• 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.

Tier 4 revisions

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not really a bot, but I use it on a separate account as to not amass mass edits.

The difference between it and a mass-editing script is a mass editing script does it all at once without supervision. With it, I still monitor each edit and have to make sure it doesn't cause any problems. I'm very cautious when using it too, so I don't mess up structure. It's not completely automated, but it still works a lot faster then editing manually.

Though given we also need to change tiers for specific characters and such, I don't think it's a good idea to use it here. Sorry.
 
@Aiden

I would prefer to not merge High 5-A, Low 4-C, 4-C, and High 4-C into one tier, if possible, as it turn much more unspecific for differences between the characters.
 
To anybody interested in what I mentioned earlier, it seems like the new edit-patrolling script does not work as it should yet, so, extremely unfortunately, the staff cannot efficiently split the workload yet.

Hence, my 80 hour work weeks will have to continue for the time being, but I will inform you all when/if it starts to work properly.
 
Same. I thin keeping the tier names as they are is for the best. Just add a note on the Tiering System page that the size of a star isn't what makes it impressive.
 
Same as Matthew and Everlasting, but I'm curious, why were we using an incorrect number?
 
@Matthew

That could work, but what should we do about Dwarf Star level?

@SomebodyData

It seems like Wikipedia had inaccurate information, if I understood correctly.
 
I mean, it's just a name. The title doesn't mean much. We don't really have to change them, because the values and the borders are what matter.
 
@SomebodyData

No problem.

@The real cal howard

That is true, but we still have to base the borders on GBE values for real celestial bodies.

Also, as Matthew said, a footnote will be necessary to avoid misunderstandings.
 
Why not do the same naming trick as with Universe level and Universe level+? So it'd be Star level and Star level+? Not sure about Dwarf Star level though.

I mean, if everyone is ok with not renaming them then that's good too, but it's just a suggestion. I personally like Matt's footnote suggestion, however I fear that will still confuse people.

More importantly, maybe in the future we should really do further background checks on information from Wikipedia. While it is still a reliable source in my personal opinion it too won't always be 100% accurate.
 
@Arb. I agree.

@Sera The issue with that is we usually use the "+" sign for high end calculated feats (I.E. 1.9 Yottatons being Planet level+), which would make it inconsistent. We can make an exception for Low 2-C since it's a tier you can't calculate with conventional math.
 
We use the + sign for characters with a calculation that places them in the upper half of a tier.

I have personal bad experiences with Wikipedia being systematically used for misleading political propaganda, but the science articles tend to be far more reliable.
 
As corny as it may sound, I still think High star level is the best option, since it can cause the least amount of confusion with new members.
 
Well, it may make people scratch their heads over why Large star is lesser than Small Star.
 
Large Stars can be destroyed with Small Star level attacks.
 
Anyway, some off-topic good news for me and the wiki. Bert Hall managed to get the edit monitoring script to work properly. However, I have already worked 12 hours in a row today, so I am too tired to create an instruction thread yet. Sorry.
 
Given the uncertainty regarding this issue, I still think that we need help from DontTalk before we do anything drastic.
 
I have also informed Kavpeny, but he can take weeks to reply at times.
 
Thanks. It's best to wait for them. Btw, that's good to hear about the edit monitoring script working now.
 
Value listed is still unsourced no matter how you look at it. We absolutely will not use Wikipedia citations that blatantly go against everything else.

The book itself doesn't say anything about GBE.

I hope DontTalk doesn't respond to this thread with his "you're not bringing anything new to the table" antic and leaves it at that; because that is what he did on the blog.

Excuse me for the tone, I'm just frustrated due to personal problems right now.
 
@Sera

Thank you. If most of the administrators and content moderators are willing to help out, we should be able to drastically reduce our tendency to all do parts of the same monitoring workload over and over.

@Kepekley23

Don't judge DontTalk so quickly. He genuinely is a highly skilled mathematician, and has written much within our instruction pages. This wiki would not have worked nearly as well without him putting down several of the foundations.
 
I'm not judging DontTalk nor do I intend to, but being wrong is still being wrong. I just wish he fleshed up his responses more.
 
That said, I won't post right now. I'm very frustrated with personal stuffand my self-control is diminishing greatly. I think I need a few hours off.
 
Okay. No problem. I hope that things will work out.
 
I responded to the reply to my blog and linked this thread. This viral theory looks... unusual, to say the least. It seems like it is dealing with kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, rather than GBE, so I don't know how valid it is.

Still hard to believe a star like UY Scuti, which is less dense than our atmosphere by thousands of times, would be anything but fragile.
 
I think I can start checking the Tier 4 pages and see what profiles will need to be changed. It will take a while, but it is doable.
 
First we need to determine how to redefine the border. We cannot rush into things like this. Previous wiki revisions have usually taken months to plan before we start to apply them, in order to make sure that no mistakes are made. As such, I think that we should postpone this until DontTalk and Kavpeny have the time to respond.
 
I am pretty busy the next few weeks, so I can not give this a lot of time or attention currently.


If we say that due to the wikipedia values source not making sense we stop using that value and use another one, we will have quite a bit of revision to do.

So basically lets redo the last revision of those values.


First point is what we use for the suns GBE.

We can of course simply take the usual GBE formula for approximately uniform density and hit the sun with it.

Would be close enough for me, but then someone like blademan9999 might come around and correctly note that the sun has no uniform density and hence the GBE is actually higher.

If we want a value that accounts for non-uniform depth we would first need a formula relating the suns depth with its local density (This one maybe? Not sure how good I would evaluate the source and the approxiamtion is also only close) and then some math (modifying the derivation for a sphere with constant density from here should work). If someone wants to go with this method I would advocate running it past someone with greater knowledge to check. Maybe posting it in a physics or astronomy forum and asking it to be checked.

Then again for any star except the sun we are reliant on the approximation with uniform density either way, given that we won't get sufficient details to use a non-uniform approximation.
 
If we say that due to the wikipedia values source not making sense we stop using that value and use another one, we will have quite a bit of revision to do.

This would be valid, if said source actually said anything about the GBE to begin with. Plus, Wikipedia lists the formula used to calculate the Sun's GBE on their source, and several redos using that formula have failed to obtain anything close to the result.

This is just a case of Wikipedia being unreliable.

That said, I think we should wait for Assaltwaffle to catch wind of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Epyriel
Tier 5 Revision
2 3 4
Replies
125
Views
11K
Epyriel
Epyriel
Finiznot
  • Locked
Tier 10-B to 9-B Gap Revision
Replies
20
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Why can't characters be assigned a 5-C tier without calculations?
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
DBS: Destruction of Planet Vegeta, Frieza Upgrade
2 3 4
Replies
132
Views
8K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Back
Top