• 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.

Changes to 3-A in the tiering system (Staff only)

The_King_of_Prudence

The_King_of_Prudence

Messages
10,804
Reaction score
1,639
Continued from here.

The staff need to make a decision regarding if we should use 251x or 10^23x the size of the observable universe as a baseline for 3-A, and how to practically implement this change and the merging of 3-A with High 3-A.

It would be appreciated if members who are familiar with each scientific estimation for the size of the actual universe could briefly explain the rationale for them, and link to some evidence.
 
I have edited the first post for better clarity.
 
It would be appreciated if somebody would place a request on the message walls of all bureaucrats, administrators, content moderators, discussion moderators, and calc group members that asks them to contribute here.
 
Shouldn't 3-A be renamed into Low 3-A? I thought it's been concluded?
 
@Andy & Elizhaa

Thank you for the help.

@Ugarik

After a lot of discussion, we eventually decided to merge 3-A and High 3-A to 3-A and change the lower border to a reliable scientific estimation of the size of the real universe.

4-D feats that are treated as qualitatively superior to 3-D ones were also supposed to become Low 2-C, if I understood correctly.
 
Ugarik said:
Shouldn't 3-A be renamed into Low 3-A? I thought it's been concluded?
Click to expand...
It was not concluded. I believe that we settle for using a different size of the universe because the observable universe is not the true universe size.
 
What are our opinions on the following things?

  • Destruction of Infinite space being Low 2-C due to time and space being intertwined
  • Low 2-C being the default assumption for universal creator dieties
 
I will go with 10^23 multiplier as well because it is based on Cosmic Infaltion theor which is well supported by many astronomers or scientists.
 
Can someone check if I didn't triple post here? The site glitches for me.

Edit: Seems that I haven't triple post here.
 
Andytrenom said:
What are our opinions on the following things?
Click to expand...
1) Infinite 3-D space is supposed to be the high end of 3-A as far as I am aware.

2) I do not remember. Sorry.
 
@Andytrenom

1) Well, in real life if space area gets destroyed, then time area gets destroyed as well due to being bound to space. As the time is often seen as a fourth dimension, it would be a Low 2-C feat. Finite and infinite space shouldn't make much difference aside from the size.

2) I don't know, so I'll go blindfold here. If the universe gets destroyed because its creator died, that should be a triggerable/suicidable form of Low 2-C Attack Potency.
 
Yes that's exactly what I was talking about. Infinite Space shouldn't be high 3-A anymore since it is interconnected with time.
 
Well, that is not anything that we agreed about in the previous discussion.
 
Yeah but I did bring it up and Ultima had a comment implying infinite space should be low 2-C.

Wait a moment..
 
Well he seemed to only be talking about one of the proposals from the first thread, so I'm not sure if he actually agrees with infinite space being Low 2-C.
 
1. I know the argument as I talk to Ultima regularly but that wasn't discussed in the past two threads so let's not even go there. If he wants to elaborate on that, he should feel free to but for now we should move forwards, not backwards in the discussion.

2. Absolutely. Low 2-C should be the default assumption unless the creator was specifically stated to have only created physical matter (such as the Ninja Gaiden supreme deity Gurdu).
 
Didn't cosmic inflation only get to 96 Billion light-years?
 
I don't know if it's moving backwards. If it starts to make the thread lose focus then sure I'll drop it but I think deciding if high 3-As who were rated via such a feat should become 3-A or low 2-C after the revisions is more efficient overall.
 
The idea was abandoned because in fiction, it is quite possible to destroy the totality of the universe (which in this case is physically infinite) yet someone could go back in time and reverse it. Fiction tends to ignore space and time are a joint pair.

Also, there are realms of infinite size that have nothing to do with the assigned temporality of the universe. So its destruction wouldn't be Low 2-C, it'd be high end 3-A (formerly High 3-A).

This was addressed in the first thread iirc, that's why revisiting it might be going in circles.
 
DMUA said:
Didn't cosmic inflation only get to 96 Billion light-years?
Click to expand...
Apparently, it is much more than this; it made the universe around 10^23 of the observable universe size
 
The universe is assumed to be at most infinite in physical size, so yes.
 
Elizhaa said:
Apparently, it is much more than this; it made the universe around 10^23 of the observable universe size
Click to expand...
Citation?
 
Andytrenom said:
I don't know if it's moving backwards. If it starts to make the thread lose focus then sure I'll drop it but I think deciding if high 3-As who were rated via such a feat should become 3-A or low 2-C after the revisions is more efficient overall.
Click to expand...
I meant replied earlier but I forgot to press send; the other topic should be dropped or moved to another thread as it looks like it will cause derailment.

I also agree with Sera's point; In any cases, I believe 3-A unless proven otherwise was accepted since option E was controversial despite the number of votes.
 
DMUA said:
Elizhaa said:
Apparently, it is much more than this; it made the universe around 10^23 of the observable universe size
Click to expand...
Citation?
Click to expand...
It was cited in the other thread linked in the OP, DMUA.
 
Hmm

My main problem is that would make 3-B a ridiculously huge tier, to the point that we might as well put something near the middle like High 3-B, or Supercluster level.

Yeah that sounds dumb but if it's really that high it could be something to think of

I dunno, I'm not into stuff past Tier 5 usually, so I can't helpfully contribute.
 
idk how much i can help but i always assumed baseine 3-A was the destruction the observable universe's physical matter. I'm fine with merging if the universe was assumed to be at most infinite i guess.
 
A high 3-B for observable universe is something that I thought about before, but I won't get into that here.
 
I don't even agree with anything not using the observable universe for 3-A, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so whatever.

If we're forced to do so, can we at least not go apeshit with 10^23 times the observable universe. The only way I'd agree would be with a reasonable low end just to get slightly closer to the universe's real size. And 10^23 is most definitively NOT a "reasonable" low end. It's once again borderline dart throwing at the possible theories and picking the one that seems remotely more accurate than the rest. It's still just a theory that is nowhere near universally accepted and is just more popular than the rest.

It's honestly the same deal with not assuming that every multiverse is 11/26 D due to string theory being the most popular. It's still just a theory (a GAME theory) that shouldn't be assumed to be the actual physical truth and thus not be used as a standard for our tiering.
 
I mean we don't even rate multiverse size by real world theories we rate them by the confirmed number of dimensions within the story itself, so that's not a similar situation to this.

If we are to choose between 2 theories though then using the more widely accepted one is better.
 
I would prefer that we stay with the Observable Universe as well, just like Saikou.

And finally, 10^23 is not in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It is a horrible disgusting wank that would ruin things. And bring us more problem than it's worth. It's like assuming multiverse sizes and how dimensions work. It's ridiculous.

Observable Universe for the lowest bound of 3-A, Infinite 3D space for the highest bound. That's it. Simple and objective and no speculation required. We don't need to overly complicate things even more.
 
Like, 10^23 lightyears would literally inflate every single calc involving universes to the point of absurdity and to the point of making it absolutely ridiculous and an outlier. Really the reason people want it is to get characters moving at vigintillion times the speed of light every time universe crossing feats happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
31
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LordGriffin1000
Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion
Replies
26
Views
6K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
41K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
2
Views
502
Phoenks
Phoenks
Back
Top