• 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.
@GoP

What do you mean? You mean multiple infinite three-dimensional universes? Because that's debatable. A lot of people think that should be 2-C while others consider it just to be a higher degree of High 3-A.
 
Anyway, I think that alternative B seems like the most logical option.
 
@DMB

She isn't saying time isn't relevant anymore, she's saying time without space is meaningless. Tier 2 is dependent on alternate universes/timelines, not multiple temporalities which is what the fourth dimension is by itself, it's just an added dimension that means nothing without the 3D.
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
So what would this do to characters who are infinite 3D, and what would this do to characters who can destroy multiple material universes, but not temporal ones?
Click to expand...
Define a "temporal universe". Our system is based on size (using dimensions to denote greater size). A universe that's just time and no space is physically meaningless. A multiverse is superior to a universe because multiple timelines = multiverse universes.
 
Except in cases where multiple timelines are considered just a facet of the universe.
 
Just destroying time is Time Destruction, not exactly an AP feat. Destroying a timeline is destroying a universe (space) along with it, and that's why it's impressive.

@Pritti

In those cases the word "universe" is referring to a multiverse in the realm of "multi-dimensional universe".
 
DMB 1 said:
So to be Low 2-C, what would you have to do? Create/destroy a Universe with both matters and space-time?
Click to expand...
There are not that many distinctions on what a universe is in fiction. We came up with all these different distinctions.

To be Low 2-C you simply just destroy the universe as you always did. Space time. All of it.

Basically all universal feats are Low 2-C until proven otherwise. That was proposal E btw so I'll add it now.
 
Am I an idiot or something? When someone refers to the universe, it should not be 2-C by default. Only when someone refers to the entire timeline of a universe should it be 2-C.

What is it with this universal being 2-C by default?
 
Solution B looks good to me.

High 3-A in general has always seemed like a superfluous tier to me, especially in regards to the whole "finite 4-D" aspect being a thing. I agree that there needs to be a change.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
My idea:

3-A starts at the Observable Universe level we already have it as, and it continuous arbitrarily with no defined end.

Low 2-C and High 3-A merge.
Click to expand...
Tis fine with me if you're cereals.
 
Can we talk about why we're using the neutron stars to bound 3-A while we're here? Imo with these new changes we should revert to a normal star or a Sun-like Star.
 
I think High 3-A should stay, but my reasons are a little different so hear me out.

The issue now is that the observable universe being the baseline of 3-A seems disingenuous as the true universe is likely much larger that what we can see. However, I think there's another issue that should be addressed and that is the dimensionality of a universe buster.

To say that a 3D being can destroy a universe on the same level as a 4D one doesn't quite sit well with me. I'm sure there are cases where this is so, but I believe those should be exceptions. If you ask me, I think destroying a universe on a 3D level should be vastly inferior to destroying it on a 4D level. Even if we regard the vector of time as the 4th dimension, it is a non-corporeal construct that we can't phycially touch. So even if time is meaningless without a universe, it's still there. It's not the same as someone who destroyed the universe and the construct that binds it.

Thus, I think that High 3-A should be referred to as 3D universe level - as in all the space within a universe - and Low 2-C should be 4D universe level (space-time). 3-A should be renamed to observable universe level.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Can we talk about why we're using the neutron stars to bound 3-A while we're here? Imo with these new changes we should revert to a normal star or a Sun-like Star.
Click to expand...
I knew I forgot to mention something in the OP! Yes, we definitely need to talk about that.
 
Question, so when universal feats happen. We have to look extremely closely at it to distinguish if it low 2-C or 3-A?? Because I know some characters like that..... They are ranked at 3-A but their feats are more aligned with low 2-C...
 
I agree with Sera here.

Not only that, but what is considered to be the observable universe will change in the far future going by any model of the universe's lifespan, either growing or shrinking immeasurably.
 
@Sera

I'll wait to talk about it until everyone agrees on the current topics. If I don't reply at that time feel free to hit me up on my wall and I'll come back to make my case about why and why not neutron stars should be used.
 
Hello. I'm just here to defend Yuya Sakaki's anime profile regarding the Zarc key. The 2C feat is legit; however, the catch is that it's still in the "likely" classification due to the relatively ambiguous nature of whether or not the dimensions are full universes. However, considering Yuya has counterparts, the parallel universe explanation can be applied here, so I guess that works.
 
Why all the tiering debates recently? Anyway:

If you google any "how to destroy the universe"-video you will find that non of it concerns itself with destroying the past.

That is because destroying the contents of the universe is in usual use of language very much sufficient to say the universe was destroyed.

Destroying the past or destroying space itself aren't necessary.


Things are fine as they are.
 
Well, as I mentioned before the current system will not last forever and is in need of a soft reboot.

