The Problems With Tier 0 (Staff Only)

[Bobsican]

So that´s how you see what I suggest?

If so, well, that´s not exactly what I meant.

It´s like this, if a 1-A trascends a baseline 1-A, then it becomes an High 1-A by definition, but if there´s also another 1-A that trascends a baseline 1-A in the same case as the first one, What makes them different regarding stats? As there is nothing, the system I suggest to measure 1-As is usable, as literally the only counterargument I´m getting is "but it´s beyond dimensions", which doesn´t seem to make sence to me yet.

Edit: I also heavily agree with Agnaa

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Ideas like "strength" aren't actually irrelevant at that point. This seems awfully close to saying that they're above tiering systems to me.

If you don't like the word "strength", then I could say what's being used in the tiering system is "Superiority" or "Size", and if a lower-tier character can affect constructs of a higher metaphysical analogue for size than a higher-tier character can that seems like a failure of the tiering system. How is this a problem with the characters themselves and not the tiering system?

I'd say they definitely are. We're not measuring High 1-A characters based on how "strong" they are, or how much they can blow up, or any of that. Even in 1-A, transcendence and "strength" are a lot more metaphysical than they are in any tier below, though at that point, there are still some characters who "fight" and all that jazz. They also aren't above tiering systems if we actually have a tier for them, since we're not claiming "complete omnipotence" or something.

"and if a lower-tier character can affect constructs of a higher metaphysical analogue for size than a higher-tier character can"

What are the examples of this, and why is it an issue with the fundamental system itself and not something that can be fixed by changing said characters? If a High 1-A is clearly stated or shown to be limited in the first place to what size constructs it can affect, then that's usually reason to argue against something being High 1-A as opposed to changing the system itself.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo There are definitely ways to compare hierarchies of Outerversal characters even though they're above physical sciences (as they're not really above mathematics, philosophy, and logic), but they'd be a departure from the rest of our tiering system which is based around dimensionality.

Actually being unrestrained by duality and dimensions would actually place them above Math, Philosophy, and Logic, as our way of thinking depends on them existing.

Hence why I think High 1-A/0/whatever we call it is more of an in-verse rating as opposed to one we can use to compare them across verses.

 

[Drag-O-Drawgon]

Wasn't this thread gonna be about tier 0 merging with High 1-A, cause now I see a debate about what High 1-A is and what 1-A is (and other things), which is derailing this thread. Unless I just missed something.

 

[Udlmaster]

Would it put them above Philosophy?

I feel like Phulosophy is such a big thing that it's most likely in there with Pataphysics.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

This thread is about both redefining 0/High 1-A and merging them.

 

[Agnaa]

@Azathoth Well we are, we're just measuring metaphysical analogues for that. They are not above tiering or power or description.

I have no familiarity or interest with any 1-A verse, so I can't give you accurate examples, but I've heard that some 1-A CM characters have more impressive hierarchies underneath them than characters which are currently considered High 1-A or 0. What are we supposed to fix by changing the characters for that? We're not the author; we can't rewrite the story.

@Dargoo No they're not, for a few reasons.

Firstly, alternate forms of logic that we can implement and which we use in science right now, such as paraconsistent logic, can deal with lack of duality.

Secondly, we've had philosophy dealing with a lack of dimensions for thousands of years. Platonic concepts are 1-A for god's sake.

Thirdly, I may not be able to properly word this, but when something has a property that makes it indescribable by a certain approach, that doesn't mean every property or abstraction about it is also indescribable by that approach. For example, a set may be infinite and too large to count, but you can still count the number of sets themselves. This kind of batching approach can be taken to describe and quantify the constructs that they're superior to. Even though we can't describe their true nature with math, we can take an abstraction of that true nature (the quantity) and describe and compare it using math.

And fourthly, I've got a question. Does them being unrestrained by duality and dimensions put them above tiering? If not, what makes our tiering system anything more than math, philosophy, logic, and our way of thinking?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

@Azathoth Well we are, we're just measuring metaphysical analogues for that. They are not above tiering or power or description.
I have no familiarity or interest with any 1-A verse, so I can't give you accurate examples, but I've heard that some 1-A CM characters have more impressive hierarchies underneath them than characters which are currently considered High 1-A or 0. What are we supposed to fix by changing the characters for that? We're not the author; we can't rewrite the story.

