Universes and the jump to 2-C (STAFF ONLY?)

[QuasiYuri]

Was planning this since nearly a month, so might as well make it now.

So I thought about how we treated Low 2-C and all, and I have a little problem with a specific part of it.

High 3-A's description is

"Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D area or an infinite number of finite or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time, or more generally any realm of comparable size. Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier."

While I agree with the first part regarding several universes, I don't think it should be limited to Quilted multiverses.

Just like with Low 2-C, characters should have to actually prove that they affected the space-time continuum; since destroying time is not a given for a character (not everyone's got NPI and coe), and it is an assumption not that different from doing it with a 3-A character and Low 2-C.

I don't think them being closed from each other have to mean you're affecting their space-times either, in the same way even 8-B tiers can hit dudes from another universe (or another time) with their verse working on MWI or whatever. Range and AP just aren't linked.

I'm not much of a math dude so Idk anything on this side, but treating several universes as higher 3-A to High 3-A if there's no mention of space time continuum being destroyed seems like common sense based on our "need proof" mentality, even more when nothing prevents scenario like "dude destroyed multiverse, let's time travel to prevent that" for example, where only the present universes are destroyed.

As such, every feats involving destroying several universes without further proof would be 3-A, infinite universes would be High 3-A, and to qualify as 2-C to 2-A you would need to prove you destroyed the timeline/space-time continuum itself; such as doing a multiversal time reboot of every timelines or ******* up stuff across all of time.

We actually even have some profiles already working under this basis such as Ecolo's, so I think it isn't an outlandish idea or anything like that, and more of a logical continuation of how we treat 3-A and Low 2-C.

Anyway, what's your opinion on this guys?

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @Gemmysaur @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

Do you have any evaluations and insights to share here?

 

[Yar_R_agi_7k]

Agree

 

[Everything12]

I understand what you're saying, and I have my own opinions on it, but at the same time, I feel I should wait for someone more knowledgeable on the sciences behind this stuff before I speak.

However, without all that, I think that being more discerning with our Tiers is never a bad thing. So I guess it's a tentative agreement with me.

I guess I should also ask for examples for what Verses this affects, just to understand the work involved and to give others a good idea of what you're proposing even though I have a good idea already myself.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I guess I should also ask for examples for what Verses this affects, just to understand the work involved and to give others a good idea of what you're proposing even though I have a good idea already myself.

No idea regarding which verses it would affect. I guess I could try thinking of some but I really see this as secondary and more judgment-cloudy than anything.

 

[Theglassman12]

So with no mention of space and time being destroyed, any multiple universes wouldn’t break the 3-A rating going by this proposal?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I can agree to this, but I think a far more important question is this...

What tier is someone granted when they destroy a section of a timeline, like destroying 1000 years of a timeline, including the universe and everything within it for those 1000 years, but they are not destroying the entirety of the timeline

What tier do a grant a feat like that? Because I can think of a few verses this applies to

 

[QuasiYuri]

So with no mention of space and time being destroyed, any multiple universes wouldn’t break the 3-A rating going by this proposal?

Basically yeah. You can have indirect proof and all but that's the idea.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I can agree to this, but I think a far more important question is this...

What tier is someone granted when they destroy a section of a timeline, like destroying 1000 years of a timeline, including the universe and everything within it for those 1000 years, but they are not destroying the entirety of the timeline

What tier do a grant a feat like that? Because I can think of a few verses this applies to

I honestly feel like it would be case by case. Most of the time it's more of a hax kinda like punching holes in space time, but some context may make it something else I guess.

I'm not sure if it is directly related to this specific distinction though.

 

[Everything12]

Low 2-C | Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space.

"Significantly affect" is here used as an umbrella term for feats that don't involve direct creation or destruction but are comparable to them in power, such as warping and distorting the entirety of the structure in question, sustaining its existence with one's own, etc.

Based on this you have to affect the whole thing so only like a thousand years probably isn't enough.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Based on this you have to affect the whole thing so only like a thousand years probably isn't enough.

Then what would it be? Because you are still destroying a universe technically

Would it be safe to just lable it as 3-A?

