• 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.

VS Battles Tier 0 Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay. I suppose that we should probably apply the closest thing to a compromise solution here then. Meaning, removing the first-mentioned rule, and modify the second by adding tier 0 to it.
 
The vast majority of staff seem to agree on just removing both, however
Is really a compromise required? It's not like this is going to compromise the site when versus threads aren't as volatile indexing-wise compared to inaccurate stats or the like.
 
Can you write a tally of who thinks what please?
 
Sure, as usual I'll only include staff

Agrees:

@QuasiYuri (Thinks it's old and outdated)

@DontTalkDT (Thinks it's fine to remove)

@Sir_Ovens (Thinks that as if they're stomps they can't be indexed, so this rule is unecessary)

@Celestial_Pegasus (Is fine with removing the rules)

@Qawsedf234 (Thinks that per the tiering changes since then 1-A matches being indexable is fine, is unsure on tier 0 but doesn't elaborate)

@Elizhaa (Is fine with the removals)

@LordGriffin1000 (Is fine with the removals as well)



Neutral:

@Promestein (States that she "doesn't care" on the matter)

@Mr._Bambu (Leans to disagree out of personal preference)

@AKM sama (Leans into agreeing with DDM)

Disagrees:
@The_Impress (Although the reasoning for it doesn't hold much weight as 1-A and above are no longer necessarily stomps and are far more measurable like the rest of tier 1, as established before)

@DarkDragonMedeus (Considers that matches of this sort are prone to being messy, which while probably worth keeping in mind it isn't that much of a detriment from not allowing match indexing so long it's reasonable, which is more than possible now as 1-A and above are far more measurable)

Overall it seems that one of the bureaucrats and several trustworthy staff members are fine with the removals, and the concerns against it by a few staff don't hold much weight, after all, we don't allow indexing matches that are stomps either way, and it's no longer a necessary thing to restrict when it's reasonable to do match-ups that aren't of this nature.
 
Last edited:
I suggest users who want to create 0 tier Versus Battle preferably to have good knowledge regarding tier 0 cosmology . perhaps understand mathematical concept behind it ? (imo it easier to explain tier 0 in general using math)

btw i'm neutral.
 
Hopefully i don't sound rude but i don't think we should count mr bambu there, personal preference bears no weight on rule changing.

I agree with allowing tier 1-A and above to ne indexable, stomps aren't added since tier 11, don't see why this is a issue with tier 1-A to 0, is up to the OPs to search if the AP is fine.
 
Thelastmlg said:
Hopefully i don't sound rude but i don't think we should count mr bambu there, personal preference bears no weight on rule changing.

I agree with allowing tier 1-A and above to ne indexable, stomps aren't added since tier 11, don't see why this is a issue with tier 1-A to 0, is up to the OPs to search if the AP is fine.
Click to expand...
"I don't want an opposing opinion counted"

I suspect, in an ideal world (for the individual, at least), this would be the statement off of every single individual's lips first, and it would be genuinely accepted.

We are in the business of a hobby. As a hobby, the enjoyment of a concept is to be sincerely considered. For example, I think most people would agree that it would be absurd to demand each person have a license certified by the board to speak on certain topics. And yet at the same time, from a purely technical point of view, that would lead to vastly improved efficiency in handling, say, CRTs or Versus Matches. But it would make the hobby stupid and unenjoyable.

I believe your Tier 0 matches make the hobby stupid and unenjoyable. I believe this is a genuine point to be made. I believe if you don't at least acknowledge it as a point to be made, you either vastly over-consider the importance of what we're doing, or didn't think about it much.

Cheers, though.

EDIT: I'd also like to note, too, that my opinion here is not purely motivated by my own distaste. I think this will genuinely bring down the net average enjoyment a lot of people get from the hobby. I suppose I could have phrased it better, so uh... there ya go.
 
Last edited:
Mr._Bambu said:
Personally vote no. The matches are dumb. Pretty much all there is to it.
Click to expand...
The issue is that, this is all you said, you really expect to affect a wiki wide rule with a vague opinion like this and not have someone like me react by thinking it holds no weight compared to other arguments?

Being a hobby doesn't excuse this, is a hobby with set rules and organization, and the wiki's purpose is to strive for facts more than opinions, hell, even opinions with a base are fine.

If you you want me to actually take your opinion into consideration during a rule revision, you need to say more than "i dislike it", your new reply actually brings an argument to the table, that while i still disagree, is something worth thinking through in the middle of the debate, while your first one is just "i don't find it good"

Yeah matches are the wiki's lesser focus, as indexing is more important, but vs matches are still just as present as profiles, if not more, and so they should be dealt with the same level of objectiveness, even if opinions come to play, they still need to be in the form of an argument, because you are still influencing something everyone uses, inconsequential or otherwise
 
If you dislike tier 0 matches you can just ignore them, it's not like you're forced to evaluate them like a CRT (and even then you can skip those as well if you dislike the topic, cough KH cough), and it doesn't disrupt the enjoyment of the site because of this reason.

