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

[QuasiYuri]

What Everything12 said.

The space between universes (if there's even one, because most of the time it is treated as nothingness and not something you destroy) doesn't matter to begin with. That's basically the same as asking if someone high into 3-A by an unknown degree is stronger than Low 2-C.

(As a side note: I made it a staff thread to be sure we get more knowledgeable input, so anybody wanting to comment in would have to ask a staff and be knowledgeable enough on how the mechanics of tier 3/2 works; since this kind of thread tends to become needlessly long because of people arguing without understanding the present thing to begin with.)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

By that new system, all the "+" signs would be some degree of 5 dimensional scale stuff where as the ones without "+" signs would be 4-D. 2-C+ could be roughly interpreted as being above someone who's 2-B or 2-A since they would only need 4-D degree of power as opposed to 5-D. With 2-A being infinite on a 4-D scale. So those all look like odd mixtures. This is also assuming bodies of spaces are different just not timelines, which would be 4 dimension since it wouldn't include time as the 4th dimension and thus the "5th dimension" would be seen as only a 4th spatial dimension and no temporal dimensions affected.

I have to agree with what QuasiYuri is saying on this. A primary goal is to make sure it stays consistent that each tier is qualitively superior to the last. Also, Quilted Multiverses are a different can of worms from Bubble Multiverses. The former is just an infinite amount of Observable Universes within a single body of space while the later is multiple bodies of spaces contained in a single timeline. Destroying infinite sized quilted multiverse are just High 3-A, though Bubble multiverses could be harder to judge since there's limited 4-D stuff technically speaking. Though, an infinite body of spaces within a single space-time continuum with said time of said structure sounds like it's full of oxy morons. It would be infinite on a 4-D scale while having some limited 5-D stuff but hard to judge. It's been agreed that one needs to be countably infinity on a 5-D scale to reach 2-A but Uncountable infinity to reach Low 1-C.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Ihave to agree with what QuasiYuri is saying on this. A primary goal is to make sure it stays consistent that each tier is qualitively superior to the last. Also, Quilted Multiverses are a different can of worms from Bubble Multiverses. The former is just an infinite amount of Observable Universes within a single body of space while the later is multiple bodies of spaces contained in a single timeline. Destroying infinite sized quilted multiverse are just High 3-A, though Bubble multiverses could be harder to judge since there's limited 4-D stuff technically speaking.

Well, the entire point I'm making is that destroying universes from a Quilted multiverse and from a Bubble one shouldn't make any differences.

You can easily reach all of these universes and nuke them without affecting anything 4D to begin with.
That's kinda the same reasonning as 3-A, but for a higher number of universes. "If there's no proof of the character destroying the timeline/universal space-time continuum, then we take it as them only having destroyed the physical, "present" instance of the structure".

Assuming that a range big enough to destroy several universes would make you automatically affect/destroy their space-time and all would also be giving abilities to a character without proof (such as NPI, since it's time and all).

As such, the model doesn't matter.
If you have proof of destroying the timelines/universal space-times, you qualify for 2-C and above.
If not, then it is either 3-A or High 3-A.

 

[Theglassman12]

Does this affect creation feats too?

 

[Everything12]

If its creation of multiple Universes without mention of Time then it won't be Tier 2, just as it would be for destruction, stability, and all other such things.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, never mind about my suggested solution then. It seems to have been rejected.

 

[AKM sama]

I disagree with this idea. We already assume that a character who can destroy two universes by breaching the 5-D gap between them is destroying time by default, and hence the destruction of two or more universes is assumed to be 4-D, unless there is evidence against it.

The tiering system is strict enough that it makes a distinction between 3-A and Low 2-C on the basis of "tell me where time is destroyed in the universal destruction or you're 3-A" when most fiction out there don't even treat the two as separate. This whole "tell me where time is destroyed when you destroy 45810962 universes" is just extending it to excessive levels.

Not to mention that a character who can destroy 45810962 universes being rated as 3-A would look absolutely stupid in my opinion. We should keep our already over-the-top standards in check so that it's in balance with how the general fictional verses work. This would just make the wiki look like a joke to be honest.

