• 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.

New profile posts

Let me rest.
:SkadiDaijoubu~1:
Arnoldstone18
Arnoldstone18
Hehe, knowing me I’d argue for BC still. But damn Anos’ page makes me wanna cry. I definitely scale him wayyyy higher but I guess we are waiting for what? Official translations?
Dereck03
Dereck03
Yah, but still OTL has screwed up some things due to misstranslations, although if you notice I have already added back many things that were removed in bad faith from the profile due to lack of translation, right now in less than 1 month the V5 will give many more feats like passive EE, Law and Cm Type 1 for Anos' eyes along with HGR negation.
Arnoldstone18
Arnoldstone18
Finally, all we need is just to wait. Sad we couldn’t just translate shit ourselves considering that’s literally what we do when official translations are bad.
I appreciate your hard work on the site, acknowledging obvious spite match made against Manjiro Sano, this is the 3rd thread in this thread there have been votes counted even though new arguments were presented to invalidate votes that they previously agreed with. This thread does not need to be closed, but an assessment of voting rules need to be administered:

XxZetsuxX
XxZetsuxX
I don't like the fact that this was called "spite match" when it clearly wasn't

Why do you gotta lie?
Dereck03
Dereck03
It wasn't a spite match, just a match that went out of hands with the recent controversy, don't argue in my wall, thanks.
XxZetsuxX
XxZetsuxX
I apologize
Executor, since you're one of the expert in tier 2, may I ask for your input in this DAL low 2-C thread?
Hi, I recently made an account on VSBW and I had no idea that a HUGE revision for SMT was taking place, let alone on Discord, and like a dork I asked questions before reading your post regarding no specific type of questions were being answered at this time about SMT until this revision has taken place. Sorry about that! Is this Discord exclusively for consistent in-depth lore and revision discussions? Or is this open invite after asking for permission to join? (Recent fan of the games and story)
Milly_Rocking_Bandit
Milly_Rocking_Bandit
Discord is for discussion and revisions.
Lasting900
Lasting900
Can anyone join? I don’t know if I would be able to stay at the same consistent level as everyone else when it comes to these impressive power scaling debates. But I really like the series a lot! do you always have to contribute towards discussion goals? Sometimes I feel like just offering a different perspective or different angle can help give the debate a whole new kind of understanding that may not have been initially considered.
Lasting900
Lasting900
(lasting900#4934) for Discord if permission granted?
Good evening. This is a resolved CRT where discussion was had and everyone involved agrees by now, but we're missing one staff approval. Mind checking it out and giving us the remaining vote, if it's alright?

This was closed since it was assumed that the D&D guy has no 4-D hax, but the thing is that anyone in D&D above 6-C does have 4-D hax for all abilities, so would you be willing to reopen this thread?
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
didn't even realize it was dnd related

Probably best to leave it closed, tho. Fate and DND historically just can't have a proper match on the site.
Eseseso
Eseseso
Which is odd since both peak at 1-A (Luminous Being doesn't count) and have tier 1 smurfs plus loads of hax.
Waifu Dereck need your input 🤗
Sorry for distributing. Can I get your input in this thread. Appreciated 🙏.
Sorry for distributing. Can I get your input in this thread. Appreciated 🙏.
Sorry for distributing. Can I get your input in this thread. Appreciated 🙏.
Planck boy me Planck, I summon you to this CRT to give input. It's pretty small, so it shouldn't be much to evaluate for you, and I have a single staff agreement already so just need a few more.


Much thanks in advance.
Deagon boy me boy, I require input on this here CRT. It's just a reworking of a pretty small profile, so it shouldn't be much to evaluate, and agreement is generally universal.


