Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities Continued

[Matthew_Schroeder]

With all do respect I disagree with Kep's Megaton statement.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't even know what's being debated here anymore. The focus was supposed to be based on debating pocket reality creation feats. But then there are off topic, all over the place arguments? I'm leaning towards agreeing with Matt's sense of judgement about using the size, and for the most part how the pocket reality feats are treated now. Mass-Energy conversion seems like a bad idea.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

While the megaton example was a bit flawed, everything else said by Kep had my support.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Cal

I mean, Kep is proposing multiple things at once, so just claiming you agree with him doesn't really accomplish much.

At this point we already sort of have the arguments laid out, half of the posts here are Kep and I going off about semantics on "unquantifiable = baseline" which I disagree with completely (As it ignores context such as scaling, scope, size, and basically anything else that can be known about the feat without being able to calc it), isn't actually very relevent to the discussion.

 

[SomebodyData]

How would we even use the context?

"This guy created a pocket dimension 200 meters tall" < What tier is that for example.

It gets even worse when you consider vs debating.

"This guy created an explosion of X tons of TNT and the other feat is a world of X height"

Also, semantics? These are the issues we would have to resolve if it goes through.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Also, semantics? These are the issues we would have to resolve if it goes through.

It's a claim that I'm arguing that we should place the characters at baseline should we go with a size chart, which is neither my argument or intent. So yes, debating the word "unquantifiable" instead of discussing the validity of any of the respective methods is semantics.

 

[Kepekley23]

Cal means that he completely disagrees with your ideas for how we should treat pocket dimensions. We talked on Discord earlier today.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"This guy created a pocket dimension 200 meters tall" < What tier is that for example.

"This guy created an explosion of X tons of TNT and the other feat is a world of X height"

It depends on what's inside of the pocket dimension. Creating a pocket reality that's 200 meters tall and filled with solid steel should be >>> Creating an empty space 200 meters tall (Many have claimed creating empty space isn't even much of a feat if Agnaa's point about space expanding not taking energy is true).

 

[AguilaR101]

From what ive seen all values for creation are equally arbitrary.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Cal means that he completely disagrees with your ideas for how we should treat pocket dimensions. We talked on Discord earlier today.

Disagrees with GBE, Size chart, or both? I'm arguing for multiple options as well here.

 

[Kepekley23]

Both

 

[SomebodyData]

But that's the ultimate result. It's pointing out that 'unquantifiable' would result in baseline stats (which would be the common assumption) or guessing stats.

I think Kep's point is not the validity there, its that it simply won't work well in the site and alternative solutions should be sought out first.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

And he agrees with Inverse Square?

 

[Kepekley23]

And using the size will never be anything more than completely arbitrary, considering it's based off of destructive values as well. People seem to forget that the Tiering System's values for anything above tier 4 is based off of inverse square law omnidirectional explosion values.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I think Kep's point is not the validity there, its that it simply won't work well in the site and alternative solutions should be sought out first.

None of the alternate solutions really work, though. The most I'd agree with is GBE as it's the only method that actually relates to what is created instead of calculating an explosion covering the area of the dimension despite space being physically impossible to destroy in the first place.

 

[Kepekley23]

I think Kep's point is not the validity there, its that it simply won't work well in the site and alternative solutions should be sought out first.

Depends on what you mean by the "validity".

I definitely mean to get across that rating via size is invalid and self-contradictory on VBW, as numerically, our tierings for anything above stellar is based off of an explosion that can engulf said area, so it just ends up contradicting itself at the end of the day.

There is only one option in the opposition that doesn't result in all Creation feats in the site being completely dropped to "Unknown" via chain reaction. Discarding scaling creation to destruction for dimensions would also mean that we would need to discard GBE for creating celestial bodies overall, for the exact same reason, thus ending in all feats that involve moving planets/stars at FTL speeds or creating them being unquantifiable.

I don't have much of any argument or reservations against, neither am I in support of, the High 4-C option via creating all the matter within said dimmension suggested by Assalt, other than pointing out for completion's sake that it also downgrades anyone who creates constellations, galaxies, or even outright universes to <4-A, considering creating all the matter within one universe is only a 4-A feat.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I don't have much of any argument against the High 4-C option via creating all the matter within said dimmension suggested by Assalt, other than pointing out for completion's sake that it also downgrades anyone who creates constellations, galaxies, or even outright universes to <4-A, considering creating all the matter within one universe is only a 4-A feat.

If creating all matter in the universe is a 4-A feat and a starry sky is High 4-C going by the matter created, and we absolutely need to use calculations to define the feats, I'd say go with this. It's a consequence of how we set up the tiering as opposed to how we should calculate the feats themselves. I'd rather use a calcualation method that accounts for what is being created rather than a false one that satisfies ratings.

 

[Kepekley23]

And the megaton analogy is spot-on. As fundamental math tells you, whenever a result is unquantifiably greater, you simply round it to the basic value while noting it's technically "above", hence why the "" symbol denotes "equal to/greater than"

There is absolutely no difference between being baseline 4-A and unquantifiably higher than 4-A as far as the merits of the argument either way - it's just pointless semantics. Both are equally arbitrary choices within our system.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There is absolutely no difference between being baseline 4-A and unquantifiably higher than 4-A as far as the merits of the argument either way - it's just pointless semantics. Both are equally arbitrary and rounded to baseline within our system.

