Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder how is it possible to find out which bois of this level are strong and which are not?Matthew Schroeder said:Examples: big Bois like Azathoty, Amaranth, The Creator and The Writer
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.Jockey-1337 said:Personally I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal levels" and "above outerversal hierarchies". The second thing sounds too suggsversal.
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?Matthew Schroeder said: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.
Antvasima said:@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.
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.Nepuko said: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 ?
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 said:@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.
Just go with this. It's the most non-controversial thing I can possibly suggest.Matthew Schroeder said: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.
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.Antvasima said: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.
If it isn't we can always fuse it with 0 again.Apex PredatorX said:High 1-A is necesary?
^Antvasima said: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.
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.Antvasima said:That qualitatively transcending all degrees of space and time would be a qualifying factor for Low 1-A.
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").Dvorak1902 said: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.Jockey-1337 said:Personally I don't see any differences between "infinite outerversal levels" and "above outerversal hierarchies". The second thing sounds too suggsversal.
I agree. If your question was answered, then I'm all for it. We only have about 60 replies left anyway.Antvasima said:Well, I am extremely...