• 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.
Matthew Schroeder said:
Matthew Schroeder said:
I don't think it should be all or nothing. There is definitely a difference between Universal with and without space-time.
Click to expand...
I don't think E would be a good solution, I'm sorry, plus it would be a gigantic headache which I'm already seeing..
My proposal is that Universal should say as is, as should Universe level+.

3-A and Low 2-C are fine as it is, the problem seems to be High 3-A. With it, there are two options: Merge it with 3-A or merge it with Low 2-C. Both work.
Click to expand...
I think E could still be part of the solution, to be honest. As Sera linked evidence that in many languages and scientifically, universe includes all of the matter and space-time, most importantly Japanese where our most popular fiction on the wiki lie. I think we should rate 3-A and Low 2-C feat according to the standard universe definition unless the universe creation/destruction is stated to be different otherwise.

I do agree High 3-A can be merged with 3-A. The limited 4-D that yield High 3-A as an example King Ghidorah (Anime) is weird to me as most of the characters' feats are nowhere near Universal at all. Furthermore, I think there are only a few High 3-A on the wiki so I think the rating can be merged.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I agree Wokistan. PArtly 4D High 3-A needs to go, 100%. It is pointless and won't fit at all with the system once Ultima's Revisions happen.

What we should do is make the "Infinite 3D" High 3-A the endpoint of 3-A. So rather than 3-A having an indeterminate transfinite gap between weakest and strongest, it will have an infinite gap.
Click to expand...
I honestly think this is a good solution that will solve some issues. Under this, I also believe that the most basic assumption for "universe level feat" would stay 3-A, as even if we assume "the universe stretches infinitely" (which we still don't know because we can't observe it, so it can be hard to assume unless a verse tells it to us flat out), making a big explosion that wipes out everything shouldn't be treated the same as wiping out all of space and time, by default.

Would type more, but on my phone, so eh.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot, I think the issue about the universe is that it includes space-time not just matter from the definition; this is true and in many languages and scientifically speaking. Going by the standard logic, standard universe creation or destruction would be a Low 2-C by definition and this would be false unless something like matter is matter specified or the verse has a different universal standard specified.
 
Yeah, what Azzy said is kinda why I don't like the part of putting all universal feats at Low 2-C, given that some character might just create a big boom that busts everything, not necessarily destroys space and time.
 
Not all character have an shown AOE affect for their universal feats. What about those with only statements as feats? (Assuming they have enough power scaling support, and credible evidence showing it maybe possible.) I do agree if we see an AOE effect for their attack expanding outwards then its best to say its 3-A until shown it can destroy boundries separating universes or something...
 
We aren't saying every Universal feat is Low 2-C; though, statements such as "All existence" should generally lean towards Low 2-C. And "Creator God" feats should usually lean towards Low 2-C as well. Obviously, things such as SSG Goku and a held back Beerus shaking the universe and destroying all matter is still 3-A. It's just case by case as usual.
 
I guess being accurate isn't as much as option as I thought, because no one truly has debunked Low 2-C being baseline and the only issue with it is potentially inflated results, but we'll get those anyway. I mean, trust me that's fine. I could literally go with any option presented or en entirely different one, but something needs to be done, the fact that many agree is proof of that much, that's undeniable.
 
I get that "universe" by definition is apparently Low 2-C in some countries (Like Japan) but a "destroy the universe" feat should still need evidence to be Low 2-C.

Like, I get the point, but it really depends from the feat in question.

Destroying the universe itself (not only the matter inside of it) is Low 2-C, but reducing all the matter inside to cosmic dust with a punch is 3-A
 
@Medeus

I don't think anyone has an issue with case by case, which is what we already do.

My issue (and I assume that of some others) is loosening the assumption of what actually qualifies for Low 2-C as opposed to 3-A. If someone says "I am going to blow up the universe with this super laser" and we treat that as 3-A, while someone saying something more akin to "I shall erase the universe in its entirety" leans more towards Low 2-C, that's what we already do, in most cases. Case-by-case is already applied.

If this is about shifting the general assumption to "universe means Low 2-C unless proven otherwise", I'd argue it's more important that there be some sort of suggestion for the inclusion of space-time, as opposed to the other way around.
 