A license to debate isn't bad because "eh, it's annoying to get", but rather that it would be something that'd considerably lower the amount of activity in the forum, and with that the amount of ad revenue to hold it up, at least if you ask me.

I'd also say that allowing more matches is productive for more activity on the forum and thus more ad revenue, we declined banning speed equalized matches for indexing out of this reason, so allowing 1-A and above matches being indexable would be a net win overall, especially when the issues it had when these rules were done no longer really apply.
 
Last edited:
Bobsican said:
Sure, as usual I'll only include staff

Agrees:

@QuasiYuri (Thinks it's old and outdated)

@DontTalkDT (Thinks it's fine to remove)

@Sir_Ovens (Thinks that as if they're stomps they can't be indexed, so this rule is unecessary)

@Celestial_Pegasus (Is fine with removing the rules)

@Qawsedf234 (Thinks that per the tiering changes since then 1-A matches being indexable is fine, is unsure on tier 0 but doesn't elaborate)

@Elizhaa (Is fine with the removals)

@LordGriffin1000 (Is fine with the removals as well)



Neutral:

@Promestein (States that she "doesn't care" on the matter)

@Mr._Bambu (Leans to disagree out of personal preference)

@AKM sama (Leans into agreeing with DDM)

Disagrees:
@The_Impress (Although the reasoning for it doesn't hold much weight as 1-A and above are no longer necessarily stomps and are far more measurable like the rest of tier 1, as established before)

@DarkDragonMedeus (Considers that matches of this sort are prone to being messy, which while probably worth keeping in mind it isn't that much of a detriment from not allowing match indexing so long it's reasonable, which is more than possible now as 1-A and above are far more measurable)

Overall it seems that one of the bureaucrats and several trustworthy staff members are fine with the removals, and the concerns against it by a few staff don't hold much weight, after all, we don't allow indexing matches that are stomps either way, and it's no longer a necessary thing to restrict when it's reasonable to do match-ups that aren't of this nature.
Click to expand...
Is that the tally for removing the tier 1-A rule as well, or just the one for tier 0?

Also, leaning to disagree is not the same as being neutral.
 
Thelastmlg said:
The issue is that, this is all you said, you really expect to affect a wiki wide rule with a vague opinion like this and not have someone like me react by thinking it holds no weight compared to other arguments?

Being a hobby doesn't excuse this, is a hobby with set rules and organization, and the wiki's purpose is to strive for facts more than opinions, hell, even opinions with a base are fine.

If you you want me to actually take your opinion into consideration during a rule revision, you need to say more than "i dislike it", your new reply actually brings an argument to the table, that while i still disagree, is something worth thinking through in the middle of the debate, while your first one is just "i don't find it good"

Yeah matches are the wiki's lesser focus, as indexing is more important, but vs matches are still just as present as profiles, if not more, and so they should be dealt with the same level of objectiveness, even if opinions come to play, they still need to be in the form of an argument, because you are still influencing something everyone uses, inconsequential or otherwise
Click to expand...
I affect the wiki with less every day. If asked for further input, clearly I can give it. I don't really care what excuses it for you, pardon my frankness. I dislike the topic and don't enjoy speaking on it. Further, you considering my opinion isn't inherently needed.
 
Antvasima said:
Is that the tally for removing the tier 1-A rule as well, or just the one for tier 0?

Also, leaning to disagree is not the same as being neutral.
Click to expand...
The premise of the thread including 1-A as well wasn't done until way later on, and so most staff haven't explicitly mentioned whether they agree on that part as well or not, however, the ones that did clarify since that point did agree on the 1-A rule being removed too (@LordGriffin1000 , @Elizhaa , @Celestial_Pegasus ), with @DarkDragonMedeus and @AKM sama being "neutral" yet leaning into supporting just adding tier 0 to the rule, and yes, while leaning to disagree isn't the same as being neutral, they claim to be "neutral" (Even if probably in terms of no bias), so tell them that if anything.
If unsure you could ping the staff that have replied to the thread so far, which are in my previous post where I list their thoughts.
 
I unfortunately have very limited time available, so I would appreciate if you list the staff members who helped out here previously and we currently need clarifications from. Thank you.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I affect the wiki with less every day. If asked for further input, clearly I can give it. I don't really care what excuses it for you, pardon my frankness. I dislike the topic and don't enjoy speaking on it. Further, you considering my opinion isn't inherently needed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a issue but is not my point, and yes, i basicakly ask you for more input by delcaring your previous reply insufficient.

