Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[Kaltias]

It still wouldn't reach 3-C however. Multiplying mass by 20 only increases the GBE 16000 times, it would be 4-A at best

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

RIP

I still feel like we're missing something, though.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Unfortunately the inverse square law star-destroying explosions we use for the stellar tiers is incredibly hard to surmount. It's a big RIP for creation feats if you want to quantify them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Uh, I did an explosion calc on the nukecalc using the radius of the Milky way, and it came out as 4-A.

Yield was around 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 megatons, or 4.18399999999999982e+58 joules.

I'm out of ideas as it stands.

 

[RKGenki]

I think what we're missing might be related to the expansion energy as it should still be a factor in creating space and mass, but I have no idea if it can be calculated

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If you're reffering to the vacuum energy Matt brought up, the scientific community has legit no clue what to make of that, as their conclusions range from 10-C per square meter to well over 3-A per square meter of space.

 

[AguilaR101]

Nuke calculators aren't used for this scale of destruction.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo Expanding as far as the milky way=/=having energy to destroy everything the milky way

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What would we use, then?

@Andy I can agree with that. Should we still use GBE for the creation calcs, then?

 

[RKGenki]

@Dargoo no, I was referring to applying something like the energy required for the initial expansion of the universe, but on a smaller scale

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Oh. I'm unsure how we'd attach energy to that, though.

This would be Dark Energy we're talking about?

 

[AguilaR101]

What would we use, then?

@Andy I can agree with that. Should we still use GBE for the creation calcs, then?

The calculation for 4-B feats and above rely on dividing the surface area of an omnidirectional explosion (modeled as a sphere) by the cross sectional area of a celestial body and multiplying the result by the GBE of said celestial body.

 

[Sera_EX]

Creation feats scale to AP if it was AP based. What they don't do is scale to striking strength and durability, which we are known to auto-scale to AP. So I strongly agree with Ryukama.

Pocket realms should not scale, only those actual realms of a specific size (if it's non-Euclidean but not pocket sized, it should be fine).

Like, if I created a realm of infinite universes, that should be Multiverse level+ attack potency. Doesn't mean I have equal striking strength or durability though.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Darg I don't see any better usable method as of yet, but I'm still worried that it will end up misrepresenting the power of a lot of characters.

Also unless we decide to downgrade a bunch 3-A creator deities, it will create an inconsistency in how we treat creation feats.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That's certainly the conundrum.

I'm without much answers, as explosions seem logical at a massively large scale if what Aguila said is true, but on a small scale they have no correlation.

 

[Crzer07]

I don't suppose matter creation would generate the same as doing the opposite as vaporizing something of the same size or mass.

And I don't think there's a way to calc dark matter like ordinary matter.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Crzer You ca calc the GBE of objects with Dark Matter in mind as it operates on gravity and has a mass. It just doesn't intearct with light or regular matter.

The main issue with stuff like vaporization/atomization/mass-energy is that they make some pretty crazy small-scale results.

 

[RKGenki]

Oh. I'm unsure how we'd attach energy to that, though.

This would be Dark Energy we're talking about?

It's similar, but roughly 27 orders of magnitude higher than it as mentioned here

 

[Agnaa]

The vacuum energy stuff is misleading. Empty space does contain energy, but that doesn't mean that energy is used in creating empty space. Otherwise the universe would be losing energy as it expands, which seems like something so important I would have heard of it by now if it were true.

Vacuum energy is an emergent property of space in that space cannot have energy less than the vacuum energy.

Or in other words, I think vacuum energy's a red herring, energy can't be used to create space and energy isn't consumed when making space.

EDIT: This is from Quora so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it seems to be saying what I was expecting. This implies that the universe is gaining energy by expanding, not losing energy.

One explanation of dark energy is that it is a property of space. Einstein's theory of gravity(with the cosmological constant) makes the prediction that empty space can contain energy. As this energy is a property of space itself it will not dilute away as it expands. When more space comes into existence we have more of this energy and thus universe expands at an increasing rate.
	~ Rajath Krishna R​

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Oh, well that certainly changes things.

