Universe level Standards

[Elizhaa]

@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.

My mistake, I meant to say "some" when wrote "so", I fixed it.

 

[Wokistan]

Azathoth's take on this is basically mine rn.

Since he agreed with matt, who agreed with me, i'm basically just agreeing with myself in a really roundabout way

 

[Andytrenom]

I lean towards option D the most.

 

[Andytrenom]

Er I meant E. Sorry.

 

[Elizhaa]

@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.

My mistake, I meant to say "some" when wrote "so", I fixed it.

I do think High 3-A can be a case by case thing. I do know the +Dimensional Tiering thread in the past proposed to removed Higher D for characters with no feats which I agree.

 

[Kepekley23]

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 it's because using a normal star would make the actual value unrealistic, since neutron stars exist all throughout the universe and are wa~~y harder to destroy in comparison.

 

[Kepekley23]

And I'm in agreement with what Kal said.

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't have a problem with high 3-A remaining but it should just be left for producing infinite level of energy with a single attack, creating infinite amount of physical matter or being explicitly infinite due to being 4-D

 

[Wokistan]

I would be fine with just making High 3-A into the new upper bound of 3-A and just giving the partly 4D people really good spacetime hax.

 

[Kepekley23]

Yeah, the only thing I can see being effectively revised here is the 4-D High 3-A.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

I'm going to say that I disagree with treating all universe level feats as Low 2-C. There should be some indication that space-time would be involved, otherwise it should be treated as 3-A. This is similar to how "destroy the world" statements are taken as High 6-A rather than 5-B if it only implies surface wiping rather than the planet itself being destroyed.

As for the 4D High 3-A thing, I would be ok with merging that into Low 2-C, reserving High 3-A just for characters with infinite 3D power.

 

[Andytrenom]

I will be fine if only infite 3-D counts as high 3-A going back on my previous statement. I hadn't looked over the thread and where this issue was discussed when I gave my opinion before.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Sorry. But I am kind of in confusion. This entire time, I thoguht

3-A was destroying all the matter within the observable universe

and High 3-A was destroying infinite amount of matter.

It had nothing to do with space or time.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ugh, oh boy ƒÿæ

 

[Elizhaa]

Sorry. But I am kind of in confusion. This entire time, I thoguht
3-A was destroying all the matter within the observable universe

and High 3-A was destroying infinite amount of matter.

It had nothing to do with space or time.

The main point is the standard definition of universe which scientificalltly and linguistically includes all matter and space-time which make universe feat Low 2-C. Most time is fiction just use universe as guidelines for feats. Going out by standard definition of universe, unless a specific section dedtrodes is defined like matter or the universe is a different in a system like being timeless, universal feat would be Low 2-C.

High 3-A is more defined in the tiering system, so I would recommend reading it up further.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I haven't read all the comments yet, but just something I should note (if it hasn't been noted already):

Transuniversal speed feats will be affected by this as well. If we don't treat the observable universe as a baseline, all of the transuniversal feats instantly become speculative as no one knows how large the unobservable universe is.

I prefer to keep the observable universe as baseline 3-A, because it would be double standards to change it for AP, but keep it for speed.

 

[Elizhaa]

I'm going to say that I disagree with treating all universe level feats as Low 2-C. There should be some indication that space-time would be involved, otherwise it should be treated as 3-A. This is similar to how "destroy the world" statements are taken as High 6-A rather than 5-B if it only implies surface wiping rather than the planet itself being destroyed.
As for the 4D High 3-A thing, I would be ok with merging that into Low 2-C, reserving High 3-A just for characters with infinite 3D power.

I think world is a bad case because it got many different definitions in contexts. Universe, on the other hand, is standardly defined.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I am not understanding how this will change the baseline of 3-A???

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

From my history on this site, characters get low 2-C for destroying their universe or going to destroy the universe. They only get 3-A when there is some extra details that go against that statement.

For example, DBS characters are 3-A because the Dragon ball universe has multiple universes sharing the same time.

When a character goes: I'm destroying the universe. We rate it as Low 2-C as the default, unless there is another scene like say, character destroyed the universe, but other characters are able to go back in time to a time where the unvierse wasn't destroyed.

 

[Elizhaa]

DeathstroketheHedgehog, this CRT is about Attack Potency not Speed so it shouldn't affect speed ratings.

 

[Elizhaa]

I do agree with your points,Iamunanimousinthat; this is how rating in general went. About DBS, it is mainly still 3-A because based on the current interpretation of Universe Destruction if it was from real life standard it would be most likely Low 2-C.

