FANDOM


About High 2-A

I kind of feel like this tier section on this should be elaborated a bit more by adding something along the lines of "Characters who are 5-dimensional...." before the part we currently have for it. Just my thought on this. CrossverseCrisis (talk) 08:24, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. I also inserted "...of a not insignificant size" at the end, since, as far as I understand, an infinite number of 4-dimensional universes can usually be fit into an unfathomably small 5-dimensional structure. Antvasima (talk) 11:46, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. I just figured since we've now currently established that High 2-A is for those who are above 4-D but under 6-D that we could maybe add that one bit there... CrossverseCrisis (talk) 19:04, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

High 3-A scale

So if a character warps space-time on a galactic scale, for example, would that be enough to qualify for the tier. What about if someone only manipulated that power on a planetary to i guess that range to all the way to the sun? CrossverseCrisis (talk) 04:38, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

I think that they either have to be 4-Dimensional themselves, or have been shown as qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional scale in order to qualify, according to when I asked DarkLK about it. We generally rate by the size of their created or destroyed pocket realities othervise. However, it is probably best to ask DarkLK about where The Flood rate? -- Antvasima (talk) 12:09, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

He has now replied that they are more likely 3-C with hax. -- Antvasima (talk) 12:25, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about this talk page. I asked DarkLK a similar question and, for future reference, destroying the time-space of a galaxy should be viewed as hax. Destroying the time-space of multiple galxies is High Universal.User:TheMightyRegulator (talk) 12:50, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I think that a character either has to be 4-Dimensional in combination, or show qualitative superiority to 3-Dimensional space in order to qualify. Othervise it is considered as hax. You can check the description that I wrote while checking with DarkLK, and he found it acceptable, as far as I remember. -- Antvasima (talk) 12:58, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

1-A Clarification

After the recent debate over the statistics of Dies Irae, should it be noted that a verse does not necessarily need to have infinite dimensions in order to possess 1-A characters (As is the case with both Dies Irae and Tenchi Muyo)? The Everlasting (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Now I haven't followed the discussion about that, so could you summon up for me how a verse should demonstrate 1-A feats without having an infinite hireachie that characters can transcend? DontTalk (talk) 18:51, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Transcending the concepts of time and space come to mind. The Everlasting (talk) 18:52, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that bad reasoning? I mean if there is an infinite hierachy of spactime (aka infinite dimensions) that it is one thing. But lets say a verse has only 5 dimensions, in that case transcending the concept of space and time is only equivalent to what a 6 dimensional character does. In other words concepts are bound to scale as well. Being able to manipulate all logic, math, causality, concepts and reality in general on universal scale shouldn't imply the ability to influence those on multiversial scale for example. I mean arceus is beyond space and time (even in concept) as well for example, as he created those (in form of dialga and palkia). DontTalk (talk) 19:05, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not how the system that DarkLK designed works. A character simply has to be beyond the concepts of time and space to qualify for the 1-A category.

By the above logic, even characters that transcend infinite-dimensional space would simply be of a higher degree of infinite-dimensional space.

However, it might be best to ask DarkLK for more information. Antvasima (talk) 19:18, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

DarkLK replied that there are two options in order to qualify for 1-A:

1) There must be a qualitative superiority over infinite dimensions.

2) The superiority over the concept of dimensions (in general) should be clearly explained. Antvasima (talk) 20:05, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted the above text into the 1-A tier explanation. Antvasima (talk) 04:55, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Insects and Microscopic Creatures

What tier are insects and microscopic creatures?  Let's say I decide to make a page for Osmosis Jones.  What tier would I list him as? 

I'm not sure if a cockaroach should be in tier 11A or 10C.  If its in 10C, then 10C is an extremely broad category.  Perhaps too broad.  But, I'm not sure if 11A is a good fit either.  It seems logical to me that any 3 dimensional being could defeat a 2 dimensional being.

Maybe you could argue that a cockaroach is too small to be a threat to a human sized 2 dimensional being.  So, since neither being can harm each other, the result is a draw.  Thus, they should be in the same category. 

I don't know, I'm just thinking out load.  What do others think? Chtri001 (talk) 20:16, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

It's 10-C, like all insects and similar. (Aside from that you should sign your post using ~~~~) DontTalk (talk) 19:02, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

We discussed the possibility of a tier for Microbes - Small Animals before but agreed it be to much work for to little pay off, so now we just lump them up 10-C. Tier 11 is strictly for lower dimensional entities, not jut really, really weak things. --Darkanine (Message Wall/Contributions)FE13 Owain Myrmidon Map Sprite 19:29, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

Weapons

Can the power of the weapons a character possesses affect their tier?Sppople (talk) 17:38, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if it is a part of their standard equipment. Antvasima (talk) 04:27, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

5-C and Low 5-B

I think the Low 5-B tier (small planet level) is redundant because the moons Ganymede and Titan are larger than the planet Mercury. So any characters listed as "Low 5-B" should just be 5-C.

ShadowWarrior1999 (talk) 21:01, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are not going to revise the tiering system in this manner. It is unnecessary, and takes a considerable amount of work. Antvasima (talk) 05:55, April 17, 2018 (UTC)