- 16,963
- 4,864
Uh, no, I think you have that backwards, because absolutely nothing has yet to still debunk the downgrade points and this thread is far from finished.
Far as I see, the downgrade is still set in stone until something new comes up.
-
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.
Alien X 3-A Downgrade
- Thread starter TauanVictor
- Start date
- Status
Far as I see, the downgrade is still set in stone until something new comes up.
- 2,652
- 1,482
Still waiting for this to be answered. It's gonna resolve a lot of the confusion going around regarding tier 1 and it's gonna give purpose to what would otherwise be derailment in this thread.
- 46
- 41
Ight then let's start it back up, what points do you think currently believe still stand and downgrade him. Also I thought this entire thing was about the barrier and it's scale, what's your debunk to that?
- 16,963
- 4,864
The barrier thing was never really a counter though since it’s not a durability feat. Disregarding the entire dimensional topic, creation itself is not offensive.
Even now, I still fail to see how “surviving creation” is in any way a durability feat.
Even now, I still fail to see how “surviving creation” is in any way a durability feat.
- 46
- 41
I can explain to you why it's a durability feat. The extra dimensional field was designed to tank a bomb and its release of energy. This bomb is called the Annihilargh and it was designed to create an entire universe if there was none there in the first place, this would include space and time, they even said that time and stuff hadn't started yet and come see the "birth of the universe" etc. So obviously it would be a universal+ bomb. Now why would surviving a space time bomb scale to it's durability? Well first, what is durability? Durability is the property which guarantees the ability to withstand a certain amount of force. Now does this apply to the field? Yes it does, the field purpose was to contain the release of energy from a universal+ bomb in which it successfully did so.
Is there anymore confusion now?
- 46
- 41
To give you a little real life example let's just say you were in the middle of the Big Bang which many scientists believe to be the creation of the observable universe. If you were in the middle of that you would be tanking around 9.5 x 10**53 megatons of tnt. So your durability would be wherever 9.5 x 10**53 because you survived "creation" @ProfessorKukui4Life
- 16,963
- 4,864
Yes I know this, and again, I still fail to see how this is a durability feat when the release of energy in this specific action is not being offensively applied. It’s not an attack, destruction, etc
if it’s just purely creation then it’s not something that can be considered durability. Creation itself cannot harm you
See above.
Again, see above.
And again, see above.
- 46
- 41
So you agree that there is a massive release of energy that's universal+ in size that the field is tanking? But you don't believe it scales because it's not an attack or destruction? Yea that makes no sense.
Something doesn't have to attack you for it to hurt you and for you to be able to tank it still. Like if an anvil falls down from the sky hits me in my face and I walk out unscathed the anvil didn't attack me and it wasn't destruction but I still tanked it. Wierd example but It works and gets my point across.
The thing about durability is that it doesn't matter whether it's from creation or destruction as long as you tank the energy that is being thrown at you it scales. All creation is, is just creating something out of nothing. If creating something out of nothing includes a gigantic explosion that releases energy beyond infinity. If you think that in that particular case isn't just purely creation then sure but I believe it should be looked at case by case.
"Creation itself cannot harm" sure but the release of energy beyond infinite megatons of tnt from the creation of the entire universe could.
I really really hope this message, helps.
- 16,963
- 4,864
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Taking the energy used for creation, and applying it into a destructive action, like a punch or an energy blast, is one thing
But if your simply creating x, then there’s nothing harmful. The released energy is not being used to harm or destroy anything, it’s being released to create what it’s creating. So there’s no destructive force being applied
So yes, I’m disagreeing with it being a durability feat for this. We don’t hand durability feats out strictly because of a creation event.
Otherwise, every single creator would automatically scale in durability to what they created. A planet, star, universe, multiverse, etc etc
Gross False equivalence since an Anvill falling destroys things with an applied force from a fall.
- 7,638
- 7,806
The extra-dimensional field significantly affects the expansion of universal space-time which falls under Low 2-C.
- 8,849
- 9,509
My God. What happened while I was gone?
- 16,963
- 4,864
Yes and said field is not being used in a manner that can be tanked in the sense that you think.
When have we ever given any durability from universal creation?
Baken384
He/Him- 3,659
- 3,797
Seriously, i tried reading this more than three times already and im still lost on what the hell is going on.
- 7,638
- 7,806
@DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima
Could you assist us again with regards to the application of an Extra-Dimensional field that significantly affects the expansion of universal space-time?
