What tiers do you personally oppose?

[Urshani]

Well astronomical feats for weak Digimon such as digitamamon creating an entire dimension with countless stars is obviously an outlier

But i think there's enough feats to put Ultimates at 6B-6A

Ah, can I see them?

 

[Sus]

Ah, can I see them?

Go to Digimon category, there's a bunch of 6B feats done by ultimates

And some other calculations not in the category

Some are accepted as hax and some are deemed as an outlier

 

[Ovy7]

your dad isn't real

You aren't real

 

[Darksmash]

My Dad

Son?

 

[Sus]

Son?

Hello dad

 

[RethPo]

Lets see. I disagree with

Base mario being anywhere above large star level or being trillions to quadrillions of times light speed (Id say he just varies to those tiers at best), he shouldnt be below tier 7 though

Undertale being anything above 2-B. And anything above tier 9 for non god characters

Touhou being anywhere above tier 3 outside god tiers (even thats questionable for characters who scale around baseline given how a lot of them are portrayed)

For dragon ball i disagree with any tier 2 rating for super. Although anything below universal or high multi galaxy level for god goku is also bullshit

For minecraft. Anything above city block level for the likes of the ender dragon is ridiculous. Normal mobs being city block level or anything tier 8 really i also disagree with.

Kirby being anywhere above 3-A

Base sonic being tier 5 to tier 4. And super sonic being above low 2-C.

Kratos being tier 2 or above

Metal gear characters outside cyborgs being above building level (consistently hurt by bullets and im pretty sure electricity doesnt follow durability anyway)

Most pokemon characters ratings are kinda whack. I guess any of the tiers that are given from scaling from pokedex statements like tier 7.

Persona being above 2-B

Smt being 1-A (though i can kinda see it... but it just seems way to outlierish when factoring in character growth n shit)

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I disagree with saitama and boros being star level. I also disagree with one piece being anywhere near continental or whatever wank idea shock and his goons come up with.

 

[Sus]

I disagree with mother eater not being 1A (after the revision at least)

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Persona being above 2-B

Smt being 1-A (though i can kinda see it... but it just seems way to outlierish when factoring in character growth n shit)

How, and why?

 

[RethPo]

For persona... mostly looks like typical reality fiction abuse to me, all i can really say on that

For smt. Well, youd basically end up having anybody who scales to supposed 1-As (current 1-Cs) reaching that level in wayyy less time than it ever took them to go from tier 6 to tier 2. The 1-A reasoning being shaky in some ways as well. The 1-C reasoning im pretty sure is a little far fetched as well iirc...

 

[Urshani]

For persona... mostly looks like typical reality fiction abuse to me, all i can really say on that

For smt. Well, youd basically end up having anybody who scales to supposed 1-As (current 1-Cs) reaching that level in wayyy less time than it ever took them to go from tier 6 to tier 2. The 1-A reasoning being shaky in some ways as well. The 1-C reasoning im pretty sure is a little far fetched as well iirc...

persona and smt are the same

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

For persona... mostly looks like typical reality fiction abuse to me, all i can really say on that

What does this even mean?

For smt. Well, youd basically end up having anybody who scales to supposed 1-As (current 1-Cs) reaching that level in wayyy less time than it ever took them to go from tier 6 to tier 2. The 1-A reasoning being shaky in some ways as well. The 1-C reasoning im pretty sure is a little far fetched as well iirc...

That’s called Reactive Evolution and Accelerated Development. Take note that both Devil Survivor 1 & 2 is a game spanning one week. You go from fighting Pixies and Space Aliens that can be destroyed by moving trucks, to fighting Lucifer and Polaris. Can’t see how it’s farfetched. How is either justification shaky, you have discrepancies but you don’t really seem to do an effective job at actually illustrating them.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Regarding the system:

I dislike the use of too advanced mathematics and metaphysics as excuses for tier 2 and 1.
Just do basic stuff with infinities and layers without using obscure ass shit. It's not that hard and would solve 90% of the problems.

On a similar note, while calcs can and should be a tool to help getting a more precise answer to a feat, the poor regulations regarding which is valid as well as the weird idea that a subjective fan calc can take over the story and its coherence make them more of a wank tool than anything.

Could add a thing on speed, but it's a rating thread

Regarding verses, there's one in particular where I absolutely disagree with everything, which is Nippon Ichi (mainly Disgaea).

Seriously, Laharl is put at 2-A at a time where he thought that destroying stars overtime made him a big shot. Same game where the final boss is only equal to a single Netherworld that wasn't feeling too well.
Can also include 2-A Valtorez who can't stop the moon, 2-A ZHP protag and Evilman despite a planetary explosion being a suicide move for the former and it nearly killing the later, etc...
Also the fact that "Hero Prinny" is considered to be anything but a regular Prinny who can take 3 hits is kind of a joke.
Litteraly none of the ratings for any characters keys are right except maybe for some characters whose game I never played.