Character X: Universe level (Destroyed 45810962 universes but time wasn’t explicitly mentioned so tough luck nerd)

Hard disagree from me.

 

[Antvasima]

AKM makes sense to me.

What did you think about my suggestion above? Would that also worsen our already existing problems?

 

[Arceus0x]

thank you for clarification

 

[QuasiYuri]

I disagree with this idea. We already assume that a character who can destroy two universes by breaching the 5-D gap between them is destroying time by default, and hence the destruction of two or more universes is assumed to be 4-D, unless there is evidence against it.

And the entire point of this post is how this assumption makes no sense.
That's no different from "Saitama is 3-A because there's no evidences against it" and similar things. You're basically asking someone to accept they are a higher tier without the evidences needed because the verse didn't say they weren't.

As explained above, you just take range, and decides it gives NPI + higher AP for no reason.

The tiering system is strict enough that it makes a distinction between 3-A and Low 2-C on the basis of "tell me where time is destroyed in the universal destruction or you're 3-A" when most fiction out there don't even treat the two as separate. This whole "tell me where time is destroyed when you destroy 45810962 universes" is just extending it to excessive levels.

It is just its logical conclusion. A rule can't be discarded just because there's a bigger number.

Not to mention that a character who can destroy 45810962 universes being rated as 3-A would look absolutely stupid in my opinion. We should keep our already over-the-top standards in check so that it's in balance with how the general fictional verses work. This would just make the wiki look like a joke to be honest.

It is already the case for destroying any finite number of universes in a quilted multiverse.
A single observable universe is baseline 3-A, destroying 8593783788348 universes is still this tier.

Tbh most of the argument based on "fiction doesnt work like this" (which btw would make your first argument muke, since fiction treats what's between universes as a kind of void most of the time) "this look dumb" and "we already do that, let's not extent it".

Which, while they can be legit concern, aren't arguments against a logical extension of our rules and policies as well as the removal of baseless assumptions, which go against the wiki's goal of indexing.

As such, I really feel like we're only enforcing tradition over logic.

Also I can reproduce your justification example with most of tier 1 or 7 so that's really not a good way of discrediting an argument.

 

[Everything12]

No one talked about Dragon Ball.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I know I'm not a staff member, so feel free to delete this post if necessary, but I strongly agree with AKM.

Both VSBW and Wikipedia treats "the universe" as "all of space and time and their contents", aka an entire 4-D space-time continuum.
I personally think the distinction made between 3-A and Low 2-C is strict enough, as it's actually a small minority of fiction that treats "destroying the universe" as only destroying all of space and not affecting time, therefore, being even more strict on other works of fiction just because Dragon Ball for example is inconsistent is both unnecessary and kinda unfair.

DB isn't mentionned at all.

Also if you accept the distinction between 3-A and Low 2-C; you can't really refuse its logical conclusion, which isn't stricter as it is just the one that should have been in place since the very beginning.
There's no real counter argument brought up there, so I would really appreciate if inputs were made with structured arguments against those presented.

 

[Arceus0x]

why is it the moment universal structure is mentioned Dragon Ball fans just instant transmission themselves in?

 

[QuasiYuri]

why is it the moment universal structure is mentioned Dragon Ball fans just instant transmission themselves in?

People can't live without the idea that everything is made according to Dragon Ball I guess.

 

[Arceus0x]

People can't live without the idea that everything is made according to Dragon Ball I guess.

it's like the concept of everything being a jojo reference but it is dragon ball and it happens in versus threads

 

[QuasiYuri]

I likely won't debate this further, as again I'm not a staff member, but why should we treat destroying multiple "universes" as only destroying 3-D space, when "universe" by it's very definition is 4-D space-time?

That's not how it is necessarily viewed here, as 3-A shows it p well.

I don't agree with "destroying the universe" being treated as 3-A without further context in the first place, but that doesn't matter rn.

It does matter. Since your disagreement is based on this.

It's isn't a logical conclusion to think destroying multiple universes is just destroying 3-D space, if there's no evidence against it destroying space-time and also when MOST of fiction treats "the universe" as space-time.
Again, why should we be strict on other works of fiction just because a small minority is inconsistent with what "universe" refers to?