It is not really a same time thing and this is clarify in Zen'ō's page.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

@Elizhaa Not always true. SMT for example uses universe when referring to the cosmology which has a multiverse.

 

[Wokistan]

So, DarkLK said that this area of the tiering system wasn't really his doing, so he thinks it's better for wiki participants to decide on it amongst ourselves.

 

[PRIDEXEGO]

imo 3-A should be given to someone who can destroy universe completely from inside but still stuck with empty universe unable to erase the universe entirely where 2-c should be given to someone who can exsist beyond time and 3spactial dimension and can erase the universe entirely ending the universe timeline i,e its infinite future and past as the universe is gone completely without trace whereas 2-B should be given to those being who are atleast reality warper of universal+ scale can not only destroy universes and their timelines as they please but also bring it back like nothing as time and space means nothing to them it thier playground as for 2-A should for being like mr mxy who do all that stuff but on multiversal scale and exsist in the 5d of imagination and are singularity in multiverse means that throughout the multiverse only one should exsist not more.

 

[Hellbeast1]

To throw my hat in the ring I'm good to merge 3-A and High 3-A

 

[Wokistan]

DarkLK also made a statement seeming to support Sera's interpretation, though more in a "I don't mind this" way. You can just go read the wall if you want I guess.

 

[Andytrenom]

Apparently I still hadn't decided my stance on the 3-A High 3-A merge in that last comment. I'm not screwing around on purpose guys, have faith in me

@Sera, Waffle, Matt When you talk about "limited 4-D" you mean things like destroying a portion of time space or "destroyed minutes" type of feats right? Or do you also include things like percieving 3-D beings as fiction and being described to be a 4-D entity that is incomprehensibly superior to 3-D beings?

I just need to get this cleared up.

 

[Crzer07]

I'm fine with defaulting on the plain and general, universal definition (with no further context, explanations etc in regards to specific franchise) as Low 2-C if this is where we currently default it at 3-A.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Alternately 4-dimensional power that is shown as completely qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional beings, but is less than universal in scale. Or that allows them to create large parts of a universal continuum. Take note that 4-D power should logically always be superior to countably infinite 3-D power, so characters within this tier are not necessarily comparable.

That's the part on the Tiering System for High 3-A that they're arguing should be removed; as half a space-time continuum doesn't really make a lot of sense; since the lifespan or age of the universe/timeline is kind of irrelevant to the feat in question. And pocket realities that have space time but planet or the size of one galaxy for instance aren't really Universal feats either but whatever size + stuff they contain are.

 

[BlackeJan]

ALL I know is that when someone destroys "everything" in the Universe but space is still there then that means characters r just 3-B instead of being 3-A even when someone is known to destroy a Universe

 

[Andytrenom]

@DDM I can see the logic in removing the "create large parts of a time space continuum" portion, but I do not see why High 3-A couldn't work for characters that have 4 dimensional power and are shown to be qualitatively superior to 3 dimensional beings.

 

[Antvasima]

So the conclusions here seem to be to merge 3-A and High 3-A, and get rid of "limited 4-D power" from the definition then?

 

[Sera_EX]

@Andy

That can literally apply to Low 2-C as well.

@Ant

That's what is most agreed upon currently although no one responded to my point about actually keeping the High 3-A tier and giving it Low 2-C's definition because it'd be more accurate tier name wise. This would mean Tier 2 (Multiversal) starts with Low Multiverse level/2-C. It's very minor but I still think it's worth mentioning.

 

[Hellbeast1]

Hmm I guess that works too (I just feel High 3-A is pointless but merging the tiers works)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sera So being 4-D (in a way that it scales to AP) will be treated as low 2-C even if the character isn't outright shown to be capable of creating a time-space continuum?

If there isn't any problem with doing things this way then I guess High 3-A can be merged. Although I would prefer keeping the tier and just modifying its requirements to only include 4-Ds that explicitly transcend 3-Ds.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

We're essentially splitting high 3-A between 3-A and low 2-C.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Andy

You don't get a tier simply for being HD anymore.

 

[Agnaa]

@Andy

You don't get a tier simply for being HD anymore.

1. That revision hasn't passed yet.

2. You'd still get a tier simply for being HD if that verse treats higher dimensions as higher infinities, so the question still applies after the revision.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sera "In a way that scales to AP"

I'm talking specifically about characters who are portrayed as being infinitely superior to lower dimensional characters.