Do we need a new Tiering System for Multiversal Characters and Beyond

[Stocking Anarchy]

Currently, how I do it is...

Universal - One universe of finite or unknown size

Universal+ - An infinite universe, with possibility of it going higher

Multiversal - Any multiverse that is finite or has an unknown number of universes

Multiversal+ - An infinite multiverse, if not higher

Massively multiversal - The catch-all term I use for anything from multiple multiverses & higher orders of infinity and so forth

Also while we're here, what is the difference between an alternate timeline and an alternate universe? I need this described to me in great detail because the two often seem interchangable (along with 'alternate dimension' and 'alternate reality').

 

[Derpmaster9000]

Currently, how I do it is...

Universal - One universe of finite or unknown size

Universal+ - An infinite universe, with possibility of it going higher

Multiversal - Any multiverse that is finite or has an unknown number of universes

Multiversal+ - An infinite multiverse, if not higher

Massively multiversal - The catch-all term I use for anything from multiple multiverses & higher orders of infinity and so forth

Also while we're here, what is the difference between an alternate timeline and an alternate universe? I need this described to me in great detail because the two often seem interchangable (along with 'alternate dimension' and 'alternate reality').

Often times, they are interchangeable, as they're treated no different from the OG universe they spawned from, having their own space-time and all, even if they're linked through the stream of time itself.

In essence though, it's a case-by-case basis. Taking DB for example, alternate timelines, due to the way they're set up, are in fact doubling as alternate universes unto themselves, and should be treated like such. Meanwhile, name any series here with time travel, where destroying the universe in the past, or something within it, doesn't cause a split in timelines where the present is still fine and untouched, but actively affects it, as the past and present are fully linked at the hip, in that sense? Then no, they are different timelines, as in, the original path of the same universe, has been altered into something else. They didn't fork into two separate realities, the original was erased, in place of the new one, because timeline fuckery. Does that make sense?

 

[AllForOne]

Making this post do I don't forget my train of thought

I think something like Top's idea makes the most sense I just really don't like having to put Infinite in the actual tier name

Anyone who can destroy the cosmos equal to the observable universe or similarly cannot destroy space-time and just matter - downgraded to Low Universe Level
Anyone who can destroy all matter beyond the below and including the space time of a finite universe - high universal or w/e new term for this tier
Anyone who can destroy a finite universe with limited dimensions which share the same space-time - becomes a new finite universal+ tier
anyone who can destroy an infinite universe - upgraded to infinite universal or w/e new term for this tier
Anyone who can destroy a infinite universe with limited dimensions which share the same space-time - becomes a new infinite universal+ tier
Anyone who can destroy universes with multiple distinct timelines or multiple universes with own space-time - upgraded to Low Multiverse level

repeat the above for High Multiverse level, finite multiversal, infinite multiversal or something like that, this is technically a placeholder post just so I don't forget this

We can avoid it just by putting the value in the justifications, so like Universe level+ (to an infinite degree, destroyed a universe stated be have infinite space)

 

[Qinglong]

We can avoid it just by putting the value in the justifications, so like Universe level+ (to an infinite degree, destroyed a universe stated be have infinite space)

Sure, I just wanted something added so it differentiates between the two

You can also compress it into something like TTGL's definitions, and update low multiversal to include universes with multiple dimensions at least equal to the observable universe as an example

so it would go low universal > high universal > universal+ on a finite scale > universal + on an infinite scale > low multiversal finite scale > low multiversal infinite scale (small number of infinite universes or something similar etc.) > multiversal/multiversal+ > massively multiversal or w/e where we currently have megaversal characters of mulltiverses of finite size > multiple multiverses of infinite size is the new megaversal or a new term

 

[RavenSupreme]

I think instead of focusing on the universal and dimensional thing first, coming to an agreement about how we treat infinity is more important.

The word infinity gets thrown around a lot more than higher dimensions and when coupled with cosmic feats that immediately will cause people to escalate things.

 

[AllForOne]

I think instead of focusing on the universal and dimensional thing first, coming to an agreement about how we treat infinity is more important.

The word infinity gets thrown around a lot more than higher dimensions and when coupled with cosmic feats that immediately will cause people to escalate things.

This might be even harder haha.

What is everybody's current opinions on levels of infinity? I kind of view it as based on the cosmic structure / time stream.

Hence infinity on a Universal scale is an infinite space-time continuum. Infinity on a multiversal scale is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of 5D/Void-space separating them. It goes up from there and so on. Just my thoughts.

 

[Endless Mike]

@Endless Mike Will you participate too?

Probably not. Especially since as time goes on, I've been considering this stuff more and more pointless to try to quantify. I have my own tiering system but I even admit that it gets vague once you get past Herald Level, and lots of others have contradicting systems. There is no single system that can work for all of fiction, I'm certain.

 

[AllForOne]

Probably not. Especially since as time goes on, I've been considering this stuff more and more pointless to try to quantify. I have my own tiering system but I even admit that it gets vague once you get past Herald Level, and lots of others have contradicting systems. There is no single system that can work for all of fiction, I'm certain.

I agree with this sentiment. We can only try to accommodate for as much of fiction as we reasonably can. Its ultimately up to the debaters in vs threads to prove which character is stronger in a specific tiering range.

I think dimensions have a place in all this but we need a more realistic approach. Or else we have people running around saying x character is infinitely superior to y character because x character has one extra dimension and yet hasn't done anything more impressive than y character.

VSBW motto: "Just trust me bro"

 

[OtherGalaxy]

I’m in agreement there is probably no true one system fits all approach, my issue rn is our current system is like a broken down car that barely really fits any

I’m less invested in this than I come off as but figured I may as well bring up the issue because everyone’s sort of thinking it but nobody wants to fix it lol
Not that I blame anybody

 

[AllForOne]

I’m in agreement there is probably no true one system fits all approach, my issue rn is our current system is like a broken down car that barely really fits any

I’m less invested in this than I come off as but figured I may as well bring up the issue because everyone’s sort of thinking it but nobody wants to fix it lol
Not that I blame anybody

Might be a leadership issue, I guess. We don't really have a chain of command to guide and help implement the changes.

Maybe we should elect somebody reputable who wants to oversee this revamp? I always thought Nevermind was in charge but I think he only manages the wiki itself.