You would have to prove that the majority works otherwise + that's an issue you have with 3-A / Low 2-C, aka the tiers making a distinction between universes and timeline stuff, making it unrelated to the issue presented here which isn't about discussing what a universe/timeline is but rather the amount of proof required to fall under any of the current ones.

As I explained, it is a staff thread precisely to avoid having off-trails comment talking about another part of the tiering system like that and mixing it with the subject.

 

[QuasiYuri]

If I'm not incorrect, the wiki treats things like "the multiverse with 1000 universes" as 2-C if it's proved "universes" doesn't refer to pocket realties or something of the sort, and usually you don't have to prove that they are all separate space-time continuums if it's uncontradicted, so why would it be a logical conclusion to assume "destroying the 1000 universes in this multiverse" is just destroying 3-D space, when we treat "universes" as space-time continuums in this scenario?

Go read the actual justification please. It is universal space time, not just universes. Which is why a quilted multiverse is High 3-A.
And the entire OP is about how you can't just go by this assumption.

Dude, if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the related tiers then you aren't helping at all and just making the thread longer than it should be.

The answer is it isn't a logical conclusion. It's just unnecessarily strict, and as long as "destroying the 1000 universes in this multiverse" referring to destroying space-time continuums isn't contradicted, it shouldn't be treated as only destroying 3-D space.

That's a blatant misunderstanding of the standard used or why the distinction is made.
The description is especially about "universal space time", not universes.

You aren't even explaining why it shouldn't be treated as such, just that it shouldn't.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

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.

oh gop, this is what Hop dislikes. This is very messy because using the + is a huge misnomer to falsely/misleadingly indicate that it is a greater scale of power.

There should just have always been a 3-D only Tiering System scale of power, including hax that didn't extend to time or anything other than singular infinite universe/infinite 3-D power. After that, a system solely for 3-D + Temporal, and 4-D & above should be a simple matter, with beings that outright ascend beyond dimensional status beings in a whole different realm, and of course Tier 0 stays the same for obvious reasons.

Hop does not suggest this change be made, but in future discussions, please leave Hop out of Tier 2 and above conversations, this is beyond Hop's patience.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do not agree with hop is saying about the "Merging tier 2, 1, and 0 stuff". But I do agree with the basic idea about the + signs being added as mentioned above.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What should currently be discussed here?

 

[QuasiYuri]

If we should treat destroying several universes without a proof of the character affecting space-time continuums /timelines as as tier 3 or 2.

The idea of adding tiers seem to have been mostly rejected, since it would be unecessary at best.

And so far the only two (?) disagreement didn't explain why but just said that our standard didn't treat the feats that way (which obviously isn't a good argument if the thread is about changing said standard and had their rebuttal unanswered)

So I think having more inputs would help.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I have sent out quite a lot of notifications asking for help today though.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Understandable.

It can be done a bit later if needed, although I feel it is quite an important revision that should be able to end quicker than the current ones, since it's basically applying our standard for Low 2-C to the rest of tier 2.

Anyway, can't do much more than wait for people to get interested.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Theglassman12]

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.

I don’t agree with this being used as an alternative for the tiering system, it’s going to make it severely convoluted for people who’s been used to the tiering system being rated as higher. Having someone as 2-A via physical universes feels severely redundant if High 3-A being infinite sized takes that over from the get to, on top of having 2-B be physically weaker than a Low 2-C is gonna be a massive headache, on top of not making any sense to the tiering system as a whole. Either way I don’t exactly mind the whole “universes with no space time separation” being 3-A or High 3-A.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My suggestion was already rejected though.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Sorry for talking in a staff only, but it seems that this thread is dead for 2 days, what was decided or nothing yet was decided?

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like this thread is not going anywhere.

 

[Theglassman12]

So are we going to finish this thread or not? If not we can just close it.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know. Sorry.

What do you think @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT and @AKM sama ?

 

[AKM sama]

Well, I've already voiced my disagreement with the idea, which a lot of people seem to agree with. And if there isn't much discussion going on, I'd say just close it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Theglassman12]

So should we close this thread or not?

 

[Teezar]

I think close till he might possibly return, without Yuri some shit just seem weird.