I didn't say they were above tiering or description (I think I said the opposite), but the argument about "power" is a more philosophical one so it's probably not of great importance that we discuss it, here.

There are definitely characters with more expansive hierarchies than ones who are currently considered High 1-A, but part of the solution comes from the fact that High 1-A is not exclusively about hierarchies. It is more about ideas and philosophy. I could try using a CM example, if that helps people understand better.

Though, like I said, there are also cases where characters are sometimes just High 1-A when they shouldn't be.

 

[Agnaa]

Well if they're not above tiering then pretend I use whatever word you think is appropriate when talking about their "strength".

What ideas/philosophy are being introduced into High 1-A? I was under the impression that a limit of two High 1-As for each verse was being pushed for, not that more ideas and philosophy needed to be attained to qualify.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I don't have much to say except that I agree with professor Azzy

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

@Agnaa

Not much more is being introduced than what's already there, really.

It's more just that a lot of what is said about High 1-A is either kind of an "unwritten rule" at times or just very poorly expressed, which should be fixed due to the fact it's never been "1-A+1", though we can often make it seem as if it is.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Speaking of that pole on the other thread, I forgot to mention another example why I prefer High 1-A as opposed to Tier 0 is that Tier 0 is the equivalent of WatchMojo, Screwattack, ect using a #0 spot for their highest instead of the #1 spot IMO. Again, I don't mind about Tier 0 being the choice, but I still wanted to point out another detail.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, but what are these ideas/philosophy that extend the basic idea of High 1-A being more than "Sees 1-As as 1-As see tier 11s"?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

If we just go by "Sees 1-As as 1-As see tier 11s" and that alone, it seems like just another level of "this person is this much stronger than this other person". The key idea is there, but a High 1-A isn't just High 1-A because they see the most basic of 1-As in this way.

A myriad of other factors should also play into this. It can be a bit hard to express normally, but stuff like "if you can straight up kill a High 1-A, it shouldn't be High 1-A" should be obvious. It's a lot of little things, really. I feel like the relationship between two High 1-As (or formerly a High 1-A and a 0) within a verse is often the best way to both express how the tier should work and why it should have some sort of limitation which isn't stated solely in the most basic description.

 

[Agnaa]

Immortality seems like a weird thing to include in someone's AP.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Because it's not purely AP, at this point. That's part of the reason why High 1-A exists.

The reason it was decided to join High 1-A and 0 is because those two weren't distinct enough, but High 1-A is still quite different from 1-A.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Azathoth is correct. High 1-A is a state of being, not a power level.

 

[Udlmaster]

I advocate we add Tier ∞ back.

 

[Chartate101]

I advocate we add Tier ∞ back.

Please stop derailing

 

[Agnaa]

If it's not a power level why is it a part of the category for power levels?

You don't need to use tiers to show that they're at the top of the verse or that they have certain abilities. We don't have a tier for smurfs even though they're more common than flat High 1-As and just as interesting.

Couldn't you just put that state of being in the powers/abilities or in the notes? I get that this format doesn't really have a section for "Is this the top of the verse?" but you could still use powers/notes to get something to that effect.

It seems like you're saying that the only distinction between 1-A and High 1-A is powers and abilities, which is never justification for a different tier at any other place in the site.

 

[The_Tetromino_King]

Stop derailing

 

[Agnaa]

This is about what the new definition for High 1-A with 0 included would be, it's not derailing, it's something that needs to be addressed for this change.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

It's not really specific powers and abilities, per se. As Matt says, it's a state of being, and even in our current system, High 1-A and 0 have never been specifically about power.

"As such, characters with serious weaknesses cannot be High 1-A."

"Beings that are boundlessly above absolutely everything, including existence and nonexistence, possibility, causality, dualism and transdualism, the concepts of life and death, and their analogues at any level."

As it is a state of being, there are of course going to be other things that come with it other than "being a really strong guy", because as expressed before, it is otherwise just 1-A but better, which was never the idea.

