• 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 Low 1-B removal?

So should we let the tiers remain as they are then?
 
@Crzer and @Luka Thanks for mentioning this suggestion here from one of my responses I bought up on an earlier thread.
 
Sera said String theory encompasses 8, 10, 11, 12, 26 or 32D, depending on the source. Hence, High 1-C should get up to at least 26-D because if 1-C is Sting multiverses, that would be the most feasible solution rather than Low 1-B.
 
What does Sera think should constitute Low 1-C, 1-C, and High 1-C respectively?
 
Nope. Low 1-B should just be outright removed as originally suggested. 12D should just be baseline 1-B. Low 1-C is fine. There's far more 6D cosmologies than 12D ones.

@Pritti

Nah what she said was if we don't treat dimensions as string theory does, than string theory shouldn't grant a tier. I obviously agree.
 
The amount of characters shouldn't matter and I disagree with Low 1-B being removed. The idea is that it encompasses real life theoretical spatial dimensions, yes? That sets it apart from the rest of 1-B tiers.
 
String theory can be 12D, depending on the source/version. Either we merge it to High 1-C or 1-B.

I think there's an overeliance on physics for higher tiers. It's also speculatory and not objective like the lower tiers.

There's also the issue of claiming the tier system is based on size yet we treat time as the fourth dimension. Time is not a spatial dimension, therefore it is not equivocal to the notion of being a larger geometric size than 3D. The 4D geometric concept is hypervolume, not time.
 
There's also the issue that dimensions under string theory do not operate identical to the geometric concepts we use.
 
I try as much as possible not to bother with higher dimensional things, but if they inherently don't share the same properties as other geometric dimensions then yeah, nuke the tier and merge it with a connecting tier.
 
Well, I don't mind making the tiering system more logical, but we must create a good workable plan for doing so. I don't think that suddenly rushing into things with merging 3-A to Low 2-C seems like a good idea without a thorough discussion regarding all of the consequences.
 
Yeah, 3-A and Low 2-C are way different despite the lack of fictional stories that do make said distinctions. And as for the 1-C and 1-B with their "Low" and "High" ratings; I do feel like the discussion kind of got all over the place. I'm still somewhat neutral regarding how we should change Low 1-B; if we should expand it or remove it while merging it with 1-B, I'm still neutral either way.

But I agree with the points about having very few characters in tier being a very faulty reasoning for removing said Tier. 11-C and 11-B have much fewer, but those are pretty basic fundamentals for explaining the tiering system. Also, I'm pretty sure the "dimensional tiering" stuff were discussed countless times. I think I'm overall leaning towards not changing anything regarding our tiering system though.
 
No one said merge 3-A to Low 2-C, if anything it's the Dimensional Tiering page that contradicts the fact that we use 4D for time. The issue is an overeliance on physics when we should just keep things simple and relative to fiction.
 
Literally never talked about that.

Just said dimensional stuff is stuff I try not to mess with.
 
Yeah, I agree with that part, it's just a few other users kind of derailed the thread; Andy sort of implied it, and Antvasima brought up the Universal stuff. Keep the focus on Low 1-B as a whole, which I said I was neutral regarding the merging to 1-B, High 1-C, or keeping it. But those are the three options.
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
Yeah. Y'all talking about the removal of the dimensional tiering when the point was that Low 1-B's silly and pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes. That was the intention.
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
Yeah. Y'all talking about the removal of the dimensional tiering when the point was that Low 1-B's silly and pointless.
Click to expand...
No. Pritti mentioned that as a passing mention as it was related to her point of VSBW's overeliance on being as scientifically accurate as possible. No one said remove dimensional tiering.
 
Well, in any case it is probably best if we return to the original topic.
 
I think Low 1-Bs should be removed, lets just do what people have suggested (merge it with High 1-C or 1-B)
 
Merging it with 1-B seems more practical in that case.

I would prefer input from Ryukama and Azathoth first though.
 
CinnabarManx421 said:
Well, I still think it seems weird to have certain tiers with Lows and Highs while others don't, but okay.
Click to expand...
Some need them, others don't. I mean 10-B doesn't have any sub tiers, neither does 9-A.
 
May I point out something? If we're gonna remove Low 1-B, we might as well remove Tier 11 as a whole as it applies to so few characters to have individual subdivisions for each dimensions when we don't have subdivisions for the dimensions above our own multiverse's. We could just have some "Low 10-C" for characters which are lower-dimensional. Or maybe call it Tier 11 just like we call Tier 0.

Pritti said:
No one said merge 3-A to Low 2-C, if anything it's the Dimensional Tiering page that contradicts the fact that we use 4D for time. The issue is an overeliance on physics when we should just keep things simple and relative to fiction.
Click to expand...
Also, how did this last phrase just seem to ring so well with my heart? Not so much about this wiki, but our copycat wiki "Verbose Indexing Wiki" just seems to have exactly this problem with relying on physics rather than using it as a tool for the investigation it's trying to run.
 
That's not really why low 1-B is removed, and even as is tier 11 exists more to demonstrate the idea of lower dimensional characters.
 
Why not call 1-C all higher dimensions that are expressed by some String Theory? I.e some coherent model of our multiverse might dictate this to be the number of existing dimensions in reality so this could be a... realistic multiverse level.

Low 1-C = 6 or 7 dimensions (None of them, really, but the intermediary between this and High 2-A. May also merge this with High 2-A so as to have a tier for higher than 4 dimensions which aren't yet complex multiverse level. Such as a... pre-complex multiverse level, here)

1-C = 8~32 Dimensions

1-B = 33 and onwards

High 1-B = infinite

1-A = beyond dimensions

0 = High Outerversal, as it's now
 
Yeah I'd rather just merge Low 1-B if we have to commit more tampering with the Tiering system and leave the rest of it as is.
 
If we do not want the system to rely on real life science then might as well scrap Low-High 1-C and replace with any arbitrary dimensions because complex multiversal is already based on the most widely accepted version of String Theory, and given that it's been stated dimensions in string theory does not work the same as geometrical ones, despite that the tiering system is giving homage to it with its Low-High 1-C. Then again that could all be mitigated by merging Low 1-B into High 1-C. Then again it also wouldn't hurt if Low 1-B was increased up to an arbitrary number of dimensions like how 2-C is arbitrarily up to "1000 universes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Rakih_Elyan
  • Locked
Dealing with dimension, once and for all.
Replies
7
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards
4 5 6
Replies
208
Views
22K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Epyriel
Tier 5 Revision
2 3
Replies
104
Views
8K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
20
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top