Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reality Warping often involves, destruction and recreation that happen instantaneously; so Reality warping a planet is legit 5-B.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

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.

And I would agree with you.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Name a work of fiction that treats GBE and planet creation as related.
I don't even disagree with not using explosions, but don't say that GBE and planet creation are more closely tied when they aren't

The same could be said about the energy needed to freeze materials. I could easily point out verses don't usually take into account thermodynamics in that respect.

However it's associated with the feat. Creating a planet that logically has a GBE and solving for the GBE when E=mc squared doesn't work makes at least some sense.

Neither of those assume something is there when it's not, though. GBE is associated with celestial bodies. When someone creates them, GBE has some relation. An explosion fireball isn't present when I make a pocket dimension that has a kitty pool in it.

 

[Antoniofer]

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.

And I would agree with you.

I would also agree with that.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean, there are several things that verses don't take into acount, be it storm, freezing or many more.

We still use them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Ricsi

When they're associated with the feat.

You use a freezing calculation for a freezing feat. You don't use an explosion calculation when the correct one is too high.

 

[Kaltias]

@Dargoo

What i'm saying is that it has nothing to do with creation. No formula irl has anything to do with creating a planet except E=Mc^2.

Anyway, that's pointless for this debate, so i'll drop it.

I already agreed with the "via size" rating, the only issue is which sizes we are supposed to use

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Fair enough, I'd rather actually work on changes.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We already use via size on all pocket dimension feats that aren't calced.

 

[Mand21]

I suggest we could use the low end for vacuum energy and multiply it by the volume of the space created

The issue is that the low-end is crazy low into 10-C, and the high end is well into 3-A.
And both values are equally debated as being true.

You use the low end. Isn't it per cubic meter? It definitely gets astronomic when the whole universe is accounted for.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Look, I'm going to put this to rest and ask us to stop discussing vacuum energy.

Here's what happens if you use the low end, or 109 joules per cubic meter.

There are 9.461e+15 meters in a lightyear. Cubing that gives you 8.4685904e+47.

Multiplying that by the low end gives you 8.4685904e+39 joules. Dwarf Star level

For an entire cubic lightyear

The distance from The Sun to Pluto is 0.0006 Lightyears.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yeah go via size. Done.

 

[Agnaa]

Since we have nothing better, even though it's as equally linked to the actual number as an explosion is, we should just go by size.

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.

I don't think this is true, back here at post 140 I argued against this idea.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so is the conclusion here that we should continue by size as previously, and if so, do we need somebody to write an explanation page?

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't think we need one. I think we needlessly overcomplicate things as it is. More exposition isn't the answer.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah go via size. Done.

Since it seems Kep and Andy now disagree with this I'll have to necro this thread.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

OK.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Since it seems Kep and Andy now disagree with this I'll have to necro this thread.

Didn't they disagree with this before?

 

[Kepekley23]

Didn't they disagree with this before?

Yes. And I still disagree

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Because?

 

[Kepekley23]

Because I think that randomly putting "baseline 4-A" on this is a pure asspull. We either go with High 4-C or assume the level of 4-A to be equal to destroying said dimension.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

In my opinion, (if used at all) it should be equal to the total energy of the thing created.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I'm personally in the High 4-C camp but that's me.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Because I think that randomly putting "baseline 4-A" on this is a pure asspull. We either go with High 4-C or assume the level of 4-A to be equal to destroying said dimension.

Again, randomly throwing a calculation to get unrelated numbers for a feat is an even bigger asspull.

And again, you don't need to assign numbers to feats for everything. You can reason it's above basline without using equations that have nothing to do with the feat.

Nor can you really destroy space within the limits of physics so there's that too.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm personally in the High 4-C camp but that's me.

For creating a planet orbiting a star that seems fine to me as well.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I meant many stars. Take the average star GBE value by the night sky's number of stars.

A single star would be 4-C only, imo.

 

[Kepekley23]

For creating a planet orbiting a star that seems fine to me as well.

He is talking about multiple star dimensions.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Again, randomly throwing a calculation to get unrelated numbers for a feat is an even bigger asspull.

