Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities Continued

[Dargoo_Faust]

Previous thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2303206#455

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

My 2 cents is that pocket dimension creation shouldn't be anything more than an exotic ability that has nothing to do with applying any amount of energy in a combat scenario unless otherwise stated to be related to energy or destruction eg. "I converted this latent energy I control into mass to create this dimension and its planets" or "I am applying my power to this dimension I created and if I stop doing so this dimension would collapse and be destroyed."

Infering that the two actions are related or equal in terms of energy is reaching if the fiction itself doesnt infer it to be.

For the example of creation being equal to destruction in terms of energy? The mass energy of the universe has a lower joule value than leaving every celestial body in the universe gravitationally unbound via an omnidirectional explosion. Eg, creating all the matter in a dimension that contains a copy of our Earth's solar system via E=mc^2 would likely be on a lesser scale than gravitationally unbinding the whole solar system.

 

[Kaltias]

@Merlight

Creating the Sun via mass-energy is already above baseline 4-B

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

Well then on some point at the cosmic destruction scale the joule value exceeds the creation value in joules assuming you go by mass-energy. Creation would be more impressive on some smaller scale then, assuming it directly said to relate to energy.

 

[Kaltias]

Inverse Square Law starts being more impressive than mass-energy from 4-A and onwards.

Prior to that Mass-Energy is higher

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

Kinda restating; why exactly should we apply inverse square law via an energy explosion to an exotic ability? Not really sure why it needs to be AP based to begin with?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We decided that creating a pocket dimension/creation in general is a feat of attack potency; we're mostly just discussing how to quantify it now.

I would personally argue that it shouldn't scale their other offensive techniques unless we can correlate it to what they use to harm others.

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

Well personally, maybe the pocket dimension ability could be supplying the kinetic energy of the planetary bodies for dimensions of solar system scale?

Like making a pocket dimension copy with an Earth moving around a sun at an Earth-sun distance ala the Dark World from Zelda, the Triforce would have to be initially moving the copy planet around the copy sun.

Honestly don't see much hope for quantifying stuff on even larger scale without explicit mass-energy or counteracting destruction but eh whatever you guys use hope this helps.

 

[Omimi]

@Merlight
Creating the Sun via mass-energy is already above baseline 4-B

what about Creating earth/moon or both via mass-energy

 

[Kaltias]

Low 4-C, if I remember correctly.

But this isn't the thread for that

 

[Omimi]

that's too much lol but what the chances of Creation via mass-energy getting accepted?


i saw many disagreeing with that method.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We shouldn't use mass energy conversion.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Matthew. Creating stars and the like is generally done via reality warping.

 

[Kepekley23]

I have already my opinion clear and I am not changing my mind on this. "Baseline 4-A" as a rating is not based on facts. Only personal conceptions of how "common sense" works, which is pretty much saying "Ih ave no evidence for this, so excuse me if you try to question it".

The only considerable options here, to be frank, are to either (1) follow our common standards and equate creation with destruction, or (2) to go by High 4-C for starry dimensions via the same method we use to rate constellation creation, like Assalt suggested.

 

[AKM sama]

I agree with Matthew. Creating stars and the like is generally done via reality warping.

Most of the times, yes.

 

[Andytrenom]

I'll repeat my points from the previous thread.

If pocket dimension feats are to be calced with sum of GBE, I don't see how universe creation feats would be any different. The same logic that makes pocket reality feats high 4-C would make Universe creation feats tier 4 instead of 3-A.

Assigning a rating by size also wouldn't work, because as i said before it's the same thing as if we were to assign a rating by explosion yields. A pocket dimension being of certain size is only relevant if we assume the character can destroy something of that size through the method recognized in our standards for stellar feats ie An explosion.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Kepekley makes a good point, but am not the best suited for making a decision regarding which option to choose. Perhaps somebody should ask Azathoth to comment here?

 

[Andytrenom]

Sure.

 

[AguilaR101]

I'll repeat my points from the previous thread.

If pocket dimension feats are to be calced with sum of GBE, I don't see how universe creation feats would be any different. The same logic that makes pocket reality feats high 4-C would make Universes creation feats tier 4.

I don't see the correlation, universe creation feats are low 2-C for creating space-time on universal scale, if pocket reality feats followed the samae logic used behind universal ones they'd be high 3-A instead of whatever they're rated as now.

