The Ice King CRT (Fortnite).

[Mr. Bambu]

At this time, I am fully against the OP. There is nothing of substance to support the idea that destroying the Zero Point would yield 2-A, even if the Zero Point itself performed a 2-A feat. I therefore ask @ActuallySpaceMan42 to reconsider his position, if he did not take into account what I have said before. He may maintain it, I put him under no pressure to change his perspective, but I would like to be sure he has at least considered my words.

 

[PurposeDevine00]

If everything you've used to reach your conclusion is in the OP, then your reasoning is insufficient.

I did not assume you would get hung up on the gun analogy, given what I previously mentioned. Being able to do a 2-A ability, does not necessarily, fundamentally give 2-A durability. The things are often connected, but it is not the base case. You've said, at this point, that the CRT more or less hinges on this assumption being true, but it is not.

I haven't predetermined anything, and the accusatory half-insults are going to become tiring very quickly. I asked you to defend the assumption that the Zero Point had a 2-A dura, and you haven't. You have simply suggested I take it at face value. This is not the standard of the wiki.


This is such an egregious leap of logic that I don't even know where to begin.

"Consume" means to eat. He was going to eat it. You are extrapolating from a word meaning "eat", that he was going to absorb it and gain its power, when nothing else seems to suggest this is the case.

You have constantly appealed to authority in this discussion (more or less deriding me for not falling in line with the evaluations of other staff members), when this does not fix the inherent flaws in the assumptions you lay out. That they glossed over them is not my issue.


This isn't an assumption, man. You are the one giving me assumptions. I am telling you that we have no reason to assume this. And no, that isn't how powerscaling works at all. If it was, glass cannons would not exist. We require satisfactory reasoning for a character to scale in durability and AP. 99% of the time, that is indeed the case, characters and objects frequently and typically do share them, but it is not the fundamental truth of the matter. It does not require an exception for me to ask you to give me the reasoning-- for something to be taken as true, we need a reason to do so. You have given me literally no reason to follow your assumptions, and instead have gotten rather aggressive when asked to provide reasoning at all.


It is not.

You haven't outright shown anything.

Newton's Third Law doesn't apply to things above a 3-D capacity (e.g., the creation of a multiverse).

Because fictitious things like energy blasts do not fundamentally follow things like that. We assume Newton's Third Law for things like Hulk punching someone-- clearly his fist can tank the damage, it was part of the collision-- but not necessarily Doctor Strange generating a bolt of magical energy. If the verse displays evidence that Newton's Third Law would apply, we would use it, though given the 2-A tier you're gunning for here, it wouldn't really matter regardless.


That is because this is a strawman. I'm not contending that the Zero Point isn't 2-A. I do think the cosmology blog is pretty shabby and egregious in its assumptions, but at this moment in time, what is accepted on the wiki seems to satisfy that it has done a 2-A feat. What is at issue is this scaling to any characters, since so far the only feat is "consuming and destroying" it, when it does not have any reason to have a 2-A durability.

Being able to do a 2-A ability, does not necessarily, fundamentally give 2-A durability.

1. Superman has [2-A] Laser Vision, would you not consider Doomsday to have [2-A] durability for physically tanking them? Its the same concept my guy. The Zero Point being Made Out of and Always Tanking that [2-A] Energy would undoubtable scale its Durability there as well.

This isn't an assumption, man. You are the one giving me assumptions. I am telling you that we have no reason to assume this. And no, that isn't how powerscaling works at all. If it was, glass cannons would not exist.

2. I'm sorry, but did you just indirectly call the Zero Point "class cannon"? The Only Reason these characters are mentioned here is because they are that Big of a Threat. To be capable of threatening the literal source of All Creation is to be too dangerous to exist; That is literal explained in the comic scans I attched. Its not your average characters who are threatening it, No. These are characters who are genuinely just that powerful and are portrayed as such. This has made me realize that this is more an issue about not understanding the lore and I don't mean that in a negative way at all. Just reading a couple pages on the Fortnite wiki is not going to provide you with the full knowledge you need to accurately determine these things and I admit, I didn't really do a good job explaining some of these things. That is on me.