Our standards are all about creation being equal to destruction. It's why we consider stellar creation to be GBE despite having absolutely nothing to do with creation. The only sensible options that wouldn't involve a random, unbacked ballpark rating would be:

• 1. Multiplying GBE of the average star by the number of stars in the average night-sky (High 4-C)

• 2. Assuming creating the dimension is equal to collapsing it (much like we do with Big Bang feats), making it 140 PetaFoe (4-A)

Saying it's baseline 4-A is something I will never, ever agree with myself in that regard.

> And again, you don't need to assign numbers to feats for everything. You can reason it's above basline without using equations that have nothing to do with the feat.

Explain how it's 4-A without equations other than pure guessing. If it has no backing then sorry, it qualifies as an asspull by default.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Our standards are all about creation being equal to destruction. It's why we consider stellar creation to be GBE despite having absolutely nothing to do with creation. The only sensible options that wouldn't involve inventing something would be:

Pretty big either or fallacy. Also, nothing states or implied a Big Bang created whatever pocket dimension was conjured similar to our universe. It's pretty straightforward they're made in unrelated manners, the Big Bang involved a rapid expanse of condensed energy, not, as most pocket reality feats are, just poofing into existence.

There's no explosion present, therefore we have no need to assume one was there or use the energy of one to conjure a number when you have no better alternative.

Saying it's baseline 4-A is something I will never, ever agree with myself in that regard.

This whole "baseline 4-A" thing you're claiming I'm arguing isn't even anything I claimed or said. You can just use logic to reason if it was a large quantity and should therefore be reasonably above baseline. Calcs aren't needed for everything.

Explain how it's 4-A without equations other than pure guessing. If it has no backing then sorry, it qualifies as an asspull by default.

The character made multiple solar systems; ergo it's Multi-Solar System level. It's the same thing as a character having statements we can't quantify. Again, you don't need to calc everything, especially when calcs can't be used reasonably.

>has no backing

Like using an explosion formula for a non-explosion feat?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'll just say again you can't calculate the energy needed to collapse empty space, just the matter within.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Pretty big either or fallacy. Also, nothing states or implied a Big Bang created whatever pocket dimension was conjured similar to our universe. It's pretty straightforward they're made in unrelated manners, the Big Bang involved a rapid expanse of condensed energy, not, as most pocket reality feats are, just poofing into existence.

Both a strawman and a complete misunderstanding of the point. A pocket dimension being created and expanding is similar to the Big Bang in that we can't actually quantify the energy required for the Big Bang in a conventional manner (in fact, the very idea of "energy" came after the event) since the universe's mass energy is 0 joules, so we just rate it at baseline 3-A by assuming creating the universe is equal to destroying it.

> There's no explosion present, therefore we have no need to assume one was there or use the energy of one to conjure a number when you have no better alternative.

We can assume, like we do for everything else, that creation is comparable to destruction, or we can use the method we use for constellation creation and assume it's High 4-C via multiplying the GBE by thousands of stars.

> This whole "baseline 4-A" thing you're claiming I'm arguing isn't even anything I claimed or said. You can just use logic to reason if it was a large quantity and should therefore be reasonably above baseline. Calcs aren't needed for everything.

It being baseline or "reasonably above baseline" is something you made up. Common sense is irrelevant when actually laying down facts. Just claiming that X is equal to Y because of "logic/common sense" isn't evidence of anything.

> The character made multiple solar systems; ergo it's Multi-Solar System level.

Why is creating multiple solar systems a Multi-Solar System level feat? Explain thi.

This is bemusing because your very debate and post structure is already basing itself off of creation being equal to destruction.

> Like using an explosion formula for a non-explosion feat?

In VSBW we assume creation = destruction in spite of better options. Either that or the feat is High 4-C as one of the only two options we have.

 

[Kepekley23]

I'll just say again you can't calculate the energy needed to collapse empty space, just the matter within.

You can calculate the energy required for an attack to destroy a star 1,000+ light years away, which is 4-A, so this statement is a misinterpretation of the actual point.

 

[Antvasima]

Remember that we only have 500 posts in a thread, so it is important that you try to come to an agreement.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Both a strawman and a complete misunderstanding of the point. A pocket dimension being created and expanding is similar to the Big Bang in that we can't actually quantify the energy required for the Big Bang in a conventional manner (in fact, the very idea of "energy" came after the event) since the universe's mass energy is 0 joules, so we just rate it at baseline 3-A by assuming creating the universe is equal to destroying it.

