Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[Dargoo_Faust]

I think we should just discuss the standard first before we move onto specific verses.

And again we need to update the Creation/AP/Tiering Pages

 

[AguilaR101]

I don't see rating a dimension containing multiple stars as a 4-A feat is any different from rating a town-sized dimension as town level to be honest, both would be assigning a yield based on an explosion calculation when nothing of the sort was involved in their creation.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I don't see rating a dimension containing multiple stars as a 4-A feat is any different from rating a town-sized dimension as town level to be honest, both would be assigning a yield based on an explosion calculation when nothing of the sort was involved in their creation.

Ehhhh

You don't need to assign a yield. You can just say 4-A or 7-C looking at the size/content.

 

[CinnabarManx421]

I'm wondering how this applies to characters who don't create Pocket Dimensions, but just have one. Like Gems from Steven Universe for example, all have a pocket dimension of (supposedly) infinite size within their gemstone. Are pocket dimensions like that possible to scale or calc since they aren't created, but are rather just there passively?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

As a Kirby fan, I can tell you that those don't scale to the person at all.

 

[SomebodyData]

Oh is that so? @Dargoo, so its not like lower scale creation/pocket reality feats can't be used right?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@SD

Not really. Beginning of Series Sailor Moon is High 7-C due to a pocket dimension feat I think.

 

[AguilaR101]

By giving them a tier you're technically assigning them the baseline yield of the tier.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

You can use lower tier creation/pocket dimension feats.

You just can't use explosion formulas to calc them, looking at the current consensus.

@Aguila

Yes. That's what we do for statements and literally any character that doesn't have a calc.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

And look, guys, not everything has to be assigned a number and calced.

While I feel like giving a tier when you get to smaller scales would be hard to pin down, there isn't really a reliable way to assign a number other than maybe GBE or Mass-Energy, the latter of which has its own issues.

Also we still need to update the Creation, AP, and Tiering pages

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for making this thread. Creation feats have been an ongoing problem for us for quite some time.

However, we should try to carefully consider this before we reach a solution.

Normally Azathoth would be of great help with issues like this, but he has been missing for a while.

I will ask DontTalkDT to comment here in any case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm pretty sure we use a combination of multiple things. The GBE of the star or various stars is one thing, but I think it's Inverse Square Law that holds most of the weight. Like a Pocket Reality with a AU length radius and contains a planet and star can go two ways. The Sun is center and Earth at the edge? Calced at High 4-C. The Sun being on the edge and the planet being center? Calced at 4-B based on Kaltias' blog. If even the edge of a presumed explosion has more energy/TNT equivalent than the Sun's GBE, then the center of said explosion could be much higher.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I would also like to have a "Creation Calculations" page. New users and even some old users like me still aren't sure how do we calculate creation feats.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That generally depends on the creation method, but a creation calculation would be nice. We generally use CAPE for cloud creation feats, and creating planets and stars involves harnessing the GBE of said planet or star. There may be kinetic energy involved with some creation feats though. Mass-Energy conversion is generally a high balled method, but it's usable if there's proof of it. Giving birth to Space-Time Continuums is Low 2-C.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I thought we used condensation for cloud creation feats?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I meant for storm cloud creation/summoning feats, we use CAPE.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I can generally agree with some of those proposals, although my main sticking point is with explosions.

I don't think calculations are entirely necessary, but if it can be reasoned and argued I won't stand is the way. GBE is currently what I think is the best alternative, although CAPE for creating pocket dimensions is a bit off, considering that CAPE operates on the fact that there was air to manipulate to begin with, whereas with creation you're bringing everything about from scratch, sometimes with no air movement involved at all.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Woah there, I said nothing about CAPE for pocket reality stuff, just answering Spino's question about general creation feats. Which wasn't very specific, so I was elaborating. Anyway, I said Inverse Square Law is what we generally use for pocket reality creation/destruction feats.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

So Inverse Square Law+GBE for dimension feats, CAPE for storm and maybe some air feats, and KE for some cases?