Okay, you don't have to, i mean, i brought up your comment rather than calling you so you don't need to continue replying to me if you don't want.

Who said this is about me considering anything, this is about your opinion initially lacking any reason to be counted in the middle of arguments.
 
Antvasima said:
What do you think about the following rule? Should we simply add tier 0 to it, or remove it entirely?

"Please note that although matches between 1-A characters are technically not forbidden, results from such matchups will not be added to the character profiles. Due to the unfathomably high gaps of power between characters within this category, and how hard it is to accurately compare levels of complexity between the cosmologies of different fictional works, these threads should not be discussed for anything beyond casual entertainment."
Click to expand...
@QuasiYuri @DontTalkDT @Sir_Ovens @Qawsedf234

I would appreciate if you can also respond here please.
 
Imo that is more 1-A+ and above rather than 1-A.

I do agree that adding High 1-A / 0 matches shouldn't be allowed because you then go into into "hard to properly compare" category, but baseline 1-A should be rather definable.
 
Are you sure? The tiering system has changed a lot since those rules were written, and they're as definable as the rest of tier 1 nowadays, for which match indexing is allowed and all.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Imo that is more 1-A+ and above rather than 1-A.

I do agree that adding High 1-A / 0 matches shouldn't be allowed because you then go into into "hard to properly compare" category, but baseline 1-A should be rather definable.
Click to expand...
Why are they ''hard to properly compare''? what's difficult about scaling baseline High 1-A or Tier 0?
 
H1-A and 0 scaling is not that easy in my opinion. because what you need to know is a real understanding of that tier, because if you only use a basic understanding and directly make it to H1-A/0 it can be debunked or it can just be a wank.

And as for my opinion on those rules, actually comparing the two tier 0 characters isn't as easy as pitting some abilities

I've seen the "Private Debate" that compares TGOM vs TWL and TWL doesn't really understand Cosmology White Light, and only has Transduality type 4, he tries to win, while he doesn't know that TGOM is N-huge Cardinal

so in my opinion, comparing tier 0 characters should pay attention to many things, and it's not as easy as just arguing, because in my opinion the Cosmology of these characters must also be considered, so as not be a stomps Battle
 
So for my opinion agree or not

actually I don't blame it if you want to delete it, but if someone wants to compare it, don't make stupid funny things like stomps battle

that's why I said the tier 0 character comparison, is a different level from other Vs threads
 
Somebody said:
H1-A and 0 scaling is not that easy in my opinion. because what you need to know is a real understanding of that tier, because if you only use a basic understanding and directly make it to H1-A/0 it can be debunked or it can just be a wank.

And as for my opinion on those rules, actually comparing the two tier 0 characters isn't as easy as pitting some abilities

I've seen the "Private Debate" that compares TGOM vs TWL and TWL doesn't really understand Cosmology White Light, and only has Transduality type 4, he tries to win, while he doesn't know that TGOM is N-huge Cardinal

so in my opinion, comparing tier 0 characters should pay attention to many things, and it's not as easy as just arguing, because in my opinion the Cosmology of these characters must also be considered, so as not be a stomps Battle
Click to expand...
I mean, you are comparing these All-Encompassing Math characters, obviously that stuff doesnt works in VS matches, it doesnt even makes sense to be there, but that's totally different from any normal tier 0 character that isnt some short of All-Encompassing Math
 
Bernkastelll said:
I mean, you are comparing these All-Encompassing Math characters, obviously that stuff doesnt works in VS matches, it doesnt even makes sense to be there, but that's totally different from any normal tier 0 character that isnt some short of All-Encompassing Math
Click to expand...
Some fiction applies Cosmology which is quite troublesome, and if you say things like that, then my opinion is like it's useless, obviously what I mean is Cosmology differences can be a big thing to pay attention to, no matter whether it's mathematics, Cardinal does belong to Math knowledge section, that's not the point

tier 0 uses their baseline to determine how strong they are to compare to other tier 0

because some tier 0 have the same "thing"
such as Beyond Dimensional Existence type 3, Transduality type 4

So comparing them is something I think is on a different level for members who don't really follow the fiction
 
Somebody said:
Some fiction applies Cosmology which is quite troublesome, and if you say things like that, then my opinion is like it's useless, obviously what I mean is Cosmology differences can be a big thing to pay attention to, no matter whether it's mathematics, Cardinal does belong to Math knowledge section, that's not the point
Click to expand...
Yeah it's true, but cosmology size never was a problem before, while true it can be hard in VS matches, just avoid to make battles with these specific characters, if we take Cthulhu Mythos as an example, the god tiers are baseline tier 0 or something around it, people don't need to be a math wizard to deal with these kind of matches
 
Bernkastelll said:
Yeah it's true, but cosmology size never was a problem before, while true it can be hard in VS matches, just avoid to make battles with these specific characters, if we take Cthulhu Mythos as an example, the god tiers are baseline tier 0 or something around it, people don't need to be a math wizard to deal with these kind of matches
Click to expand...
Bruh
not a problem?