Because fictitious things like energy blasts do not fundamentally follow things like that. We assume Newton's Third Law for things like Hulk punching someone-- clearly his fist can tank the damage, it was part of the collision-- but not necessarily Doctor Strange generating a bolt of magical energy.

3. Lets apply that same logic; We can clearly see the Zero Point tank the damage it does using its own Energy, it's part of the collision/explosion/Implosion. The Doctor Strange example doesn't really apply because of the obvious rules on magic in Marvel and also because its well, magic, while the Zero Point is verbatim stated to be Pure Energy. If we were to remove every energy related AP/Durability feat/scaling then I can confidently say that almost all of the profiles would be affected in some way. It's really not a Zero Point issue like you're implying it is, Almost all of fiction breaks the law of conservation energy in some form/have their own energy system that gets treated almost the same.

"Consume" means to eat. He was going to eat it. You are extrapolating from a word meaning "eat", that he was going to absorb it and gain its power, when nothing else seems to suggest this is the case.

4. Dude, what do you genuinely get by consuming something? You get energy, power and nutrients. That's the basics for humans. The Devourer, however, has an ability called "Absorption".

VSBW - Absorption is the ability to absorb something - whether it is energy or other living beings - and use it for one's self.

And what is the so called Zero Point made out of? As I've stated multiple times already, Energy. It is a Ball of Energy. And what was The Devourer stated to do to the so called Ball of Energy called the Zero Point? He was outright stated to "consume and destroy" the Zero Point.
The point I'm trying to make is that it does not matter what durability you assume the Zero Point has. The single most relevant thing is its power and energy which was going to be directly consumed by The Devourer himself.

So please, for the sake of everything, redirect your focus to this rather than something that was never brought up in the OP at all while also not being a deciding factor at all.

Newton's Third Law doesn't apply to things above a 3-D capacity (e.g., the creation of a multiverse).

5. A bit unrelated but I think this was addressed somewhere in the Tiering System FAQ; Energy/Attack Potency/Power doesn't necessarily change in higher dimensions. There's also a whole formula in the FAQ that kind of proves it. And most of what we use to Power Scale is found on 3-D basis yet we are still able to use and apply them to Higher Dimensional settings. There's no invisible ceiling to that, so I truly don't know where this is coming from.

I'm not contending that the Zero Point isn't 2-A. I do think the cosmology blog is pretty shabby and egregious in its assumptions, but at this moment in time, what is accepted on the wiki seems to satisfy that it has done a 2-A feat.

6. Lastly, could you clarify in what way you believe the Zero Point is [2-A] in terms of power/energy because I don't want to assume anything. As you mentioned, you're not disagreeing that's [2-A] but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

'What is at issue is this scaling to any characters, since so far the only feat is "consuming and destroying" it, when it does not have any reason to have a 2-A durability.'

So regarding this, I hope you're away Galactus (Fortnite) is scaled to possibly [2-A] because of the Zero Point itself here in the wiki. The interesting part is, the argument is almost, if not exactly the same as The Devourer argument I presented; Consume and Destroy the Zero Point. Feel free to take a look at his profile to confirm.

Also, I don't know if its intentional or not, but I think I've mentioned The Foundation and Mecha Team Leader to you quite a few times with video links as well of them directly showing [2-A] feats with the Zero Point itself.

So its not just " 'the only feat is 'consuming and destroying' ", No. There are multiple as I've already presented throughout the post and the OP itself.

 

[PurposeDevine00]

At this time, I am fully against the OP. There is nothing of substance to support the idea that destroying the Zero Point would yield 2-A, even if the Zero Point itself performed a 2-A feat. I therefore ask @ActuallySpaceMan42 to reconsider his position, if he did not take into account what I have said before. He may maintain it, I put him under no pressure to change his perspective, but I would like to be sure he has at least considered my words.

