• 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.

2-C to 2-A standards, the return

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying how we should treat the space, but I'm basing this CRT on how we already do, since SMT Ouroboros is literally what I'm talking about.
 
If you're not saying how we should treat it then what are you trying to do?

SMT Ouroboros fits under the status quo that I described.
 
StrymULTRA said:
SMT Ouroboros is literally what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
SMT Ouroboros is complicated, since her thing is being infinite in relation to her domain, but how to apply that to scaling beyond "she's extremely above anything on there" would be hard to pinpoint.
 
I'm just saying, that, since SMT Ouroboros is, despite being even stated in their profile to be infinitely above Baseline Low 2-Cs, still a Low 2-C, this wiki treats the difference between Low 2-C and 2-C as something inanessible and beyond an infinite value for Low 2-C, and, because of this, I said that 2-C, 2-B and 2-A should be treated as sub-sets of infinities which are, despite being inacessibly higher than Low 2-C no matter what, still comparable to each other on a numerical meaning as I said in the edited OP post.
 
I'm just saying, that, since SMT Ouroboros is, despite being even stated in their profile to be infinitely above Baseline Low 2-Cs, still a Low 2-C, this wiki treats the difference between Low 2-C and 2-C as something inanessible and beyond an infinite value for Low 2-C, and, because of this, I said that 2-C, 2-B and 2-A should be treated as sub-sets of infinities which are, despite being inacessibly higher than Low 2-C no matter what, still comparable to each other on a numerical meaning.

Jesus Christ that is not what that means.

Again.

We do not know.

Does not mean.

We know that it is above infinite.

Stop saying that we are already treating it in the way you describe. We are absolutely not.
 
So we're gonna contradict how we treat the difference between these tiers? Well, I'm not the one who's going against the wiki standards.

SMT Ouroboros makes it really clear how we treat said gap, and what I'm proposing just respects this treatment.
 
That is not a contradiction.

We do not know so we lowball does not mean we know it is greater than infinite.

These are two different things dude.
 
But we actually do threat the difference as greater than infinite, otherwise SMT Ouroboros wouldn't be just Low 2-C.
 
We do not know so we lowball does not mean we know it is greater than infinite.

Saying that we do not know and lowballing because of that is not saying that the difference is greater than something.

He is Low 2-C because we don't know. He is not Low 2-C because we know he is insufficient.

You are making a basic ******* failure of logic.
 
You're just putting words in my mouth rn, I never said that we know that the difference is beyond infinite, just that we treat it as such since we don't know, so we lowball it at this much to avoid inaccurate highballs for multipliers on Low 2-C.

And because of this, I'm suggesting what I'm saying rn, basing on this treatment.

Unless something is made to change the treatment of characters infinitely above the baseline Low 2-C, the difference between Low 2-C age 2-C is treated as beyond infinite here, regardless of how much we actually know on that.
 
Characters infinitely above baseline Low 2-C are already treated differently than other Low 2-C characters. They've given "At least Low 2-C", as you can see on Ouroboros' profile, to indicate the possibility that they're above Low 2-C.

If we actually treated them as just being Low 2-C, as you say, then that "At least" would not be included.
 
It should be included "likely far higher", otherwise we get confusions like this then.

If we don't treat Low 2-Cs as beyond infinitely weaker than 2-Cs, then it should be specified better on the Tiering System notes, or just putting said characters to Unknown to fit these totally unknown settings, simple as that.
 
TlDr: Put Low 2-Cs infinitely above baseline Low 2-C as "At least Low 2-C, likely far higher" to fit the possibility of them entering in higher tiers, or to Unknown to respect these totally unknown settings, since this territory is extremely vague and we've got no way to give an accurate tier to such multipler given to Low 2-C.
 
I think just having "At least" gets that across well enough, at least does mean that it could be higher, but I wouldn't be opposed to including "likely/possibly higher/far higher" as well.

Why does that need to be specified on the Tiering System notes... I don't think we need to include every single random misconception everyone has... Especially when it's rare and unsubstantiated by the way our system works.
 