Could you assist us again with regards to the application of an Extra-Dimensional field that significantly affects the expansion of universal space-time?
- 8,849
- 9,509
Why is the extra dimensional field being discussed? If the Big Bang is 3-A then so is the field. And for the last time, the Big Bang did not create an entire timeline. Is that hard to understand?
- 7,638
- 7,806
We've already confirmed it with the other mods here that it was Low 2-C.
- 8,849
- 9,509
By doing what? All you did was vaguely tell them the situation without going into detail. That’s straight up manipulation of staff dude. If you’re gonna convince them, make compelling counter arguments to mine, which you didn’t btw.
- 7,638
- 7,806
I don't appreciate the accusation of manipulation. In what way have I been inaccurate in my description?
- 46
- 41
The energy/force regardless if it's a punch or blast, show me where in the definition or guidelines of durability it says anything remotely close to if it's only a punch or blast. Cause it says "Durability is the property which guarantees the ability to withstand a certain amount of force. This is not to be confused with endurance; while durability is the ability to withstand damage" it never says it has to be with a punch or blast that still makes no sense. As long as you are tanking said release of energy regardless of how you're tanking it, it scales to your durability. To bring up another point the field is maint to protect the contumelia from the upcoming release (Straight up stated). Protecting means to keep safe from injury or harm, so the release of energy can clearly cause damage to others without the field thus the field needs to be able to tank the energy which can harm others. And to bring it back to the definition specifically this part "Durability is the ability to withstand damage" the release of said energy can cause harm or injury which is literally damage.
The release of energy can absolutely harm others, what are you even talking about. And where in the guidelines of durability does it say the force has to be destructive? Exactly, it doesn't as long as it's force.
Show me that then, and if so then why did Ant literally agree with us, why did a moderator literally agree with us, why is the only moderator who disagreed not talking anymore after I beat him up? Tell me why, why isn't on the page it stated that a creation event can't be a durability feat, why? You did this the last time we debated and it's annoying and disingenuous. WHO TF IS EVEN "we" BTW. Anyway, can you prove this because right now it looks like you're lying again.
If they created by outputting force then absolutely yes they absolutely should according to Newtons 3rd Law of Motion which states "they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction".
How about this then, the anvil is unbreakable it falling can't be destroyed in my fictional head, the impact from the fall destroys nothing because it hits something that also is unbreakable, unbendable and can't be destroyed. What now? @ProfessorKukui4Life
- 8,849
- 9,509
Despite the staff not knowing the full context of anything, you still pushed for “the universe has low 2-C creation” and when I come back on the thread, trying to explain why that’s wrong, you just dismiss my claims by saying “well the staff agreed with X statement.” Yet you, one of my main contenders, never even thought of reading through my most important arguments. You saying “we’ve discussed this before” etc.
What’s the point of me wasting my time, making points, if you’re just gonna be dismissive, despite you being gone for most of the two threads?
- 8,849
- 9,509
Look, I was on vacation and decided to check the thread real quick. Only to see an absolute hell hole of a derailment. So I’m not going to comment further on this thread for the rest of the night because I seriously don’t want to say something that’ll get me banned.
So goodnight everyone, and stop derailing the thread.
So goodnight everyone, and stop derailing the thread.
- 7,638
- 7,806
All I did was describe the situation in the episode and confer with them if it qualifies for Low 2-C or not.
- 2,335
- 1,005
That doesn't make sense. 3-A is reasonable. 2-C implies timelines and rewinding time isn't the same as creating or destroying a timeline. In the guide posted in the comment above, it even specifies Alien X can destroy/create universe(s) which means, yes more than 1 universe at least, doesn't say at a time or not, but the potential is still clear. As for timelines, no, just time manipulation at most. Low 2-C is overkill and borderline wank.
Time hax =/= 2-C or Low 2-C. If the entire timeline and physical universe (time/space continuum) were simultaneously destroyed at any point, then we could argue that. The implications and statements with current feats are like this: he could recreate the universe if destroyed, he just can't "undo" it if the timeline was wiped out with it. As much as he can do, there's a ceiling the creators intended clearly painted into his powers.
He's not all powerful, just up to universal in strength and influence.
- 2,335
- 1,005
- 46
- 41
In context and to what he was replying to I was meant to say Contumelia but I accidentally said Alien X and the guy was like "Who said anything about Alien X" I edited the message afterwards so that's prob why you are confused
- 7,638
- 7,806
We still need to confer with the mods regarding the extra-dimensional field.