Me and him had a full conversation about this and we settled it. We both ended up Agreeing that the presented characters do indeed deserve to get the [2-A] rating in terms of Attack Potency and Durability.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

At this time, I am fully against the OP. There is nothing of substance to support the idea that destroying the Zero Point would yield 2-A, even if the Zero Point itself performed a 2-A feat. I therefore ask @ActuallySpaceMan42 to reconsider his position, if he did not take into account what I have said before. He may maintain it, I put him under no pressure to change his perspective, but I would like to be sure he has at least considered my words.

I was under the impression absorbing any amount of energy from a 2-A Source, would be 2-A, since it would be infinite either way.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I was under the impression absorbing any amount of energy from a 2-A Source, would be 2-A, since it would be infinite either way.

Thus far, the only statement I've been shown is that it would consume, and destroy it. The absorption thing seems to be extrapolation that I don't think is really supported.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Thus far, the only statement I've been shown is that it would consume, and destroy it. The absorption thing seems to be extrapolation that I don't think is really supported.

I was referring to this. Apparently, the Robot Character absorbed the energy of the Zero Point and then used it to fight the Devourer, who is the monster also capable of absorbing the Zero Point's power.

They chainscaled the Devourer tanking hits from the amp, to 2-A, which eventually scaled back to the Ice King, also defeating the Devourer, which is why I agreed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

1. Superman has [2-A] Laser Vision, would you not consider Doomsday to have [2-A] durability for physically tanking them? Its the same concept my guy. The Zero Point being Made Out of and Always Tanking that [2-A] Energy would undoubtable scale its Durability there as well.


2. I'm sorry, but did you just indirectly call the Zero Point "class cannon"? The Only Reason these characters are mentioned here is because they are that Big of a Threat. To be capable of threatening the literal source of All Creation is to be too dangerous to exist; That is literal explained in the comic scans I attched. Its not your average characters who are threatening it, No. These are characters who are genuinely just that powerful and are portrayed as such. This has made me realize that this is more an issue about not understanding the lore and I don't mean that in a negative way at all. Just reading a couple pages on the Fortnite wiki is not going to provide you with the full knowledge you need to accurately determine these things and I admit, I didn't really do a good job explaining some of these things. That is on me.



3. Lets apply that same logic; We can clearly see the Zero Point tank the damage it does using its own Energy, it's part of the collision/explosion/Implosion. The Doctor Strange example doesn't really apply because of the obvious rules on magic in Marvel and also because its well, magic, while the Zero Point is verbatim stated to be Pure Energy. If we were to remove every energy related AP/Durability feat/scaling then I can confidently say that almost all of the profiles would be affected in some way. It's really not a Zero Point issue like you're implying it is, Almost all of fiction breaks the law of conservation energy in some form/have their own energy system that gets treated almost the same.



4. Dude, what do you genuinely get by consuming something? You get energy, power and nutrients. That's the basics for humans. The Devourer, however, has an ability called "Absorption".

And what is the so called Zero Point made out of? As I've stated multiple times already, Energy. It is a Ball of Energy. And what was The Devourer stated to do to the so called Ball of Energy called the Zero Point? He was outright stated to "consume and destroy" the Zero Point.
The point I'm trying to make is that it does not matter what durability you assume the Zero Point has. The single most relevant thing is its power and energy which was going to be directly consumed by The Devourer himself.

So please, for the sake of everything, redirect your focus to this rather than something that was never brought up in the OP at all while also not being a deciding factor at all.



5. A bit unrelated but I think this was addressed somewhere in the Tiering System FAQ; Energy/Attack Potency/Power doesn't necessarily change in higher dimensions. There's also a whole formula in the FAQ that kind of proves it. And most of what we use to Power Scale is found on 3-D basis yet we are still able to use and apply them to Higher Dimensional settings. There's no invisible ceiling to that, so I truly don't know where this is coming from.



