- 6,594
- 1,708
I was thinking something like "impossiverse" Came up with the idea when thinking of universes that shouldn't be capable of existing.
-
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.
Regarding the name "Outerverse level"
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- 8,296
- 1,687
... Right. Nevermind... I wish i could though... But it would take too long .
- 4,175
- 1,428
@Ougurtsow
I see. I suppose that could work.
I see. I suppose that could work.
- 8,296
- 1,687
As long as the consensus agrees, i'm willing to back up any option. Open-mindedness in my personal opinion is key for this topic.
- 10,394
- 3,348
I honestly prefer Extraverse/Extraversal. It fits with our names (That is, having -verse as the suffix) and fits with what 1-A means.
And I swear to God if someone denies it because "extradimensional is used to describe a lot of things"...
And I swear to God if someone denies it because "extradimensional is used to describe a lot of things"...
- 3,706
- 315
The reason for the proposal of the change was because Outerverse level didn't make sense because of the -verse suffix being at the end of it. I think hyperdimensional is better, seeing as most uses of it in-context are referring to the characters being "beyond higher dimensions".
- 15,332
- 7,563
I think Extraversal for 1-A, and Transcendent/Transcendental for High 1-As is fine.
- 10,394
- 3,348
Transcendental can be used to describe way too many things and already conflicts with 1-A's name.
"High Extraverse" or "Extraverse level+" is fine.
"High Extraverse" or "Extraverse level+" is fine.
- 6,594
- 1,708
The whole issue tmk is that Outerverse has the word "verse" in it. But the issue there is the fact that being a "verse" or "realm" doesn't disprove an outerverse. An outerverse is still a universe, it just happens to be adimensional.
- 10,873
- 12,277
Honestly, in my opinion it really doesn't matter what we call it as long as we define what we mean with it (which we do).
In my opinion it just isn't worth the effort.
In my opinion it just isn't worth the effort.
- 8,296
- 1,687
I agree with keeping Tier 0 the way it is though.
- 3,706
- 315
Well, I proposed to change it to Objective Infinity so that High 1-A could be Subjective Infinity.
- 167,679
- 76,256
This thread is turning into completely out of control chaos, as I expected it to when kept open for non-staff members.
I will move it to the staff forum. Others should only reply if they have a very good suggestion for a name.
I still think that Outerverse is fine, as the entire point of selecting it is that it is a name that isn't used for anything else, and as such can mean whatever we want to define it as.
As noted earlier, it also references the nature of the outer gods, and being outside and beyond all "verse" constructs.
But if that doesn't work, I suppose that "Dimensionless" is better than nothing, as the term won't be confused with something else.
I also do not particularly mind if we rename "True Infinity" to "Absolute Infinity", as I think that Ryukama suggested, but it doesn't flow quite as well to me.
I will move it to the staff forum. Others should only reply if they have a very good suggestion for a name.
I still think that Outerverse is fine, as the entire point of selecting it is that it is a name that isn't used for anything else, and as such can mean whatever we want to define it as.
As noted earlier, it also references the nature of the outer gods, and being outside and beyond all "verse" constructs.
But if that doesn't work, I suppose that "Dimensionless" is better than nothing, as the term won't be confused with something else.
I also do not particularly mind if we rename "True Infinity" to "Absolute Infinity", as I think that Ryukama suggested, but it doesn't flow quite as well to me.
- 3,706
- 315
You have a point. Well, 2-C should be Low Multiverse level, 1-A should be Hyperdimensional, and High 1-A should be either Hyperdimensional+ or something new entirely.
Either that, or Outerverse level is just fine, and High 1-A either stays the same or gets changed to Outerverse level+.
Either that, or Outerverse level is just fine, and High 1-A either stays the same or gets changed to Outerverse level+.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I disagree with changing anything (other than Multi-Universal) to begin with. I'll make a post detailing why I believe we should keep Outerverse and be done with it..
- 15,332
- 7,563
I agree with changing 2-C to Low Multiverse level. However, I agree with Ant, DarkLK and Sera that 1-A should be kept as Outerverse level, and I'll make a case for it.
- 6,104
- 5,106
Hyperdimensional/Superdimensional cannot be used, it's the same thing as "Higher-Dimensional".
Like Ever said, we aren't using "Dense Star level" now are we? No. Accurate =/= better. Multi-Universe however, is contradictory. As even two universes is a small multiverse. Low Multiverse works fine.
I used to agree with this, but after seeing how tedious it got, it's best to leave 1-A alone. High Outerverse can stay too, I suppose. Only thing that needs attention is 2-C.
Like Ever said, we aren't using "Dense Star level" now are we? No. Accurate =/= better. Multi-Universe however, is contradictory. As even two universes is a small multiverse. Low Multiverse works fine.
I used to agree with this, but after seeing how tedious it got, it's best to leave 1-A alone. High Outerverse can stay too, I suppose. Only thing that needs attention is 2-C.
- 167,679
- 76,256
Yes, the last selection thread also turned into a mess until DarkLK finally came up with the Outerverse name, which was not used for anything else, gave a general idea of what was intended, and could not be misunderstood.
I am fine with revising the 2-C Multi-Universe title though. That one genuinely is inappropriate.
I am fine with revising the 2-C Multi-Universe title though. That one genuinely is inappropriate.
