Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:Macrocosmic level ƒæÇ for infinite 3D power.
Let's do this, I'd help if I could.Antvasima said:So are the rest of you fine with if we merge the current 3-A and High 3-A to just 3-A, with a lower border of the best scientific approximation of the full size of the universe that we can find and an upper border of infinite 3-D space, and then change Low 2-C to High 3-A after that is done, as tier 2 is supposed to be for multiversal feats only?
I also think that High Universe level seems more consistent with our other naming procedures than Universe level+ though.
However, Promestein is not feeling well and is taking some time off to rest, so we cannot dump this revision on her. We have to find other volunteers among the staff.
I still think infinite 3-D power should remain separated to transfinite 3-D power, just like we do with Multiverse level and Multiverse level+, or Massively FTL+ and Infinite Speed.Antvasima said:So are the rest of you fine with if we merge the current 3-A and High 3-A to just 3-A, with a lower border of the best scientific approximation of the full size of the universe that we can find and an upper border of infinite 3-D space
I asked because The Doctor and the The Doctor's TARDIS technically 4-D but are 9-A and 4-B respectivelyThe God Of Procrastination said:Technically, as mass is a dimensionless quality, a 4-D character can be any tier. Also, if we can have infinitely strong characters, then we can have infinitesimally strong characters.
Yes there is. It's called an inconsistency in tiering. And current High 3-A is becoming the top border of 3-A. Also, @Wokistan you say you want Tier 2 to encompass all 4D feats in your argument for keeping Low 2-C, yet there's High 2-A which is for 5D feats, so either way Tier 2 should just be Multiversal, that's the most consistent and most logical thing to do.Matthew Schroeder said:I would prefer to keep Low 2-C named Low 2-C. I liked it better and there's no real reason to do it.
Current High 3-A should just become the limit of 3-A.