• 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.

Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dargoo_Faust

Blue Doggo Enthusiast
VS Battles
Retired
15,637
5,392
DISCLAIMER: THIS THREAD IS NOT PUTTING INTO THE QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF CREATION FEATS. IF THAT DISCUSSION COMES UP HERE, THAT WOULD BE DERAILMENT AS IT IS NOT THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF WHAT I BRING UP HERE.

Issue the First: Fixing Attack Potency, Tiering, and Creation Pages
To start off with this thread, the largest issue that's present here is that we aren't clear enough that the website, as it currently stands, treats creation feats as Attack Potency feats. However, we have reached a bit of an issue, in that the Attack Potency page makes little mention of it, and the Tiering system page only mentions the word creation for tiers beginning at 5-B.

The Creation page is incredibly lacking. We define it as creating "anything from nothing", which is actually hardly often representative of how creation is treated here. As Matt has told me, our baseline assumption is that the character is creating something from their own personal energy or whatnot, or manipulating something else's energy to form and make objects. To think of an example off of my head, Momo Yaoyorozu's Quirk operates on creating objects out of body fat.

I advise that we clarify that creation feats apply to lower tiers as that's how we're treating it, especially since many new users find it confusing that a character that may not appear to be Tier X is Tier X because of how we run things.

I also advise we do a thorough re-write of the Creation page, and I am open to suggestions from people who know more about our specifics than I.

Issue the Second: Pocket Reality Calculatio
This might be a bit more controversial, since it has been done for a while according to what some calc members have told me, but I think it's flawed on a basic level and needs to be adressed.

Why do we use an explosion formula for creating a pocket dimension?

We see this done for verses such as Puella Magi, however when we look at what a pocket dimension is, one notices that there is a lack of correlation. For one, Pocket Dimensions are not explosions. Nor are explosions making "a lowball estimate of the energy needed to make them" as some have told me. Rather, we're using an entirely different metric to figure out someone's AP, akin to using an explosion calc for something like a freezing feat just because the calculation came out as an outlier.

To continue this, creating a pocket dimension in itself has no association with energy. You can't "create" space and/or time with energy nor can you "destroy" it in the conventional sense. So, if someone made a 1km radius pocket dimension with absolutely nothing in it, it's not necessarily an AP feat. It would be like assigning Spatial Manipulation users a tier because they stretched space a kilometer, or a Time Manipulation user for bringing time to a certain area that lacked it.

(Read below, this was disproved by Matt. Although explosive force still has no correlation)

Instead, we should focus on the contents of the pocket dimension, like we already do for some verses. If they have star systems in them, we can say it's 4-A. If there's a planet, we can say 5-B. I understand that for smaller areas, it would be really hard to judge, however even a face-value estimate would be more accurate than assuming the entire area of a pocket dimension is a fireball of an explosion. I am also open to new suggestions that would be more in-line with that type of feat; maybe if GBE can be applied on such a small scale?

Perhaps we should even make a size or mass scale. Possibly akin to the Large Size page?
 
You had to do this in the middle of the night huh

I think we use exposions because energy must be used to create the space within even if there's nothing in it and the explosion formula is the closest aproximation. I'd personally be more on board with GBE, but eh.
 
What we need for sure are some examples of when creation or pocket dimension feats like this would or would not scale. It's been a pretty contentious issue as of late.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
Yeah, but aren't there characters rated as tier 2 for making dimensions of such size?
That's for creating an infinite dimension that has space and time, which has nothing to do with smallscale pocket reality feats.

Even then most of the time those dimensions have stuff in them.
 
If creating the space of a pocket dimension can't be quantified. And we can't use the explosion method to decide the tier, then I don't think pocket dimensions containing star systems can actually be considered 4-A.
 
Either explosion or GBE can work as approximations, but I am of the opinion that you can't hard quantify it via a number. Obviously creating a dimension with a sun = 4-C or High 4-C. Creating a universe = Low 2-C. But stuff like giving a hard number is hard to quantify. GBE works for celestial body creation obviously.
 
You can create a dimension with space and time and still not be solidly tier 2 for it, if it's not large enough.
 
Wokistan said:
I think we use exposions because energy must be used to create the space within even if there's nothing in it and the explosion formula is the closest aproximation. I'd personally be more on board with GBE, but eh.
Prove it's the closest aproximation.

There's no correlation. I'm not going to do a fragmentation calc for a freezing feat just because it makes "a more realistic result".

I can agree with GBE if it can be done for smallscale feats.
 
Actually, I think I realized why. It'd be weird if the maker of the pocket dimension can't get rid of their own thing, and an explosion that would destroy the entire zone is used as an approximation.
 
The real cal howard said:
If were talking about the space in the pocket dimension, that has been discussed before and written off.
I'm talking about using an explosion forumla for it.