Besides that, there's small stuff like Medaka Box characters physical AP, Cirno not scaling to main cast in Touhou, or stuff I turned into CRT like WTC tiering.

 

[Metalballrun]

On a similar note, while calcs can and should be a tool to help getting a more precise answer to a feat, the poor regulations regarding which is valid as well as the weird idea that a subjective fan calc can take over the story and its coherence make them more of a wank tool than anything.

Hard agree.
It's telling when there is a dissonance between the wiki profiles and the source material/story. More than likely there's a problem.

 

[Tarang123]

I dislike the use of too advanced mathematics and metaphysics as excuses for tier 2 and 1.
Just do basic stuff with infinities and layers without using obscure ass shit. It's not that hard and would solve 90% of the problems.

Honestly, this is an opinion that most people quite commonly share tbh

 

[QuasiYuri]

Honestly, this is an opinion that most people quite commonly share tbh

It kinda is yeah, although it doesn't seem like people agree on what it would be instead.

 

[Darksmash]

I think the math stuff is fine(although can be a bit ambiguous) but I find the usage of esoteric ideas for tiering especially useless. They are usually just alternate definitions of omnipotence being passed off as tier skips while omnipotence itself is completely ignored as useless

 

[QuasiYuri]

I think the math stuff is fine(although can be a bit ambiguous) but I find the usage of esoteric ideas for tiering especially useless. They are usually just alternate definitions of omnipotence being passed off as tier skips while omnipotence itself is completely ignored as useless

Transduality in a nutshell

But yeah this is also kind of useless and really feel like it's just there to bypass the layers restrictions sometimes.

 

[RethPo]

If were on the math side of things then. I disagree with most kinetic energy calcs and calcs that rely on cinematic effect/timeframes.

For kinetic energy well. I should mention for one that a human running alone has kinetic energy that equates to street level. The main reason is that its entirely lifting strength. Being able to throw an object at someone at a high speed with whatever mass is a measurement entirely of how much you can you know, swing or pivot an object. It has literally nothing to do with how hard you can punch someone. Its why hitting someone with a bat or throwing a bowling ball at someones head is going to hurt more than hitting them with your fist. The only way you scale is if someone your level takes it relatively easy, and yet we take it to face value.

For cinematic effect, mostly referring to things done on celestial bodies. Where an author intents for a character or weapon to just destroy a portion of a moon or simply just the planet, but because they animated it weird we think its cannon that the attack that just chipped at the moon and flew some debris in the air is suddenly large planetary and thousands of times stronger than it actually is despite being unable to destroy that object. Not even comic panels are safe for god sakes, the wiki even tries to get ******* time frames out of still images to wank characters 1-3 tiers beyond what they actually should be.

 

[Hmesko]

Any tier past infinite multiversal is poor and inconsistent. I've opposed dimensional tiering since 2015. Dimensions are just the number of different magnitudes a space has. It can confer various hax. Like being able to see inside lower dimensional beings. Being able to bypass lower dimensional defenses and destroy them from within.. But other than these and other various hax. This doesn't imply power at all. I propose instead scaling beyond multiversal beings to the size of their cosmology.

 

[Urshani]

Any tier past infinite multiversal is poor and inconsistent. I've opposed dimensional tiering since 2015. Dimensions are just the number of different magnitudes a space has. It can confer various hax. Like being able to see inside lower dimensional beings. Being able to bypass lower dimensional defenses and destroy them from within.. But other than these and other various hax. This doesn't imply power at all. I propose instead scaling beyond multiversal beings to the size of their cosmology.

This is exactly what we do, we stopped using dimensional tiering a while back. We use higher infinites.

 

[Hasty12345]

This is exactly what we do, we stopped using dimensional tiering a while back. We use higher infinites.

Even then like, from my understanding tiers 11 through high 1-B (dimension wise) are just varying multiples of aleph 1 at best (i.e. R2 and R3 only differ by the amount of linearly independent directions and a multiple of aleph 1 in terms of how many points it has). If we consider low 2-C to be uncountably infinite snapshots of 3D objects, that's basically saying 4D = aleph 1 times R3, but continuing the trend you get 4D = (aleph 1)x(aleph 1)x(2D) = (aleph1)(aleph1)(aleph1)(aleph1) which is the same amount of "points", more formally this is just the cardinality of the continuum, in which all Rn for n in the natural numbers have the same amount of points (I know my over simplification is by no means mathematically accurate, but I hope it intuitively makes sense and should be appropriate for the point I'm trying to make).

but even then, the amount of "stuff" you can only ever have naturally would be an aleph null amount of matter/objects, the only way you're having an aleph one amount of "stuff" is really if an author states as such (at least as far as I can think of).