When I said 3-A feats, I meant Universe level feats. Feats that are simply "destroyed the universe" in its broadest sense. Not just the physical matter, not just space, not just two trillion galaxies, not just 93 billion light years. The universe.
 
And physical matter feats should just be Low Universe level because they didn't even destroy the entire universe, which Sera has proven using multiple modern definitions is Low 2-C at minimum. I'm really not seeing the issue here other than "more Universal feats might get bumped up to Low 2-C".
 
Sera EX said:
When I said 3-A feats, I meant Universe level feats. Feats that are simply "destroyed the universe" in its broadest sense. Not just the physical matter, not just space, not just two trillion galaxies, not just 93 billion light years. The universe.
Click to expand...
The thing is in most of those cases it's not specified that it's "not just" the physical matter "not just" space "not just" two trillion galaxies "not just" 93 billion light years. They only say "Destroyed the universe".

As always, I'd prefer lowballing when ambiguous, rather than highballing when ambiguous.
 
Low 2-C isn't highballing. You are literally arguing with words at this point so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering at this point. I could show even more definitions from other sources and your minds won't change.
 
>Grabs dictionary

>[Translated] In astronomy, the totality of celestial bodies (planets, stars, galaxy, dust and gas) surrounding Earth.

Sounds 3-A to me but that's not really the point, what I meant is that the definition of "universe" isn't important as much as how the feat is portrayed is.

Also because it's perfectly possible for the average person to consider all the matter in the universe as "universe"
 
I guess I'll just let the staff decide. Though I honestly don't see anything wrong with option E, other than "high balling" and option B. So I'll just throw in the towel.

Anyway what's this neutron star business you speak of?
 
Anyway what's this neutron star business you speak of?

Patience Son of Man, patience.
 
What Sera said is the Definition of Universe is Low 2-C, why lowballing the "Universe" as "Physical matter" or only "space" when the definition literally said Space Time and Everything literally, it's like said that Galaxy level isn't 3-C unless proven via not just "destroyed a galaxy" but "destroying all the stars, the planets, nebulaes and all matters contained in the galaxy"
 
Sera EX said:
Low 2-C isn't highballing. You are literally arguing with words at this point so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering at this point. I could show even more definitions from other sources and your minds won't change.
Click to expand...
It woudln't be highballing if that was the only way that anyone ever used the word "universe", but some people don't use it to refer to the totality of time. Since this portion of the population is large enough to be relevant, that definition needs to be taken into account.

Showing more definitions that agree with you won't change my mind. You'd need to demonstrate that almost no-one uses "universe" as shorthand for "observable universe" or "all the matter in the universe". Or demonstrate that no-one thinks of the universe as finite.

I could do this dictionary shit to get any statement of "Transcends all time and space" to 1-A, by grabbing a few dictionary definitions of "all". However, we lowball it since it's ambiguous and people sometimes use those words in a different way.
 
Agnaa, it is not really low-balled the standard definition of the universe including all space-time and matter. I understand get specific cases like Sera mentioned where something is specified or the universe is different but I think it is weird to bend the real definition when nothing is really specified. I also believe by Ockham's razor, the standard definition of the universe include including all space-time and matter which is Low 2-C.
 
It's about grabbing definitions that prove my point, I don't pick roses. I simply gathered multiple easy-to-find definitions on the web.
 
Elizhaa said:
Agnaa, it is not really low-balled the standard definition of the universe including all space-time and matter. I understand get specific cases like Sera mentioned where something is specified or the universe is different but I think it is weird to bend the real definition. I believe by Ockham's razor, the standard definition of the universe include including all space-time and matter which is Low 2-C.
Click to expand...
Even if that's the standard definition is used by 95% of authors, 5% of authors still use it in a less powerful way. And in cases like that, we always lowball to the weaker definition so we don't inflate the 5%. This situation is no different.

It doesn't matter if it's "common", the "standard", or even the "overwhelming majority", as long as a noticeable amount of people use it differently, we have to account for that and not highball.
 
If it has content spanning its infinite space that's fine to be treated as universal, what else would it be? But if it's just an empty realm...well, you should know my take on that by now.
 
