Tier 2 characters CRT

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Oh this is getting rejected?

 

[Antvasima]

I thought that we were going to wait for Ultima.

 

[Roun12]

Oh this is getting rejected?

I don't think its getting rejected, Its just that this would be a HUGE revision for most of Tier 2 so it should probably wait until everyone's less busy.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Our current standards also create lots of ongoing confusion regarding pocket universe creation and destruction feats, with ongoing demands to consider them as more impressive than they are, due to spacetime being involved even if they are just the size of a city or less.

On the other hand, we do need to be able to distinguish destroying several universes from destroying a single universe, even if their entire timelines were not destroyed.

Essentially, we enter the problem with a tiering system with linear progression in terms of terminology, given that the progression from universe to timeline and universe to universes go in two different directions, and in addition we would need to distinguish destroying several timelines from destroying several universes in a more "standardised" manner.

One solution might be to involve the signs alpha and omega, or something similar, with the feats that involve simply destroying universes receiving either no extra sign or the alpha sign, whereas the ones that can destroy one or multiple timelines in a single strike receive an omega sign, but it would be much harder to compare characters in terms of powerscaling via this method, so it is likely a bad idea. Perhaps @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Sera_EX, or our bureaucrats and administrators can come up with better alternative ideas in this regard?

I don't see the need to do this, and it would in all likelihood just ruin the linearity of the Tiering System altogether: 3-A is a broad spectrum that encompasses all finite energy values past the baseline of the tier itself, and if a feat can be said to fall under one of these values, then it's 3-A by definition. The reason Low 2-C is separate from High 3-A and 3-A to begin with is the fact that it represents an uncountably infinitely larger size in comparision to them, and the multiversal tiers in turn only exist because of how widespread and impossible to ignore these types of feat are.

So, given all of that, distinguishing between destroying multiple universes with no spacetime involved and directly destroying multiple spacetimes is just pointlessly convoluted. 3-A being called "Universe level" isn't an issue when the names themselves are just indicators, and feats don't have to correspond to them: We already call 1-C "Complex Multiverse level" even though 1-C feats can involve a single higher-dimensional universe, for instance.

The rest just falls under what Derp explained above, that being that there is no real difference between destroying a timeline and destroying a spacetime continuum.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I'm still very uncertain.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima:

Okay then. Thank you for the reply.

Do you have any suggestions for how we should handle the potential inconsistencies in our current system in these regards, or do we currently use the least bad available options?

 

[YungManzi]

Universal space-times are timelines. I literally just showed how there is no distinction, and Ultima has also said that no tiers would need to be changed- it seems that Ant has a different idea in mind involving 3-D multiversal stuff, but other than that, I'm pretty sure there will be no modifications made to the tiering system itself.

Well, I didn't say anything about the tiers themselves changing. I'm saying that by applying more strict standards to 4D, you thereby apply more strict standards to literally everything above that. Which is obvious.

Edit:

Also, isn't this whole thread about how universal space-times aren't necessarily timelines? I don't get it.

 

[KingPin0422]

Also, isn't this whole thread about how universal space-times aren't necessarily timelines? I don't get it.

It was at first, until Ultima came in and debunked that notion. Right now, it's more so about how we may be too generous with giving tier 2 ratings, particularly to characters who have claims or feats of destroying multiple universes, since that doesn't necessarily entail destroying each universe at every point in their respective timelines. Without context or evidence of that, it would just be 3-A (or High 3-A in some cases) plus Interdimensional Range, assuming that the universes are separate space-time continua in the first place.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I agree with Ultima, however this should still be closed and if necessary we can bring up such an important discussion at a later date, times are just really complicated right now with school starting back up for a lot of people, the controversy of certain current revisions, and the site wide stuff that needs to be dealt with first

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I will close this thread for now; but I pretty much agree with most of the things I already said previously. And also, "Destroying two observable universes located in two separate space-time continuums respectively" also seems like a weird assumption. An omnidirectional explosion that pretty much crossed 2 or more timelines and stated to "create/destroy" universes seems like 2-C outright. That, and Ultima still brought up other good points, I just felt like getting another minor detail out of the way in case anyone is confused.

But anyway, closing the thread for now.