- 46
- 41
If you're talking about the field and if it scales then, nah that points done mate, unless somebody has something they wanna say to me. @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer got any debunks to what I'm specifically saying, does anyone for that matter. Also I thought Ant already agreed that it scales and some others already agreed that it scales.
- 6,029
- 3,530
yeah but our topic isn't
- 16,963
- 4,864
Read the highlighted words. Creation is not an amount of force. It’s energy is, but unless it’s applied in a destructive action, there’s 0 reason to think that energy is the same as when used that way.
“An amount of force”
Yeah no, I disagree. Better get a CRT up to change the standards then if you think otherwise
Okay? Doesn’t mean that said release of energy is the same level as when the energy would be used for attacking or destruction
See above.
Only when used for attacking or destruction. Creation doesn’t harm you.
There’s such a thing called common sense. Stop playing the “where this is said card” as some kind of technicality like it needs to be directly written in stone to be a thing.
Force comes from destruction or attacks, which causes harm. Creation doesn’t cause harm, it’s the exact opposite.
There’s such a thing as people being wrong? None of the mods are some omniscient dictators. They can be very much wrong themselves
Because we don’t give durability feats from creation feats? Literally never have done so? Give me a single character on this site that has ever gotten durability from what they created
Don’t care.
Imagine using physics for a tier that goes completely against it. But anyways, no, creation feats do not work like this.
Again, there is a difference between using energy for specifically creation and using energy FROM a creation feat and applying it as a destructive action. The latter is ap. The former is not.
Creation is not something that can harm you
Very specific scenario you conjured up, which is absolutely nothing like what we are discussing here. So pointless to answer.
- 16,963
- 4,864
People should also kindly stop trying to rush this thread to be finished. The thread is very far from over.
- 2,335
- 1,005
Hop didn't ask, then quit derailing.
If anyone rushes to close this before a counter point is made (give it a day, some people have f*cking jobs or sleep in a different time zone), Hop will lose it.
Behavior like that is disruptive as derailing a thread is. If you force the OP to make yet another thread it clogs the wiki and will carry over toxic discussion there. Stop wanking, stop low balling, stop rushing. Present facts, let the other person speak and don't ignore them. Have a discussion. Losing the argument doesn't mean we think you're dumb or that you're not welcome here. Sometimes we see things differently. That's the point to threads. Open discussion, revising our content on the wiki to be more accurate.
Anyway, please consider Hop's points made in the previous comment. If Hop is wrong, present the counter evidence, Hop is only familiar with pre-current-show incarnations of the character (excluding that scan from earlier).
Last edited:
- 6,029
- 3,530
bruh wha...
anyway, I'm kinda confused now who's in favor of the downgrade and who isn't
- 46
- 41
I was expecting a better and more detailed response with much more convincing arguments with accordance to the time it took for you to reply.
This is a bad response to what I said, and on top of that, you took forever, if you're gonna give me a bunch of half fast 1 sentence responses to what I said then at least take like 10 mins to do so dude. You straw manned me and didn't even go over any crucial points in my message for example the harm point. Also, don't you ever ever be disingenuous with me, don't you ever ever rat out on me like that ever again. Ight thats' it
Never says that at all, it says certain amount of force dude. Show me where why for something to be a durability feat it has to be a destructive action, show me that irl and show me that on the page. The energy can be different, the energy doesn't have to be the same or used in the same way at all dude, what are you on about. If you tank 20 megatons of tnt you tanked 20 megatons of tnt and that scales due to being able to withstand said force no matter if it's creation or destruction or a punch or a kick or a very strong bee stinging you in the arm.
Exactly, it's says an amount of force, so regardless if said force it through creation or destruction dude.
I'm not making a CRT for one person to agree, and the standards agree with me, if you tank a release of energy/force that's text book definition of scaling to your durability according to the sites page.
Creation > Destruction in terms of the energy it takes to do so. Also, it doesn't matter if it's the same level or not if they're releasing the exact same amount of energy then it's the same level of energy. It's kinda like the question, which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks.
I'm sorry are you stupid? I just proved it can harm the people on the ship dude, did you just miss that. And creation can literally harm for example when the Big Bang ******* blew up, do you really think the 9.5 x 10**53 Megatons of TNT going off in your face won't harm you because it's creation? I also gave you an analogy where you aren't getting attacked and nothing is being destroyed but if it hit you, it would scale but you refused to answer the question cause you know that it does. My point is that creation does harm you when said creation is creating beyond infinite levels of megatons of tnt all in your face. Creation doesn't inherently harm anyone but it literally can and in this case it's stated it can harm people, so you need to go back to the drawing board with that.
