Talk:Tiering System

Tiering System Revisions or Discussions.

For any discussions regarding the tiering system or profiles affected by this. GiverOfThePeace (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Creation Revisions

So let's talk about our current creation standards, shall we?

Now for the longest time the entire reason we allowed creation to be scalable to AP is under the idea of "Well if you create energy on that scale you'd logically need to withstand it or else your body would be vaporized." Most people that are anti creation feats pretty much never had a counter to this.

I today have found a very simple counter: This is a claim based off something objectively impossible irl.

So for those who don't know, you can't create energy from nothing, that breaks the first law conservation of energy:

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/first-law-conservation-of-energy/#:~:text=The%20conservation%20of%20energy%20is,is%20neither%20created%20nor%20destroyed.

The same applies to matter: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/conservation-matter-during-physical-and-chemical-changes/

I say this to say we're trying to apply a logistic on something objectively impossible. Creation from nothing is by definition reality warping.

So with this in mind, how do we treat creation feats?

Well I feel some creation feats can still be seen as viable, if it's directly noting energy is being used to create something and then you are being amplified by said energy then you logistically should scale in all stats.

Using SM64 as an example and assuming Power Stars were an on screen instataneous feat, Toad notes that Bowser used the "power of the stars" to create the painting worlds.

Mario is amplified by a power star with it being known the power of the stars make him stronger.

So in that case the scaling seems fine. Though I should note creation should not universally be treated the same, one example of creation working in a verse does not mean other examples would work.

Another thing to note is the assumption of creation = destruction, as a big issue with this is we would apply that universally but there are many verses that just do not follow that logic.

Using Mario again as an example, the current idea behind Dimentio is destroying the multiverse was overtime but he would recreate it instantly. In this case creation is very clearly superior to destruction and would not be assumed equivalent.

There are cases when they’re treated as equivalent, using Undertale as an example, Chara instantly recreates the timeline and instantly destroys it.

But basically this is to note that having creation equal destruction be universal across the board is wrong.

I feel like realistically also the only people that should really scale to a creation feat are:

• Contextually omnipotent crrator gods of a verse that created the universe, because they literally can do anything so to say they can't destroy the universe instantly would just be wrong.
• People that DIRECTLY note they're using their energy to do this

Otherwise you get whatever tier regularly, creation itself shouldn't even get a tier since you can't create energy from nothing, so you're not using energy to do it. GiverOfThePeace (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tiering System Changes

Tier 1 has been changed, after discussion with me and my peers we came to an issue, transcendence in its truest nature, would just be High 1-A. As the true religious definition of it applied to the likes of God who was unbound and transcendent of everything, mathematics, reality, space, etcetera. Along with this the standard transcendence system we have doesn't really necessarily prove the far higher tier we give them. To give an example, there's many times where people will talk about beings transcendent of space and time but never mention something like they have the energy to destroy the universe, because there's nothing really proving that, transcendent energy can't really be quantified because it's a philosophical concept and not scientific. So to say transcendence is a specific level of infinity, is essentially wrong. This is why it works better as High 1-A since the highest level of transcendence is considered the ultimate, omnipotent power in various religious context. So with this in mind transcendence that doesn't meet the High 1-A requirements (will explain that later), would not grant a tier unless there's some statement of them getting infinitely stronger or such. So how will tier 1 be treated now? Well that's where we introduce our good friend Georg Cantor and his levels of infinity: https://www.whitman.edu/mathematics/higher_math_online/section04.10.html#:~:text=Cantor's%20theorem%20implies%20that%20there,the%20set%20of%20all%20sets.

So as you could imagine, this will make 1-C and higher tiers REALLY hard to obtain and make them incredibly rare. GiverOfThePeace (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Character is stated to "Destroy X" feats

The basis for this falls under that statements based off a character "Destroying X" grants them a tier of that name, as an example: "destroy the world" or "he possesses the power to destroy the world" or "if you don't stop him, he will destroy the world" grants one 5-B. The issue with this however, deals with how the tiering system works and what these words mean in context. Under the tiering system each level is based off the instantaneous energy produced from the feat. Destroying a city overtime is not considered city level as an example. The other issue refers to wording. One having the ability to "destroy the world" as an example can mean a myriad of different things, it can be that one is going to life-wipe the world, ruin a good chunk of society, destroy the world from the perspective of the person saying it as it goes against their world view, etcetera. Due to this, there needs to be sufficient proof of the statement implying instantaneous. The usual example that is fine to use is something noting they would "blow up" an object as this implies instantaneous. Another example is if while a character says they will destroy said object, it shows a hypothetical of what they would have done or a flashback to what they've done with this statement in mind in the past. Each feat should be analyzed case by case. GiverOfThePeace (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)