Much thanks in advance.
Lephyr me boy, mind checking out this CRT? It's a rework for a decently small profile and it has universal agreement so far, I just need some more staff

Hello dear mod. If you have a single minute or two to spare, I need your rough stance on something regarding the tiering system standards that's been subject to controversy recently.
So there's been a lot of discussion regarding the standards for higher additional/higher dimensions. Through these two statements from DDT and Ultima, it was established that overarching timelines aren't automatically Low 1-C because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new axes/dimensions of time, and a single time dimension can service a construction of a timeline encompassing a multiverse. With all the debate over technicalities of when overarching timelines could qualify for Low 1-C, I have to summarize my concerns into a simple yes/no question.
Are overarching timelines Low 1-C when there is confirmation for the lesser timelines it encompasses harboring their own time dimensions/axes?
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Timelines are only Low 1-C if you can prove that there's an Aleph-1/Power Set of Aleph-0 number of them as detailed on the FAQ page

Q: How do cardinal numbers relate to tiering?​

A: Firstly, it should be highlighted that asking about the tier of a cardinal number is effectively a meaningless question when the quantity which it is denoting is not specified in the question as well, and makes as much sense as asking "What tier is the number 8?"

Let's take the smallest infinite cardinal (aleph-0, or ℵ0, the cardinality of countably infinite sets) as an example in this case: A set comprised of a countably infinite number of 0-dimensional points is itself a 0-dimensional space under the usual notions of dimensionality, being thus still infinitely small. Meanwhile, a countably infinite number of planets is High 3-A, a countably infinite number of universes 2-A, and countably infinite dimensions High 1-B.

We then move on to the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0), which is an uncountably infinite quantity and represents the set of all the ways in which you can arrange the elements of a set whose cardinality is the former, and is also equal to the size of the set of all real numbers. In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc)

On the other hand, an P(ℵ0) number of universes is Low 1-C, and a similar number of spatial dimensions/layers of reality is Low 1-A

However, the same does not necessarily apply when approaching sets of higher cardinalities than this (Such as P(P(ℵ0)), the power set of the power set of aleph-0), as they would be strictly bigger than all of the spaces mentioned above, by all rigorous notions of size, regardless of what their elements are. From this point and onwards, all such sets are Low 1-A at minimum.

Do note, however, that these infinities must specifically refer to elements that physically exist within a verse's cosmology. Them existing as in-universe mathematical concepts is not sufficient for anything to scale to them, unless there is a direct comparision that allows scaling to be made.
ProfectusInfinity
ProfectusInfinity
Thanks for responding. I’m not talking about a multiverse with uncountably infinitely many timelines, I’m talking about higher time dimensions.

Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?
A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
The application is the same. To get Low 1-C you need to prove that the temporal dimensions (which are presumed to be 4-D) equate to a Power Set of an Aleph-0 or work on a higher dimensional standard.
Hello dear mod. If you have a single minute or two to spare, I need your rough stance on something regarding the tiering system standards that's been subject to controversy recently.
So there's been a lot of discussion regarding the standards for higher additional/higher dimensions. Through these two statements from DDT and yourself, it was established that overarching timelines aren't automatically Low 1-C because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new axes/dimensions of time, and a single time dimension can service a construction of a timeline encompassing a multiverse. With all the debate over technicalities of when overarching timelines could qualify for Low 1-C, I have to summarize my concerns into a simple yes/no question.
Are overarching timelines Low 1-C when there is confirmation for the lesser timelines it encompasses harboring their own time dimensions/axes?
Hello dear mod. If you have a single minute or two to spare, I need your rough stance on something regarding the tiering system standards that's been subject to controversy recently.
So there's been a lot of discussion regarding the standards for higher additional/higher dimensions. Through these two statements from DDT and Ultima, it was established that overarching timelines aren't automatically Low 1-C because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new axes/dimensions of time, and a single time dimension can service a construction of a timeline encompassing a multiverse. With all the debate over technicalities of when overarching timelines could qualify for Low 1-C, I have to summarize my concerns into a simple yes/no question.
Are overarching timelines Low 1-C when there is confirmation for the lesser timelines it encompasses harboring their own time dimensions/axes?
Sry my friend, if I did smth wrong, but one of my friend ask me to make a blog profile for him, so I was just helping him, but if u want I can pause my work
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
If u want u can work with him togeather, on gathering feats and scans stuff? On discord gc ?
Arceus0x
Arceus0x
Perhaps
Arceus0x
Arceus0x
If he wants to contact me regarding it, mention it to me, i'll give you my tag.
Hello, can you take a look at it in your free time?

please help me in a upgrade thread i asked so many people please help
Hello, can you take a look at it in your free time?



Back
Top