 

[Agnaa]

If that state of being is not about destructive capacity then why has it ever been relevant to tiering? Tier is the exact same thing as Attack Potency, and as that page will tell you, attack potency is the exact same thing as destructive capacity.

Why are we even merging High 1-A and 0 if it's just pushing the same problem back to 1-A? The only points that I think are sound from the OP for merging High 1-A and 0 also apply to merging 1-A and High 1-A.

However, if we have High 1-A simply be "Sees 1-As as 1-As see tier 11s", or some other qualitative AP superiority, then it doesn't have that problem and would be fine as a tier of its own. The problem comes in when you start making ability requirements such as not having weaknesses, being transdual, etc.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Because such a state of being would inherently grant said level of "Attack Potency".

Also because it's easier and more practical to have High 1-A pages that abide by the same system as everything else on the entire wiki than doing away with the entire powers and abilities section and purely discussing the philosophy behind a character. At this point, the tiering system does not care about how much a dude can blow up, because we are more discussing philosophies and "limitless powers" more than traditional characters. That is how such characters are defined. It does not mean we cannot fit it into the tiering system. Otherwise, we'd just get rid of 1-A, due to how different it is from everything before it.

"Why are we even merging High 1-A and 0 if it's just pushing the same problem back to 1-A?"

This is a nonexistent problem, because while High 1-A and 0 were nearly identical in practice, High 1-A is not 1-A. It is not supposed to be 1-A, and is supposed to be something else entirely. It is not a matter of mere power, which is why 1-A can pretty much go on endlessly, otherwise.

People are trying to make High 1-A into just better 1-A, but that has never been its function, and doing so would make it lack any sort of purpose.

 

[Agnaa]

Because such a state of being would inherently grant said level of "Attack Potency".

Then why have I heard that certain CM 1-As have a higher attack potency than High 1-As from other verses? Also, you haven't listed the states of being yet, but I seriously doubt that most of them matter for attack potency.

At this point, the tiering system does not care about how much a dude can blow up, because we are more discussing philosophies and "limitless powers" more than traditional characters. That is how such characters are defined. It does not mean we cannot fit it into the tiering system. Otherwise, we'd just get rid of 1-A, due to how different it is from everything before it.

It does care about how much a dude can blow up, but on a metaphysical analogue. There are no truly limitless characters, and we can fit them into the tiering system. I don't know why you think any of this would lead to getting rid of 1-A, it's different but it fits into attack potency neatly.

This is a nonexistent problem, because while High 1-A and 0 were nearly identical in practice, High 1-A is not 1-A. It is not supposed to be 1-A, and is supposed to be something else entirely. It is not a matter of mere power, which is why 1-A can pretty much go on endlessly, otherwise.

They are nearly identical power-wise because the tiering system is inherently about power. 1-A can go on endlessly but so could any tier if they were loosely defined. Going on endlessly is not a problem, and the very bottom (11-C) and the very top of a tiering system need to be able to go on endlessly.

People are trying to make High 1-A into just better 1-A, but that has never been its function, and doing so would make it lack any sort of purpose.

If its function explicitly wasn't attack potency, then it does not belong in a system of attack potency.

 

[Antvasima]

So is this better? I would appreciate help from Azathoth and DarkLK with improved definitions.

High 1-A: High Outerverse level

Characters that far exceed the requirements for Tier 1-A. Such characters will usually stand hierarchically above everything, including existence and nonexistence, possibility, causality, dualism and transdualism, the concepts of life and death, etcetera.

Take note that being infinitely superior to a regular 1-A character does not automatically make another character qualify for a High 1-A rating. The ones that do qualify should be so much higher than baseline 1-A characters that it can not be estimated or comprehended from their perspectives. That is, to even be considered for High 1-A, a character must at the very least transcend baseline 1-A characters in the same manner that they exceed ones who are bound by dimensions.

It is also important to note that such characters are not omnipotent, as such a concept isn't well suited for our tiering system (See the Omnipotence page for further explanations). High outerversal characters, although immeasurably powerful, can display minor weaknesses and limitations, and be rivaled or even surpassed by other beings within their respective verses.