6. Lastly, could you clarify in what way you believe the Zero Point is [2-A] in terms of power/energy because I don't want to assume anything. As you mentioned, you're not disagreeing that's [2-A] but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

'What is at issue is this scaling to any characters, since so far the only feat is "consuming and destroying" it, when it does not have any reason to have a 2-A durability.'

So regarding this, I hope you're away Galactus (Fortnite) is scaled to possibly [2-A] because of the Zero Point itself here in the wiki. The interesting part is, the argument is almost, if not exactly the same as The Devourer argument I presented; Consume and Destroy the Zero Point. Feel free to take a look at his profile to confirm.

Also, I don't know if its intentional or not, but I think I've mentioned The Foundation and Mecha Team Leader to you quite a few times with video links as well of them directly showing [2-A] feats with the Zero Point itself.

So its not just " 'the only feat is 'consuming and destroying' ", No. There are multiple as I've already presented throughout the post and the OP itself.

Not what I said.

I didn't, no.

Okay. Then use any other example that predominantly attacks with non-physical attacks. Keeping with the energy beam example, Cyclops, also from Marvel Comics. We don't scale the AP of his beam to his durability, because it is not necessarily true that he "tanks" it by attacking with it. This concept applies everywhere, to every verse. It falls to the verse to prove these things scale to dura.

I don't consume multiverse creating energy sources, nor do I destroy anything when I consume. You're giving me an unreasonable base assumption.

This is not mentioned in the Tiering System FAQ, afaik.

I believe that the Zero Point performed the 2-A feat of creating the multiverse of Fortnite (although the cosmology appears to include bits outside of this multiverse). I don't really care what Galactus is scaled to as a possibility.

I was referring to this. Apparently, the Robot Character absorbed the energy of the Zero Point and then used it to fight the Devourer, who is the monster also capable of absorbing the Zero Point's power.

They chainscaled the Devourer tanking hits from the amp, to 2-A, which eventually scaled back to the Ice King, also defeating the Devourer, which is why I agreed.

We don't scale characters to their power sources, though. Drawing from a 2-A source doesn't give 2-A AP. It's the same reason all wizards in D&D aren't Low 1-C, for example.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

We don't scale characters to their power sources, though. Drawing from a 2-A source doesn't give 2-A AP. It's the same reason all wizards in D&D aren't Low 1-C, for example.

I see, I was confused then. I'll retract my agreement.

 

[PurposeDevine00]

Not what I said.

I didn't, no.

Okay. Then use any other example that predominantly attacks with non-physical attacks. Keeping with the energy beam example, Cyclops, also from Marvel Comics. We don't scale the AP of his beam to his durability, because it is not necessarily true that he "tanks" it by attacking with it. This concept applies everywhere, to every verse. It falls to the verse to prove these things scale to dura.

I don't consume multiverse creating energy sources, nor do I destroy anything when I consume. You're giving me an unreasonable base assumption.

This is not mentioned in the Tiering System FAQ, afaik.

I believe that the Zero Point performed the 2-A feat of creating the multiverse of Fortnite (although the cosmology appears to include bits outside of this multiverse). I don't really care what Galactus is scaled to as a possibility.


We don't scale characters to their power sources, though. Drawing from a 2-A source doesn't give 2-A AP. It's the same reason all wizards in D&D aren't Low 1-C, for example.

Please address the full extent of my reply, there are other important thing I mentioned that haven't been addressed.

Okay. Then use any other example that predominantly attacks with non-physical attacks. Keeping with the energy beam example, Cyclops, also from Marvel Comics. We don't scale the AP of his beam to his durability, because it is not necessarily true that he "tanks" it by attacking with it. This concept applies everywhere, to every verse. It falls to the verse to prove these things scale to dura.

