-
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
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
- Status
- 10,758
- 6,488
I lean towards option D the most.
- 10,758
- 6,488
Er I meant E. Sorry.
- 15,856
- 7,995
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.Elizhaa said:
- 15,332
- 7,561
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.Assaltwaffle said:
- 15,332
- 7,561
And I'm in agreement with what Kal said.
- 10,758
- 6,488
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
- 15,332
- 7,561
Yeah, the only thing I can see being effectively revised here is the 4-D High 3-A.
- 12,524
- 3,491
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.
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.
- 10,758
- 6,488
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.
- 3,423
- 1,340
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.
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.
- 15,856
- 7,995
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.Iamunanimousinthat said:
High 3-A is more defined in the tiering system, so I would recommend reading it up further.
- 1,160
- 186
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.
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.
- 6,393
- 1,649
I am not understanding how this will change the baseline of 3-A???
- 3,423
- 1,340
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.
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.
- 15,856
- 7,995
DeathstroketheHedgehog, this CRT is about Attack Potency not Speed so it shouldn't affect speed ratings.
- 15,856
- 7,995
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.
It is not really a same time thing and this is clarify in Zen'ō's page.
- 12,524
- 3,491
@Elizhaa Not always true. SMT for example uses universe when referring to the cosmology which has a multiverse.
- 148
- 2
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.
- 5,510
- 718
To throw my hat in the ring I'm good to merge 3-A and High 3-A
- 10,758
- 6,488
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.
@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.
- 31,166
- 33,779
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.
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.
- 10,758
- 6,488
@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.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #193
@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.
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.
- 5,510
- 718
Hmm I guess that works too (I just feel High 3-A is pointless but merging the tiers works)
- 10,758
- 6,488
@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.
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.
- 10,772
- 1,633
We're essentially splitting high 3-A between 3-A and low 2-C.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,340
- 13,388
1. That revision hasn't passed yet.Sera EX said:
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.
- 10,758
- 6,488
@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.
I'm talking specifically about characters who are portrayed as being infinitely superior to lower dimensional characters.
- Status