It should be because how the Note 1 of tiering system is wrote on a vague way and it should explain way better for such high tiers.

"likely far higher" being added would definitely imply that more than just "At least"
 
I guess if you want a sentence could be added to the end of that note saying:
This does not mean that the difference between these tiers is greater than infinite, merely that the difference is unknown.
Click to expand...
 
I feel like saying a character cannot go up a tier in tier 2 with multipliers seems unnecessarily restrictive as well. For Low 2-C to 2-C sure since your not factoring any space in-between. But you are factoring in the space between 2 Universes or more if your multiplying from 2-C or 2-B.

I agree we cannot know for certain the exact multiplier needed to effect even one more universe, but also in the same breath listing a character who could destroy 2 Universes, and then becomes infinitely more powerful as still only being able to destroy 2 Universes, and being weaker than one which destroys 3 Universes logically seems ridiculous. You are basically saying from a vs standpoint, that even adding one Universe is uncountable infinitely stronger by refusing to give any credit to the massive multiplier.

I feel multipliers upgrading in tier 2 should fetch a possibly rank, to acknowledge that if we apply the multiplier, including the space between in a linear fashion, which could possibly be accurate, they would be that tier, but we are not certain it is linear, thus the "possibly" rank. For example a being can destroy 2 Universe at once, and their power is literally multiplied by 1000, that could result in them being 2-C, possibly 2-B

Just doesn't sit well that in a vs battle a guy that can destroy 3 Universes is treated as vastly stronger than a guy who can destroy 2 and multiplies his power infinitely on top of that.
 
listing a character who could destroy 2 Universes, and then becomes infinitely more powerful as still only being able to destroy 2 Universes, and being infinitely weaker than one which destroys 3 Universes logically seems ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous. That's why we don't do it. 3 universes is stronger by an unknown amount.

You are basically saying from a vs standpoint, that even adding one Universe is uncountable infinitely stronger by refusing to give any credit to the massive multiplier.

No, uncountably infinitely stronger is a dimension above. Adding a universe has no reason to be treated as that strong.
 
So are you saying the guy that can destroy 3 Universes is an unknown amount stronger than a guy who is infinitely above destroying 2 Universes, if so that still makes the 1 extra Universe greater than an infinite multiplier as far as tiering is concerned, and sounds like a ridiculous assumption imo.

But your still claiming even an infinite multiplier would not get a character from 1000 to 1001 Universes, which basically means your saying to even go up one Universe in size is treated as superior to multiplying your power infinitely as far as the tiering system is concerned from my understanding. Which again sounds ridiculous imo.
 
You're just being too specific on terms dude...

He's basically saying that the possibility of multipliers being linear on tiers from 2-C to 2-A exists, and that based on this, we should add a "possibly" rating to respect this possibility as well. In a vs view, reading that a guy who can destroy 2 universes, even with an infinite multipler, would still be inaccessibly weaker than someone who can destroy 3 universes, is completely ridiculous.
 
So are you saying the guy that can destroy 3 Universes is an unknown amount stronger than a guy who is infinitely above destroying 2 Universes, if so that still makes the 1 extra Universe greater than an infinite multiplier as far as tiering is concerned, and sounds ridiculous imo.

But your still claiming even an infinite multiplier would not get a character from 1000 to 1001 Universes, which basically means your saying to even go up one Universe in size is treated as superior to multiplying your power infinitely as far as the tiering system is concerned from my understanding. Which again sounds ridiculous imo.

It's not infinitely greater. It could be lower, we just don't know.
 
But the wiki is treating it as such now, since even if you could destroy 1000 universes, and multiplied your power infinitely, you would not get an upgrade in tier, not even a possibly 2-B right now. I am saying that since it is a distinct reasonable possibility we should allow a "possibly" tier upgrade with multipliers in tier 2 in order to show it is a distinct possibility at least, even if a certain amount of uncertainty exists.
 