 

[Everything12]

I guess something like Low 2-C for feats that are destroying two Space-Times with another individual. Not sure if this would be enough for High 3-A because it's still partially 4-D or just very very high 3-A.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Then what would it be? Because you are still destroying a universe technically

Would it be safe to just lable it as 3-A?

It really depends of how the verse treats it. Most of the time it comes as a weird causality stuff, like how warping a part of space isn't warping all of it but more of a hax thing.

It could be argued to go from 3-A to High 3-A depending of how it is treated though.

 

[Lou_change]

I am sorry for commenting on this but I have something to say I disagree.

While yes destroying infinite amounts of 3d structures is the same as destroying one infinite 3d structure however they are not just destroying the instants they are destroying the 4d space it resides in. Also Zeno’s Paradoxes deserve a mention(which is everything can be divided infinitely this includes century to decades to years to months to weeks to days to hours to minutes to seconds even beyond Plancks however it seems that this is countable infinite so this is still irrelevant)

 

[QuasiYuri]

While yes destroying infinite amounts of 3d structures is the same as destroying one infinite 3d structure however they are not just destroying the instants they are destroying the 4d space it resides in. Also Zeno’s Paradoxes deserve a mention(which is everything can be divided infinitely this includes century to decades to years to months to weeks to days to hours to minutes to seconds even beyond Plancks however it seems that this is countable infinite so this is still irrelevant)

Do you mean that for the "definite span of time" thing?
If so then it wouldn't be really correct, since otherwise every single causality manipulator would get a tier 2 rating for rewriting events, or every characters creating a pocket dimension with another time flow in it.

Assuming it would be considered this way would most often end up with hax being mistaken for AP.
Which is why I think the case by case part is important (like how significantly warping space with your punches won't give you a tier comparable to a black hole but just be labelled as durability negation unless the verse says otherwise).

 

[Theglassman12]

What about creating alternate worlds? Or separate dimensions and destroying said dimensions? With no elaboration of space and time would they count?

 

[QuasiYuri]

What about creating alternate worlds? Or separate dimensions and destroying said dimensions? With no elaboration of space and time would they count?

Same standard as a single world/universe seems to be the most logic to me.

 

[Lou_change]

Do you mean that for the "definite span of time" thing?

No that comment wasn't here when I started typing that post.

otherwise every single causality manipulator would get a tier 2 rating for rewriting events, or every characters creating a pocket dimension with another time flow in it.

No changing, erasing, add events with in the 3d world doesn't directly affect the 4d level and I mean creating a pocket dimension with different point is just hax that allows an interaction that creates the new flow of time.

Assuming it would be considered this way would most often end up with hax being mistaken for AP.
Which is why I think the case by case part is important (like how significantly warping space with your punches won't give you a tier comparable to a black hole but just be labelled as durability negation unless the verse says otherwise).

Yes it is all about intent I agree with you there but I am pretty sure intent is the reason for low 2-C in the first place that low 2-C is more than High 3-A.

 

[QuasiYuri]

No changing, erasing, add events with in the 3d world doesn't directly affect the 4d level and I mean creating a pocket dimension with different point is just hax that allows an interaction that creates the new flow of time.

Uh, you litteraly can't do so without affecting the 4D in one way or another. That's kinda the thing with events and causality.

Yes it is all about intent I agree with you there but I am pretty sure intent is the reason for low 2-C in the first place that low 2-C is more than High 3-A.

Well, not really.

Although tbh I feel like this argument doesn't really seem to be related to the OP here.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, would this affect the potency of hax at all?

 

[Eficiente]

I believe I saw something like this before and Ant pointed out the idea of having new tiers or sub-tiers for destroying multiverses without destroying their past and destroying multiverses + their whole timelines. Don't know if that would give more work, but I like that approach more to this. Especially considering that sometimes characters well-taken to be multiversal don't really target the space between the multiverses they may destroy (when they should), or they target it and it doesn't get destroyed at all because the attack that reached them is on the same "weak" level as what they used to destroy timelines and not really meant to destroy anything in between them.

