• 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.

Tiering System: Low 2-C to 2-A standards

Kepekley23

Kepekley23

VS Battles
Retired
15,332
7,563
Alright, let's do this.

Introductio
If you are unaware of yesterday's thread, I suggest you go and read it in its entirety, since it is extremely important to the discussion at hand.

Basically, it was suggested that we bridge the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C to a multiplicative 2x, so if you were two times stronger than a baseline Low 2-C, you'd roll around to the next tier. The idea behind it was later rejected and refuted due to the fact the numerical cap was completely unquantifiable. In that case, a feat/statement based system, which is what we already use, was prioritized.

Highlighting some of my posts to explain the argument against this:

Tiers 4 through 3 rely on the distance between each galaxy or solar system in order to obtain the necessary energy to destroy one. However, once you enter Tier 2, this method is completely unusable, because the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable. It is not as simple as putting two and two together. Energy as we know it, watts\joules, is utterly immeasurable. In that case, everything boils down to a more simple method that blows past the joule issue. Quantifying space time busting feats by the number of space times that is being destroyed. Due to the fact energy caps are no longer quantifiable, multipliers ain't cutting it. We're going to need feats.
The fact is, no matter how many times we keep multiplying Low 2-C, it is not going to breach into 2-C, as the distance between two continuums isn't physically measurable. So treating 2-C as "2x Low 2-C" doesn't solve the problem, it merely adds to it by ignoring the immediate issues with the approach.
However, even though our standards are fine as they are, there are still issues to be resolved, which are mainly centered on our explanation for these tiers.

Issues
Several characters are 2-A for being infinitely stronger than 2-Bs or 2-Cs, such as Asriel Dreemurr, which implies that the use of multiplicative scaling is allowed, contradicting our current stance on the Tier 2 feats.

My Solutio
Our Tiering System should be as simple as possible, while still being reasonable and getting the point across efficiently, true to Occam's Razor. In that case, my suggestion is:

  • Ban the use of multiplicative scaling for tiers 2-B through 2-A outright.
Due to the fact that the numerical gap between the destruction of any given number of space-times is unquantifiable, it's not correct to consider rate people who are infinitely above a 2-C or 2-B as 2-A. Rather, they should be merely granted an "at least", in accordance to how we tend to approach the destruction of several universes: actual feats and statements.

I'm free to suggestions, in any case.

NOTE: ANT WANTS THIS TO BE STAFF ONLY
 
I agree with this, using multipliers for Tier 2 and above just over complicates things. 2-A should only be given to feats relating to and infinite number of Space Time Continuums. Additionally, infinitely superior is a pretty common hyperbole.
 
The difference is that High 3-A is about destroying infinite space, which is quantifiable on that level. It doesn't apply to a scenario with space times, where the distance between each one is utterly unquantifiable.
 
If we aren't going to use multipliers for Low 2-C to 2-C, we must get rid of them entirely for consistency's sake.

I agree with the removal of all multipliers for Toer 2, even infinite ones.
 
Anyone who only uses multipliers to grow higher on the Tier 2 scale is getting downgraded
 
Asriel was getting downgraded anyways.
 
Considering I'm already downgrading Asriel to 2-B once the thread I made a while ago is wrapped up, does this affect...anyone? It's a good idea to clarify, but I don't know if any profiles are actually going to be hit.
 
To be fair, this was made because Assalt and Ant wanted to be cautious.

I'm back, by the way.
 
Yeah, I just want to be completely transparent on what our policies are, since they seemed murky before. I don't know if anyone else gets hit by this, but now we have our definite answer to if this type of scaling is OK.
 
Edwardtruong2006 said:
By the way, to ask Ant a question, why is this Staff Only again? IIRC, the last thread wasn't a particular shitstorm and it doesn't seem like the blue-names are causing storms in here either.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in the last thread, discussions about fundamental wiki policy should preferably always be staff only, so we keep them orderly, to the point, and easily overviewed and manageable.