1. I don't really know much about how Cyclops' beam works so more details as to why that's the case for him would be appreciated. I used Superman as an example as he's a well known character for it with no hidden weakness and such. Another well known example is Homelander from The Boys TV series (idk if you've watched it),but he can basically do what Superman does in terms of being able to shoot Laser beams which he scales to via being able to tank it or an equivalent or also by being superior to other characters who can.

Something else I noticed is that you're disregarding the core reason of why I even gave the Superman example to begin with: Superman has [2-A] Laser Vision, would you not consider Doomsday to have [2-A] durability for physically tanking them?

Notice the difference? I didn't say "Superman must have [2-A] Durability because he shoots [2-A] Laser vision." I said, would you not consider Doomsday to be at that tier for Tanking them? The logic is supposed to that these characters aren't shooting themselves when they're using their Laser vision. But, If they're physically matching outscaling another character who tanked said Laser Vision then they would undoubtable get said rating for Durability. Equivalently, If they did shoot their Energy at themselves, they would only fairly get the rating because that is the same logic used in the former method of scaling. We can't just choose and pick when it does or doesn't applies just because we don't like it or for whatever illogical reason it may be.

The case with the Zero Point is similar; its always shooting and emitting [2-A] energy and it's able to always natural withstand said energy.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that it is a self sustaining ball of energy. This means it can sustaining itself without evaporating or dispersing whatever happens to energy that isn't sustained. If we take your idea that it doesn't scale to its own power for whatever reason, it would've done said things at the moment of its existence.

Also, isn't it rather odd to say: "The ball of Energy doesn't scale to the Ball of Energy." I mean isn't that contradicting? How can a Ball of Energy not scale to itself when its made of said Energy? Does that make sense what I'm trying to say?

I don't consume multiverse creating energy sources, nor do I destroy anything when I consume. You're giving me an unreasonable base assumption.

2. Would you not call the digestion system destroying whatever you eat (not including the obvious exit part of the process)? Anyways, My point with that example was to just highlight what consumption really is, you're destroying and you're absorbing all in that process.

Here's a link to the wiki you were mentioning earlier confirming the same thing.

This is not mentioned in the Tiering System FAQ, afaik.

3. It's mentioned Right Here.

I believe that the Zero Point performed the 2-A feat of creating the multiverse of Fortnite (although the cosmology appears to include bits outside of this multiverse). I don't really care what Galactus is scaled to as a possibility.

4. What do you mean by bits outside this Multiverse? If you're implying the existence of multiple Multiverses then you'd be correct. There is way more than one. there's a whole Omniverse!

Okay, then you should care about his Solid Scaling which uses the same structure I presented.

We don't scale characters to their power sources, though. Drawing from a 2-A source doesn't give 2-A AP. It's the same reason all wizards in D&D aren't Low 1-C, for example.

5. What exactly is the correlation between D&D wizards and the setting presented here?

Also, can you elaborate on this "We don't scale characters to their power sources, though. Drawing from a 2-A source doesn't give 2-A AP." As profiles go, the opposite is actually the case. An example is Phoenix; She is scaled to [1-A] and higher because of her power source.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Superman has other reasons to have high durability. I've already told you that we don't fundamentally assume scaling between AP and dura for non-physical attacks. You already know that.

Obviously Doomsday has 2-A dura for tanking a 2-A attack, but this isn't relevant to the matter at hand. I'm explaining that simply doing a 2-A thing does not give you 2-A dura. Obviously surviving a 2-A attack does.

The Zero Point is not always shooting it's energy, we can just visibly see that this is not the case. It does not scale to its own powers.

The ball does scale to itself. It has 2-A ED, at the very least. We already went over this. It doesn't need to have dura equal to its AP. I'm trying to explain this in a way that is easy to understand but I get the impression you are arguing rather than trying to reach an understanding here.

I'm just not even going to humor the consuming thing, as we've already gone over it. He was stated to be destroying it. Nothing approaching "The Devourer is going to absorb the Zero Point's power" is ever said. Just "consume and destroy".