Anyway. If destroying the past isn't necessary why treat it as being superior to just destroying the present?

I mean, Zamasu "became one with the universe" and was leaking into the past, but even after Zeno erased the multiverse in the future, Whis was still able to travel back in time to before Zamasu became the universe in that timeline. We still treat that as Low 2-C for some reason. Time without space is meaningless. It's just a measurement. Timelines are only relevant because they contain separate iterations of the universe (the space, matter, and energy are, for lack of a better term, multiplied).
 
Bravos Sera! I Really thank you for making this thread.

About the thread itself and the proposition/

  • Universe = Low 2-C structure: I agree Completly
Because for Now, our standards are really weird, the fact that Universe level = Destroying all the matter of the Universe seem weird as we treat characters who can destroy multiple Universe at once at 2-C without even statemate about Space Time (according to the currents standards), Destroying a Universe need to be Low 2-C because currently, Destroying Multiple Universes at once is 2-C without a mention of the Timeline busting (when it can possibly be an higher 3-A), treating the Universe as Low 2-C justify our current standards.

  • High 3-A and Low 2-C should be merged: I guess?
But how we treat the "Infinite Universe" if High 3-A Gone? Destroying an Infinite Universe is the same as Destroying a basic Universe? It's not the size which count (lel)? the Proposition E is the simpliest, he is fine too IMO

For the rest (such as the size of the universe we use) i'am neutral.
 
Fusion Zamasu is Low 2-C as he was clearly merging with Space-Time. Anyway, I also prefer we don't merge any tiers as mention above; but Matt's suggestion would be the next best option IMO though. I do also agree that the "4-Dimensional beings who are less than universal" should be removed from the High 3-A section.
 
I'm fine with either. My main point of discussion is E. All universal feats should be considered Low 2-C unless proven otherwise. Because we shouldn't assume that when a character says "I'll destroy the universe" they are referring only to the observable universe, which is just a region of the universe (space time). We shouldn't have to see a statement about time to be considered Low 2-C, time and space are two sides of the same coin.

All other feats will remain the same. Infinite universe will be High 3-A, and observable universe feats be 3-A.
 
Yes, I mean we act like time can exist without space when they were born at the same time as an entanglement. Infinite universe feats where all of space was destroyed and not time make no sense, I don't even know if that's real. What's left? Time? Time without space is meaningless so that means infinite universe feats are equal to timeline feats.

The only reason Low 2-C is separate from High 3-A is due to the myth that time is a higher dimension that is infinitely superior to 3D. It's not, it's an added dimension. If the universe was 5D, time would still be +1 and that +1 just makes the space time 6D. Time by itself means nothing. We literally have people thinking transcending time makes you High Multiversal due to our own ignorance, that just gives you temporal resistance.
 
Sera EX said:
I'm fine with either. My main point of discussion is E. All universal feats should be considered Low 2-C unless proven otherwise. Because we shouldn't assume that when a character says "I'll destroy the universe" they are referring only to the observable universe, which is just a region of the universe (space time). We shouldn't have to see a statement about time to be considered Low 2-C, time and space are two sides of the same coin.
All other feats will remain the same. Infinite universe will be High 3-A, and observable universe feats be 3-A.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I am fine with point E as well.

I was going to wait for Ultima's new thread to conclude the topic on Dimensional Tiering as I believe he started with his last thread:

Analyzing Dimensional Tiering:

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2760052
 
Shaking the World of Void for instance is an example of a low end High 3-A; though not the best example given the Low 2-C characters. But shaking, destroying, creating timeless voids that are infinite in size are the closest thing in mind to High 3-A feats; but there are very few of those compare to Low 2-C's yes.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Shaking the World of Void for instance is an example of a low end High 3-A; though not the best example given the Low 2-C characters. But shaking, destroying, creating timeless voids that are infinite in size are the closest thing in mind to High 3-A feats; but there are very few of those compare to Low 2-C's yes.
Click to expand...
The World of the void being Infinite is a mistranslation, the "good" translation is:

"A world without time and space, filled with only eternity and emptiness."

@TGOP, good luck for asking people for that when there is literally no translation. but for this feat (which i know), it's 3-A iirc
 
Thank you again Causality. I've also been saying the World of Void is not infinite, it's just "timeless" and empty.

Even the word "multiverse" has never been used once in the original Japanese dub of DBS, they only used the term "World".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
761
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
JimedBro2020
I think I'm starting to understand what exactly High 1-A+/High Outerversal+ (VSBW) means
Replies
0
Views
324
JimedBro2020
JimedBro2020
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Von Neumann Universe & Grothendieck Universe scaling
Replies
3
Views
830
Laxxius
Laxxius
MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
718
ArcaneAbyss
Sarah2020_45496
Space time
Replies
6
Views
344
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Back
Top