 

[Andytrenom]

• 3-A Universe creation feats

Edit: I'll edit that in

 

[Kepekley23]

> Universe creation feats are Low 2-C

No they are not. We only assume Low 2-C if it's explicitly stated that space-time is created. Otherwise we assume 3-A. Although our standards on universal feats are being revised by Sera currently.

 

[Kaltias]

I think that Andy was talking about the fact that creating all the matter in the universe is a 4-A feat if you use tge GBE method, which is a feat that we usually rate as 3-A

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

Pretty sure if you accounted for the GBE of all the galaxies making up the universe and not individual stars GBE, it'd be higher than 4-A tier.

 

[Kepekley23]

Galaxies are nothing but stars, planets (which are exponentially lower than stars), and some gases bound together.

Creating all the galaxies in the universe is a 4-A feat

 

[Antvasima]

That is a good point.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If we are to go with 1) or 2), I go with Kep's 1.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

2) follows the "creation = destruction" standard just as much as 1) does, though.

 

[OsamasbeenNaughty]

@kepekley23

Some galaxies (like da milky way) also hold the mass black holes and dark matter too lol not just those you listed. Estimating based off that the sum GBE of all them in the universe might go into 3-C. But sure, at worst its 4-A

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Also if the standard for constellation creation is already GBE I don't see how it should be particularly different for the same exact feat, but with just creating space in between, as we can't identify an energy value for destroying space itself.

 

[Omimi]

how do we handle/rate a dimension that contain earth and moon with day night cycle

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"Baseline 4-A" as a rating is not based on facts.

No one's argued for baseline this entire thread.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Universe creation feats are Low 2-C
No they are not. We only assume Low 2-C if it's explicitly stated that space-time is created. Otherwise we assume 3-A.

Creating a universe with its own spacetime is Low 2-C, though. No one's contesting that.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

"Baseline 4-A" as a rating is not based on facts.

No one's argued for baseline this entire thread.

This, tbh. We mean unquantifiable.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

This, tbh. We mean unquantifiable.

inb4 "unquantifiable = baseline" see my example of reasoning with statements:

I strongly disagree here. I'll use statements as an example. Someone being said to "demolish large cities" is clearly superior to someone who is said to be able to "destroy a city". Since we would assume the second statement is baseline, the previous one can be reasoned to be above baseline. Neither can really be evaluated due to lack of details but the difference can be seen in comparing the two in logic.

Going by Kep's example we'd assume both characters are baseline or even just call them unknown because they just happen to not have feats we can properly calc.

 

[The_Causality]

So

What are the problems now?

 

[Kepekley23]

No one's argued for baseline this entire thread.

"Unquantifiable" 4-A is meaningless and just as much baseline as baseline is.

 

[Kepekley23]

inb4 "unquantifiable = baseline" see my example of reasoning with statements:

I strongly disagree here. I'll use statements as an example. Someone being said to "demolish large cities" is clearly superior to someone who is said to be able to "destroy a city". Since we would assume the second statement is baseline, the previous one can be reasoned to be above baseline. Neither can really be evaluated due to lack of details but the difference can be seen in comparing the two in logic.

Going by Kep's example we'd assume both characters are baseline or even just call them unknown because they just happen to not have feats we can properly calc.

Both examples end up rated as "City level" at the end of the day.

There is no practical difference between >10 megatons and 10 megatons as you will still apply the 10 as the minimum when utilizing the number for other purposes.

 

[Kepekley23]

@kepekley23

Some galaxies (like da milky way) also hold the mass black holes and dark matter too lol not just those you listed. Estimating based off that the sum GBE of all them in the universe might go into 3-C. But sure, at worst its 4-A

1. Supermassive black holes are 4-B in our system. Dark matter is still in the process of being quantified at all.

2. Even then, it wouldn't approach anything close to 3-C.

 

[Kaltias]

You can really only compare the two statements in your example @Dargoo. You can't compare them with any actual feat.

You have no way at all to say how far the "large city" is into 7-B if you consider the "city" statement as baseline.

 

[Kepekley23]

2) follows the "creation = destruction" standard just as much as 1) does, though.

I mean, if you want to make creating any celestial body either (1) an unquantifiable feat or (2) make creating planets a Low 4-C feat via e=mc┬▓ then sure - considering GBE has nothing to do with creation either, nor does Reality Warping or anything.