- 10,758
- 6,491
@Zamasu The concept of low 2-C is staying but it might get renamed.
-
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)
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
- Status
- 8,845
- 9,506
Oh.
- 32,358
- 20,298
I honestly prefer the name Low 2-C or Universe level+ as opposed to High 3-A or High Universe level. High Universe level just always sounded cringy too me, and besides having been an active member here for over 3 years now I'm just used to the idea of Universal+
Besides, it would be significantly more advantageous and less of a workload to keep Low 2-C, and simply merge 3-A with High 3-A and thus remove the "High" from the dozen-something profiles that are on that tier.
As opposed to having to not only do that, but also manually replace the "Low 2-C" rating for a "High 3-A" in literal hundreds of profiles. It's just not a practical and meaningful thing to do. It would just amount to a name change that serves nothing.
Besides, it would be significantly more advantageous and less of a workload to keep Low 2-C, and simply merge 3-A with High 3-A and thus remove the "High" from the dozen-something profiles that are on that tier.
As opposed to having to not only do that, but also manually replace the "Low 2-C" rating for a "High 3-A" in literal hundreds of profiles. It's just not a practical and meaningful thing to do. It would just amount to a name change that serves nothing.
- 32,358
- 20,298
Here's my ultimate proposal for the new tiers:
3-A or Universe level Will start with the Observable Universe as its lowest bound, same as it currently is. The upper bound meanwhile is an infinite three-dimensional space, or what the current High 3-A or High Universe level is. The two are effectively merged into one concise Tier.
Low 2-C or Universe level+ Will keep the current name and numerical designation for the sake of practicality. Refers to characters who can destroy the totality of a universe's space-time or an entire timeline, and as such there's little change in the Tiering's definition. For emphasis, see Agnaa's post above.
3-A or Universe level Will start with the Observable Universe as its lowest bound, same as it currently is. The upper bound meanwhile is an infinite three-dimensional space, or what the current High 3-A or High Universe level is. The two are effectively merged into one concise Tier.
Low 2-C or Universe level+ Will keep the current name and numerical designation for the sake of practicality. Refers to characters who can destroy the totality of a universe's space-time or an entire timeline, and as such there's little change in the Tiering's definition. For emphasis, see Agnaa's post above.
- 19,151
- 6,446
I agree.
- 8,845
- 9,506
I also agree with Matthew Sama.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #87
For all that I'd rather keep the tiers as they are but merged 4D with Low 2-C. I don't wanna do this halfway, especially when the meat of it all was about the observable universe lowball that I suppose will have to irritate me for the rest of my VSBW days.
- 31,372
- 34,119
I'm neutral between Matt's proposal or Ven's idea of keeping High 3-A, but the parts I do agree on is Low 2-C staying and at least the second half of High 3-A about the 4-D stuff less than universal being removed.
Though, I'm for Low 2-C being Universe level and either 3-A or High 3-A being Low Universe level depending on whether High 3-A stays or not. If it does stay, I know Sera doesn't like the sound, but Observable Universe level I think still sounds accurate for 3-A.
Though, I'm for Low 2-C being Universe level and either 3-A or High 3-A being Low Universe level depending on whether High 3-A stays or not. If it does stay, I know Sera doesn't like the sound, but Observable Universe level I think still sounds accurate for 3-A.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Feats of creating or destroying infinite space should count as low 2-C instead of high 3-A now right? Because time and space are intertwined and from what I understand, that means you can't destroy space without destroying time.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #90
Yeah but fiction be fiction so, it's whatever. I put a lot of effort into this but if the staff doesn't really care to actually put more effort into it other than dismissing arguments with no real counter argument but "I just don't like it" then screw it. Granted some did, obviously, like Andy, and for that thank you Andy, Medeus, and all the few staff that actually put more into debating this. Regulars put more into it, so thank you guys too. It's messed up they can't even ******* help out in the actual revision. Sure, whatever.
From here on out I'm no longer pushing for anything. I suggest we just leave the tiers alone (except get rid of 4D High 3-A and merge it with Low 2-C) but other than that, I'm done here. I've wasted so much time already doing this, I skipped eating and sleep just to plan this out and it's really not going anywhere significant enough for me to keep on pushing it.