The FAQ bit is explaining that simply being higher dimensioned doesn't inherently give the respective tier. It is not suggesting Newton's Third Law applies to 2-A.

I don't care if there is more outside the multiverse. It's irrelevant to the point at hand, which is partly my fault.

I don't care about Galactus at all, actually. The CRT isn't about him and nothing here emulates his feat.

The opposite is literally not the case. We have huge, huge amounts of characters that draw power from a vaster power source that do not scale to the full power source. You are relatively new, but this is literally true for every verse with a UES. I don't think you're lying, but you are ignorant as to what you're claiming.

No new evidence has been brought forward. I'm not going to drag this out indefinitely, and as far as I can tell, I have genuinely responded to every element of your arguments (though, admittedly, I didn't understand what you were going for with the robot thing, until Spaceman said it. But I responded to him, so). No more responding from me unless something novel comes up.

 

[PurposeDevine00]

Superman has other reasons to have high durability. I've already told you that we don't fundamentally assume scaling between AP and dura for non-physical attacks. You already know that.

Obviously Doomsday has 2-A dura for tanking a 2-A attack, but this isn't relevant to the matter at hand. I'm explaining that simply doing a 2-A thing does not give you 2-A dura. Obviously surviving a 2-A attack does.

The Zero Point is not always shooting it's energy, we can just visibly see that this is not the case. It does not scale to its own powers.

The ball does scale to itself. It has 2-A ED, at the very least. We already went over this. It doesn't need to have dura equal to its AP. I'm trying to explain this in a way that is easy to understand but I get the impression you are arguing rather than trying to reach an understanding here.

I'm just not even going to humor the consuming thing, as we've already gone over it. He was stated to be destroying it. Nothing approaching "The Devourer is going to absorb the Zero Point's power" is ever said. Just "consume and destroy".

The FAQ bit is explaining that simply being higher dimensioned doesn't inherently give the respective tier. It is not suggesting Newton's Third Law applies to 2-A.

I don't care if there is more outside the multiverse. It's irrelevant to the point at hand, which is partly my fault.

I don't care about Galactus at all, actually. The CRT isn't about him and nothing here emulates his feat.

The opposite is literally not the case. We have huge, huge amounts of characters that draw power from a vaster power source that do not scale to the full power source. You are relatively new, but this is literally true for every verse with a UES. I don't think you're lying, but you are ignorant as to what you're claiming.

No new evidence has been brought forward. I'm not going to drag this out indefinitely, and as far as I can tell, I have genuinely responded to every element of your arguments (though, admittedly, I didn't understand what you were going for with the robot thing, until Spaceman said it. But I responded to him, so). No more responding from me unless something novel comes up.

The ball does scale to itself. It has 2-A ED, at the very least. We already went over this. It doesn't need to have dura equal to its AP."

1. Glad we agree on that because for my next point, I want to remind you that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin. The huge concentration of pure energy that is the Zero Point generates a huge gravitational field which is also supported by modern physics. Furthermore, for a ball of pure energy to remain cohesive in the form of a ball without immediately exploding or dissipating, the internal forces holding it together Must Perfectly Balance And Resist the outward pressure of that energy ball.

If the object's own structure and binding force couldn't withstand the energy it contains, it would result in an immediate collapse like instantaneous dissipation. The fact that The Zero Point exists as a stable, self sustaining object Proves that its structural integrity (Durability) matches its energy output (Attack Potency) which the wiki, you and I have all agreed scales to [2-A].

Analogy: A star like the Sun is always performing nuclear fusion and pushing a lot of energy outward. It doesn't blow itself apart because its gravity pulls it inward. The Sun's Structural Durability against exploding is exactly equal to its energy output.

So not only does science disprove you, but the game and lore itself tells and shows you this many times like with the Black Hole Event twice already. Again, its more of a matter of story knowledge it seems.

