• 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.
I think on thinking on it again I'm more accepting to the estimated full universe size as a low end in most cases.

I do not know what to do about the naming right now though.
 
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.
 
My opinion is still that keeping the tiers the same and changing the standards is the best option. If others disagree tha's fine tho.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.

But i agree with changing the baseline of 3-A.
 
Perhaps we could keep the observable universe at Low 3-A and have the global universe at regular 3-A, seems like a good compromise.
 
Just gonna throw this out there

How about low 3-A being universe level, 3-A being whatever the name will be for infinite 3-D and high 3-A being what is currently universe level+?

I'm just really not comfortable with merging 3-A and high 3-A even now. I'm also not comfortable getting rid of low 2-C which is why this is only my 2nd favourite suggestion. But if keeping tier 2 exclusive for multiverse level power is so important, I can make my peace with this.
 
For the Tiering System page, I think Tier 2 should be Dimensional instead of Multiversal, so that Low 2-C can remain. Sounds like an appropriate title between Cosmic and Extradimensional as well. And yeah, we don't be including just observable universe if the actual physical universe is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bigger. So Low 3-A sounds really bad.
 
Look, the observable universe is in no way comparable to the actual universe. It is multi-galaxy level, that is all.

And the point of using a lower border of the actual estimation of the universe's size, and a higher border of infinite size, is that universal feats in fiction are usually very poorly defined beyond "I created it" or "I destroyed it". As such this would neatly include all of them into one tier.

Low 3-A definitely does not seem like a good idea.
 
I strongly agree with Ant. Also @Andy, as Ven mentioned we could separate finite 3D with infinite 3D by calling the lower border Universe level and the upper border Universe level+. The problem is everyone keeps complaining about the High Universe level name, but we need a name for High 3-A...we should just call it High Universe level. I'm trying to make this as painless as possible because it's necessary change, I want to consider everyone's individual thoughts but they aren't making it easy.

I care far more about being accurate and consistent rather than cool and inconsistent. So I'm sorry to those who liked Low 2-C and to those who don't like the name High Universe level but we're circle jerking over this nitpick and we have to stop. It's not derailing but it's keeping the revision stagnant. We need to move on.

@All

I'll also make the staff thread in a few hours. I wasn't feeling well yesterday, so I couldn't do it then.
 
@Sera Separating it that way kinda feels odd to me if I'm being honest. Although being a bit odd compared to the rest of the system may not be the worst thing ever.

I'm still holding onto "low 3-A=mathematically calculated universe size, 3-A=Infinite 3-D, High 3-A=4 dimensional/timeline level" being my more preferable option.

Granted it still comes with its own oddity since it would require low 3-A being named Universe level rather than low universe level but that kind of thing won't be new for us.
 
I strongly agree with Sera. We should prioritise consistency and accuracy. However, we do have to find volunteers among the staff for carrying out the relevant changes.
 
@Sera

Just to clarify, these are the preferred changes:

3-A + High 3-A -> 3-A with the actual calculated size of the universe as the lower border and infinite 3-D space as the upper border. We should apparently also stop including less than universal 4-D destruction and creation feats in this tier, but I am unclear regarding the specifics.

Low 2-C -> High 3-A with the tier mostly functioning as previously, with the possible exception of including 4-D feats in general, but again, I am uncertain regarding the specifics.
 
We should include 4D feats. High 2-A and above are for "x-dimensional power/characters" so High 3-A should be for space time and four-dimensional feats, because there are characters who have 4D power but probably can't affect the actual timespace.

This is only including 4D characters who are qualitatively superior to 3D ones rather than those who are "just 4D" due to Ultima's revisions.
 
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.
 
That's a good point, considering stuff like Large Country level is higher than Country level+, it actually does make sense for High Universe level to be above Universe level+. And another thing is that we got High Multiverse level+, but no High Multiverse level. And with or without the "+" sign, it's already assumed to above 2-A. So Large or High is above the "+" sign usually, but Universal stuff seems to be the exception. So if we aren't changing the Tier borders and keeping the three different ratings separate, the least we should do is swap the names of High 3-A and Low 2-C. But the baseline for 3-A getting the massive upgrade based on the potential calc is another reasonable change generally agreed with reasons also.
 
More importantly, the lack of staff agreement here is bothering me. I feel as if I make the staff thread then that's when they'll appear and voice disagreements rather than organize and volunteer to help out on the actual project. In fact, I know that's what's gonna happen.
 
Although merging high 3-A and low 2-C seems fine at first glance, it's not entirely right. I get what Sera means by having tier 2 exclusively multiversal, it's not necessarily accurate because 1C is complex multiversal.
 
I mean I've already voiced my disagreement on the Low 2-C thing. I think it makes more sense to have tier 2 encompass the 4D feats as opposed to only the multiversal ones. Idk if I ever got a response to that but I never saw one. If I did, whoops
 
So... hows it going here? What is the current conseus's? Maybe someone post a summary of arguements for each side???
 
Well, I posted a summary of what we currently want to do above, but it seems like the community is unwilling to change Low 2-C to High 3-A. I hope that they will at least be willing to merge the current 3-A and High 3-A as I specified there though.
 
See here:

3-A + High 3-A -> 3-A with the actual calculated size of the universe as the lower border and infinite 3-D space as the upper border. We should apparently also stop including less than universal 4-D destruction and creation feats in this tier.

Low 2-C -> High 3-A with the tier mostly functioning as previously, with the exception of including 4-D feats that are defined as qualitatively superior to 3-D.
 
Okay. Are you fine with scrapping the observable universe as a lower border? It doesn't really make any sense.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

If there is no real need to do this, I wouldn't have made two threads about it. It's an irregularity that needs fixing. Some irregularities cannot be helped, but this definitely can be fixed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
0
Views
612
MightyFrogBeyond
ZENZUYA
Saitama & Garou Possibly 3A - H3A
Replies
24
Views
2K
Robo432343
Robo432343
StrymULTRA
  • Locked
The weird lack of High 3-A Range
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Rapid-Fire Questions about spacetime.
Replies
9
Views
1K
MightyFrogBeyond
BestMGQScalerEver
How would nested worlds like this would this tier?
Replies
3
Views
463
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Back
Top