• 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.

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

Can somebody take the time to write a summary post regarding what is suggested here and the following discussion please? Otherwise it will be very hard to finish this. 🙏
 
A summary of my issues are:
  1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
  2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
  3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
  4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.
It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:
  1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
  2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
  3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
  4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.
On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:
Attacking on (sub-)molecular levels - Fiction sometimes establishes weapons, attacks, and abilities as bypassing durability by causing damage on a molecular, atomic, or subatomic level. Care should be taken to distinguish cases where such explanations are used to justify why something can negate durability, and cases where those terms are simply used to describe the sheer power of an attack. Since this works based off of the principle that even strong characters don't have comparably stronger atomic bonds, characters established to have such improved bonds would have Resistance to this type of durability negation.
Click to expand...
So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.
 
Agnaa said:
A summary of my issues are:
  1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
  2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
  3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
  4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.
It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:
  1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
  2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
  3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
  4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.
On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:

So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234

What do you think we should do here? 🙏
 
wow i really lost track of this thread, i thought this was finished and applied already? at least i remember it being
 
Omegabronic said:
wow i really lost track of this thread, i thought this was finished and applied already? at least i remember it being
Click to expand...
It was applied, but I only found out about it after it was, and in doing so I brought up some issues (it directly contradicts other written rules we have without a clear solution) which convinced many staff members that it should be undone.

But at this point, we've kinda reached an impasse on that.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
It was applied, but I only found out about it after it was, and in doing so I brought up some issues (it directly contradicts other written rules we have without a clear solution) which convinced many staff members that it should be undone.

But at this point, we've kinda reached an impasse on that.
Click to expand...
what is the problem again? Perhaps i or someone else can make another staff thread to solve it

sorry, i stopped getting notifications for this thread and am a little lost on the current subject
 
Omegabronic said:
what is the problem again? Perhaps i or someone else can make another staff thread to solve it

sorry, i stopped getting notifications for this thread and am a little lost on the current subject
Click to expand...
The practical issues with applying it, are this note from the Tiering System page:
Tiers between 9-A and 3-B, even those which do correspond with their namesakes, should not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values that correspond with those ratings, as many verses can have their own context result in these feats being above or below their namesakes.
Click to expand...
Which is an issue since there's no way to calculate existence erasure.

Some people have suggested drawing an equivalence with Creation Feats, but I think that's a bad idea because the borders there were tailor-made for creation feats and don't make sense to generalise to other feats. Why would EE care about mass and only mass? Why should EE result in less energy than fragmenting something?

The other practical issue is what to do with small-scale 4-D EE. Currently we simply refuse to give it a rating, but if we're meant to give all EE feats AP ratings, then that becomes really weird. Do we give it High 3-A due to erasing uncountably infinite amounts of matter, despite us saying that characters with small scale 4-D EE can't erase universes without other feats? Do we give it a rating equivalent to one instant of the mass they're erasing, despite them doing so uncountably infinitely many times?

On top of that, I have ideological issues with rating EE this way, which I've outlined here
Agnaa said:
A summary of my issues are:
  1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
  2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
  3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
  4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.
It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:
  1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
  2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
  3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
  4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.
On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:

So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.
Click to expand...
 
I provided a summary of both sides of the discussion back here, so that other staff members could be pinged for evaluation.

But none of the opposition has commented about whether my representation is fair.

And overall, I don't think there's really a middleground we could have, from the discussion so far. We either treat it as AP or we don't.
 
Agnaa said:
The practical issues with applying it, are this note from the Tiering System page:

Which is an issue since there's no way to calculate existence erasure.

Some people have suggested drawing an equivalence with Creation Feats, but I think that's a bad idea because the borders there were tailor-made for creation feats and don't make sense to generalise to other feats. Why would EE care about mass and only mass? Why should EE result in less energy than fragmenting something?

The other practical issue is what to do with small-scale 4-D EE. Currently we simply refuse to give it a rating, but if we're meant to give all EE feats AP ratings, then that becomes really weird. Do we give it High 3-A due to erasing uncountably infinite amounts of matter, despite us saying that characters with small scale 4-D EE can't erase universes without other feats? Do we give it a rating equivalent to one instant of the mass they're erasing, despite them doing so uncountably infinitely many times?

On top of that, I have ideological issues with rating EE this way, which I've outlined here
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
A summary of my issues are:
  1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
  2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
  3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
  4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.
It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:
  1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
  2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
  3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
  4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.
On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:

So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
I provided a summary of both sides of the discussion back here, so that other staff members could be pinged for evaluation.

But none of the opposition has commented about whether my representation is fair.