The Zero Point is not always shooting it's energy, we can just visibly see that this is not the case. It does not scale to its own powers.

2. That was obviously referring to its structure. That energy is all there and yet as already scientifically explained above, it does not instantly dissipate or collapse.

Now that you bring it up, lets address when it Does shoot its energy out. Look at the Zero Crisis event link in the OP. It can structurally self sustain its energy just fine when stable and when unstable, it's withstanding its shot out energy just fine. two different approaches, same conclusion.

I'm just not even going to humor the consuming thing, as we've already gone over it. He was stated to be destroying it. Nothing approaching "The Devourer is going to absorb the Zero Point's power" is ever said. Just "consume and destroy".

3. Excuse me? Okay so basically, when the wiki you've been appealing to this whole time finally states something that doesn't align with your own opinion you're just gonna ignore it? Is this not straight up cherry picking?

I'm done repeating myself with evidence regarding this consumption thing. Regardless of how you view the process of consumption, at least we both agreed about it "feeding on" the Zero Point. Different boats taken, same island reached. To destroy the ball of pure energy would mean to overcome its structure and its binding and balancing forces which I've already explained can withstand it's own [2-A] energy output just fine.

To feed on the Zero Point would mean to either rip "sections" of it and overcome its structural integrity or to do it all once and overcome the whole system completely. Alternatively, one could do neither and they'd still be "feeding" on [2-A] energy which would grant the same tier regardless.

The FAQ bit is explaining that simply being higher dimensioned doesn't inherently give the respective tier. It is not suggesting Newton's Third Law applies to 2-A.

3. So a few messages ago you used Hulk as an example of the 3rd law despite the fact that in the same message you boldly claim that the 3rd law does not apply to Dimensionality above 3-D. Now, unless you somehow think Hulk only has 3-D feats, you'd be contradicting yourself. Hulk has many higher dimensional feats and he's given said tiers. However, according to your earlier statement, we can't use the 3rd law to scale him since said feats are higher than 3-D. Do you see the many issues with that?

Also, that is blantaly false information: Reread the FAQ page again. And I quote:

An intuitive example of that is found in the general definition of Work as defined in physics: In essence, as work itself denotes the energy applied to an object as it is displaced along a given path, the basic formula for calculating it only takes into account a single variable, and the path itself is treated as an one-dimensional object, regardless of the dimension of the space in which the action itself takes place.

So this confirms 1 important thing; Energy behaves the same regardless of Dimensionality [2-A and other]. So for you to go out of your way and blatantly say that a law about Energy somehow doesn't work in anything greater than 3-D is odd indeed.

It also doesn't help your case that the thing in question a ball of energy itself.

I don't care about Galactus at all, actually. The CRT isn't about him and nothing here emulates his feat.

4. I once again kindly ask you to stop the clear ignorance regarding this. The only reason I bring Galactus in this is because He is rated as Universe level+ because he caused a full reality collapse by absorbing the energy of the Zero Point. This is the same argument you are against when it's clearly already accepted in another related profile. We can go on and on about what consumption could mean but it does not change the fact that both Galactus and The Devourer were going to feed on the Zero Point and destroy it. They took the same boat to the same island but just not at the exact same time as each other. The scientific explanation I already did above. I also did not say this CRT is about him; I explained my exact reason twice now of why I brought him up here to begin with.

The opposite is literally not the case. We have huge, huge amounts of characters that draw power from a vaster power source that do not scale to the full power source. You are relatively new, but this is literally true for every verse with a UES. I don't think you're lying, but you are ignorant as to what you're claiming.

5. True, I've seen example profiles for myself. The difference here is that this isn't exactly like a Universal Energy System. The Zero Point primal creation energy is its own innate thing; it's relation to everything else is not the same way. This isn't like chakra or ki or ce that anyone can just manifest or absorb. it's verbatim stated to the most dangerous energy in existence.