It's not all just mathematics though. We can look at the details that we do get and at least make an educated estimation. We can scale characters greatly more powerful than others upwards because we logically know they are stronger. We don't need a claculation to decide if a character or feat is above or below another.

Otherwise statements and shows of power over other characters genuinely has no meaning, as we would assume a character who can one-shot another character to be at the same level because we can't quantify how high above they are. If a character can destroy a "large city" as opposed to an average sized city they can clearly overpower baselines, it's not semantics. It's just looking and context when we can't incessantly crunch numbers.

Since this is just turning into a general ratings debate though we can take it somewhere else; as this will just take up more space and confuse more users on this thread

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The idea that we can't determine which character is stronger without hard number calcs going on here is pretty bad.

 

[Kepekley23]

> It's not all just mathematics though. We can look at the details that we do get and at least make an educated estimatio

Your estimate doesn't get to be any less arbitrary just because it's unquantifiably higher. It doesn't make the argument any less flawed when you take into account that the minimum energy value for said tier is destructive-based.

> We don't need a claculation to decide if a character or feat is above or below another.

You do need solid proof to decide that creating a dimension 7,500 light years in diameter is greater than destroying a dimension that is 4 light years (baseline for 4-A) wide. If you don't hold the belief that creation can be equaled to destruction, then your "it's an obvious consequence" response for the former problem is nothing but code for "I don't have evidence so I am going to say it should be obvious"


> Otherwise statements and shows of power over other characters genuinely has no meaning, as we would assume a character who can one-shot another character to be at the same level because we can't quantify how high above they are.

We do just that in this wiki. When a character one shots a 200 megaton, we assume they're unquantifiably above 200 megatons to a degree that can't be quantified, and thus it gets rounded to ~>200 megatons. If you pit said character against a 300-megaton the 300-megaton will come out on top.

 

[Kepekley23]

The idea that we can't determine which character is stronger without hard number calcs going on here is pretty bad.

Sounds like a complete strawman.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

My opinion is this:

Preferably, don't use calcs for dimension creation.

Alternatively, use Creation = Destruction

 

[Kaltias]

Matt, how exactly would you compare "My character hits with 740 PetaFoe of energy" to "My character can create a dimension big enough to contain 128 stars"?

The calcs are everything as far as the tiering system is concerned. It's built on that

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

You don't compare which is why I say starry dimensions are unquantifiable 4-A.

And no, from Low 2-C onwards calcs don't matter.

 

[Kepekley23]

The former would make the feat unquantifiable considering the baseline for 4-A/4-B is based off of a calculation for the absolute minimum energy it takes to destroy two solar systems/one solar system.

If you advocate for dimension creation not being the same as destroying it, then rating the feat as 4-B/4-A is the exact same as completely contradicting yourself. By the logic presented in this thread, under that model the feat would be "Unknown", or much lower than what one would think if you go by the "number of stars multiplied by GBE" model.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I literally advocated for the opposite of not being the same.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Your estimate doesn't get to be any less arbitrary just because it's unquantifiably higher. It doesn't make the argument any less flawed when you take into account that the minimum energy value for said tier is destructive-based.

So, what? We shouldn't even consider statements? In verse-events? Scaling? You don't need to define how much, you just need to recognize the actual context and content of the feat or statement you're analyzing.

We do just that in this wiki. When a character one shots a 200 megaton, we assume they're unquantifiably above 200 megatons to a degree that can't be quantified, and thus it gets rounded to ~>200 megatons. If you pit said character against a 300-megaton the 300-megaton will come out on top.

I've honestly never in my time here seriously seen someone make that argument on any given thread. We actually look at the context of fights and power scaling in the verse when comparing characters and feats. A character who can one shot 40 megatons isn't an even match for other 40 megaton characters, at that point you're purposefully ignoring any and all context within a story. Heck, going off of this logic we could pit Saitama against a character identical to Boros in every single aspect but origin and have Saitama get stomped, as we'd needlessly round down AP.

If this is actually the case, I'd like to see it in stone on a rules page, as you'd have hundreds of threads to remove.

 

[Kepekley23]

Except they aren't unquantifiable 4-A under that model snce the baseline for 4-A is based off of a, repeating again and again, calculatio which utilizes the minimum energy required to destroy the solar system with an omnidirectional explosion.

If creation can not be compared to destruction, there is no logic or sense in trying to say it's 4-A, 4-B or anything. It's a nonsensical lowball because the feat wouldn't be quantifiable at all. It'd be pulling a tier out of thin air to suit our senses.

Or, going by the GBE model, the number of stars would determine the AP. Which means your average starry dimension would be High 4-C via the GBE of the average star * thousands of stars, which also affects any type of creation feat on a stellar level, like making a solar system being 4-C, and making galaxies or universes being 4-B/4-A respectively.