- 11,531
- 8,017
Just a reminder these are just my opinions and suggestions. I'm perfectly fine with everyone feeling otherwise.
1. Change Multi-Universe level to Low Multiverse
2. Change Outerverse to Transcendent, Boundless, Dimensionless or Hyperdimensional (I personally like the last two the best)
3. I like Absolute Infinity since that's the name ofa mathematical and philosophical concept of an infinity that cannot be matched or surpassed by any quantity, infinite or transfinite. As it is the nature of God. Of course there is nothing at all wrong with True Infinity and that can stay.
1. Change Multi-Universe level to Low Multiverse
2. Change Outerverse to Transcendent, Boundless, Dimensionless or Hyperdimensional (I personally like the last two the best)
3. I like Absolute Infinity since that's the name ofa mathematical and philosophical concept of an infinity that cannot be matched or surpassed by any quantity, infinite or transfinite. As it is the nature of God. Of course there is nothing at all wrong with True Infinity and that can stay.
- 9,253
- 2,731
ALso, can we talk about the names of tier 2-A and High 2-A?
If 3-A is "Universal" and 2-B is "Multiversal", then since tier High 3-A is "High Universal" and Tier Low 2-C is "Universal +", then shouldn't tier 2-A be "High Multiversal", and tier High 2-A be "Multiversal +"?
Just a minor nitpick
If 3-A is "Universal" and 2-B is "Multiversal", then since tier High 3-A is "High Universal" and Tier Low 2-C is "Universal +", then shouldn't tier 2-A be "High Multiversal", and tier High 2-A be "Multiversal +"?
Just a minor nitpick
- 167,679
- 76,256
Transcendent is a far too limited description for something of this scale, Boundless is already used to refer to tier 0 in the tiering system page, and hyperdimensional simply means higher-dimensional, so I am afraid that all of them are illogical options.
Dimensionless could technically work, but sounds more like 11-C than 1-A.
Dimensionless could technically work, but sounds more like 11-C than 1-A.
- 15,332
- 7,563
@DMB 1
Our tiering system does not need to follow set patterns, and it would take several days to change all of the necessary pages. This would also distract our staff from more important tasks such as revisions for popular verses or the Tier 4 revisions.
Essentially dividing the little time we have to fix a nitpick that causes no problems or confusions is something I'm 100% against.
Our tiering system does not need to follow set patterns, and it would take several days to change all of the necessary pages. This would also distract our staff from more important tasks such as revisions for popular verses or the Tier 4 revisions.
Essentially dividing the little time we have to fix a nitpick that causes no problems or confusions is something I'm 100% against.
- 6,594
- 1,708
What about "True Multiverse Level?" No seriously! Technically Outerverses can be included in a multiverse depending on the structure of said multiverse. The highest structured Multiverses have infinite possibilities and impossibilities. This would naturally include undimensional ones too. A great example of this is tbe Type IV Multiverse.
Yet usually a multiverse is just infinite universes. Idk why, but for some reason "True Multiversal" just has this ring to it. It sorta sounds right.
"EDIT" Whoops. I did not notice the Ants comment about moving this to staff. My bad.
Yet usually a multiverse is just infinite universes. Idk why, but for some reason "True Multiversal" just has this ring to it. It sorta sounds right.
"EDIT" Whoops. I did not notice the Ants comment about moving this to staff. My bad.
- 11,531
- 8,017
1-A can also be described as "boundless". It's not really something that has to be exclusive to Tier 0. I agree with hyperdimensional after looking up its official definition. Dimensionless I still see as fine.
Either way I don't want use to just take a word, add "verse" to it and act like it's a real thing. I think our Tiering System should be a bit more sophisticated than that. And what's the point of always bashing stuff like "Megaverse", "Omniverse", "Superverse", etc. if we're going to essentially do the same thing?
Either way I don't want use to just take a word, add "verse" to it and act like it's a real thing. I think our Tiering System should be a bit more sophisticated than that. And what's the point of always bashing stuff like "Megaverse", "Omniverse", "Superverse", etc. if we're going to essentially do the same thing?
- 167,679
- 76,256
@DMB
Possibly. Or High Universe level and Universe level+ could switch places with the same logic, but as DontTalk mentioned, I don't think that it is really worth the effort, now that all our members have grown used to the current system.
Possibly. Or High Universe level and Universe level+ could switch places with the same logic, but as DontTalk mentioned, I don't think that it is really worth the effort, now that all our members have grown used to the current system.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I personally believe the "what's the point of bashing X if we're going to do Y" argument does not follow & will address it as soon as I can.
- 6,104
- 5,106
@Ryukama
I love Hyperdimensional, but the problem is the definition for Hyperdimensional is anything above 3-dimensional. I fear it would only cause contradictions.
Beyond Dimensional sounds better for 1-A as Dimensionless is 11-C.
Attack Potency: Beyond Dimensional
Doesn't look too bad at all.
I love Hyperdimensional, but the problem is the definition for Hyperdimensional is anything above 3-dimensional. I fear it would only cause contradictions.
Beyond Dimensional sounds better for 1-A as Dimensionless is 11-C.
Attack Potency: Beyond Dimensional
Doesn't look too bad at all.
Similar threads