Never stated that, this is a very blatant strawman fallacy, and my entire point then was that with the "we" I assumed you were referring to the people who actually make and affect the guidelines of things such as durability on the site. If you weren't then fine but still answer my question, who is "we"?
I said that if a character RELEASES ENERGY when creating something, according to Newton's 3rd Law of motion they should be able to survive the same amount of energy they released in counter force. Just to be blunt don't care if you've never seen it, I don't have to give an example. Debunk what I said.
I've proved that creation can harm you dude, I proved that the Annihilargh creation was going to harm the people on the Contumelia ship, I proved that already dude. I proved that the barrier is also needed so it doesn't harm anyone but ofc that's the one point you NEVER replied to. Anyway, what the **** is the difference between energy used for creation and energy used for destruction, they're both energy just used for different purposes right. So then if creating something involves a shit ton of megatons of tnt being released into the world and in your face wouldn't that harm you? Exactly, it literally would dude, and don't even try and say that you can tank even a single megaton of tnt to your face.
This is a bad response to what I said, and on top of that, you took forever, if you're gonna give me a bunch of half fast 1 sentence responses to what I said then at least take like 10 mins to do so dude. You straw manned me and didn't even go over any crucial points in my message for example the harm point. Also, don't you ever ever be disingenuous with me, don't you ever ever rat out on me like that ever again. Ight thats' it
Last edited:
- 2,335
- 1,005
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,054
Only read the last few posts but there's some stuff I need to point out so that it doesn't get replicated elsewhere. I would usually ignore this sorta thing, as I don't know anything about Ben 10, but many of the statements made were presented as if they apply in cases outside of Ben 10.
If you tank 20 megatons of tnt you tanked 20 megatons of tnt and that scales due to being able to withstand said force no matter if it's creation or destruction or a punch or a kick or a very strong bee stinging you in the arm.
Exactly, it's says an amount of force, so regardless if said force it through creation or destruction dude.
if you tank a release of energy/force that's text book definition of scaling to your durability according to the sites page.
You never tank creation. Something beginning to exist when it didn't before doesn't release energy.
And creation can literally harm for example when the Big Bang ******* blew up, do you really think the 9.5 x 10**53 Megatons of TNT going off in your face won't harm you because it's creation?
You're not getting harmed by the creation of that energy. You're getting harmed by experiencing the dense thermal energy. Creating a fire does not hurt you, but having your hand in a fire does. For a created thing to harm someone there has to be a specific reason for that created object to inflict harm, and to inflict the amount of harm you claim it will.
My point is that creation does harm you when said creation is creating beyond infinite levels of megatons of tnt all in your face. Creation doesn't inherently harm anyone but it literally can and in this case it's stated it can harm people, so you need to go back to the drawing board with that.
Existing in an empty realm, and then that realm being turned into an infinitely large existing realm does not harm you, so you're not tanking anything.
I said that if a character RELEASES ENERGY when creating something, according to Newton's 3rd Law of motion they should be able to survive the same amount of energy they released in counter force. Just to be blunt don't care if you've never seen it, I don't have to give an example. Debunk what I said.
Newton's 3rd law of motion has no reason to apply to non-physical stuff like creating a building out of nothing. If a character "releases energy when creating something", then that may scale, but only if they would have been enveloped by the energy released, and still, you'd need to figure out how much energy was released and scale them based on that, rather than scaling it to what they created.
EDIT: btw, this doesn't just apply to creation, an AP feat has to be striking strength done by your physical body to scale to durability via Newton's 3rd law. Weapons, abilities, and magic don't count and require additional scaling.
I've proved that creation can harm you dude
You have not.
I proved that the Annihilargh creation was going to harm the people on the Contumelia ship, I proved that already dude. I proved that the barrier is also needed so it doesn't harm anyone
If that is a thing in Ben 10, and sufficient statements to prove that it would have harmed people without extradimensional field protection or whatever, then scaling in that case should be fine.
Anyway, what the **** is the difference between energy used for creation and energy used for destruction, they're both energy just used for different purposes right.
One has 100% of the energy used to harm someone, one has 100% of the energy used to create something, leaving nothing left over to tank.
