Tiering System Revisions

[Antvasima]

@Crabwhale

We still have roughly 100 posts left.

 

[Crabwhale]

I know, just reminding everyone.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

@Nepuko

Vote for Option 2

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Putting dimensional characters and non-dimensional in different tiers shouldn't be as important as making the tiers not overcompressed. Also, no one was quite advocating that.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, maybe option 4 could be modified to take this distinction into account?

 

[Nepuko]

Are we really going to modify/add options again....? *shivers*

@Apex Ok.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Just do this:

Low 1-A - Baseline Outerversal to infinite levels above.

Examples: Most currently 1-A characters

1-A - Characters above Outerversal hierarchies

Examples: High End 1-As and some of the "weaker" current Tier 0s

Tier 0 - Above 1-A to the same extent that 1-A is above LOW 1-A

Examples: big Bois like Azathoty, Amaranth, The Creator and The Writer

Alternatively if you want to name it just 1-A, High 1-A and 0. That's fine.

High 1-B and below like in Aeyu's list.

 

[Jockey-1337]

Personally I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal levels" and "above outerversal hierarchies". The second thing sounds too suggsversal.

 

[Jockey-1337]

Examples: big Bois like Azathoty, Amaranth, The Creator and The Writer

I wonder how is it possible to find out which bois of this level are strong and which are not?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't even know why I have to write up a message this big over this but, whatever.

Okay, so, to adress Ant's concerns, I am proposing a tier to account for uncountably infinite dimensions / higher spaces because it'd act as the bridge between 1-A and literally everything below it: It would fill in the massive gap between ratings and give the tier some semblance of uniformity which it completely lacks as of now, literally High 1-B and 1-A have no borders or thresholds, and we claim we can have no idea of where the former and the latter starts, but we actually can: For reasons I've already addressed to DontTalk in my response to his post in the last thread, which you can see up above.

I just do not see why we have to treat 1-A as this sacred, glorified tier with no borders or limitations just because "it is metaphysical", when we can set limits and boundaries to it just like any other tier in the system.

By the way, Ant, I've already expressed that, since the new system emphasizes the fact Tiering is pretty much the scope of the area which one can affect, not every character lower than Outerverse level necessarily needs to be constrained by either space or time, as existing in "beyond dimensional" states doesn't actually mean much in it (not by itself anyways) and is just quantified based on how far "dimensionality" extends in a given character's verse of origin. You can have beyond-dimensional characters at 1-C or literally any tier higher than Tier 3 in it, it is completely arbitrary.

Now, what the new (primary, keep that in mind) definition of the tier proposes, is that we just rank it as some abstract state of being which dwarfs infinitely-layered structures, such that no extension applied to them can actually reach "Outerversal" characters or whatever. This is different from the tier for uncountably infinite higher-whatever which comes just before it, because it denotes characters who qualify for the "can't reach it by stacking infinities" just because they are big, as opposed to them possessing some fundamental, qualitative superiority over the stuff they exceed (like in cases where characters perceive infinitely-layered stuff as fiction or as some similarly insignficant thing)

I hope this definition isn't too contrived, because as some of you have seen, I am sort of clumsy when it comes to phrasing things up, but nevetheless: I don't at all see what is the problem with this, since it keeps the spirit of the original rating intact, makes it more straightforward, fixes some minor inconsistencies and keeps most of the characters in their respective tiers, since "transcending all possible forms of space and time" (coupled with proper context) is still Outerversal, in the new thing, and so is transcending infinite hierarchies or infinite-dimensional spaces.

As for Matthew's suggestions: Once again I am neutral regarding this stuff, don't really care about which options we choose, and to be honest what he suggested is literally just Option 2.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Also for god's sake people grow up, no one should give a damn about whether some tier is "lmao too suggsversy" or not. All things considered, Lionel is less than irrevant here and his works are pretty tame, as well.

 

[Dvorak1902]

Personally I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal levels" and "above outerversal hierarchies". The second thing sounds too suggsversal.

It's the same as (Present day's) High 1-B to 1-A. Maybe it's suggsversal but it's not something extremely complex.

 

[Antvasima]

Just do this:

Low 1-A - Baseline Outerversal to infinite levels above.

Examples: Most currently 1-A characters

1-A - Characters above Outerversal hierarchies

Examples: High End 1-As and some of the "weaker" current Tier 0s

Tier 0 - Above 1-A to the same extent that 1-A is above LOW 1-A

Examples: big Bois like Azathoth, Amaranth, The Creator and The Writer

Alternatively if you want to name it just 1-A, High 1-A and 0. That's fine.