 

[Kaltias]

Also about using the explosion formula for small scale pocket dimensions (which means, stuff like the size of a city).

What I have:

I have a pocket dimension of known size.

What I need:

I need to know the tier "via size" of said pocket dimension

Possible solution:

I create a table saying "a pocket dimension of X radius is Y tier".

Issue:

How do I calc the minimum radius to be in Y tier?

Solution:

I calculate the size of a town/city that would be obliterated by the attack of Y tier

Issue:

How should I do that? Frag, v.frag, pulverization, the list goes on.

If I don't know, it would make sense to consider that as an explosion (one of the most common methods to destroy this kind of stuff).

Also, another issue with using frag, v.frag etc, using PMMM witches as an example. If Elly wanted to create a barrier containing a colossal diamond whose radius is several hundreds of metres, she'd totally be able to. That doesn't mean that I should calc that.

Stronger witches have bigger labyrinths, not stuff that's harder to break inside of them. I think that Woki meant something like that when he said that the explosion formula works as an approximation

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

As I've said, the content of the pocket reality matters.

For example, replace town/city with a pocket reality filled with cotton or steel of the same exact size. Naturally the explosion values needed to destroy either are much higher and lower depending on what's inside.

Therefore we shouldn't use explosions on the small scale as they aren't a good baseline assumption to make, as they don't always correlate with destroying what's inside.

I'd rather discuss specific verses on walls so we can focus with making a standard.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I have to sleep, but my point about explosions stays firmly in place.

Explosions aren't the end-all, be-all destruction value for a certain area, and we'd be fooling ourselves by ignoring the content of the pocket reality and focusing on the scope and size of it. Under your assumption a pocket dimension made of solid steel and a pocket dimension of open air has the exact same AP value.

 

[RKGenki]

Thinking about it, the explosion formula might actually be an approximation of what I mentioned, as it is a rapid omnidirectional expansion

The point of using explosion values isn't about destroying the dimension, if I understood it correctly

 

[Agnaa]

Why is it problematic if vaporization (of the objects in the pocket reality) gives high values for small pocket realities even though it's an accurate estimation, and even an underestimation, of the energy needed to create those objects?

Aren't there a few things in fiction that seem a bit inflated and such are usually used for feats, but are fine since they're still accurate?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If you want to use that argument, we should use Mass-Energy for every creation feat and ignore inflation and outliers if it's of so little importance.

And I say again, apples and oranges. There is no correlation between explosions and pocket dimensions. Why we should logically use them has no basis.

 

[Agnaa]

Inflation isn't a problem with other feats (aren't cloud feats used a lot because they're usually much higher than the creators would expect?) and outliers are already accounted for and would be accounted for.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Because, then, nearly every creation feat would be an outlier and we couldn't apply most of them to begin with.

I would argue that creation feats on such a relatively small scare are hardly ever portrayed as massively high as they would be if we applied Mass-Energy.

And I'm going to be straight, common sense. Making a house with your powers shouldn't be like a Tier 7/6 feat by any leap of the mind even if Mass-Energy dictates that it should.

Even then, at least mass energy correlates with creation feats. Using explosions assumes there's a massive fireball encompassing the area when that's typically anything but the case.

 

[Agnaa]

Well if we're not going for accuracy, then we're going with what feels like it gives results our minds would expect.

And "the energy of an explosion needed to 'destroy' what they made" seems like the approximation you'd expect then. This would be going off of contents rather than area, if someone exploded 1km of cotton we'd already give them a different tier than if they exploded 1km of steel, so we'd just use that.

 

[Kaltias]

The point is that pocket dimensions aren't "made of steel" or "made of air". They can contain them, sure.

But the pocket dimension itself is the space containing them. I'd say that in the case of two reality warpers, one sustaining a replica of Tokyo made of steel, and one sustaining a replica of Tokyo made of paper, the point would be "They can create Tokyo-sized pocket dimensions".

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yet as Agnaa mentioned above, the space itself has no association with using energy to create it. That only leaves the content inside of the pocket reality, meaning that size of the area has nothing to do with AP as much as what's produced inside of it.

