- 15,332
- 7,560
1,000,000 meters equals 1000km. The tallest mountain discovered thus far is 1/50th of that size.
Continental mountains.
Continental mountains.
-
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
- Thread starter Dargoo_Faust
- Start date
- Status
- 40,459
- 12,938
Did you mean to put this somewhere else, Kep?
- 15,332
- 7,560
No.
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Cal he was referring to a comment previously made here
- 15,332
- 7,560
I was replying to what Dargoo said.
And definitely too big.
And definitely too big.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #289
I'm just quoting the Large Size page. I did not claim it's a reasonable metric, just a start to where we can decide values.
- 6,104
- 5,102
Wait. Mountain size is supposed to be a kilometer tall, and based around the size generally required to cause earthquakes. Skyscraper size is 100m. Where is Dargoo getting those numbers from that Skyscraper sized is from 100m to 1000m??
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #291
It's the gap between Type 3 Large Size and Type 4.
"no less than a kilometer (1000 meters)"
"Characters here have a size that is millions of km┬▓."
"no less than a kilometer (1000 meters)"
"Characters here have a size that is millions of km┬▓."
- 19,123
- 6,335
As I said, this probably needs to be done alongside the size revisions for the tiering system.
The main issue right now is that there are tiers set at arbitrary values, so we can't say "this pocket dimension is bigger/smaller than the thing used as a reference for this tier"
The main issue right now is that there are tiers set at arbitrary values, so we can't say "this pocket dimension is bigger/smaller than the thing used as a reference for this tier"
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #294
Yeah, and honestly I feel like we should have a Tier Chart based on size.
I don't mind discussing that here.
I don't mind discussing that here.
- 2,975
- 392
I suggest we could use the low end for vacuum energy and multiply it by the volume of the space created, then sum it with the individual durabilities of the individual objects contained in that space.~
That means a dimension with several stars can still be 4-B if character hasn't demonstrated the ability to destroy it owo
That means a dimension with several stars can still be 4-B if character hasn't demonstrated the ability to destroy it owo
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #297
The issue is that the low-end is crazy low into 10-C, and the high end is well into 3-A.Mand21 said:
And both values are equally debated as being true.
- 15,332
- 7,560
Creating a universe requires exceeding or equaling its mass energy, and since gravitational energy and material energy cancel each other out nearly perfectly, that'd be close to 0 joules.
But creating, creating a universe obviously does not require a mere 0 joules so arguing 10-C is futile.
But creating, creating a universe obviously does not require a mere 0 joules so arguing 10-C is futile.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #299
Yeah, but we're talking about pocket realities, not entire universes.
If someone creates something with the space of the observable universe, or an infinite space, we have 3-A and High 3-A, and if they make an infinite universe with spacetime, Low 2-C.
However arguing this on the small scale is equally ridiculous, unless you'd like to suggest someone who can create a cubic meter of space is vastly superior to 3-As who can destroy the observable universe.
Even then I hardly think anyone here is qualified to debate theoretical physics, and since the scientific community currently has little consensus, we shouldn't make any assumptions.
If someone creates something with the space of the observable universe, or an infinite space, we have 3-A and High 3-A, and if they make an infinite universe with spacetime, Low 2-C.
However arguing this on the small scale is equally ridiculous, unless you'd like to suggest someone who can create a cubic meter of space is vastly superior to 3-As who can destroy the observable universe.
Even then I hardly think anyone here is qualified to debate theoretical physics, and since the scientific community currently has little consensus, we shouldn't make any assumptions.
- 32,344
- 20,270
What is even being debated here?
- 15,332
- 7,560
...They aren't. Nobody in this wiki has ever argued that.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #302
Someone brought up vacuum energy again, which I thought was dimissed as being ridiculous and inapplicable, but I guess I was wrong.
- 32,344
- 20,270
I love how I brought up vacuum energy solely to point out that empty space isn't devoid of energy and clarify not to be used as a calcing means and it becomes the most debated thing in this thread.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #304
No offense, but it's because people want to slap a number on these feats no matter how many stretches of the imagination it takes, as if there can't be feats that can't use calcs.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 15,407
- 5,720
I'm kinda getting involved with this out of nowhere, and I'm not sure if it was discussed before, but the whole reason why people used explosion methods for pocket dimensions is that simply saying "Let's take it at face-value" doesn't work for a lot of pocket dimensions.
