• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing I'll agree on is that stuff like "infinite space" should be low 2-C unless it's simply referring to volume.

Ultima's previous point sounded good to me before but after thinking a bit more, why would destruction of infinite space being more relevant than destruction of time mean "4-D is automatically timeline level". It just means destruction of infinite space isn't a 3-D level feat or destruction of time alone isn't the destruction of a 4-D structure.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
To settle the High 3-A thing:

Wokistan said:
The way I suggested it was to make High 3-A into the upper border of 3-A (so it just doesn't cap, and allows for any amount of 3D power) and have the partly 4D people go off of their other feats and have that stuff classified as space and time manip. Oryx, the Taken King's second key would be an example of that.
Click to expand...
Does anyone have any issue with this?
 
@Woki "Partly 4-D" can go. Full on 4-D peeps are who I have any problems with.

I do not see any real need for 3-A and high 3-A to be merged but if others think it's worth it, I ain't stopping them.
 
Ultima's planned revisions would close that hole of inconsistency, though I know you have an issue with those.
 
Like I said, they would close some of it, but it wouldn't close it for verses where higher dimensions are treated as higher infinities. Through that, featless 5, 6, 7, etc-D beings would be rated at their appropriate tier, and only featless 4-D beings would be left at Unknown.
 
If a verse treats it as a higher infinity, is it not implicitly a feat to exist on such a level?

The current "limited 4D High 3-A" seems less for people who just are 4D and nothing else and more for people in a similar situation to Oryx. He made a universe, time, laws, concepts and all, but the word "cyst" stopped him from being tier 2 for now because it made his blatantly 4D universe creation one of indeterminate size. Others seem to he in a similar issue with this, but it's not applied very consistently.
 
It may implicitly be a feat, but there's no tier to cover the feat of "simply being 4D", as simply being 4D doesn't necessarily mean you have enough power to affect a timeline, which is the requirement for Low 2-C.

I guess this could be solved by Low 2-C also counting for "4D power of an indeterminate or below-universal size", but then that's kind of just splitting High 3-A into 3-A and Low 2-C.
 
How about we hold off on the High 3-A 4D thing until after Ultima's dimensional tiering revision?
 
Sera EX said:
At this point it's picking roses. If limited 4D was so important it wouldn't be so vehemently opposed. Everyone agrees it needs to go.
Click to expand...
I was opposed to it since I didn't realize why it was a thing, until I realized why it was a thing...

Sera EX said:
How about we hold off on the High 3-A 4D thing until after Ultima's dimensional tiering revision?
Click to expand...
Ultima's revision won't change the basics of High 3-A 4D, it would simply reduce the number of profiles affected. The fundamental issue will still exist.
 
So have we agreed about applying the Wokistan/Matthew/Azathoth option now? If so, we need to plan how to properly structure the changes.
 
I'm making a second thread for that, this one's almost at 400 posts. I want to make sure we are all ready first before closing this one.
 
Andytrenom said:
@Woki "Partly 4-D" can go. Full on 4-D peeps are who I have any problems with.

I do not see any real need for 3-A and high 3-A to be merged but if others think it's worth it, I ain't stopping them.
Click to expand...
That's because High 3-A is not merging with 3-A, it's merging with Low 2-C. 3-A will cap at infinite 3D though.
 
Better think carefully before it goes down. It's not okay to get rid of the tier High 3-A

I agree that limited 4D needs to go. That literally makes absolutely no sense. Normal 4D belongs in Low 2-C. Any space time feats less than a timeline in scale is literally just hax people. High 3-A should just be infinite 3D.

Unless you rename Low 2-C to High Universe level+, you shouldn't merged Infinite 3D High 3-A with 3-A.

There's a reason High 3-A stops at an undefined transfinite high-end. It's for the same reason 2-B is separate from 2-A and 1-B is separate from High 1-B. Transfinite feats shouldn't be categorized in the same bracket as infinite feats. VSBW differentiates between the two already. Only if Low 2-C is renamed and transfinite 3-A is separated from infinite 3-A as Universe level and Universe level+ respectively should infinite 3D be merged to 3-A.