So, as some idea, I would put it like this:

• Our Low 2-C now gets turned into High 3-A+ or Peak 3-A, it has no reason to be on the "Multiversal" part of the tiering.
• Low 2-C becomes Low Multiverse level for destroying multiverses without destroying their past, as in just the presents of many universes at once.
• 2-C becomes Multiverse level for destroying multiverses the way we are portraying it now.
• High 2-C, High Multiverse level exists for multiverses when we know the timelines in them got destroyed as well as whatever their setting put between them.
• Same with 2-B and 2-A.

It makes 3-A lower than Low 2-C, which in turn is lower than Low 2-B, as things should be, as destroying a universe needs to/should preferably be portrayed as weaker than destroying many at once by another tier. Similar with High 3-A and Low 2-A, they're kinda the same but it needs to be represented differently, we should of course write how and which tiers aren't higher than lower one by logic, and then if this isn't the case in-universe for certain characters on those tiers then, well, good for them, and they can use that to overpower characters on their same tiers, but that would have nothing to do with setting up tiers on what makes the most sense.

 

[ShakeResounding]

Snip.

Sorry about the intrusion on a staff thread, but I have a question about this.

Under your proposition, where would destroying all the timelines be placed at if the cosmology is 2-C (2-1000 universes)? Would it all just fall under "High 2-C" regardless of the number of universes involved barring infinite universes?

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

I'm sorry for the intrusion, but didn't we make a whole 4 pages thread about this stuff recently?

Also, why is this staff only?

 

[Eficiente]

Under your proposition, where would destroying all the timelines be placed at if the cosmology is 2-C (2-1000 universes)? Would it all just fall under "High 2-C" regardless of the number of universes involved barring infinite universes?

2-B due to there being no reason for the spaces between the timelines to be destroyed too, it's not something anyone would commonly assume with a feat like that, they would either think that they remain the same or maybe they never mattered in the verse. It's they're places with reasons to get threatened to be destroyed too then High 2-B.

I'm sorry for the intrusion, but didn't we make a whole 4 pages thread about this stuff recently?

Also, why is this staff only?

That was a mess impossible to keep up with, derailed, memed, and with very weird, wrong ideas, a staff thread for a serious matter like this is what corresponds, otherwise why even have staff threads?

 

[Lou_change]

Uh, you litteraly can't do so without affecting the 4D in one way or another. That's kinda the thing with events and causality.

I mean you can't do anything without affecting 4d because a 3d axis is apart of 4d, besides what proves the 4d axis is effected.

Well, not really.

Although tbh I feel like this argument doesn't really seem to be related to the OP here.

How so if a character that is high 3-A I outclassed by someone that destroyed a timeline if they only destroyed the inside of a timeline they would be equally strong how if they destroy the whole thing well it's a being with countable infinite power against someone who has uncountable infinite power.

 

[KingTempest]

Yall all can't be sorry for intrusions, just ask for permission to speak on the thread in a staff member's wall

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not sure if Eficiente's proposals are a good idea, but anyway, the OP is bringing up good points about the second example of High 3-A's description.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I believe I saw something like this before and Ant pointed out the idea of having new tiers or sub-tiers for destroying multiverses without destroying their past and destroying multiverses + their whole timelines. Don't know if that would give more work, but I like that approach more to this. Especially considering that sometimes characters well-taken to be multiversal don't really target the space between the multiverses they may destroy (when they should), or they target it and it doesn't get destroyed at all because the attack that reached them is on the same "weak" level as what they used to destroy timelines and not really meant to destroy anything in between them.

So, as some idea, I would put it like this:

• Our Low 2-C now gets turned into High 3-A+ or Peak 3-A, it has no reason to be on the "Multiversal" part of the tiering.
• Low 2-C becomes Low Multiverse level for destroying multiverses without destroying their past, as in just the presents of many universes at once.
• 2-C becomes Multiverse level for destroying multiverses the way we are portraying it now.
• High 2-C, High Multiverse level exists for multiverses when we know the timelines in them got destroyed as well as whatever their setting put between them.
• Same with 2-B and 2-A.

I honestly feel that there's no reason to create new tiers.