 

[Wokistan]

To answer your question about CM: What people are meaning when they say this is that some Outer God's and other things have longer scaling chains than a few of the High 1-As/0s, with similar (at a glance) justifications of absolute transcendence. However, High 1-A/0 is a relative status to the verse, and these Outer God's still have far more limitations in the form of higher beings and overall are not of the same status in their verse that say TOAA is in marvel.

Ant, that looks good to me personally.

 

[Ren_Fujii]

(just stating my opinion) as DarLK said before "I think we need more clear criteria about the superiority over baseline 1-A. So that we do not get each "infinitely above 1-A" as a candidate here" we need a clear criteria, we need to set EXACTLY how much a High 1-A is stronger than a baseline 1-A, You can't put the Law of Identity at the same tier of Featherine if Umineko verse is far bigger, They both soddisfy the requirement of High 1-A described by you " The ones that do qualify should be so much higher than baseline 1-A characters that it can not be estimated or comprehended from their perspectives. " Even a character from an higher layer above an 1-A can't be comprehended from the perspective of the baseline 1-A, putting all the High 1-A at the same level is speculation, in my opinion the tier High 1-A is as meaningless as the tier 0, every tier has a defined criteria, why should the tier High 1-A be an exception?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yeah that looks solid to be put.

 

[Magi_Hussie]

@Ren Fujii Yea, I have the same problems of it and I can describe a quick example of why that requirement we still have wouldn't work and needs to be worded more clearly after removing High 1-A.

Incorrect (our current requirement):

Physically existing in a 1-A realm = 1-A

Existing in a higher realm but it is still basically the same thing as 1-A and other concepts except for time & space still exist within it = High 1-A/Tier 0

Correct:

1-A = Physically existing in a domain outside all of space and time

High 1-A/Tier 0 = Physically existing in a domain outside all concepts (or everything in general, which you need omnilock in order to do this)

Reminder: Just because you are above the concepts of time & space, doesn't mean you are above other concepts automatically.

 

[Antvasima]

This is a staff only thread...

 

[Magi_Hussie]

@Antvasima Sorry, I was just adding on to Ren's comment earlier, I won't comment again.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[DarkLK]

High 1-A is an attempt to realize the philosophical and theological understanding of God in the context of a specific fiction. Monotheistic ideas about an absolutely transcendental being or pantheism with some ultimate archetype of everything and beyond. There can not be more than a few high 1-A for each verse. Artist and canvas or conscious and unconscious forms of God. Such options allow you to get more than one high 1-A.

Something like that.

Roughly speaking this should be a religious God from the point of view of any other being (beyond dimensional creatures including).

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

High 1-A is an attempt to realize the philosophical and theological understanding of God in the context of a specific fiction. Monotheistic ideas about an absolutely transcendental being or pantheism with some ultimate archetype of everything and beyond. There can not be more than a few high 1-A for each verse. Artist and canvas or conscious and unconscious forms of God. Such options allow you to get more than one high 1-A.
Something like that.

^^^

Please read this, people.

 

[Udlmaster]

The ONE TRUE TIER 0 hath spoken.

 

[Antvasima]

@Azathoth

Would you be willing to adjust my draft text so it turns more accurate?

 

[Agnaa]

To answer your question about CM: What people are meaning when they say this is that some Outer God's and other things have longer scaling chains than a few of the High 1-As/0s, with similar (at a glance) justifications of absolute transcendence. However, High 1-A/0 is a relative status to the verse, and these Outer God's still have far more limitations in the form of higher beings and overall are not of the same status in their verse that say TOAA is in marvel.

I figured it was something like that, but in that case those 1-As have more AP than some High 1-As, which means we keep the problem that we were trying to get past by merging High 1-A and 0.

@Azathoth/DarkLK I'd think that something like that belongs better within a "Almighty Beings" category or something like that, rather than being lumped in with AP despite having no relation, but if you're fine with it in spite of that, it's a difference of opinion that I don't think we'd come to agree on, and I'm fine with leaving it at that.

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm very limited on time, but I strongly disagree. Not every High 1-A/0 needs to be some ultra vague Ein Sof/Parabrahman allegory. They just need to transcend a 1-A hierarchy, like the Writer does.