• 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.

Potential Downgrades for Characters "Infinitely Above" Others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sera_EX

Sera_EX

She Who Dabbles in Fiction
VS Battles
Retired
6,104
5,102
Alright. So, Dragon and Ultima showed me this, and I've noticed something. "Likely 1-C" for being infinitely anove High 2-As.

This is blatantly incorrect. We've been established stacking infinites does not grant someone an extra dimension for a while now. We always rank them as "At least" that tier. Infinitely above a bunch of Low 2-Cs? You are At least Low 2-C. Infinitely above a High 2-A? You are At least High 2-A. You don't get a likely "2-C", likely "Low 1-C" or what have you that way.

The title of this thread is as such because this might apply to more characters than just WoD God. So if you know any characters that have that AP description and they are tiered as a dimension higher, please let me know.
 
I of course agree with this. I believe there is a stark difference between being infinitely above so one in power and infinitely above someone dimensionally. Also say I create a 2-A verse. Me being infinitely above the inhabitants would not be High 2-A. Just "At least 2-A"
 
We already reached this conclusion a while back. Were the changes not applied then?
 
Agreed with the qualification that given other statements about the character in question being some sort of completely untouchable higher being, the 'infinitely above High 2-As' statements should be acceptable as supporting evidence for a 'possibly 1-C'.
 
RebubleUselet said:
I don't even know since when does being infinitely above something grants you a dimensional jump.
Click to expand...
^

At most it can be supporting evidence if you have actual higher dimensional statements.

But it doesn't warrant anything except being very strong for the standards of your dimensional level
 
RebubleUselet said:
Actually, now that I look back at it, wasn't this already discussed in the past? Asriel Dreemurr used to be 2-A for the same reason, but he was downgraded.
Click to expand...
I feel like being infinitely greater than characters who are finitely multiversal should be enough for 2-A.

After all, past Low 2-C it becomes a matter of being able to affect multiple universes across 5-D distance.

Being some finite amount of times greater than, say, a 2-C character would not be enough for 2-B, as it assumes that the 5-D distance between universes is consistent, which is not necessarily the case. It'd be like multiplying a variable with a constant value; without first defining the variable, the exact value cannot be known.

However, an infinite multiplier should be enough for 2-A. It is a fact that any finite number multiplied by infinity is... well, infinity.

So, no matter what the variable's exact value happens to be, it will become infinity when multiplied by infinity.
 
I agree. I am also skeptical on characters stated to be "infinitely above" others receiving 2-A for being above a Low 2-C or the like.
 
Okay, question, what about being Infinite infinities above 9 million (Decently High) High 2-A beings?
 
No, no, not Infinitely above High 2-A.

Infinite Infinities.

Like, So if Infinitely above Baseline High 2-A is High 2-A x infinity. This would be:

9,000,000 x High 2-A x infinity^2
 
Also, from reading the Higher-Dimensional physical characteristics.

God is seen as Infinite in Size even to the 5-D Angels.
 
Might not end up being super important, but what are the 5-D statements for the beings God is above?

If it just says stuff that amounts to "they're 5-D beings/exist beyond 4 dimensions", then yeah, the stuff mentioned above is likely "At least High 2-A, possibly far higher".
 
I brought this up many months back about 2-A/High 2-A, and I still agree.

The amount needed for a dimensional jump is uncountable infinity. Anything less than that is still within the tier.

Any "infinitely stronger" statements should be lowballed to countable infinity. And by virtue of how infinities work, even countably infinite countable infinities is smaller than uncountable infinity.
 
I disagreed with "Infinitely above Low 1-C" I was skeptical about the reasoning for the stats in general once I read the reasoning and so I asked someone far more knowldegeable than me in Higher Dimension stuffs about whether that was just reasoning instead of saying something completely wrong. Hence Sera's post.

So no, I never fully agreed to it, I just never said anything about until I consulted with someone else.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
Might not end up being super important, but what are the 5-D statements for the beings God is above?
If it just says stuff that amounts to "they're 5-D beings/exist beyond 4 dimensions", then yeah, the stuff mentioned above is likely "At least High 2-A, possibly far higher".
Click to expand...
Hey Azzy, I'll post it on your Wall or I'll link you to a CRT for World of Darkness so I don't derail this thread.
 
Agnaa said:
Any "infinitely stronger" statements should be lowballed to countable infinity. And by virtue of how infinities work, even countably infinite countable infinities is smaller than uncountable infinity.
Click to expand...
Writers do not take a geometric dimensional tiering system into account when crafting their fictions. "Infinitely superior" statements could apply to a super directly to a character's AP in comparison to another, they could be outright hyperbole, they could also be part of a larger picture of said character's standing within the verse's cosmology as a whole. IMO as a rule, they should be taken in context of other feats, statements, and lack thereof.
 
I also agree with Sera and Dragonmasterxyz.
 
trying to stop wank is futile. Just give up

So is this thread about properly applying the rule then?
 
Sometimes context specific, as a general baseline yeah.
 
Do we need to better clarify this somewhere, and if so, in which page?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
1K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Jeeeeepil123
Rick and Morty Potential (?) Upgrade
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mizuki67
Bobsican
High 3-A and above Durability and Lifting Strength
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
Reiner04
Reiner04
SJG13673
Al & Cal possible Tier Upgrade
Replies
7
Views
848
Demon_Lord18
Demon_Lord18
Back
Top