3-A/High 3-A already acknowledges that several universes isn't the same as an entire space time continuum.
We're only extending this a bit more.

Destroying infinite present universes will still be below low 2-C, and destroying a certain number of universes is just multiplication based on baseline 3-A.

 

[QuasiYuri]

The main idea is really just "our tiers 2 are clearly about space time continuum shitz, as said in their description. Universes/World/etc... would just be higher into 3-A without further proof of these space time shitz being affected regardless of them being closed from each others".

It's not really something that'll create like, a mind blowing, wiki shattering change.

 

[Eficiente]

Ok, nevermind then. I imagined what I said would make things more comforting for most users and I remember it being a very good idea when first seeing the issue but now I feel far less inclined to it.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that we could potentially use something like the following system:

3-A (Universe level): Destroying the physical matter of a finite universe.

High 3-A (High Universe level): Destroying an infinitely large single universe, or having infinite 3-D power.

Low 2-C (Universe level+): Destroying a single universal space-time continuum.

2-C (Low Multiverse level): Destroying between 2 and 1000 physical universes.

2-C+ (Low Multiverse level+): Destroying between 2 and 1000 universal space-time continuums.

2-B (Multiverse level): Destroying between 1000 to any higher finite number of physical universes.

2-B+ (Multiverse level+): Destroying between 1000 to any higher finite number of universal space-time continuums.

2-A (High Multiverse level): Destroying an infinite number of physical universes.

2-A+ (High Multiverse level+): Destroying an infinite number of universal space-time continuums.

What do the rest of you think?

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality in particular.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Well, I suppose that we could potentially use something like the following system:

Under this proposal: 2-C and 2-B are just the same as our 3-A, and 2-A is just our High 3-A, so it wouldn't work

There's really no need to have any newer tiers, we already acknowledge several universes as higher into 3-A and an infinite number being High 3-A, as shown in the OP.
The only difference is them being closed from each others, which as explained, shouldn't matter in term of AP and be treated the same as the others cases.

Any finite number of physical universes would be 3-A, and any infinite number would be High 3-A. That's that simple.

The only true change it brings is that destroying several universes or affecting several universes won't be enough to assume affecting universal space-times and won't be able to give you an auto access to tier 2.

 

[Antvasima]

Under this proposal: 2-C and 2-B are just the same as our 3-A, and 2-A is just our High 3-A, so it wouldn't work

Well, the universes would still be separated along a 5th-dimensional axis, so I personally think that we should acknowledge this distinction in some manner.

 

[QuasiYuri]

It just would be range.

For example, a Building level who destroys a rock from the other side of the multiverse isn't getting anything but range. It's the same here, but on a bigger scale.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. I think that my solution works better in order to acknowledge the distinction, but it depends on what other people here think.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Well, that's putting 3-A feats higher than 2-C and High 3-As higher than 2-B because of range, so imo it just isn't possible. Not everything as to influence AP.

But yeah more opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Everything12]

I agree with what QuasiYuri is saying more.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Arceus0x]

I think that it feels weird. Both options i mean.

Destroying a multiverse but not the space time continuums would mean you destroyed the space in between them too.

If you say that it is range then all of tier 2 is just low 2-C multiplied by two, a thousand or an infinite amount. Unless you wanna revamp the whole entirety of tier 2 and make 2-C achievable by a 2x multiplier with a bit of range then the range argument won't cut it.

I still do believe that tier 2 is specifically destroying timelines which would be uncountably infinitely higher than your average high 3-A...problem being the space between universes yet again.
Unless we wanna add a whole nother tier (moving everything a whole tier down) that represents the physical universes + distance between them, we gotta find another way.

My main issue right now though is this... What is stronger, destroying 1 timeline or destroying two universes + the distance between them?

Because we could either make low 2-C a high 3-A+ and make the physical multiversal level the new low 2-C or do the opposite. Tbh even then we'd need a
Low 2-C+ for destroying infinite physical universes

 

[Everything12]

Destroying a fourth-dimensional structure is stronger than destroying any sized three-dimensional structure, the unknown variable of the space in between doesn't change that.