Tiering System Revisions

[Ultima_Reality]

These are very valid points. Now I am getting considerably more uneasy about these revisions again. It might be best if we continue to rate Outerverse level as being beyond all degrees of time and space. Wouldn't this also qualify them as being beyond stacking infinities, as is the current suggestion?

This is pretty much semantics, though, one thing includes the other. It's just that the definition suggested here makes the tier itself far more straightforward while maintaining the original intent untouched.

 

[Warren_Valion]

I was called back here because of the additions of two new options - frankly, I like Option 3 the best.

 

[Promestein]

I supported this stuff in the past, though I'm not particularly interested in debating it much. I prefer Option 1. I think it's the most sensible and best described.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Actually, I Option 4 may actually be better given the circumstances. Personally I'm skeptical of options 1&2

 

[FanofRPGs]

Actually, I Option 4 may actually be better given the circumstances. Personally I'm skeptical of options 1&2

I like option 1 the most. It compresses dimensions into one tier where it can stay separate from much larger scoped stuff and it felt the most "symmetrical," option 4 is the only one which maintains some of the balance of option 1

 

[Sera_EX]

I like option 1 the most. It compresses dimensions into one tier where it can stay separate from much larger scoped stuff and it felt the most "symmetrical," option 4 is the only one which maintains some of the balance of option 1

Compressing dimensions into one tier (1-C) just to make room for muh outerverse levels is a very very bad idea, like down it's very principles. Outerverse shenanigans are not that important. We're just obsessing over a tier which characters are mostly at that level due to blah blah statements and hyperbole, and not at all based on any actual feats or meaningful context, with the exception of maybe the Masadaverse.

 

[Nepuko]

Actually, I Option 4 may actually be better given the circumstances. Personally I'm skeptical of options 1&2

You already voted for Option 4 so I already added you there. Was this a typo then, or...?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

3. I'm dumb

 

[Nepuko]

3. I'm dumb

No problem XD. It happens.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima also confirmed on Discord that Outerversal and Tier 0 are mechanically different between Options 1 and 2. Saying that Option 1s Outerverse classification cannot work with Option 2 and thus Option 3 is null and void.

I thought that option 3 was option 2 with slightly different naming procedures?

 

[VenomElite]

All this super-duper galaxy-brained hyper-pedantic mathematics over fictional character indexing is less than meaningless, especially when it comes from non-mathematicians.

I absolutely agree with this. I'll go into further detail later.

 

[Nepuko]

Ultima also confirmed on Discord that Outerversal and Tier 0 are mechanically different between Options 1 and 2. Saying that Option 1s Outerverse classification cannot work with Option 2 and thus Option 3 is null and void.

I thought that option 3 was option 2 with slightly different naming procedures?

It's more precisely Option 1 Higher tiers with its lower tiers decompressed. It makes the "low 1-+" in Option 2 its own tier instead of a simple modifier.

I just finished talking with Ultima in Discord, and there don't seem to be a problem. It's still what it is.

 

[Lightbuster30]

I'm fine with option 3. I actually believe we need more subsets of 1-A than less given how expansive it is.

Here's a question though: Since outerversal is now being changed to something that can't be reached by stacking infinities, are there any alternate descriptions for the requirement?

 

[Sera_EX]

Outerversal was never attainable by stacking infinites, ever.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

True enough. So should we keep the baseline requirement as it is then?

 

[Sera_EX]

Of course. The ordinal stuff is just under the hood schematics.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

These are very valid points. Now I am getting considerably more uneasy about these revisions again. It might be best if we continue to rate Outerverse level as being beyond all degrees of time and space. Wouldn't this also qualify them as being beyond stacking infinities, as is the current suggestion?

This "problem" is pretty much semantics, though, one thing includes the other. It's just that the definition suggested here makes the tier itself far more straightforward while maintaining the original intent untouched.

^^^

 

[KLOL506]

>MFW my vote wasn't counted


But for real tho, I chose the same vote as Matt.

 

[Nepuko]

>MFW my vote wasn't counted
But for real tho, I chose the same vote as Matt.

Your vote was there since the beginning, in Option 2. Your name is there .

 

[KLOL506]

What I meant was it's not in the OP.

 

[Crabwhale]

I suppose Option 2 would work best for me.

 

[Sadistic_Sleuth]

Option 3 has my vote

 

[Promestein]

If not option 1, option 2. Maybe I'd prefer that overall. I dunno.

 

[Nepuko]

If not option 1, option 2. Maybe I'd prefer that overall. I dunno.

Do I take that as you switching from Option 1 to 2?

 

[Promestein]

Yeah, I guess.

 

[Paul_Frank]

can I vote nay and still pick an optio

Out of the options presented 3 is probably the best

 

[Nepuko]

@Prom @Paul

Done.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

I would say option 3 is the best of the options mentions

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

I'd like to switch my vote back to option1, honestly.

 

[Sera_EX]

I choose Option 5, Calculus.

 

[Nepuko]

I'd like to switch my vote back to option1, honestly.

Done.


@Sera hey! That's cheating!

Well then.....I choose Option 6! Adding Tier 12, the opposite of current 1-A, in that tier you're lower than the concept of dimensions owo

Or 7 : do nothing

 

[Bobsican]

I change my vote to option 3, BTW (Assuming I have voted already)

 

[ThePerpetual]

For whatever it's worth, I think I've come to prefer Option 3, now.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I choose option 4 now. changed my vote

 

[Nepuko]

I choose option 4 now. changed my vote

Done. Finally, DarkDragon wouldn't be alone now owo

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I think that the new definition of 1-A should highlight the idea of a qualitative difference instead of one based on quantity. It is basically the same thing, or at least very similar, but it is an important point and should honestly be easier to understand for most people imo.

Hierarchies are a hard thing since their definition within a verse can vary greatly. If we define the difference in power between a Low 1-A and a 1-A to be a qualitative jump in power instead of a quantitative one, it should make the definition easier to apply to more verses, especially those with more nebulous hierarchies

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That's already what we are doing though.

 

[Maxnumb231]

it is based on qualitive superiority when it comes to reaching 1-A.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We should go with Option 2 since it's the simplest. We musn't alienate audiences. Also no High 1-A.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

AnY reason for not High 1-A?