So, yeah. Do what you will, I guess.
From here on out I'm no longer pushing for anything. I suggest we just leave the tiers alone (except get rid of 4D High 3-A and merge it with Low 2-C) but other than that, I'm done here. I've wasted so much time already doing this, I skipped eating and sleep just to plan this out and it's really not going anywhere significant enough for me to keep on pushing it.
So, yeah. Do what you will, I guess.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Sorry to hear that, I really am. I was going to suggest taking a break, but that may be rich coming from me when I myself repeatedly fail to take a break from the site and focus on other important things.
- 8,845
- 9,506
So am I.DarkDragonMedeus said:
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #93
It's not the site, it's just specifically the time and effort put into this. I've been planning and organizing this since early February, keeping in mind all my personal stuff this is piled on top of. So just to see it get reduced to...whatever this is, it's a bit heartbreaking. I understand no one means any ill harm so I'm not flailing around and blaming people. Just disappointed disappointed Ôÿ╣´©Å
- 8,845
- 9,506
I'm sorry Sera. I'm honestly extremely disappointed as well. I heard so many rumors about this universal project and how it would be like a mass movement for the tiering system. But nooo it just ends up to be a few tweaks that led to redundancy, circle arguing, derailing, time wasting nonsense.Sera EX said:
Once again I am extremely sorry and I apologize if I ever added any salt to the wound in the past two threads.
- 31,372
- 34,119
I too have full sympathy for how Sera feels about all this; and I can also relate other projects that let to disappointment as well.
- 865
- 194
@Sera the problem is the medium. Typing back and forth through posts like this is tiring and mentally taxing since there's a lot lost in translation via the means of communication.
I think if there were a staff discord of some sort where you could discuss a project of this scale you would get a lot more positive results. Just my opinion.
I think if there were a staff discord of some sort where you could discuss a project of this scale you would get a lot more positive results. Just my opinion.
- 10,758
- 6,491
My ideal solution would be to leave the tiers as they are and change our standards tbh
1.Time space destruction in a less than universal scale shouldn't count as AP
2. High 3-A should be infinite 3-Ds and 4-Ds described to have infinite superiority over 3-Ds
3. Default assumption when Tiering the creator dieties of a universe should be low 2-C but the same may not apply to "blow up the universe" feats/statements
4. Destroying infinite space should be low 2-C
This is what I personally think would be best but of course, I am not pushing for all these suggestions to be followed to the letter.
1.Time space destruction in a less than universal scale shouldn't count as AP
2. High 3-A should be infinite 3-Ds and 4-Ds described to have infinite superiority over 3-Ds
3. Default assumption when Tiering the creator dieties of a universe should be low 2-C but the same may not apply to "blow up the universe" feats/statements
4. Destroying infinite space should be low 2-C
This is what I personally think would be best but of course, I am not pushing for all these suggestions to be followed to the letter.
- 167,680
- 76,259
I personally think that the mixture of Sera's and Ultima's suggestion that we talked about earlier seems fine, but keeping Low 2-C as it is is also acceptable. I still think that we should not use the observable universe as a lower bound for 3-A though. I am with Sera in that respect.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I'm not that well versed in physics so I can't tell if the larger estimates are appropriate to use as a baseline for 3-A. If more knowledgeable members confirm it is then cool, but if they don't then I don't think we'll have any option but to use observable universe.
I also really don't see the need to merge 3-A and high 3-A. What's the the problem in just having a tier for infinite 3-Ds?
I also really don't see the need to merge 3-A and high 3-A. What's the the problem in just having a tier for infinite 3-Ds?
- 10,758
- 6,491
Low 2-C would have to become high 3-A if we decide to make "multiversal" actually mean multiversal like it was suggested.
But tier 1's name also isn't all that accurate due to extradimensional ratings starting at tier 2. So maybe keeping universe level+ in tier 2 isn't really all that problematic?
