-
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
- 8,438
- 3,293
Also guys, we will have to adjust range as well, since we have Multi-Universal range.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Cross-Universal.
- 4,175
- 1,428
- 167,679
- 76,256
We do not bash megaverse or omniverse because of the names themselves. We disagree with the former because the scale is undefined and essentially just means a larger type of multiverse, whereas omniverse has no set definition, and the original is very exaggerated.
Again, the entire point of selecting the Outerverse name is that it does not mean anything else than what we define it as, in order to avoid confusion, and in combination gets the point of what is intended across, i.e. something similar to the nature of the Outer Gods, and beyond and outside all "verse" constructs of time and space.
Again, the entire point of selecting the Outerverse name is that it does not mean anything else than what we define it as, in order to avoid confusion, and in combination gets the point of what is intended across, i.e. something similar to the nature of the Outer Gods, and beyond and outside all "verse" constructs of time and space.
- 167,679
- 76,256
I also agree with DontTalk. Rushing into change for the sake of change, with no better available alternatives, is just lots of unnecessary work for the sake of a net loss rather than a profit.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Whenever changes like this were brought up in the past, they were denied on the basis that names do not need to be 100% accurate. For example, in the Tier 4 revisions, we denied changing the name of tier High 4-C from Large Star level to Dense Star level. Not only because it isn't as appealing as the former suggestion, but because it is a nitpick. So, the argument and the acceptance of it contradicts how we usually do things around here to begin with.
- 167,679
- 76,256
I would also prefer if we close this thread, and start a new one for 2-C.
@Kepekley23
Actually, we have generally tried to select names that illustrate what is intended reasonably well.
I personally do not mind Dense Star level, but we preferably need a system of thematically connected similar titles for High 5-A and Low 4-C as well, and sometimes we simply get used to a previous name.
@Kepekley23
Actually, we have generally tried to select names that illustrate what is intended reasonably well.
I personally do not mind Dense Star level, but we preferably need a system of thematically connected similar titles for High 5-A and Low 4-C as well, and sometimes we simply get used to a previous name.
- 11,531
- 8,017
Both the names, their obscurity and the fact that they have no concrete meaning are all reasons I've heard as well for not using them.
"Again, the entire point of selecting the Outerverse name is that it does not mean anything else than what we define it as"
And that's why I don't like it. Because it's not an actual thing that any form of reality, science, philosophy or work of fiction has. It's something we entirely made up. And through gracelessly taking a word and adding "verse" to it. I don't like applying what's essentially our fan fiction into a system that's meant to be more factual than that.
Everything else we assign levels to such as planets, galaxies, universes, multiverse, etc. are all actual things. I don't like breaking that mold with outerverse.
Of course changing the name isn't necessary or of urgent importance. However "we don't have to" should never be an excuse to not want to improve. I and many others think that it's an inferior name and that it'd be better if we changed it to something else. Also the changing of hyperverse of outerverse was a revision that was done extremely quickly.
Now if the majority agrees that outerverse is the best option to use (Not just "We don't have to change so let's not" or "It sucks but I got nothing better") then I am perfectly fine with that. I am simply expressing my and many other peoples' opinion on the manner.
"Again, the entire point of selecting the Outerverse name is that it does not mean anything else than what we define it as"
And that's why I don't like it. Because it's not an actual thing that any form of reality, science, philosophy or work of fiction has. It's something we entirely made up. And through gracelessly taking a word and adding "verse" to it. I don't like applying what's essentially our fan fiction into a system that's meant to be more factual than that.
Everything else we assign levels to such as planets, galaxies, universes, multiverse, etc. are all actual things. I don't like breaking that mold with outerverse.
Of course changing the name isn't necessary or of urgent importance. However "we don't have to" should never be an excuse to not want to improve. I and many others think that it's an inferior name and that it'd be better if we changed it to something else. Also the changing of hyperverse of outerverse was a revision that was done extremely quickly.
Now if the majority agrees that outerverse is the best option to use (Not just "We don't have to change so let's not" or "It sucks but I got nothing better") then I am perfectly fine with that. I am simply expressing my and many other peoples' opinion on the manner.
- 11,531
- 8,017
I will drop this now. I just wanted to say those few final things before I do. Again whichever the majority agrees to be the best option I am completely fine with and willing to accept, regardless of my personal opinion on the manner.
- 6,104
- 5,106
@Ryu.
What about Hyperverse then? The same thing applies that it's a word entirely made up. Actually we didn't even coin Hyperverse. It existes as part of the Universe > Multiverse > Metaverse > Xenoverse > Hyperverse > Omniverse hierarchy dimension wikis use.
What about Hyperverse then? The same thing applies that it's a word entirely made up. Actually we didn't even coin Hyperverse. It existes as part of the Universe > Multiverse > Metaverse > Xenoverse > Hyperverse > Omniverse hierarchy dimension wikis use.
- 11,531
- 8,017
I still prefer something like my other examples than an entirely made up thing that's just a word + adding verse in the end. Again it's whichever most people want. We used to have Hyperverse and then changed it to Outerverse for some reason though.