Although I can agree with Matt in that assiging a number may not be appropriate.
 
Wokistan said:
Actually, I think I realized why. It'd be weird if the maker of the pocket dimension can't get rid of their own thing, and an explosion that would destroy the entire zone is used as an approximation.
That's not true, though.

For example, making a pocket dimension that's full of solid metal wouldn't be destroyed by an explosion of that size.

And you'd need much less of a large explosion to destroy a bunch of cotton.

See where there's no correlation?
 
Like Brauner from Castlevania being 4-A because he can create "Multilayer quantum-spaces" which contains moons, suns and stars, and using these dimension to drain power from Dracula. Obviously 4-A. But how far into 4-A? Hell if I know and honestly hell if I care.
 
That's for creating an infinite dimension that has space and time, which has nothing to do with smallscale pocket reality feats.

Even then most of the time those dimensions have stuff in them.

But for all intents and purposes we are assigning them a tier for creating space-time, which for some reason wouldn't apply to smaller dimensions.

No amount of "stuff" will make a universe sized dimension low 2-C or higher unless A: There's an uncountable infinite amount or B: If it's 4D
 
This stuff is more for tier 4 sized pocket dimensions dargoo, but your above inconsistencies are a lot of why I'd prefer GBE stuff myself.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
But for all intents and purposes we are assigning them a tier for creating space-time, which for some reason wouldn't apply to smaller dimensions.
No amount of "stuff" will make a universe sized dimension low 2-C or higher unless A: There's an uncountable infinite amount or B: If it's 4D
Okay, fair point, actually. My first statement stands though.

However asiging a number based on a calc that is unrelated to the feat at all isn't logical in the sligtest. I agree with Matt.

That or GBE.
 
So then why bother granting those people a tier for it? Why would the size difference change anything? I'm not asking for infinite 3D or higher, just a feat in general for it.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
So then why bother granting those people a tier for it? Why would the size difference change anything? I'm not asking for infinite 3D or higher, just a feat in general for it.
If it's smaller than infinite, then we judge by the contents, not the space.

Star systems? 4-A. Planets? 5-B/5-A.

That or you could find the mass of the objects in the dimension and go GBE, which I think is more appropriate.

And what Matt said. Calcs are not always needed.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Both are mistaken. Creating dimensions involves creating spacetimes but it isn't High 3-A. High 3-A for low-scale Tier 2 is something I don't think should exist honestly.
I thought it was not the size, but the dimensionality that matters when determining tiers in these cases
 
@Ryu

That's right. It's not scaled to random punches. But characters who can create dimensions tend to be mages or reality warpers to begin with. I can't think of one example of a character who can warp space and time and create dimensions, but in combat resorts to punches lol.

It's usually more something like Doctor Strange whose magical / reality warping abilities are everything he uses in combat.
 
I agree with Ryu for what it counts (Though I feel if the creator does it on death's door it could scale to striking strength)
 
I agree with Ryu and Matt.

Maybe we should make a size/mass chart for Creation feats? Similar to what we do for Large Size? If people want to be crazy specific about it.
 
@Matt

Oryx/other hive Gods, and probably some random daemons.

But yeah, by default it doesn't scale to physicals.
 
It's be the same sizes and masses that we already use for celestial bodies though.
 
Creating universes can be done physically by the way and in the case it would scale to Striking obviously.

Not saying that it can only scale to Striking through such means, though.
 
Now that I think about it, would creating a star system actually be a 4-A feat? Our standards for 4-A is creating an explosion big enough to cover two or more solar systems and destroy them completely.

The space between the two solar systems is an important factor when deriving energy from this method. But someone creating multiple solar systems only needs to have enough energy to create the celestial bodies inside a solar system and the distance between each solar system is only a matter of range not AP.
 
Andytrenom said:
Now that I think about it, would creating a star system actually be a 4-A feat? Our standards for 4-A is creating an explosion big enough to cover two or more solar systems and destroy them completely.
The space between the two solar systems is an important factor when deriving energy from this method. But someone creating multiple solar systems only needs to have enough energy to create the celestial bodies inside a solar system and the distance between each solar system is only a matter of range not AP.
I sort of agree, but don't the stars themselves have orbits and motions relative to a galaxy if there is one? That could add via KE. For example, the sun moves at MHS speeds.
 
I think it's both range and AP? Creating a constellation in the sky (ie, in a space that already exists) is High 4-C. But creating a dimension with a constellation is 4-A due to the creation of space as well.
 
I can sort of agree with Matt. While I don't think you can calc creating space, creating a bunch of solar systems in a pocket dimension seems logically sound for 4-A.
 
So I think that can at least justify largescale space creation feats like Solar Systems and Galaxies as 4-A/3-C/etc.

Although I think calcing with that number would produce some pretty wonky results.

Although I still assert you can't destroy space with energy in the conventional sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top