observable universe as the standard universe size. It's just going to cause so much confusion and extra work and for what? Accuracy.

No...no they don't. Other sites aren't as "scientific" as us when it comes to determining the value of something. We're specific and intricate, it's our thing. We pretty much inherited it from the OBD. ACF doesn't do that. Their universal standards are different. VIW doesn't do that. They use the observable universe as a "Low 3-A" of sorts. Universal feats are treated as affecting the entire universe which they admit is an unknown size. FBO definitely does not use the observable universe because they guy that came into chat and was ranting that our 3-A is actually the high end of 3-B came from there. We are infamous for being "iamverysmart" and pseudo-intellectuals. Their words, not mine.

The rest of these so called versus sites are pretty much copies of us, but if you're talking about Comicvine, Spacebattles, and the like...they don't make character profiles, they just debate. So they don't do that either.

Finally, that is irrelevant. Other sites still use Marvel based terms of Megaverse and Omniverse. Other sites treat surface feats as full on planetary. Other sites don't use GBE, ever. Most sites go by feats and powerscaling only. No calcs or statements (unless the statement is backed up by "sufficient evidence"). So what other sites do is their own business.

The observable universe is more or less only four percent of the universe. These estimates are not arbitrary or random, they are...for lack of a better term, calcs. Calcs are educated guesses, there's some fact behind them and that's why they are reliable. That's why we use them. So we don't know the true size of the universe" is irrelevant when we of all people have practices that should not prevent us from figuring something out that's reasonable.

Here's something you all need to consider. Every location in the Universe has its own observable universe. Our current standard is literally based on observation from Earth as if all fictional verses that explore their universe take place on Earth. Star Wars? That's in a galaxy far far away. The size of the universe they can observe might be astronomically different from us on Earth. The observable universe from somewhere in the Andromeda is not going to yield the same result as it does here.
 
I agree with Sera, although I think that she means per mille, not percent. With the risk of being rude, I find it silly that we do not use some reliable estimation of the size of the true universe, whether that is 251x or 10^23x that of the observable universe.

I don't think that a lot of our calculations would have to be redone because of this.
 
I think that Antvasima makes sense. As far as I know, there are not many AP calcs that reach 3-A tier, yet they don't use the universe's size. There is a plenty of speed calcs to be redone, however.
 
Skalt711 said:
I think that Antvasima makes sense. As far as I know, there are not many AP calcs that reach 3-A tier, yet they don't use the universe's size. There is a plenty of speed calcs to be redone, however.
Click to expand...
I agree with Antvasima's points as well. I also think Skalt711's assessment is also correct likewise.
 
Not everything needs to be calced. Obviously "traveled to the end of the universe in ten seconds" is MFTL+ and no matter which size we use, it will remain MFTL+. The only thing that changes is the exact value, which honestly, doesn't need to be calc'd because with MFTL+ at that level, we already tell our visitors "this character is immensely faster than light".

Also...how do DB characters get upgraded? The DB universe is not comparable to ours.
 
The size of the observable universe is also limited by the speed of light. "Observable" does not refer to what is currently possible with technology to detect light, it refers to how no signals can travel faster than light, so any object farther away from us than light could travel using the age of the Universe as a medium cannot be detected. So in verses with FTL+ and beyond travel speed and/or technology, would we still consider those feats to be observable universe level in scale? The observable universe's size is based on factors that are only relevant in the real world and fictional verses closely related to it due to realistic limitations.
 
Guys, it is only our notion of the observable universe that is used to define the 3-A border.

What the in-universe observable universe is for a work of fiction has no actual relevance to this, since that's simply not something that has anything to do with how we decide the 3-A border.
 
I think that the speed calculation for Whis crossing the Dragon Ball universe would have to be redone, but not much else.
 
I should rephrase my comment a bit.

what the fictional verse can hypothetically observe has nothing to do with determining a 3-A border, if a verse outright states its value for the observable universe and its bigger than ours then in that case thier notion of observable universe will be relevant.
 
@Sera EX

The speed does need to be calced, whether it's crossing the universe in a minute or passing Earth's circumference in 5 seconds because it allows us to compare this character's speed to others' and the accuracy takes an important role.
 
That's the problem and that is the only tier we do this with.

That's like saying the One Piece planet is 5-B despite not even being our Earth. You'd need to calc it to get it's actual size, which Cin has done quite a few times.

What the in-universe observable universe is for a work of fiction has no actual relevance

Look at it this way

A series takes place on Planet Boo Boo in the Doo-Dad system of the Blah Blah Galaxy (which let's say is 400,000 light years making it larger than the Milky Way). The villain is Mr. Pepsi and he is capable of FTL+ travel and has technology that can detect FTL- speeds. Mr. Pepsi destroyed the entire universe from his location on Planet Boo Boo with the wave of his hand. Neverminding how casual the feat is which would put it above baseline, how can you say the feat is baseline 3-A when the observable universe is defined by lightspeed using the real life notion of "no FTL"??
 
Skalt711 said:
@Sera EX

The speed does need to be calced, whether it's crossing the universe in a minute or passing Earth's circumference in 5 seconds because it allows us to compare this character's speed to others' and the accuracy takes an important role.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. We should only calc when we need to use an educated guess to determine the scale of a feat that's otherwise a bit ambiguous or could be massively downplayed (or wanked) otherwise.

Traveling to the end of the universe in record time is MFTL+, you don't need a calc to prove that.
 
I should point out that I'm mainly arguing against particular points being used to justify the revisions, not necessarily the proposal as a whole.

the observable universe is used because that's we undoubtedly know the universe to include outside of speculation and what method was involved in finding it doesn't really matter, it's the fact that it's the mininum extent of the universe that has any relevance. You have to prove that the verse has detected things beyond the observable universe to say the value is above baseline not just that it has the theortical capabilities to detect things beyond a distance equivalent to the observable universe because that doesn't give any concrete information about the universe's size beyond what we already know.