I will give an example

as you know Mathiverse can get tier 0, and he only get Beyond Dimensional Existence type 2

then if someone says that
"To Azathoth/The Writer, Mathiverse is just Meaningless"

How?

If you're saying there's no need to be a mathematician, then there's no need to compare tier 0, and leave this thread alone.

Even though I'm not a mathematician either

Cosmology differences make some Tier 0 Characters Inaccessible, due to the lack of / Cosmo not reaching the Cardinal

Baseline tier 0 only I heard a Cardinal

I don't know what Cardinal is

and also don't care

I already said the point
 
I think there has been enough deliberation on whether or not we should remove the rule, and I say do it.

If not for some morbid curiosity of how horribly wrong this could go, I do have some points against removing the rule. But none of them would matter in the grand scheme of things and are more technical, so eh.

The rule can be removed already since there's more than enough support for it's departure.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Saya pikir sudah ada cukup pertimbangan apakah kita harus menghapus aturan itu atau tidak, dan saya katakan lakukan saja.

Jika bukan karena keingintahuan yang tidak wajar tentang betapa salahnya hal ini, saya memiliki beberapa poin untuk tidak menghapus aturan tersebut. Tapi tidak satu pun dari mereka yang penting dalam skema besar dan lebih teknis, jadi eh.

Aturan sudah bisa dihapus karena ada lebih dari cukup dukungan untuk keberangkatannya.
Click to expand...
Ya, saya tidak terlalu mempermasalahkannya, karena saya juga punya beberapa poin mengapa saya setuju dan tidak setuju
 
Somebody said:
Bruh
not a problem?

I will give an example

as you know Mathiverse can get tier 0, and he only get Beyond Dimensional Existence type 2

then if someone says that
"To Azathoth/The Writer, Mathiverse is just Meaningless"

How?

If you're saying there's no need to be a mathematician, then there's no need to compare tier 0, and leave this thread alone.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about?

If someone wants to say that Azathoth scales higher than Mathiverse, then he need to prove it

It's not about being a mathematician or not, it's about profiles, you don't need to be a mathematician to debate using the abilities listed in the profiles if the characters have the same level of existance, thats what I meant with tier 0/1 matches being allowed, people should be able to make matches if they want to, but it doesnt means that they NEED to make it if they don't know how higher Downstreamers or White Light scales to, tier 0 have several layers/cardinals, and the profiles should explain which one the character scales to, if the profile has no explanation, why does the profile even exist then?

You can't use outside of profile stuff in this wiki, so, saying that Azathoth (baseline tier 0 here) scales higher than Downstreamers or something is not allowed per rules in the match, it's simply as that
 
Bernkastelll said:
What are you even talking about?

If someone wants to say that Azathoth scales higher than Mathiverse, then he need to prove it

It's not about being a mathematician or not, it's about profiles, you don't need to be a mathematician to debate using the abilities listed in the profiles if the characters have the same level of existance, thats what I meant with tier 0/1 matches being allowed, people should be able to make matches if they want to, but it doesnt means that they NEED to make it if they don't know how higher Downstreamers or White Light scales to, tier 0 have several layers/cardinals, and the profiles should explain which one the character scales to, if the profile has no explanation, why does the profile even exist then?

You can't use outside of profile stuff in this wiki, so, saying that Azathoth (baseline tier 0 here) scales higher than Downstreamers or something is not allowed per rules in the match, it's simply as that
Click to expand...
Yes I agree a little, it's just, I'm a little worried about how some members will compare.

and also @Sir_Ovens already stated that the rule will be removed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ArachDusa
Question about Tier: Varies
Replies
4
Views
434
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Deceived3596
  • Locked
Verse-Specific Rule Removal (And Small Bleach Rule Change)
2 3
Replies
97
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
H3110l12345I20
What does the rule of avoiding putting composite versions of characters really mean? +an I put "X match" involving "X" (continued in the description)
Replies
17
Views
1K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
noninho
  • Article
I made a Tigger thread...and i might add that?
Replies
3
Views
858
noninho
noninho
DarkKingD10
Lawverss Character Matchups
Replies
2
Views
1K
DarkKingD10
DarkKingD10
Back
Top