The only real "higher infinity" that equates to the amount of "stuff" in the tiering system doesn't come into play until low 1-A, which is treated as aleph 1 anyway.

Like, what I'm saying is, I can see an argument being made for every character with an infinite AP feat from tiers 11 to high 1-B all having the same ap (equivalent to aleph null) I guess, and what really changes is dimensional existence and range, which highlights the real difference between the tiers IMO.

 

[Urshani]

Even then like, from my understanding tiers 11 through high 1-B (dimension wise) are just varying multiples of aleph 1 at best (i.e. R2 and R3 only differ by the amount of linearly independent directions and a multiple of aleph 1 in terms of how many points it has). If we consider low 2-C to be uncountably infinite snapshots of 3D objects, that's basically saying 4D = aleph 1 times R3, but continuing the trend you get 4D = (aleph 1)x(aleph 1)x(2D) = (aleph1)(aleph1)(aleph1)(aleph1) which is the same amount of "points", more formally this is just the cardinality of the continuum, in which all Rn for n in the natural numbers have the same amount of points (I know my over simplification is by no means mathematically accurate, but I hope it intuitively makes sense and should be appropriate for the point I'm trying to make).

but even then, the amount of "stuff" you can only ever have naturally would be an aleph null amount of matter/objects, the only way you're having an aleph one amount of "stuff" is really if an author states as such (at least as far as I can think of).

The only real "higher infinity" that equates to the amount of "stuff" in the tiering system doesn't come into play until low 1-A, which is treated as aleph 1 anyway.

Like, what I'm saying is, I can see an argument being made for every character with an infinite AP feat from tiers 11 to high 1-B all having the same ap (equivalent to aleph null) I guess, and what really changes is dimensional existence and range, which highlights the real difference between the tiers IMO.

Ah. I disagree with you, but you do you!

 

[Tarang123]

This is exactly what we do, we stopped using dimensional tiering a while back. We use higher infinites.

Nah, the wiki still uses dimensional tiering. They're just way more strict with it.

 

[Hasty12345]

Ah. I disagree with you, but you do you!

explain pls

 

[Tarang123]

Any tier past infinite multiversal is poor and inconsistent. I've opposed dimensional tiering since 2015. Dimensions are just the number of different magnitudes a space has. It can confer various hax. Like being able to see inside lower dimensional beings. Being able to bypass lower dimensional defenses and destroy them from within.. But other than these and other various hax. This doesn't imply power at all. I propose instead scaling beyond multiversal beings to the size of their cosmology.

I mean, dimensional tiering isn't inherintly bad. It's just that you'd have to be more strict with them, if that makes sense.

 

[Tarang123]

explain pls

It's probably because he really likes the tiering system that the wiki currently has

 

[Urshani]

It's probably because he really likes the tiering system that the wiki currently has

It's perfect. That's it.

 

[Hasty12345]

It's probably because he really likes the tiering system that the wiki currently has

tiering systems can be arbitrary though, it doesn't have to be 100% mathematically accurate it just has to serve a purpose, and I think the tiering system as is functions just fine tbh

I guess it does suck when you can think of your favourite 2-A characters having the same AP as high 3-A characters

 

[Tarang123]

tiering systems can be arbitrary though, it doesn't have to be 100% mathematically accurate it just has to serve a purpose, and I think the tiering system as is functions just fine tbh

I guess it does suck when you can think of your favourite 2-A characters having the same AP as high 3-A characters

I mean, when you actually think about it, no it really doesn't cause it would require far more energy than what's required for High 3A

 

[Hasty12345]

I mean, when you actually think about it, no it really doesn't cause it would require far more energy than what's required for High 3A

Explain how, my thought process is up above

 

[Tarang123]

Explain how, my thought process is up above

Even if we weren't using dimensional tiering, destroying all matter along with the time and space of a universe requires more energy and power than just destroying all the matter in the universe, hence why Low 2C > 3A

 

[Hasty12345]

Even if we weren't using dimensional tiering, destroying all matter along with the time and space of a universe requires more energy and power than just destroying all the matter in the universe, hence why Low 2C > 3A

That would only work if the amount of matter or the size of said universe were finite, the amount of stuff you're destroying is still the same in the case of high 3-A and low 2-C.

Even if you want to stipulate "no it's not" then the next step would be to say "you're destorying an aleph 1 amount of stuff in low 2-C due to how we treat 4D with respect to 3D" which would just equate low 2-C with every tier up until low 1-A, as you're just taking varying degrees of (aleph 1) times (some number that isn't aleph 2).