If they are open for everybody to reply, there is a much higher chance that they will repeatedly stray from the original subject and turn too disorganised with too many replies for us to manage to reach a reasonable and rational conclusion, and at worst reach a very unwise one that negatively affects our wiki policies.

It takes a much higher amount of energy for me to try to keep the chaos contained within them, and avoid a destructive conclusion, and I am tired and overworked enough as it is.

In this particular case the discussion was beginning to stray into an area of dismantling the tiering system as a whole, which would have been a potential disaster.
 
Anyway, I am not sure how multipliers work in this case. The difference between Low 2-C and 2-C is unquantifiable, but how do finite differences between 2-C and 2-B work, for example, or infinite ones between 2-C and 2-A? I am not sure, so I hope that DontTalk will show up to help me out to clarify this.
 
One thing I would point out is that the distance between universes isn't measurable in practice, but in theory there is such a thing as a proper distance between them.

Either way, as is suggested above, I think not using multipliers is probably the best approach. How large the gap between the multiversal levels is is, in practice, pretty murky and in fiction having a power gap between two characters on the same multiversal level, doesn't seem uncommon.

Though an infinite multiplier on some (not low) 2-C/2-B power might be a borderline case. That is, while the gap could be arbitrarily large, I don't think it could be larger than infinite? I would be interested in some opinions regarding that. I will think about it myself, after I have more than the 4 hours of sleep from last night...
 
@DontTalk

Okay. Thank you for the help.
 
@DontTalk

One of Kep's main points is that multipliers, in their entirety, do not work in Tier 2 since the value between universes and for the destruction of universes no longer follows quantifiable mathematical principals. Do you agree with this?
 
I am not sure about this either.
 
True enough, but I am not sure whether or not 2-C to 2-A works that way.
 
This is stuff only Read my Post, so it is appreacciated if you don't comment again here.
 
The problem with the opinion that the gap between 2-C and 2-A is quantifiable by multiplying by infinity is that we simply have zero idea how a multiverse would really work. There are thousands of theories and guesses on how the 2-B structure our multiverse is speculated to be would even function.

For example, the distance between each universe could be completely unrelated to the universes themselves. Imagine bubbles separated by infinitely expanding, empty 4-D space. In which case, multiplying your power infinitely doesn't quite cut the gap.

Now, imagine a multiverse where each universe is lined up finitely, separated by a few billion "4-D" light years, which is not far from what adherents of the eternal inflation theory believe, since they teach that each parallel universe was birthed from other Big Bangs and are essentially alternate space times that can still collide head on with each other. In that case, it'd be somewhat quantifiable.

The truth is, however, that we don't know what it is about, and risking a placeholder, improvable solution that ignores the infinite alternatives to how a multiverse would really work, when we can simply use feats and statements, thus eliminating all of these issues simply, without having to waste time, is just outright unwise, if not dangerous.

In that case, our Tiering System is good as it is. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can do and as long as the most reasonable solution is upheld, nothing else really matters.
 
Yes, you make a good case. If DontTalk agrees with your analysis, we can probably modify our standards accordingly.
 
@Dark649

Please do not remove DontTalk's replies. He is a retired administrator and has the right to respond here.
 
If each universe is separated by an infinitely expanding 4-D nothingness, every single person who destroys two universes would be technically 2-A, which is, of course, utterly false looking at any fiction, and would lead our Tiering System right to rock bottom.

If they are not, would we be able to tell the distance? Or if there is a distance to begin with? We wouldn't. Wild and copious amounts of speculation abound.

Scaling anything in Tier 2 linearly would be quite disastrous. Which is why my stance in the issue is telling people not to mess with what already works.
 
@Kepekley

Yes, you make a rational case for your viewpoint, and I also do not wish to mess with systems that work well for us.
 
I do not know, but that is off-topic.
 
I agree with Kep. I think maybe also all of the descriptions in Tier 2 should be reworded to be more specific without reverting to assumption.
 
Yes, that seems like the best solution at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
2K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top