What if it was neither a dimension, storm nor KE feat?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Oh, whoops on my part. Apologies.

How would inverse square law apply to smaller pocket reality feats, let's say the area of a small town?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

For small pocket realities with no celestial objects, I suppose the basic explosion calculation could work.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

For small pocket realities with no celestial objects, I suppose the basic explosion calculation could work.

See, I take issue with that.

I fail to see the correlation between explosions and pocket reality size. I can understand grav binding needed to form large objects, but assuming the entire pocket dimension is a fireball for an explosion has no logical basis.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not too certain for small town sized pocket realities, but I'll be ears for that. Someone like DonTalk or Kepekley could have some fairly good judgement though.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'd be open to suggestions from them; I'm fine with something else being used for calcs as long as you can correlate it with making a pocket dimension or creating matter, otherwise we're arguing apples and oranges.

Matt suggested not calcing those feats at all as a possible solution, and judging it based on size, although that can pose some issues.

If we're going for a standard for calcs, we'd certainly need a page, though.

 

[Antvasima]

I would also like to have a "Creation Calculations" page. New users and even some old users like me still aren't sure how do we calculate creation feats.

We currently simply tend to gauge such feats by size, not through explosions, but let's hope that DontTalkDT will be able to help.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Gotcha.

A size/mass chart for creation feats would be a simple solution in my opinion for the smaller scale feats.

Heck, a size chart for AP is something next on my checklist, but I'd rather not clog the site with too many revisions.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

So like a chart saying that creating 100 kg of mass = Wall level (just saying randomly)?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Maybe. Although I can definitly say putting exact numbers would be incredibly difficult.

 

[Kaltias]

I personally don't mind if we discuss a new method to calculate pocket dimensions feat, but if we want to assign a tier for that, a calc method of some sort is needed.

Otherwise you'd have a person making a pocket dimension that's baseline 4-A in size hitting as hard as someone whose pocket dimension encompasses a third of the galaxy because "both are 4-A pocket dimensions"

 

[Andytrenom]

I agree with Kal.

I still think sum of GBE of all celestial objects is our best bet, even if it means disregarding the space energy thingy.

My biggest concern is whether this would make rating universe creation feats at 3-A inconsistent.

 

[Kaltias]

Sum of GBE stops working as soon as you enter 4-B however.

The total GBE of the objects in the Solar System doesn't even reach High 4-C

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

How about stuff like cosmological movements, and the gravity that holds large structures such as solar systems and galaxies together?

 

[Kaltias]

Maybe? It would still have weird results like creating a galaxy being 4-B/A.

 

[Andytrenom]

If I remember correctly, Phineas' tower's enclosure was rated as 3-C because if it wasn't, the pull of the galaxy would have torn it apart. Is that correct?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Kal I don't really think so. The gravitational attraction that holds the Milky Way together, I assume, wouldn't be 4-A when converted to energy. I'll try and do a bit of snooping on it.

 

[Kaltias]

I remember calcing it for fun a while ago using the GBE formula, and it was in the 4-B range iirc.

Just looking at the orders of magnitude it should be 10^55 at most

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So, I did some snooping, and I think I know why GBE calculations tend to fail or get wonky at larger and larger objects.

Are we accounting for Dark Matter?

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, we should. It makes up most of the galactic mass

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I haven't done any GBE calcs before, but apparently Dark Matter accounts for 95% of the matter in this galaxy alone, which may be why our results are iffy through only counting celestial objects and normal matter.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center. It is now believed that about 95% of the Galaxy is composed of dark matter, a type of matter that does not seem to interact with the rest of the Galaxy's matter and energy in any way except through gravity. The luminous matter makes up approximately 9 x 1010 solar masses. The dark matter halo is likely to include around 6 x 1011 to 3 x 1012 solar massesof dark matter."