Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities Continued

[Dargoo_Faust]

Where is the most explaining why creating all the matter in the universe isn't 4-A? Because given what I'm currently thinking matter creation even on a universes scale isn't 3-A no matter how you slice it.

Actually, creating all the matter in the universe is in fact a 4-A feat if you're creating it in an existing universe, see constellation feats.

If you're creating a pocket dimension of that size, though, according to the consensus here, we would use inverse square.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Trying to teach Assalt, the guy who made the calc, what the calc wields

not ovo

 

[Andytrenom]

If you say "not ovo" and cross it out does that mean "ovo"

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Dargoo

Yeah, I know it yields 4-A. I'm asking why it should be treated as 3-A when our current yet value for 3-A is so ludicrously high that no method for quantifying creation will ever reach it.

 

[BlackeJan]

So are u guys taking about creation = destruction?

 

[AguilaR101]

No, it's about what type/level of destruction should be equated to creation.

 

[BlackeJan]

Ok but I do want to ask how does creation mean AP?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo

Yeah, I know it yields 4-A. I'm asking why it should be treated as 3-A when our current yet value for 3-A is so ludicrously high that no method for quantifying creation will ever reach it.

I don't disagree at all.

It's more just a side effect of us picking GBE, something not very related to planet formation, to define celestial bodies, and inverse square, something not very related to pocket dimensions, to define pocket reality feats.

Technically speaking the only "correct" way to do this in regards to physics would to discount the feats entirely, as they by definition are made through methods that can bypass the need for energy, but that wouldn't satisfy their portrayal as shows of power or feats within the context of a verse.

 

[Omimi]

they by definition are made through methods that can bypass the need for energy

but

what if it stated that creating dimensions need huge amount energy

 

[DMUA]

Bump since this needs to be settled

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Bump since this needs to be settled

It sort of was settled.

"We made up an arbitrary non scientific way of calcing these feats and just agree to do it that way because reasons" was agreed on by most here.

Despite, for some reason, Kep claiming a size chart being fine for similar feats in the GoW thread.

 

[DMUA]

oh

oh boy

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

oh

oh boy

I'm just annoyed with the double standard. If we can't have size charts for pocket realities throw them out wherever else they're used in celestial body feats.

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm just annoyed with the double standard. If we can't have size charts for pocket realities throw them out wherever else they're used in celestial body feats.

I'm honestly not opposed to that idea. And I will point out that creating double standards is one of the reasons this change was opposed.

 

[Antvasima]

So if you have reached an agreement here, do we need to write guideline page for this, or just include an explanation somewhere?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"Celestial Body Feats" should be renamed "Celestial Body Calculations" and we should explain how we calculate each feat. If there isn't a way to calculate them we make one up on the spot.

At least that's what I gathered from discussions on this thread.

 

[Andytrenom]

Dargoo, can you at least give Ant a proper summary beyond "we make up things on the spot, that's what I gathered".

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Dargoo, can you at least give Ant a proper summary beyond "we make up things on the spot, that's what I gathered".

I kid you not, that is what was agreed on. Most here agreed that there was no proper way of calculating them so we just use an equation that satisfies the Tiering System, not one that is "accurate" in the scientific sense.

As for the specifics of calculating them; if celestial bodies are involved use GBE for planetoids/stars, then the moment there is any space inbetween them use Inverse Square, unless there's something ridiculous like two stars in a galaxy-sized space.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We can add this to the bottom of the Pocket Reality Manipulation page:

Pocket Reality Feats
Often times the creation and manipulation of Pocket Realities are treated as feats within verses, that can often define a character's capacity to harm an opponent. In such cases, they are treated similarly to Celestial Body/Creation Feats.

Before it can be considerd as a feat, however, there must be evidence that the pocket reality is created by the character, and that they didn't simply transport other characters to an existing pocket reality.

In cases where the Pocket Reality encompasses Celestial Bodies, Gravitational Binding Energy is used. If there are multiple celestial bodies and space in between them, the Inverse Square Law is used, assuming an explosion is caused which destroys the farthest celestial bodies in the pocket reality. If the pocket reality encompasses a size comparable to a universe and has its own timeline, this would simply be a Low 2-C feat on the Tiering System.

In cases where the Pocket Reality encompasses areas smaller than Celestial Bodies, Attack Potency is estimated from the size.

Naturally case-by-case analysis is used, and these methods need not apply for every Pocket Reality feat. Outliers and the like should be considered as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I made an attempt to clean up the draft a bit. Further improvements are appreciated.

Pocket Reality Feats
Feats that involve the creation and manipulation of pocket realities are recurrently used to define a character's capacity to harm an opponent. In such cases, they are treated similarly to celestial body/creation feats.

However, before such feats can be considered valid, there must be conclusive evidence that the pocket reality in question was created by a certain character, and that they didn't simply transport other characters to one that existed previously.

If the Pocket Reality in question encompasses celestial bodies, gravitational binding energy is used. If there are multiple celestial bodies and space in between them, the inverse square law is used, assuming equivalent power to an explosion that would destroy the most distant celestial bodies within the pocket reality. If the pocket reality is of comparable size to a universe, and has its own timeline, this would simply be a Low 2-C feat according to the tiering system.

In cases when a pocket reality encompasses areas smaller than celestial bodies, the attack potency is estimated from the size.

Naturally case-by-case analysis has to be used, and these methods need not apply for every pocket reality feat. Outliers, inconsistencies, plot-induced stupidity, and similar should be considered as well.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"smaller than celestial Bbdies" should the corrected to "smaller than celestial bodies", small correction.

The rest looks great.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. Do the rest of you consider the text acceptable to add to the Pocket Reality Manipulation page, or does it need to be modified first?

 

[SomebodyData]

If I understand this correctly, and I'm pretty sure and hope I didn't:

Did you just add the method everyone else disagreed on? I'm pretty sure most agree on treating it as creation = destruction given most fiction does the same, but the description says we just essentially still treat it as 'size based' feats.

 

[Agnaa]

It's creation = destruction for celestial bodies and larger, size based for lower than celestial bodies.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If I understand this correctly, and I'm pretty sure and hope I didn't:
Did you just add the method everyone else disagreed on? I'm pretty sure most agree on treating it as creation = destruction given most fiction does the same, but the description says we just essentially still treat it as 'size based' feats.

That's only when we can't apply GBE or Inverse Square, the only two methods extensively discussed and agreed on.

 

[SomebodyData]

Oh I probably got confused then, thought they were saying creation = destruction overall.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

No, creation = destruction was agreed on for all cases.

Just that we also agreed there is no way to calculate the feats; and that the only two methods we seemed to discuss/agree on were GBE and Inverse Square. Anything too small for those just weren't discussed.

 

[Antvasima]

I made an attempt to clean up the draft a bit. Further improvements are appreciated.

So is this acceptable to add then?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think that looks great.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you. I will add it then.

 

[Antvasima]

I have done so: Pocket Reality Manipulation