And overall, I don't think there's really a middleground we could have, from the discussion so far. We either treat it as AP or we don't.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist
 
Thank you for helping out, IdiosyncraticLawyer. For the record, I still think that it is too impractical for the purpose of our wiki to not consider uncreation feats by scale in the same manner as creation feats. 🙏
 
Which staff members think what here so far in summary? 🙏
 
This was the last vote tally written up.
KLOL506 said:
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 6 (Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X)

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 (Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234)
Click to expand...
 
Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏🙂
 
I've read through the thread.

I disagree with sub-tier 2 EE being AP. Agnaa has brought up quite a few oddities that would occur if you insist on treating the "vanishing" of an object through supernatural means the same as traditional methods of destruction via joule values.

But beyond just weird edge cases, I think the most fundamental problem is that it's simply unquantifiable. A bookcase, a planet, a person with 3-B durability - in any case, if your power amounts to "I made this thing disappear from existence with a thought" or something along those lines, to ask "how many joules were involved in that feat" is a nonsense question. There is no sensible standard to codify - the answer to that question will simply be down to how the verse itself treats the act of making the thing disappear.

I don't mind the idea of some kind of scaling in specific cases where there is established evidence linking the EE capacity to potential exertion on the user's part (i.e.: through a UES), but otherwise, it should just remain in the P&A section.
 
GrathOfLux said:
I've read through the thread.

I disagree with sub-tier 2 EE being AP. Agnaa has brought up quite a few oddities that would occur if you insist on treating the "vanishing" of an object through supernatural means the same as traditional methods of destruction via joule values.

But beyond just weird edge cases, I think the most fundamental problem is that it's simply unquantifiable. A bookcase, a planet, a person with 3-B durability - in any case, if your power amounts to "I made this thing disappear from existence with a thought" or something along those lines, to ask "how many joules were involved in that feat" is a nonsense question. There is no sensible standard to codify - the answer to that question will simply be down to how the verse itself treats the act of making the thing disappear.

I don't mind the idea of some kind of scaling in specific cases where there is established evidence linking the EE capacity to potential exertion on the user's part (i.e.: through a UES), but otherwise, it should just remain in the P&A section.
Click to expand...
I share this opinion.
 
GrathOfLux said:
I've read through the thread.

I disagree with sub-tier 2 EE being AP. Agnaa has brought up quite a few oddities that would occur if you insist on treating the "vanishing" of an object through supernatural means the same as traditional methods of destruction via joule values.

But beyond just weird edge cases, I think the most fundamental problem is that it's simply unquantifiable. A bookcase, a planet, a person with 3-B durability - in any case, if your power amounts to "I made this thing disappear from existence with a thought" or something along those lines, to ask "how many joules were involved in that feat" is a nonsense question. There is no sensible standard to codify - the answer to that question will simply be down to how the verse itself treats the act of making the thing disappear.

I don't mind the idea of some kind of scaling in specific cases where there is established evidence linking the EE capacity to potential exertion on the user's part (i.e.: through a UES), but otherwise, it should just remain in the P&A section.
Click to expand...
So you agree to it scaling to AP and Striking Strength IF there is evidence linking it to exertion on the user's part via a UES or similar? For Sub-Tier 2 feats obviously.
 
ig I still disagree with that due to the difficulty of quantifying it.
 
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 8 - Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X, Colonel_Krukov, Firestorm808 (If a UES is involved),

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 7 - Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234, DarkGrath (Agrees with sub-Tier 2 EE scaling to AP and Striking Strength if a UES is involved), Celestial_Pegasus

@AKM sama @Just_a_Random_Butler @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Crabwhale @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 7 - Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X, Colonel_Krukov,

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 7 - Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234, DarkGrath (Agrees with sub-Tier 2 EE scaling to AP and Striking Strength if a UES is involved), Celestial_Pegasus

@AKM sama @Just_a_Random_Butler @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Crabwhale @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist
Click to expand...
I am fine with sub-Tier 2 EE scaling to AP if a UES is involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rogue_Forge
Wiki Cleanup Project, removal of the "via powerscaling" reasoning
Replies
3
Views
749
Planck69
Planck69
Ultimuru
  • Locked
Zeno's existence erasure resistance removal
2 3
Replies
97
Views
7K
TiltedFN
TiltedFN
AlipheeseXIV
(Staff reply appreciated) EE vs Deconstruction
Replies
7
Views
1K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Saqphire
  • Locked
[Bleach] Shinigami, except Ichibei does NOT have EE buddy 😭💔 (Thread accepted)
4 5 6
Replies
200
Views
26K
Saqphire
Saqphire
Napoleondevious
Existence Erasure and subatomic destruction
Replies
1
Views
1K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Back
Top