Agnaa said:
Elizhaa said:
Agnaa, it is not really low-balled the standard definition of the universe including all space-time and matter. I understand get specific cases like Sera mentioned where something is specified or the universe is different but I think it is weird to bend the real definition. I believe by Ockham's razor, the standard definition of the universe include including all space-time and matter which is Low 2-C.
Click to expand...
Even if that's the standard definition is used by 95% of authors, 5% of authors still use it in a less powerful way. And in cases like that, we always lowball to the weaker definition so we don't inflate the 5%. This situation is no different.
It doesn't matter if it's "common", the "standard", or even the "overwhelming majority", as long as a noticeable amount of people use it differently, we have to account for that and not highball.
Click to expand...
The 5% can still be dealt with a CRT. Even, then, I prefer the 95% system from the standard definition than a rating based mostly our subjections. I do agree some universes are still different though.

It does matter what is common, or the standard, overwhelming majority, especially when it is scientifically based or widely accepted in many languages.
 
Elizhaa said:
The 5% can still be dealt with a CRT. Even,, then, I prefer the 95% system from the standard definition than a rating based mostly our subjection. I do agree some universes are still different though.
Click to expand...
Yes but often with vague statements we won't be able to catch that 5%. When things are ambiguous we don't highball unless proven otherwise, we lowball unless proven otherwise.
 
Agnaa has a point, the CONTEXT need to be taken, if a characters said that he can destroy the Universe and the context only imply to wipe out all life in the universe via a big boom!!!, it's isn't Low 2-C, we still can't use Low 2-C for each "The Universe will be Destroyed!" we can't generalyse all Universal feat to Low 2-C but we can improve our standart, by the way, more Universe feats should be Low 2-C but not all.
 
Considering that most verses in fiction either have the Universe undirectly as "the same size as the real one" or is plain infinite in size, I'd say that merging 3-A and High 3-A would be the best, but still keep Low 2-C as it is
 
The Causality said:
Agnaa has a point, the CONTEXT need to be taken, if a characters said that he can destroy the Universe and the context only imply to wipe out all life in the universe via a big boom!!!, it's isn't Low 2-C, we still can't use Low 2-C for each "The Universe will be Destroyed!" we can't generalyse all Universal feat to Low 2-C but we can improve our standart, by the way, more Universe feats should be Low 2-C but not all.
Click to expand...
I mean we have CRT to judge these and it is usually a case by case thing if it is this statement is ambiguous. There are different universes, there are statements in the specifications in the destruction that can be accounted like destroying a timeless universe is 3-A, but it does mean the correct definition should be an afterthought in evaluation.
 
More like 3-A candy bars but let's not beat around the bush.

Anyway, about merging 3-A to High 3-A, I think it'd be more sensible to give High 3-A the Low 2-C definition, as it seems weird to jump from 3-A to Low 2-C and both be universal tiers. After all, Tier 2 is supposed to be Multiversal and should start at Low Multiversal.

This is extremely minor and I don't really mind either way but I'll throw it out there anyway.
 
I see where Sera is coming from. She's saying vague statements about universe busting in verses that don't differentiate 3-A and low 2-C should be low 2-C because that's the actual universe. 3-A is for providing otherwise, ie verses that actually give a damn about the difference between 3-A and low 2-C. Makes sense I guess.
 
To be fair it is inconsistent with the other tier names. It goes Universe level, High Universe level, and Universe level+ but for Multiversal it's Low Multiverse level, Multiverse level, Multiverse level+, and High Multiverse level+

So making high end universal High Universe level isn't a bad idea.
 
Yeah. I never really pushed it since it's just my OCD, but that does bug me quite a bit.
 
Here some a 3-A's list, some feats are close Tier 2 though

Mythology

Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken

Homestuck

Demonbane

Godzilla

Yu-Gi-Oh!

SCP Foundation

Date A Live

Valkyrie Crusade

Puella Magi Verse

Chaos Comics

 
@Elizhaa A bunch of those are just infinite 3-D, so they wouldn't be Low 2-C I'm pretty sure. And King Ghidorah is just non-descript 4-D with no feats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
315
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
443
ArcaneAbyss
Fixxed
Concept type 1 are (low-)Outerversal level
Replies
23
Views
3K
Fixxed
Fixxed
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
NucleerChaos1922
Questions About the Tier System
Replies
3
Views
609
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
Back
Top