- 12,648
- 2,421
- 15,332
- 7,563
Hyperverse is a real word, Sewa. Bad example.
- 15,332
- 7,563
- 15,332
- 7,563
They have sources for that, though.
- 995
- 229
The only problem with outerverse is it begs the question of what an 'innerverse' would be when you have one without the other.
If we are going to appropriate terms like 'hyperverse' to mean higher than that of a multiverse determined by string theory, then why does omniverse get the short end of the stick? When we've already gone far enough to coin some neologism to refer to above demensions then by all means make history and appropriate some other void/vague terms.
If we are going to appropriate terms like 'hyperverse' to mean higher than that of a multiverse determined by string theory, then why does omniverse get the short end of the stick? When we've already gone far enough to coin some neologism to refer to above demensions then by all means make history and appropriate some other void/vague terms.
- 1,280
- 1,123
^ "Innerverse" sounds just as dumb as "Outerverse", though that was probably your point.
Either way, I agree with the second part of your post.
Although, I don't know how we could possibly fit something like "Omniverse" into our system (not just tier-wise, but in general), given it's extremely inconsistent definition, which also was originally highly exaggerated like Ant said.
Either way, I agree with the second part of your post.
Although, I don't know how we could possibly fit something like "Omniverse" into our system (not just tier-wise, but in general), given it's extremely inconsistent definition, which also was originally highly exaggerated like Ant said.
- 167,679
- 76,256
Well, there is no handy previous term for what we need to define in this case, which is why I personally like Outerverse, but if other staff members are adamant about changing the term, the only suggestion so far that actually means what we intend is "Beyond Dimensional", which I suppose that I could live with.
I am firmly opposed to changing hyperverse however. The term may be our own construct, but hyper has a firm scientific background referring to higher-dimensional objects, so it very appropriately conveys the intended concept.
I am firmly opposed to changing hyperverse however. The term may be our own construct, but hyper has a firm scientific background referring to higher-dimensional objects, so it very appropriately conveys the intended concept.
- 16,606
- 1,791
I like Outerverse. Why change what isn't broken. But if we did have to, I guess Beyond Dimensional would be my choice.
The point of Outerverse is that beings of this level are pretty much beyond science and conventional math, so how would you use A scientific term to describe that which is beyond Science?
The point of Outerverse is that beings of this level are pretty much beyond science and conventional math, so how would you use A scientific term to describe that which is beyond Science?
- 167,679
- 76,256
Here is DarkLK's reply to another member regarding this issue:
"Guys. You create problems from nothing.
And yes, Outerverse is some kind of construct with a defined structure. Simply, this structure is not defined in dimensional terms, but there can be transcendental perspectives.
That's all I can say. You can disagree with this if you want."
"Guys. You create problems from nothing.
And yes, Outerverse is some kind of construct with a defined structure. Simply, this structure is not defined in dimensional terms, but there can be transcendental perspectives.
That's all I can say. You can disagree with this if you want."
- 19,151
- 6,446
I also agree.
- 11,531
- 8,017
With all due respect to DarkLK, while outerverse may be clearly defined, it is something he entirely made up. It's not a thing literally anywhere but this wiki. I'll always be opposed to having terms we ourselves created from thin air used in our tiering system. Especially a term as in my personal opinion silly sounding as adding "verse" to the word outer.
Again, just because it doesn't technically need to be changed, does not mean we shouldn't want the best for our site. I and many others agree outerverse is not the best term we could use. However whichever the majority consensus ultimately agrees upon I'm fine with.
Again, just because it doesn't technically need to be changed, does not mean we shouldn't want the best for our site. I and many others agree outerverse is not the best term we could use. However whichever the majority consensus ultimately agrees upon I'm fine with.
- 1,280
- 1,123
I'd argue that something like "Irrelevant" or "Inapplicable" may work, if explained properly.
High 1-A is probably a far bigger hurdle, however.
High 1-A is probably a far bigger hurdle, however.
- 11,531
- 8,017
I like it. I also don't think there's a problem with "Boundless" (it can accurately describe a character that is beyond all boundaries of dimensions, space, time, physics, math, concepts, etc. and the word doesn't have to be exclusive to something like a Tier 0) or "Dimensionless" (I think the 1-A rating and its description in the Attack Potecy section won't have people mistake it for 11-C).
EDIT: Though "Boundless+" kinda sounds stupid. Maybe Beyond Dimensional and Beyond Dimensional+?
EDIT: Though "Boundless+" kinda sounds stupid. Maybe Beyond Dimensional and Beyond Dimensional+?
- 167,679
- 76,256
I suppose that I am fine with "Beyond Dimensional" and either "High Beyond Dimensional" or "Beyond Dimensional+", if we absolutely have to change the name.
I am not sure about "Boundless", but suppose that we could describe tier 0 with "Questionable Omnipotence" in the Tiering System page instead.
I am not sure about "Boundless", but suppose that we could describe tier 0 with "Questionable Omnipotence" in the Tiering System page instead.
Similar threads