You're assuming the pocket dimension 'expands' like the Big Bang despite them typically appearing out of thin air. Bit of a false correlation there.

We can assume, like we do for everything else, that creation is comparable to destruction, or we can use the method we use for constellation creation and assume it's High 4-C via multiplying the GBE by thousands of stars.

Or we can just see that they're creating tons of Solar Systems and just call it 4-A.

It being baseline or "reasonably above baseline" is something you made up. Common sense is irrelevant when actually laying down facts. Just claiming that X is equal to Y because of "logic/common sense" isn't evidence of anything.

We assume creation is equivalent or greater than destruction.

Character A created a solar system.

Assigning Solar System seems pretty straightforward to me. Add in multiples and we can reason it's higher. It's like asking why someone creating a space-time continuum is Low 2-C.

As I've said the numbers aren't necessary when the methods aren't related to what you're calculating.

Why is creating multiple solar systems a Multi-Solar System level feat? Explain this.

This is bemusing because your very debate and post structure is already basing itself off of creation being equal to destruction.

I'm not saying creation =/= destruction though. I'm just saying we shouldn't use equations unrelated to the actual feat to get calcs. You're throwing in a bunch of red herrings in regards to points I don't even make.

In VSBW we assume creation = destruction in spite of better options. Either that or the feat is High 4-C as one of the only two options we have.

Here we go with the either or again. You're ignoring the other possibilities being brought up, or the possibility that neither of them are accurate and that the feat just can't be calced. It's just like with a statement, we have to make an estimation if we lack sufficient details like with what we have here.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

You can calculate the energy required for an attack to destroy a star 1,000+ light years away, which is 4-A, so this statement is a misinterpretation of the actual point.

If it's done through an explosion or blast of energy, yeah.

That's not what's happening here, though. Someone's creating a bunch of space with matter in it out of nothing. No explosions or expansions are involved and we can't determine the energy needed to make the space so logically all that we can look at is the matter.

If something like GBE or Mass-Energy is unsatisfactory, we shouldn't conjure something that isn't related to the feat to calculate it. If the results of a mass-energy feat are unrealistic, for example, we don't try throwing in a combustion calculation because it might look more reasonable.

 

[Kepekley23]

> You're assuming the pocket dimension 'expands' like the Big Bang despite them typically appearing out of thin air. Bit of a false correlation there.

Not quite a false correlation. By default, unless you argue dimension creators can spread the dimension at Infinite speeds, each created dimension takes some time to be expanded into their size (which is a common theme throughout fiction's dimension creators - dimensions being generated and visibly expanding to their full size). This also didn't address the actual point...at all.

> Or we can just see that they're creating tons of Solar Systems and just call it 4-A.

Explain why creating multiple Solar Systems is 4-A under our system if we can't utilize the energy of destroying those multiple solar systesm and equate it with creating it.

> We assume creation is equivalent or greater than destruction.

Yes. Thus under our logic the feat would yield the same as destroying the dimension.

> Character A created a solar system. Assigning Solar System seems pretty straightforward to me.

Yep, because our baseline Solar System level is the same as the energy it takes to destroy a solar system.

> It's like asking why someone creating a space-time continuum is Low 2-C

False equivalence. Low 2-C isn't quantifiable through numbers.

> I'm not saying creation =/= destruction though. I'm just saying we shouldn't use equations unrelated to the actual feat to get calcs.

Except, again, we treat creation as equal to destruction, and the equation for destruction in this case yields 140 PetaFoe, thus in order to create said dimension we assume it's the same.

> Here we go with the either or again. You're ignoring the other possibilities being brought up, or the possibility that neither of them are accurate and the feat can't be calced'. It's just like with a statement, we have to make an estimation if we lack sufficient details like with what we have here.

We don't lack sufficient details of anything. It's clear as day. Baseline 4-A is wrong since it is, again, pulled from nowhere. Simple as that.

 

[Kepekley23]

> If it's done through an explosion or blast of energy, yeah. That's not what's happening here, though. Someone's creating a bunch of space with matter in it out of nothing. No explosions or expansions are involved and we can't determine the energy needed to make the space so logically all that we can look at is the matter.