High 1-B and below like in Aeyu's list.

If Low 1-A can incorporate an infinite number of reality-fiction difference hierarchies, wouldn't The Writer and The Amaranth be stuck near the bottom?

Anyway, I prefer to change Low 1-A to baseline Outerversal up to any number of finite levels of transcendence above, and keep infinite Outerversal hierarchies or transcending them altogether as 1-A.

As such, I am also uncertain if a High 1-A is necessary.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

With that, I meant your verse doesn't really have to be a layered cosmology for you to reach a higher tier, you can perfectly achieve them by being sufficiently far removed from lower beings in sheer power (sorta like the Hadou/Gudou Gods, although I don't mind being corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me), or through some really specific descriptions of power. It's pretty much like how your verse doesn't need to have infinite dimensions for you to be 1-A in the current system, although I am aware such cases are rare.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima

I am just concerned that, as Sera mentioned previously, we would be in danger of breaking the system rather than build upon and fortify it, and as such very much would like to keep the new equivalents of High 1-B and 1-A separate from each other, without any muddled area in-between.

 

[Nepuko]

This message isn't sent to anyone in particular. Just in case I get misunderstood ;-;

All of this is still basically Option 2 vs 3.

At this point, I'm sure everyone's starting to get tired of this (at least a bit), so please can we just....stop debating the small details, and just move on? It's pretty much Option 3 vs Option 2 now, and as far as I know the current opinions for each option are now purely subjective, so just....... just do either 2 or 3 guys. I believe all question marks are normally answered by now, and since 3 got the most votes, for at least the sake of fairness just do 3 and move on.

Or else this will go on Ad Infinimum. "I don't like this", "well I don't like what you like but I like what you don't like", "I don't like what both of you like and you both don't like what I do", etc etc....

Please.

 

[Nepuko]

@Ultima
I am just concerned that, as Sera mentioned previously, we would be in danger of breaking the system rather than build upon and fortify it, and as such very much would like to keep the new equivalents of High 1-B and 1-A separate from each other, without any muddled area in-between.

Maybe you missed this answer then :

Ultima : "It doesn't muddle them together, though. Low 1-A is above stacking infinities, but it's more like that in the context of it, you achieve that by virtue of sheer size, rather than some type of fundamental superiority (like being ontologically +1 over infinitely-layered things or something), hence why I called it a "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier."


Does this answer your question ?

 

[Antvasima]

Nepuko makes a good point.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe you missed this answer then :

Ultima : "It doesn't muddle them together, though. Low 1-A is above stacking infinities, but it's more like that in the context of it, you achieve that by virtue of sheer size, rather than some type of fundamental superiority (like being ontologically +1 over infinitely-layered things or something), hence why I called it a "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier."

Does this answer your question ?

I am not sure. I have a bit of a hard time keeping track due to juggling too many tasks at once. I am still very uneasy with that part of option 4, and would prefer if Sera, DarkLK, and preferably Azathoth evaluate it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima

I am just concerned that, as Sera mentioned previously, we would be in danger of breaking the system rather than build upon and fortify it, and as such very much would like to keep the new equivalents of High 1-B and 1-A separate from each other, without any muddled area in-between.

We literally wouldn't. Sera herself agreed off-site that what I described is pretty much what 1-A is (and was originally supposed to be, from what I gathered) in practice nowadays. "Beyond-Dimensionality" is uneccessary, redundant blah blah that fits into much lower tiers. Besides, the definition I propose just gives a natural sense of progression to the system: Hyperverse level is arbitrarily stacking infinities, High Hyperverse level is infinite levels of those, and Outerverse level is being metaphysically above all of those levels altogether. It's that simple.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought that Sera agreed that transcending the concepts of space and time means not being possible to reach by stacking infinities.

I also thought that you mentioned that this definition would remain earlier.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ant

I don't really know about that, and it honestly seems like you are just worrying over pure semantics again. As I said, the latter (existing beyond the stacking of infinities) naturally includes the former (existing beyond all forms of space and time or whatever) in relation to most works of fiction, and having it as the primary definition for 1-A both gives a logical progression to the system and gets rid of misconceptions and minor contradictions regarding the tier. I don't really see why you are so afraid of changing it, I thought we had already gone over this in private.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am a rather stressed out and worried person in general, and am so swamped with overwork that it is hard for me to keep track regarding more complex tasks. As such, I prefer not to take unnecessary chances regarding important issues, and don't want to cause any damage to our system.