So then if creating something involves a shit ton of megatons of tnt being released into the world and in your face wouldn't that harm you? Exactly, it literally would dude, and don't even try and say that you can tank even a single megaton of tnt to your face.
If someone creates a bomb that explodes, that hurts me because the bomb released energy. If someone creates a ball of extremely dense matter that expands under its own pressure, that hurts me because of the pressure being released. If someone creates a mountain on top of me, that hurts me because it was gravitationally attracted onto my body. In none of those cases does the harm come from the creation, it comes from destructive things that the created object does later.
But, if someone just created a skyscraper in front of me, that would not hurt me one bit.
For a more poignant demonstration, if I was floating in space, creating a planet 1 meter beneath me would hurt me as much as falling 1 meter would on Earth, you'd be able to hurt me a lot more by creating a pole in my head, or creating a fire enveloping me, despite both of these taking far, far less "creation energy".
If you tank 20 megatons of tnt you tanked 20 megatons of tnt and that scales due to being able to withstand said force no matter if it's creation or destruction or a punch or a kick or a very strong bee stinging you in the arm.
Exactly, it's says an amount of force, so regardless if said force it through creation or destruction dude.
if you tank a release of energy/force that's text book definition of scaling to your durability according to the sites page.
You never tank creation. Something beginning to exist when it didn't before doesn't release energy.
And creation can literally harm for example when the Big Bang ******* blew up, do you really think the 9.5 x 10**53 Megatons of TNT going off in your face won't harm you because it's creation?
You're not getting harmed by the creation of that energy. You're getting harmed by experiencing the dense thermal energy. Creating a fire does not hurt you, but having your hand in a fire does. For a created thing to harm someone there has to be a specific reason for that created object to inflict harm, and to inflict the amount of harm you claim it will.
My point is that creation does harm you when said creation is creating beyond infinite levels of megatons of tnt all in your face. Creation doesn't inherently harm anyone but it literally can and in this case it's stated it can harm people, so you need to go back to the drawing board with that.
Existing in an empty realm, and then that realm being turned into an infinitely large existing realm does not harm you, so you're not tanking anything.
I said that if a character RELEASES ENERGY when creating something, according to Newton's 3rd Law of motion they should be able to survive the same amount of energy they released in counter force. Just to be blunt don't care if you've never seen it, I don't have to give an example. Debunk what I said.
Newton's 3rd law of motion has no reason to apply to non-physical stuff like creating a building out of nothing. If a character "releases energy when creating something", then that may scale, but only if they would have been enveloped by the energy released, and still, you'd need to figure out how much energy was released and scale them based on that, rather than scaling it to what they created.
EDIT: btw, this doesn't just apply to creation, an AP feat has to be striking strength done by your physical body to scale to durability via Newton's 3rd law. Weapons, abilities, and magic don't count and require additional scaling.
I've proved that creation can harm you dude
You have not.
I proved that the Annihilargh creation was going to harm the people on the Contumelia ship, I proved that already dude. I proved that the barrier is also needed so it doesn't harm anyone
If that is a thing in Ben 10, and sufficient statements to prove that it would have harmed people without extradimensional field protection or whatever, then scaling in that case should be fine.
Anyway, what the **** is the difference between energy used for creation and energy used for destruction, they're both energy just used for different purposes right.
One has 100% of the energy used to harm someone, one has 100% of the energy used to create something, leaving nothing left over to tank.
So then if creating something involves a shit ton of megatons of tnt being released into the world and in your face wouldn't that harm you? Exactly, it literally would dude, and don't even try and say that you can tank even a single megaton of tnt to your face.
If someone creates a bomb that explodes, that hurts me because the bomb released energy. If someone creates a ball of extremely dense matter that expands under its own pressure, that hurts me because of the pressure being released. If someone creates a mountain on top of me, that hurts me because it was gravitationally attracted onto my body. In none of those cases does the harm come from the creation, it comes from destructive things that the created object does later.
But, if someone just created a skyscraper in front of me, that would not hurt me one bit.
For a more poignant demonstration, if I was floating in space, creating a planet 1 meter beneath me would hurt me as much as falling 1 meter would on Earth, you'd be able to hurt me a lot more by creating a pole in my head, or creating a fire enveloping me, despite both of these taking far, far less "creation energy".
Last edited:
- 2,335
- 1,005
Hop like these points too
Good explanation. Alien X must relate to this somehow, hop guesses.... hehe....
Good explanation. Alien X must relate to this somehow, hop guesses.... hehe....
- Status
Similar threads