It works for things that are only planets or the usual 4-A realm, but realms that aren't the size of something easy like a celestial body needs a way to be quantified. For example, a realm with a planet and a moon can't be rated as just 5-B + 5-C.
It works for things that are only planets or the usual 4-A realm, but realms that aren't the size of something easy like a celestial body needs a way to be quantified. For example, a realm with a planet and a moon can't be rated as just 5-B + 5-C.
- 30,584
- 32,583
I'm not even sure what were discussing now. I know Small Town sized pocket realities was the last thing someone said that could use discussion; but pocket realities containing planets and/or stars was already generally agreed to combine GBE with inverse square law.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #307
The solution shouldn't be throwing a dart at a board of equations and using something that has no association with them at all.Saikou The Lewd King said:
If you can't reliably calc a feat, then don't.
Use feats that actually can be quantified at that scale if you want an exact number. If there isn't supporting feats, perhaps the pocket reality feat isn't consistent with the verse.
- 8,377
- 3,044
I thought we used explosion formula because we consider creating=destroying, so creating a dimension = destroying it. I'll be honest, it's just more consistent with how we consider creation feats in general.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #309
If we're truely using that logic, we have E=mc squared and GBE. Or you eyeball it if that makes an outlier.TriforcePower1 said:
Explosions have absolutely nothing to do with the feats. Assuming the entire dimension is filled with a fireball makes absolutely no sense.
- 9,962
- 2,004
Why not just rate Pocket Dimensions as any other Reality Warping feat, just by size? Pretty sure we got few characters like works like that.
- 8,377
- 3,044
If we're truely using that logic, we have E=mc squared and GBE. Or you eyeball it if that makes an outlier.
Explosions have absolutely nothing to do with the feats. Assuming the entire dimension is filled with a fireball makes absolutely no sense.
In fact we use GBE for both creation and destruction of celestial objects. Why? Because creating=destroying. Or better, destruction=creation, as we don't use E=mc^2
Explosions have absolutely nothing to do with the feats. Assuming the entire dimension is filled with a fireball makes absolutely no sense.
In fact we use GBE for both creation and destruction of celestial objects. Why? Because creating=destroying. Or better, destruction=creation, as we don't use E=mc^2
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #312
In fact we use GBE for both creation and destruction of celestial objects. Why? Because creating=destroying. Or better, destruction=creation, as we don't use E=mc^2
Yes, as GBE is actually associated with these feats.
Using an explosion calc has just as much merit as using an ice calc, a fragmentation calc for stone, I can go on. You're assuming something is there that isn't and assigning an arbitrary number as a result that has nothing to do with the feat.
Yes, as GBE is actually associated with these feats.
Using an explosion calc has just as much merit as using an ice calc, a fragmentation calc for stone, I can go on. You're assuming something is there that isn't and assigning an arbitrary number as a result that has nothing to do with the feat.
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #314
GBE is the energy holding a planet together by gravity.Kaltias said:
Someone creates a planet, which would have that same gravitational energy holding it together.
That's a hell of a lot more of an association than assuming the planet is a massive fireball.
- 40,459
- 12,938
This times a thousandAntoniofer said:
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #316
As much as I'd love this, much of the site disagrees with that, and sadly this thread isn't about questioning the validity of the feats themselves.The real cal howard said:
- 8,377
- 3,044
Rating them by size is probably better, yes.
- 9,962
- 2,004
We never calculate Reality Warper feats, why doing it with Pocket Dimensions creations when is nearly the same?
- 15,636
- 5,391
- Thread starter
- #320
Because space has energy, thus making it would take energy, thus if you can use that same energy to attack the opponent it scales to AP.
The same can't be said for something, like, let's say, Mind Manipulation.
However I'd personally argue that assuming that pocket reality creation energy is used in every single other attack that the character has is a bit ridiculous.
The same can't be said for something, like, let's say, Mind Manipulation.
However I'd personally argue that assuming that pocket reality creation energy is used in every single other attack that the character has is a bit ridiculous.
- Status