SSJRyu1 said:
But the wiki is treating it as such now, since even if you could destroy 1000 universes, and multiplied your power infinitely, you would not get an upgrade in tier, not even a possibly 2-B right now. I am saying that since it is a distinct reasonable possibility we should allow a "possibly" tier upgrade with multipliers in tier 2 in order to show it is a distinct possibility at least, even if a certain amount of uncertainty exists.
Click to expand...
I'm totally with this
 
... Wait, why is SMT Ouroboros suddenly being argued to being infinitely above Low 2-C? She's just way above baseline via scaling, there's not a single multiplier for her tier.
 
How could it be weaker if the number of universes is greater? You're making no sense rn lol

We don't know what multiplier is required to be equivalent to or stronger than a greater number of universes. It is possible that 4 universes with a 10,000x multiplier is stronger than 8 universes with no multiplier.

That's how it could be weaker.
 
Ionliosite said:
... Wait, why is SMT Ouroboros suddenly being argued to being infinitely above Low 2-C? She's just way above baseline via scaling, there's not a single multiplier for her tier.
Click to expand...
1) Her AP description is saying that she's literally infinitely above baseline
2) If you don't agree with her rating just make a SMT CRT, otherwise this is going on derail
 
StrymULTRA said:
1) Her AP description is saying that she's literally infinitely above baseline
2) If you don't agree with her rating just make a SMT CRT, otherwise this is going on derail
Click to expand...
I was the one who wrote her AP descritpion after a SMT CRT, if someone knows her AP it is me. So I can 100% definitely say there's no multiplier involved on her tier.
 
StrymULTRA said:
I knew that such a ""counter"" came. I said COMPARATED to them, since we treat 2-C to 2-A tiers as infinitely above Low 2-C.

Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?

If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.

This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
Click to expand...
1 is not a finite number because of how big Y is compared to it, it is a finite number because it just straight up is a finite number. There is really no cohesive notion in mathematics where an infinite set of objects is "finite" compared to a larger collection, and the closest thing to that is a given set X having measure zero relative to another set Y, in which case, Y would have uncountably infinite size in comparision to X, and be an object of one dimension higher.

If we actually applied that, then we'd be basically saying that 2-C is the 5-D in relation to Low 2-C's 4-D, which is obviously extremely unreasonable, and we could very well extend this argument to say that the difference between any two number of universes is uncountably infinite, which, again is completely ridiculous, as you yourself said.

Ouroboros Maia is an odd situation, anyway, since she's not really stated to be infinitely stronger than Low 2-C characters, she -is- the concept of infinity even relative to them, so I'd argue her case is a tad different from those involving multipliers alone.

Regardless of that, though, I mostly agree with Agnaa and the others, in hindsight. There is no formal notion of power that could be used for scaling past High 3-A, and so there is also no way to know the actual ratio between destroying a X number of universes and destroying a Y number of universes, whether it's done through some omnidirectional blast or by extending your influence across all of them. I'd wager we should just disregard multipliers entirely and go purely by feats, in that case, and the only cases I see as possible exceptions would be those similar to Ouroboros, which I've already explained above.
 
To be fair though the current system is heavily flawed since your claiming destroying 2 Universes and multiplying your power infinitely is still inferior in the eyes of the tiering system than destroying 3 Universes. Your basically saying "we don't know the multiplier for sure, but for the sake of tiering were assuming even an infinite multiplier is not sufficient to add one more Universe of size to the AP". If we added in a "possibly" tier, or even "likely much higher" at the end for sufficient theoretical linear multipliers to show that they could be sufficient for a higher tier, your just not certain so it cant be a straight up confirmed tier, I think that would be better than assuming by default no multiplier is enough to even go up by one Universe in size.
 
Ionliosite said:
I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is the issue here in a nutshell.

This entire discussion seems to mostly be a prolonged waste of time for everybody involved.
 
Agnaa said:
I guess if you want a sentence could be added to the end of that note saying:
"This does not mean that the difference between these tiers is greater than infinite, merely that the difference is unknown."
Click to expand...
This seems like a good idea to me though.
 