 

[Agnaa]

We do just that in this wiki. When a character one shots a 200 megaton, we assume they're unquantifiably above 200 megatons to a degree that can't be quantified, and thus it gets rounded to ~>200 megatons. If you pit said character against a 300-megaton the 300-megaton will come out on top.

When does this stop happening?

Someone unquantifiably above 200 megatons loses to a 300 megaton character, but what about a 250 megaton character? A 210 megaton character? A 200.01 megaton character?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

When does this stop happening?

Someone unquantifiably above 200 megatons loses to a 300 megaton character, but what about a 250 megaton character? A 210 megaton character? A 200.01 megaton character?

Kep's suggesting throwing out the concept entirely; a character unquantifiably above 200 megatons is apparently an equal match for a 200 megaton character.

Suffice to say I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[Kepekley23]

When does this stop happening?

Someone unquantifiably above 200 megatons loses to a 300 megaton character, but what about a 250 megaton character? A 210 megaton character? A 200.01 megaton character?

What do you mean?

Technically it'd stop happening once our tiers reached the Low 2-C boundary.

Technically, technically, you can still be 10x Low 2-C or 10x 2-C, 2-B, etc...so if a verse outright says Character A is ~10x Low 2-C, Character B one-shotting Character C, who is baseline Low 2-C, would mean he would still lose to Character A without further clarifications.

 

[Agnaa]

What do you mean?

Technically it'd stop happening once our tiers reached the Low 2-C boundary.

Technically, technically, you can still be 10x Low 2-C or 10x 2-C, 2-B, etc...so if a verse outright says Character A is ~10x Low 2-C, Character B one-shotting Character C, who is baseline Low 2-C, would mean he would still lose to Character A without further clarifications.

I mean, we assume that someone who one-shots a 200 megaton would be weaker than a 300 megaton, but would that character who one-shots a 200 megaton be able to one shot a 250 megaton, or a 210 megaton, or a 200.01 megaton?

When does that assumption that the character who one-shots a 200 megaton is weaker stop?

 

[Kepekley23]

@Agnaa

Depends on whether the verse outright gives a value for how much stronger ya need to be to one-shot - because otherwise, due to the unquantifiable nature of such feats, one-shotting a 200 megatons shouldn't make you able to one-shot anything higher than 200 megatons, no.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Agnaa

Depends on whether the verse outright gives a value for how much stronger ya need to be to one-shot - because otherwise, due to the unquantifiable nature of such feats, one-shotting a 200 megatons shouldn't make you able to one-shot anything higher than 200 megatons, no.

So they wouldn't be able to one-shot a 201 megaton character but could oneshot a 200 megaton character?

What even

 

[Kepekley23]

> So, what? We shouldn't even consider statements? In verse-events? Scaling? You don't need to define how much, you just need to recognize the actual context and content of the feat or statement you're analyzing.

What statements or in-universe events? The verse saying that someone who can create starry dimensions is stronger than someone who can destroy two solar systems? Because that's the statement you need.

Scaling? Scaling makes discussing the feat irrelevant altogether.

This answer is a loaded answer and answers none of the objections presented. This is pretty much pure fluff, sorry.

> I've honestly never in my time here seriously seen someone make that argument on any given thread. We actually look at the context of fights and power scaling in the verse when comparing characters and feats. A character who can one shot 40 megatons isn't an even match for other 40 megaton characters, at that point you're purposefully ignoring any and all context within a story. Heck, going off of this logic we could pit Saitama against a character identical to Boros in every single aspect but origin and have Saitama get stomped, as we'd needlessly round down AP.

Saitama can one-shot Boros, so this hypothetical character identical to him would be one-shotted as well. That much is quantifiable. Anyone higher than him wouldn't be one-shotted.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still think using Inverse Square Law is best for interstellar or above sized pocket dimensions, which is 4-A. I suppose a solid High 4-C is for planet to star distances as opposed the the 4-B calc is fine. And for realities less than planetary, we use size and/or what it contains. It's Mountain level if it contains a large mountain, or City level if it contains a city, ect.

 

[Kepekley23]

So they wouldn't be able to one-shot a 201 megaton character but could oneshot a 200 megaton character?

What even

Can you actually prove they could or is this yet another "should be obvious, though?"

Of course they can seriously harm said character with their hits, much like any fight in any fiction, but why should we assume they can one-shot?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Saitama can one-shot Boros, so this hypothetical character identical to him would be one-shotted as well. That much is quantifiable. Anyone higher than him wouldn't be one-shotted.

Right, so adding a centijoule on this hypothetical character means we can't reason Saitama is stronger anymore.

This is honestly needlessly restrictive of analyzing in-verse events and by no means indicative of how the site is actually run.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Can you actually prove they could or is this yet another "should be obvious, though?"

Of course they can seriously harm said character with their hits, much like any fight in any fiction, but why should we assume they can one-shot?

The proof itself is in the character one-shotting 200 megaton characters. Putting an infintesimily small number in front of it doesn't change that fact.

Going by your argument, why would we consider them as being able to seriously harm them but not one shot if we're rounding down? Didn't you just say there's no difference between unquantifiably higher and baseline? So where does this come from? Dare I say it's from common sense?