But tier 1's name also isn't all that accurate due to extradimensional ratings starting at tier 2. So maybe keeping universe level+ in tier 2 isn't really all that problematic?
- 167,680
- 76,259
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I would prefer if we make Low 2-C into High 3-A, merge 3-A and High 3-A, and change the lower border for the tier from the observable universe to the actual estimated size of the universe, but some staff members must be willing to do the actual conversion work.
- 10,758
- 6,491
The high 3-A and 3-A merge is the only one I have a real problem with. 2-B doesn't have an upper cap and there is a separate tier for infinite universes, 1-B also doesn't have an end with a separate tier for infinite dimensions. Making 3-A cap at infinite 3-D seems a bit odd with than in mind but maybe that's just a personal gripe.
- 6,436
- 1,664
Try to make it staff only, and highlight it again, and see where it goes...? This topic seems to have died down a lot too....
- 6,436
- 1,664
/sad reacts only.... ;~;
She did an amazing job on this...
She did an amazing job on this...
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #115
The problem with that is the staff are the ones I'm disappointed in. Again, I'm not blaming anyone, and I know we all have a lot more going on but things like this used to be handled with a lot more care in the past. Other than Medeus, Andy, and a few others, very little staff have discussed this more in-depth and there's supposed to be 60 of us. This is a big revision after all...
For example, DontTalk, an extremely knowledgeable member, only mentioned he prefer things remain exactly the way they are and only gave a small explanation as to why. You'd expect if someone vehemently opposes something to do their best to prevent it from happening, especially a wiki-wide revision.
Regulars and an ex-staff member have put far more into the discussion than staff. For example, Agnaa has extensively provided reasons for all his arguments. Good arguments I might add.
Once more, I'm not calling anyone out, but I'm giving the reason as to why making this staff only is a fruitless effort. So at this point I really don't care and far too busy to do anything like this ever again.
For example, DontTalk, an extremely knowledgeable member, only mentioned he prefer things remain exactly the way they are and only gave a small explanation as to why. You'd expect if someone vehemently opposes something to do their best to prevent it from happening, especially a wiki-wide revision.
Regulars and an ex-staff member have put far more into the discussion than staff. For example, Agnaa has extensively provided reasons for all his arguments. Good arguments I might add.
Once more, I'm not calling anyone out, but I'm giving the reason as to why making this staff only is a fruitless effort. So at this point I really don't care and far too busy to do anything like this ever again.
- 561
- 97
How 'bout a poll regarding whether we rename Low 2-C or not since it's most likely the least important thing. Something like this:
New Label for Universe level+
Tier High 3-A
5
Tier Low 2-C
22
The poll was created at 15:45 on April 1, 2019, and so far 27 people voted.
Please wait, submitting your vote...
New Label for Universe level+
Tier High 3-A
5
Tier Low 2-C
22
The poll was created at 15:45 on April 1, 2019, and so far 27 people voted.
Please wait, submitting your vote...
- 32,358
- 20,298
Low 2-C for practicality I maintain.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Polls should really not be used unless we're arguing something purely subjective.
- 31,372
- 34,119
I agree with Sera that making a staff only thread might not be the best approach anymore; it may have been a while back do lack of solid contributors, but our community as a whole has gotten a lot better than it was in 2017 and earlier. And I don't need to mention names of various trouble makers and/or people who abused their former staff positions who have been "dealt with."
I also agree that the staff, and especially ones with disagreements, should me more elaborate with the details and reasonings.
I also agree that the staff, and especially ones with disagreements, should me more elaborate with the details and reasonings.
- 167,680
- 76,259
@Sera
Okay. I am sorry to hear that, and agree that the staff used to be more efficient with revisions. I tried to help out as best as I could given my severe time constraints, and mostly agree with your and Ven's suggestions.
If you want more knowledgeable staff members to help out, I would recommend leaving notifications on their message walls.
Okay. I am sorry to hear that, and agree that the staff used to be more efficient with revisions. I tried to help out as best as I could given my severe time constraints, and mostly agree with your and Ven's suggestions.
If you want more knowledgeable staff members to help out, I would recommend leaving notifications on their message walls.
- Status