So it doesn't change my point at all, a large section of the tiering system remains redundant AP wise.

Edit: Also tbh, you answer is synonymous with "You're wrong because I'm right" you didn't give an explanation as to why you're correct at all.

 

[Shadyboi0]

Low 1-C was better when it was starting at 6D

 

[Tarang123]

Also tbh, you answer is synonymous with "You're wrong because I'm right" you didn't give an explanation as to why you're correct at all.

When did I say that? All I said is that it does take more energy to destroy space, time, and matter of a universe than it does to destroy just matter of a universe

 

[Hasty12345]

When did I say that? All I said is that it does take more energy to destroy space, time, and matter of a universe than it does to destroy just matter of a universe

Surely you can see I didn't say you said that. I said your answer may as well have been that.... I even explain what I meant; you gave no explanation or reasoning for your stance.

You're making claims with 0 reasoning behind them, nor are you attempting to refute what I'm saying. What's the point in even replying...

 

[Nierre]

None.

Because this is all an amalgamation of mutable interpretation and perceptions. I don’t think any character is wanked, or downplayed, because it’s all a matter of cognition. Now, I won’t deny the objectivity in being able to attack ones reasoning for such a suggestion for upgrades/downgrades or a character, but for me, I don’t believe that accuracy and inaccuracy are words that truly mean anything on here. If the dozens of other forums that think that VSBW overblown or misunderstand a character’s capabilities weren’t enough.

 

[Tarang123]

Surely you can see I didn't say you said that. I said your answer may as well have been that.... I even explain what I meant; you gave no explanation or reasoning for your stance.

You're making claims with 0 reasoning behind them, nor are you attempting to refute what I'm saying. What's the point in even replying...

Wow...

If this was a debate, then I probably would have. This isn't, so I don't know why you're getting so toxic.

Also, "surely you can see I didn't say you said that. I said your answer may as well have been that" is extremely backwards and circular.

 

[Hasty12345]

I have no interest in a debate, nor do I see how I'm being toxic. This I'd hoped, was going to be a somewhat intellectual discussion with someone who can explain to me where I'm wrong so hopefully we both learn something at some point.

I mean, when you actually think about it, no it really doesn't cause it would require far more energy than what's required for High 3A

Here's you saying I'm wrong and need to think about it more.

Explain how, my thought process is up above

Here's me asking for an explanation as to how I'm wrong, telling you my though process is above so you can reference where I'm wrong.

Even if we weren't using dimensional tiering, destroying all matter along with the time and space of a universe requires more energy and power than just destroying all the matter in the universe, hence why Low 2C > 3A

Here's you giving me a non-answer. 0 explanation. No reasoning. You're just claiming that it takes more energy to destroy spacetime than infinite matter. However, this isn't even inherently true as reality doesn't give us much of a basis for this afaik, unless you want to consider black holes or something but I digress.

That would only work if the amount of matter or the size of said universe were finite, the amount of stuff you're destroying is still the same in the case of high 3-A and low 2-C.

Even if you want to stipulate "no it's not" then the next step would be to say "you're destorying an aleph 1 amount of stuff in low 2-C due to how we treat 4D with respect to 3D" which would just equate low 2-C with every tier up until low 1-A, as you're just taking varying degrees of (aleph 1) times (some number that isn't aleph 2).

So it doesn't change my point at all, a large section of the tiering system remains redundant AP wise.

Here's me giving further explanation as to why I still think your statement was wrong.

The "edit" was me expressing annoyance with your lack of explanations as your responses didn't add anything to the conversation. If you read the edit, you'll see I very clearly didn't say you said "You're wrong because I'm right", I'm expressing the usefulness of your responses.

If you didn't want to engage in a conversation you could have either said as such or simply not have replied if you didn't want to. I'm sorry you found me toxic, however, I don't believe I have been. I'm allowed to vent frustrations, namely your responses not being very useful in explaining why I was wrong. I didn't insult you. I didn't in anyway claim I was "more correct" than you. But regardless, I am sorry I came across as toxic.

 

[Tarang123]

Here's you saying I'm wrong and need to think about it more.

I never said that lmao. I was more or less just bringing things into a logical standpoint.

Here's you giving me a non-answer. 0 explanation. No reasoning. You're just claiming that it takes more energy to destroy spacetime than infinite matter. However, this isn't even inherently true as reality doesn't give us much of a basis for this afaik, unless you want to consider black holes or something but I digress.

Yes, it takes more energy to destroy infinite matter + infinite space times than just infinite matter. I fail to see what part of this flies over your head.

Here's me giving further explanation as to why I still think your statement was wrong.

I literally said that I disagreed with your "further explanation". If you truly disagree with the tiering system, go make your own revision for it.