And yet that still doesn't give me a correlation with explosion formulas.

 

[RKGenki]

The point is that pocket dimensions aren't "made of steel" or "made of air". They can contain them, sure.

But the pocket dimension itself is the space containing them. I'd say that in the case of two reality warpers, one sustaining a replica of Tokyo made of steel, and one sustaining a replica of Tokyo made of paper, the point would be "They can create Tokyo-sized pocket dimensions".

^this

Unless you want to say that creating an empty galaxy sized dimension is less impressive than an Earth sized dimension full of steel

Common sense says "lol no"

 

[Agnaa]

There is no correlation because you don't care about accuracy, so we pick whatever feels right.

And what seems to feel right is an explosion that can destroy all the shit in the pocket reality. Not an explosion that covers the pocket reality, an explosion to destroy the stuff within it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Well if we're not going for accuracy, then we're going with what feels like it gives results our minds would expect.

And "the energy of an explosion needed to 'destroy' what they made" seems like the approximation you'd expect then. This would be going off of contents rather than area, if someone exploded 1km of cotton we'd already give them a different tier than if they exploded 1km of steel, so we'd just use that.

Common sense is just a part of accuracy than is extrapolated data.

It isn't any approximation. I wouldn't use an explosion calc to "approximate" an ice calc that came out too high. They're two unrelated concepts.

 

[Kaltias]

And again, if you follow the "energy needed to destroy each individual object", you get 4-A characters for creating all the matter in the universe.

I'm not necessarily opposed to using a different formula, but if we say creation = destruction, our basic assumption should be the same, and for most tiers, that's an omnidirectional explosion

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There is no correlation because you don't care about accuracy, so we pick whatever feels right.

And what seems to feel right is an explosion that can destroy all the shit in the pocket reality. Not an explosion that covers the pocket reality, an explosion to destroy the stuff within it.

You're using "feels right" and calculation in the same line of logic. We either go by common sense or we prove a correlation that we can make a calc off of.

This is why I'm arguing this; we shouldn't approach stuff like this with an "anything goes" attitude, and use whatever equations we can dig out of a hat that look alright.

 

[Agnaa]

Common sense needs to be disregarded to reach many meaningful conclusions.

It isn't an approximation, because literally nothing can approximate creation feats other than mass-energy conversion. But you're not willing to use that, so we have to pull out of our asses whatever seems like it sounds kinda right.

If your ice calc is too high, you can't approximate it lower, you can only dismiss it. And if you won't dismiss creation feats being too high using mass-energy, well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't illogically dismiss mass-energy because of common sense, and dismiss explosions because they're illogical and just common sense.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

And again, if you follow the "energy needed to destroy each individual object", you get 4-A characters for creating all the matter in the universe.

I'm not necessarily opposed to using a different formula, but if we say creation = destruction, our basic assumption should be the same, and for most tiers, that's an omnidirectional explosion

You're assuming that because it works for one tier, it works for all tiers. Clearly what works for 4-A can produce unrealistic results in areas that are much smaller.

 

[Sera_EX]

It's obvious that it takes more to create than destroy, especially creating something via bringing it into existence out of nothing. Destruction causes less effort. Go smash your window to pieces with a bat and then try to create the glass that you just broke. Why this doesn't apply to fiction seems nitpicky to me.

Pocket realms should be ignored in any stat (except probably range) because they are vastly inconsistent across fiction to begin with.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If your ice calc is too high, you can't approximate it lower, you can only dismiss it. And if you won't dismiss creation feats using mass-energy, well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't illogically dismiss mass-energy because of common sense, and dismiss explosions because they're illogical and just common sense.

The same could be said about any other calculation method. At this rate you're simply picking a personal preference for putting numbers on a feat.

Why not say the area is filled with water and calc how much energy it takes to freeze it? It has the exact same mount of logic. Oh, you could pretend it's full of solid stone that gets fragmented. Sky's the limit when you don't want to back arguments with logic.

If you're not going to use logic, stop pretending like you are with the facade of presenting empirical data in the form of calcs.