However,

You have to consider why Sera said the observable universe should only be low universe level, especially since it's also an ambiguous term. Depending on your sources, it can be anywhere from 100 billion to two trillion galaxies, or anywhere from 46.1 billion to 93 billion light years. Not to mention it's literally defined as the part of the universe we can see from our location in space.

Part of the universe that we can see. It isn't like the Earth where we pretty much know all there is to know about the blue marble. It's kinda strange to assume, for example, the One Piece universe would be the same size as our observable universe when it's planets isn't even the same as our Earth. The observable universe is not even defined as the same thing as the universe.

Look up Universe and this is what comes up:

"All of matter and space; the cosmos"

Look up Observable Universe and this is what comes up:

"the part of the universe we can see from our location in space."

So basically, what Kaltias said works for and against him at the same time.

Is universe an ambiguous term? Yes. Is the observable universe defined the same as the universe? No. The contents of intergalactic space goes far beyond the observable universe. To what degree? We don't know but lowballing all universal feats less than infinite in scale to observable universe scale is wrong.

We shouldn't merge a High 3-A with any tier in that way. Instead:

  • Perhaps 3-A should be Low 3-A (Observable Universe = Low Universe level)
  • High 3-A becomes 3-A (Baseline Universe up to an infinite universe = Universe level)
  • Low 2-C becomes High 3-A (4D space time continuum = High Universe level) because Tier 2 should just be Multiversal.
But, if you prefer Low 2-C over High 3-A, that's fine.

That's my take on this whole scenario. Two perspectives, one supporting the Wok/Matt/Azzy suggestion (with some adjustments) and one supporting Sera's Low Universe level suggestion (with some adjustments).
 
@VenomElite I'm still not 100% sold on putting all 4D beings in Low 2-C. They may have 4D power but that doesn't mean they can affect an entire timeline.

I didn't get why High 3-A included that at first, but I think that explanation's good enough to keep limited 4D recognized.
 
Limited 4D doesn't even exist. Time is the basis for the fourth dimension in this wiki. Therefore, anything 4D less than the scale of a timeline is hax as Wokistan and Ven stated using the High 3-A definition itself.
 
Sera EX said:
Limited 4D doesn't even exist. Time is the basis for the fourth dimension in this wiki. Therefore, anything 4D less than the scale of a timeline is hax as Wokistan and Ven stated using the High 3-A definition itself.
Click to expand...
We've already gone over this so I'm not going to repeat myself.
 
I'll ask you again, what would you rate a limited 5D as? That is, a 5D being or power less than Multiversal in scale.
 
To be fair, Dlanor displayed limited 4D attack potency and she's placed at Unknown. The feat is "destroyed small localizations of space time".
 
That file is so old it still uses the old striking strength system from two years ago.

@Hagane

No.
 
I gave two perspectives, one supporting the Wok/Matt/Azzy suggestion (with some adjustments) and one supporting Sera's Low Universe level suggestion (with some adjustments).
 
Hypervolume for consistency purposes should be rated as equivocal to Low 2-C. Dimensional tiering still applies so if it's 4 spatial and 1 temporal that's 5D or High Multiverse level.
 
No we don't. Limited 4D makes no sense as High 3-A. Time is the fourth dimension for us and therefore any abilities that are 4D (aka time) that are less than universal in scale should be treated as hax only.

If you're referring to four spatial dimensions as "limited 4D" that's incorrect. 4 spatial dimensions is > 3 spatial dimensions obviously, and ask yourself this: Doesn't 4=4??

Hypervolume = 4D. Space time = 3+1D (4D)

Putting physics on the side, why shouldn't these be the same tier?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
0
Views
698
MightyFrogBeyond
ZENZUYA
Saitama & Garou Possibly 3A - H3A
Replies
24
Views
2K
Robo432343
Robo432343
UchihaLik
Question about 3-A and L2-C.
Replies
1
Views
466
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
BestMGQScalerEver
How would nested worlds like this would this tier?
Replies
3
Views
536
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
2K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
Back
Top