SSJRyu1 said:
To be fair though the current system is heavily flawed since your claiming destroying 2 Universes and multiplying your power infinitely is still inferior in the eyes of the tiering system than destroying 3 Universes. Your basically saying "we don't know the multiplier for sure, but for the sake of tiering were assuming even an infinite multiplier is not sufficient to add one more Universe of size to the AP". If we added in a "possibly" tier, or even "likely much higher" at the end for sufficient theoretical linear multipliers to show that they could be sufficient for a higher tier, your just not certain so it cant be a straight up confirmed tier, I think that would be better than assuming by default no multiplier is enough to even go up by one Universe in size.
Click to expand...
The issue of multiplying a 2-C degree of power infinitely should probably at least warrant a "likely higher" afterward in my opinion, yes, but I am not the best person to ask.
 
Ionliosite said:
I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
Click to expand...
Actually the example doesn't really work because I tried a simple back-of-envelope calculation and found that if someone is able to destroy 2 solar systems (i.e. baseline 4-A) at a certain power level X, he will be able to destroy actually more than 4 (in fact ~5.65 ) solar systems with a power level of 2X if the spatial density of solar systems is assumed to be uniform.

However this still doesn't really work for Tier 2-C because the understanding of what constitutes "spacing" breaks down at that point
 
Let's have an idea on this, shall we?

We definitely can't keep this tier with this vagueness, since this will make Tier 2 fights completely unaviable, so, I've got an idea.

Let's count the 2-C tiering as still beyond infinitely superior to Low 2-C, since we can't get in such highballs due to the unknown settings, so the idea of considering the 2-C to 2-A tiers as sub-sets of infinities unreachable for Low 2-C but comparable to each other in a numerical meaning still stands, also for the sake of vs debating and to respect the standards of Low End we always followed.
 
I'm personally neutral about whether or not an infinite multiplier should make a character go up from 2-C to 2-A, but rarely does any infinite multiplier is meant to be taken literally. As for the current system, people seem to misinterpret how unquantifiable is being used. It obviously doesn't mean infinite or beyond infinite. It just means what it means, that is, unquantifiable. Something that can't be quantified, without evidence (feats or reliable statements), and varies on a case-by-case basis.

If X can destroy 2 universes and Y is 2 times stronger than X but has a reliable feat/statement of destroying 4465346 universes, we just assume that anybody who is 2 times stronger than X can destroy 4465346 universes in that verse.

If X can destroy 2 universes and Y is 45544544554 times stronger than X, but still has no feats/statements of destroying 3 universes, we have no reason to believe that being 45544544554 times stronger than X makes anybody able to destroy 3 universes in that verse.

If X can destroy 2 universes and Y is infinite times stronger than X, but still has no feats/statements of destroying 3 universes, we have no reason to believe that "infinite" is meant to be taken literally. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Let's have an idea on this, shall we?

We definitely can't keep this tier with this vagueness, since this will make Tier 2 fights completely unaviable, so, I've got an idea.

Let's count the 2-C tiering as still beyond infinitely superior to Low 2-C, since we can't get in such highballs due to the unknown settings, so the idea of considering the 2-C to 2-A tiers as sub-sets of infinities unreachable for Low 2-C but comparable to each other in a numerical meaning still stands, also for the sake of vs debating and to respect the standards of Low End we always followed.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree. The overwhelming majority of Tier 2 and above fights are decided on the basis of hax potency, resistances, passives, ability activation speed etc, and this fact is unlikely to change even if changes are made to how AP is scaled in Tier 2. The unquantifiable differences in AP almost never complicates actual VS matchups so the idea that Tier 2 matches are "completely unviable" with the current statistics is itself completely baseless

The way I see it is that you are proposing a solution to a non-existant problem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Reiner04
  • Locked
Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification
2 3
Replies
115
Views
20K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards
4 5 6
Replies
208
Views
22K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
The_Smashor
  • Locked
Low 2-C, 2-C and 2-B potential sitewide revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
What's the Attack Potency difference between Low 2-C and 2-C?
Replies
21
Views
1K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Back
Top