Under that assumption, the feat is High 4-C via creating all the matter within the dimension, and falls under Option 2 of the two options I listed. Either way "baseline 4-A" is completely wrong and from nowhere.

> If something like GBE or Mass-Energy is unsatisfactory, we shouldn't conjure something that isn't related to the feat to calculate it.

GBE isn't related to creation at all. GBE is the energy required to destroy a star, which we assume to be equal to creating it for the sake of our system. Make a thread on that bit, too.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Kepekley23 wrote
unless you argue dimension creators can spread the dimension at Infinite speeds, each created dimension takes some time to be expanded into their size (which is a common theme throughout fiction's dimension creators - dimensions being generated and visibly expanding to their full size). This also didn't address the actual point...at all.

That didn't really address my point either. If the dimension is poofed into existence like many creation feats obviously none of this applies.

Kepekley23 wrote
Explain why creating multiple Solar Systems is 4-A under our system if we can't utilize the energy of destroying those multiple solar systesm and equate it with creating it.

Our system utilizes explosions that cover that area, not just destroying the component matter.

So I suppose Assault might have a point regarding High 4-C.

Kepekley23 wrote
Yes. Thus under our logic the feat would yield the same as destroying the dimension.

Yet a 'dimension', or region of space can't be destroyed conventionally.

Kepekley23 wrote
Yep, because our baseline Solar System level is the same as the energy it takes to destroy a solar system.

... through an explosion. That has nothing to do with the creation of relatively empty space.

Kepekley23 wrote
False equivalence. Low 2-C isn't quantifiable through numbers.

Not really, that's sort of my point. These feats can't really be quantified through numbers. Although I'm more leaning Assaults argument for High 4-C now, to be entirely honest.

Kepekley23 wrote
Except, again, we treat creation as equal to destruction, and the equation for destruction in this case yields 140 PetaFoe, thus in order to create said dimension we assume it's the same.

The calc is derived from an explosion, if I'm not mistaken. Said explosion doesn't destroy the dimension, it would just destroy the matter within. You wouldn't need such a large explosion to cover the area of the matter is spontaneously appearing inside of a created space. I suppose I'd agree if the entire dimension was made of matter entirely but most of it is typically empty space.

Kepekley23 wrote
It's clear as day. Baseline 4-A is wrong since it is, again, pulled from nowhere. Simple as that.

That's not what I'm even arguing.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Under that assumption, the feat is High 4-C via creating all the matter within the dimension, and falls under Option 2 of the two options I listed. Either way "baseline 4-A" is completely wrong and from nowhere.

I'm honestly erring more towards High 4-C now, however I've never argued for baseline 4-A anywhere, so yeah, your claim of me arguing it does come from nowhere.

GBE isn't related to creation at all. GBE is the energy required to destroy a star, which we assume to be equal to creating it for the sake of our system.

It's related to destruction, which we relate to creation.

 

[Kepekley23]

> That didn't really address my point either. If the dimension is poofed into existence like many creation feats obviously none of this applies.

It addressed your point. They aren't poofed into existence, they're just expanded quickly. Unless you believe anyone above Supersonic "poofs into existence" because your eye is unable to perceive them moving and they appear to be teleporting from your view.

> Our system utilizes explosions that cover that area, not just destroying the component matter.

...This is completely irrelevant to the point and it's what I have been trying to tell you for ages with my "140 TeraFoe", which is based on the inverse square law.

Okay then. It's High 4-C in your view and not an unfounded baseline 4-A rating, right?

> ... through an explosion. That has nothing to do with the creation of relatively empty space.

So creating a solar system isn't Solar System level in your view either, right? Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I'm arguing.

> Not really, that's sort of my point. These feats can't really be quantified through numbers.

Yes they can.

> Although I'm more leaning Assaults argument for High 4-C now, to be entirely honest.

Okay. Not an unfounded baseline 4-A rating.

> The calc is derived from an explosion, if I'm not mistaken. Said explosion doesn't destroy the dimension, it would just destroy the matter withi

Which leads to the dimension collapsing, most of the time. Thus the dimension collapsing is, at least, equal to the explosion.

Either way, that's irrelevant and semantics that doesn't counter the point.

> That's not what I'm even arguing.

Yes it is. There is no difference between saying it's "above baseline" and "baseline" if it's unquantifiable 4-A.