Would somebody be willing to ask DarkLK and Sera to evaluate if this is a good idea? Preferably Azathoth and Assaltwaffle as well, if somebody can get in touch with them.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I was under the impression that we would maintain that part of the old system, at least for options 2 and 3. Is this incorrect? If so, I am now considerably more uneasy with all of this.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Antvasima, you are misunderstanding. Most of the system is relatively intact. All that would be needed to really be changed is the definitions for Tier 1-A.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Just do this:
Low 1-A - Baseline Outerversal to infinite levels above.

Examples: Most currently 1-A characters

1-A - Characters above Outerversal hierarchies

Examples: High End 1-As and some of the "weaker" current Tier 0s

Tier 0 - Above 1-A to the same extent that 1-A is above LOW 1-A

Examples: big Bois like Azathoty, Amaranth, The Creator and The Writer

Alternatively if you want to name it just 1-A, High 1-A and 0. That's fine.

High 1-B and below like in Aeyu's list.

Just go with this. It's the most non-controversial thing I can possibly suggest.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

High 1-A is necesary?

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

I already gave a response to that:

If Low 1-A can incorporate an infinite number of reality-fiction difference hierarchies, wouldn't The Writer and The Amaranth be stuck near the bottom?

Anyway, I prefer to change Low 1-A to baseline Outerversal up to any number of finite levels of transcendence above, and keep infinite Outerversal hierarchies or transcending them altogether as 1-A.

As such, I am also uncertain if a High 1-A is necessary.

Also, I would still greatly prefer if Low 1-A remains possible to reach by qualitatively transcending the concepts space and time, not strictly by the degree of the hierarchy below, and from what I remember Sera agreed with me on this point.

 

[Dvorak1902]

High 1-A is necesary?

If it isn't we can always fuse it with 0 again.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I was under the impression that we would maintain that part of the old system, at least for options 2 and 3. Is this incorrect? If so, I am now considerably more uneasy with all of this.

^

 

[Nepuko]

@Dvorak you're basically suggesting the equivalent of fusing current 1-B with current 1-A.

@Ant what part of the old system?

 

[Antvasima]

That qualitatively transcending all degrees of space and time would be a qualifying factor for Low 1-A.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

You're completely misunderstanding what Low 1-A means there.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That qualitatively transcending all degrees of space and time would be a qualifying factor for Low 1-A.

It will still be, I already explained what 1-A is supposed to be in the new system and it's relation to the current definition pretty clearly in my previous posts, what even is your gripe with it at this point? You just keep freaking out over minutia for no reason, chill.

 

[Nepuko]

@Antvasima

As far as I know it still is a qualifying factor. I'll quote Ultima :

" I hope this definition isn't too contrived, because as some of you have seen, I am sort of clumsy when it comes to phrasing things up, but nevetheless: I don't at all see what is the problem with this, since it keeps the spirit of the original rating intact, makes it more straightforward, fixes some minor inconsistencies and keeps most of the characters in their respective tiers, since "transcending all possible forms of space and time" (coupled with proper context) is still Outerversal, in the new thing, and so is transcending infinite hierarchies or infinite-dimensional spaces. "


Edit : by Low 1-A you mean baseline Outerversal right? If so then as I wrote above .

 

[Jockey-1337]

Personally I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal levels" and "above outerversal hierarchies". The second thing sounds too suggsversal.

It's the same as (Present day's) High 1-B to 1-A. Maybe it's suggsversal but it's not something extremely complex.

But there is a logical difference between High 1-B and 1-A. High 1-B stuff still exists within space-time. Still I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal" and "beyond outerversal hierarchy" (because it is just "infinite outerversal hierarchy +1").

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am extremely overworked and very stressed out in general due to several interacting factors, including everything going on concerning this wiki at the moment.

My apologies if I misunderstood comments that seemed to contradict each other.

Anyway, since we seem to have decided to use either option 3 or 2 with overwhelming support, and this thread is getting closer to 500 replies, should we proceed to the next phase of this discussion and close this thread after the new one has been linked to?

 

[Nepuko]

@Jockey "Transcending" Infinitely-layered dimensions (High 1-B) makes you current 1-A. Roughly, you basically transcend the "Dimensional Hierarchy". So, in very rough terms, you're "beyond the Dimensional Hierarchy".

Transcending Infinitely-layered Outerversal Hierarchy (or Infinite trascendences above baseline) makes you "Beyond the Outerversal Hierarchy".

I hope it's clear....

 

[Nepuko]

Well, I am extremely...

I agree. If your question was answered, then I'm all for it. We only have about 60 replies left anyway.

I'll repost the vote count comment below to make it easier as well.