If the estimates are as reliable as you say then I have no problem with the revisions but I do have a problem with a lot of the arguments that have been used to discredit the use of observable universe.
 
Look at it this way: A series takes place on Planet Boo Boo in the Doo-Dad system of the Blah Blah Galaxy (which let's say is 400,000 light years making it larger than the Milky Way). The villain is Mr. Pepsi and he is capable of FTL+ travel and has technology that can detect FTL+ speeds. Mr. Pepsi destroyed the entire universe from his location on Planet Boo Boo with the wave of his hand. Neverminding how casual the feat is which would put it above baseline, how can you say the feat is baseline 3-A when the observable universe is defined by lightspeed using the real life notion of "no FTL"??

Using this example because it's funny, the fact of the matter is because the observable universe is not a reliable baseline, it's best to use no estimated size at all. It's unreliable no matter which way you look at it. Using the size for the actual universe would be better, but not by much. Pardon me if this comes off as rude but you guys are trying to be too accurate for the sake of calculations.
 
@Sera EX

But the time may still differ. Crossing the universe in 10 seconds doesn't equal to crossing the universe in 5 second as the latter feat shows faster speed.
 
@Andy T.

The point is that's literally an unreliable way to handle these feats. There's a lot of stuff we don't know in reality but we don't use that to punish verses and feats into a ridiculous lowball due to our own ignorance.
 
Sera EX said:
@Andy T.
The point is that's literally an unreliable way to handle these feats. There's a lot of stuff we don't know in reality but we don't use that to punish verses and feats into a ridiculous lowball due to our own ignorance.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
@Skalt

10 seconds or 5 seconds, it's still MFTL+

I never said speed doesn't need to be calced. I said it doesn't always have to be. If you flew to the end of the galaxy in mere moments, you'd be very fast in speed. If I did so in an hour, I obviously wouldn't be even close to as fast as you. That's a difference in speed that doesn't need a multiplier or number slapped onto it to drive the point home.
 
You see that's a kind of logic I honestly don't understand much. Why would not rating a verse as high as it could be, be considered "punishing the verse"?

Most authors don't really care about how powerful someone thinks their verse is, so why would our opinions on where it stands mean anything for the actual work?
 
Also, regarding timefram, that is only relevant in a case of let's say...anime, movie, tv show, etc. There's no time frame in manga or novels unless it's outright stated or heavily inferred such as a day to night transition. Obviously in a video of a yo-yo being thrown to the sun from 0:10 to 0:25 can be calced as being "being thrown to the sun in 15 seconds". Give me three universal travel speed feats from an anime, movie, tv show, etc. that has a time frame like that.
 
I didn't say we shouldn't calc speeds, and regardless, MFTL+ means (at least 1000 times FTL). Whether we pop in the actual value or not won't change that, the rating is still MFTL+

That's like if we listed every 4-B in Dragon Ball that Vegito is stronger than in his AP description just to show how above baseline he is. We know he's above quite above baseline.
 
Yes, but using my Vegito example again, we also don't have a blog listing all the 4-B characters he is stronger than and list what his literal AP value is.
 
Antvasima said:
I personally prefer if we try to calculate speeds, rather than just slap "over 1000x the speed of light" on them, especially if they are ridiculously above baseline.
Click to expand...
"Jimmy Boombox traveled to the edge of his universe in literally three seconds. For reference, our own observable universe is 93 billion light years in distance, making Jimmy at least X-amount of times faster than light."

"Billy Jean outpaced the initial speed of the Big Bang, making her immensely beyond the speed of light".

^Literal common sense. You don't need an actual value to know something is ridiculously above baseline. And notice how in the first example, our observable universe is only used for reference, not for the size of Jimmy's universe.
 
@Sera EX

It is still possible to guess a timeframe in literature, comic and music works if there are any available information that allows us to go any more precise, but if the definition is too vague to be used, like "Look at this thing! The ship is crossing the universe at ridiculous speeds!" and little of or entirely nothing more, then it obviously can't be calculated and we'd need to slap some rating if Unknow rating will be inappropriate.

The MFTL+ rating is just a generalization of every available speed from 1000x Speed of Light to the highest non-infinite number. The ratings are done to make things more simple and elegant :p
 
Well, I think that we can use an estimation of the true size of our universe for speed calculations. Otherwise it turns less meaningful to change the lower border size to start with. We do not need each fiction to explicitly state exactly how large its universe is in order to do so. That is being overly demanding.

Also, our members and visitors recurrently find more specific MFTL+ values interesting to know about.
 
My point is having an exact value is fine. I'm not against that, I'm saying it's not always necessary.

Look at my two examples, the first one literally uses the observable universe for reference. It's not a bad reference for speed, or even AP so long as we don't limit it to that level due to ignorance.

It's bad because we don't say "Jimmy is at least 3-A for busting the universe and our own observable universe is this big". We say "Jimmy is baseline 3-A for busting the universe and our observable universe is this big".

If Jimmy exists in the Nasuverse where the setting is pretty much our universe + magic and a little extra metaphysics, that'd be fine. But if Jimmy exists in the verse where he lives on the Planet Boo Boo in the Doo-Dad System of the Blah Blah Galaxy, baseline 3-A is a lowball via ignorance to how big that universe could actually be. That's when calcing becomes an issue because we're lowballing that verse's size simply because we dont know the size of our own universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
552
ArcaneAbyss
Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
463
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Von Neumann Universe & Grothendieck Universe scaling
Replies
3
Views
429
Laxxius
Laxxius
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
153
Laxxius
Laxxius
Back
Top