I've also realized I've haven't brought much light to Mecha Team Leader. Mecha was able to outright physically handle and absorb The Zero Point while fighting the Devourer. As I already explained in the scientific part of this message, this would be [2-A] regardless of what you view "absorb" to be here (though that shouldn't matter because in the YouTube video it clearly shown what it is). The Devourer and Mecha fought and notably, The Devourer also tanked said [2-A] punch and then The Ice King himself has defeated The Devourer before.

Another character I must mentioned is The Foundation. This man is a different breed. Not only could he physically withstand the Structural Integrity of The Zero Point that I mentioned earlier, but he also did it for a whole season! It doesn't end there; This man ate the literal point blank zero implosion blast from The Zero Point itself. And then comes The Ice King who has beaten him already and now they are having a rematch. And in case you're wondering, yes, they are physically trading punches. "Hulk Style" as you may call it.

No new evidence has been brought forward. I'm not going to drag this out indefinitely, and as far as I can tell, I have genuinely responded to every element of your arguments (though, admittedly, I didn't understand what you were going for with the robot thing, until Spaceman said it. But I responded to him, so). No more responding from me unless something novel comes up.

6. Lastly, I hope point 5 clears up the confusion regarding Mecha Team Leader that you had. About the other element of my arguments, I think you've mentioned them at some point in your messages but in terms of dismantling, I wouldn't say so about any of them. I also addressed your respond to ActuallySpaceman in my previous message.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

At this point, I want you to understand that I don't feel your evidence can convince me. I want you to understand that I am trying to help you understand the general standards and precedents of the wiki, because you have cited things that are just abjectly incorrect, and I do not want you to work under misconceptions during your time here. I think you mean well and that you believe what you are saying, but it is based under false understandings of how the wiki approaches issues.

We've already gone over the energy bit. We have profiles where we demonstrate precedent for us not considering it to work as you suggest (the Cyclops example). We do not presume objects capable of performing reality warping feats to innately scale in durability to their capacity for reality warping. It just is not done.

I'm not appealing to the Fortnite wiki. I was using it to fill in gaps in what you were saying. I've seen the scan. It does not say absorption. I need you to not be so agitated about this. In the words of a great character, I'm not trying to hurt you. I am trying to help you.

I don't care about Marvel Comics and used the Hulk as an easily referenced example. You can supplant him with literally any bruiser character that you're aware of. Colossus. Juggernaut. Whoever. Please stop looking at this as an opportunity to debate against the standard, and rather see it as an opportunity to come to understand the standards as they are.

Galactus isn't important here. What Galactus did with some of the energy of the Zero Point doesn't mean anything in relation to what others can do if they take in some more of that energy. The Devourer never gained that energy, and the Mecha Team Leader did so just to power up their suit. That he used the same energy source does not make him scale to the full capacity of the energy. If anything, that Galactus is chiefly rated as Low 2-C, should hopefully demonstrate to you the truth of my words: we did not inherently assume him to be 2-A because he used a 2-A source. He performed a Low 2-C feat and so we rated him chiefly and firstly as solidly Low 2-C.

This is an energy source. It doesn't really matter that it is not a UES. I spoke on the Mecha Team Leader in response to SpaceMan, up above. He also doesn't "absorb" the Zero Point. He draws energy from it, and visibly places it back down. The Foundation probably won't change my mind, from the sounds of it, but if you want to offer up a compilation of evidence regarding it, it will at least be new evidence that can be evaluated.

I am not looking to dismantle you or your offerings. I am trying to explain to you why everything is not as you believe it is, at least in the eyes of VSBattles Wiki. We have a certain bar of evidence necessary, and the greater the claim, the greater the evidence required. This is a great claim and the evidence is largely based on incorrect assumptions of how the wiki handles things. I want you to understand so that in the future, if you do find a legitimate 2-A feat, you can recognize it and speak on it capably.

 

[AyOgUyS]

Based on Bambu's arguments, I disagree with the OP.