Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

[Antvasima]

Really hit us with the avengers assemble huh

Well, this is an extremely important issue to try to solve properly, and me and DontTalk need help to figure out how to best scale a tier by created volume list.

 

[Planck69]

I'm the last person to ask about calculations but I feel like Don'tTalk and Bambu make sense about using calcs wherever possible.

 

[Armorchompy]

Well, this is an extremely important issue to try to solve properly, and me and DontTalk need help to figure out how to best scale a tier by created volume list.

No, it makes perfect sense, I just wanted to make a joke.

Well, one problem with a GPE method I notice is that creating a Skyscraper would come out as 8-A, which does seem fairly high.

Yeah, that's a huge issue. Creating a skyscraper lying on its side would barely be 8-C if that, but creating one that's standing upright would be 8-A. That's a pretty major problem.

 

[Agnaa]

This is something worth bringing up even if only to make it clear, do we consider empty space to be created? Say I create a pocket dimension that's as big as a solar system but only contains a planet, am I 5-B or 4-B?

Going by how things currently are, I think we only incorporate empty space if there's objects on both sides of it, just like how we treat destruction feats. If you create a universe with a single planet in it, that's only 5-B. But if you create a universe with two planets an observable-universe-length apart, that's 3-B (3-A would require those to be neutron stars iirc).

Well, one problem with a GPE method I notice is that creating a Skyscraper would come out as 8-A, which does seem fairly high.

Yeah, that's a huge issue. Creating a skyscraper lying on its side would barely be 8-C if that, but creating one that's standing upright would be 8-A. That's a pretty major problem.

If those are seen as issues, GPE could be used only when an object is created in the air, with the "height" measured by the bottom-edge of the object, rather than its center of gravity.

 

[KLOL506]

If those are seen as issues, GPE could be used only when an object is created in the air, with the "height" measured by the bottom-edge of the object, rather than its center of gravity.

I can agree to this.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

So....is it that created objects no longer has a designated tier due to size?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Best easy option would just be "assume bare minimum for the tier". If we were to do a calc for it, it would need to be from center of mass rather than from the edges.

 

[Armorchompy]

This is something worth bringing up even if only to make it clear, do we consider empty space to be created? Say I create a pocket dimension that's as big as a solar system but only contains a planet, am I 5-B or 4-B?

Going by how things currently are, I think we only incorporate empty space if there's objects on both sides of it, just like how we treat destruction feats. If you create a universe with a single planet in it, that's only 5-B. But if you create a universe with two planets an observable-universe-length apart, that's 3-B (3-A would require those to be neutron stars iirc).

Am I the only one who thinks that's silly? I mean, by the general public perception of space, it's completely empty, and the fact that that there's actually nothing in it might indeed make it completely empty except for the spaces surrounding the planets.

 

[Agnaa]

Am I the only one who thinks that's silly? I mean, by the general public perception of space, it's completely empty, and the fact that that there's actually nothing in it might indeed make it completely empty except for the spaces surrounding the planets.

The only alternative is downgrading all universe-creation feats to 4-A.

Out of these two silly possibilities, people decided that the status quo is less silly.

AP gets as high as it does due to exponentiation over long distances. Just counting up the number of stars/planets created and adding their GBE values together (which is the only way to ignore empty space) gets nowhere near 3-A.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I would still greatly appreciate help from all staff members with finding a good solution here.

 

[Antvasima]

Well-informed regular members can also give suggestions if they can come up with something genuinely useful.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Everyone, we need to make a serious effort here. This is an extremely important topic for our scaling system.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm not absolutely certain I'm aware of what you're asking of us, Ant. My two cents on the overall topic were given (calc everything, GBE is valid for things under Tier 5, PE for floating objects, heat calc for exceptionally cold/hot objects). I dunno what more you want regarding getting AP from volume created- I don't like how we currently handle universe stuff but I also don't know of a solution that won't cause mass rioting.

So like. Those two cents are likely as much as I can personally contribute towards your goal, here. Sorry.

 

[Agnaa]

You've provided an exceptional amount of input here, Bambu, but we can't apply stuff with just one staff member's opinion.

The most I could say is start doing some sample calcs to see how our intuitions line up with using GBE for all objects. But I'll hopefully be able to get working on that myself later today.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You've provided an exceptional amount of input here, Bambu, but we can't apply stuff with just one staff member's opinion.

The most I could say is start doing some sample calcs to see how our intuitions line up with using GBE for all objects. But I'll hopefully be able to get working on that myself later today.

I wouldn't expect you or anyone to- this is, after all, a wiki-wide policy. I'm not the only one that's spoken, though. If we have a wish for specific members to speak their minds again I'd advise pinging them (say, for example, we want clarification from Qawsed- ping the man specifically).

Regarding sample calculations, here's the one I referred to some time ago. 8-A GBE calc.

 

[Agnaa]

Right, we either need other people to come back to actually discuss things with each other, or we need new users to come in and evaluate stuff.

DDM, DontTalk, Ant, Elizhaa, and KLOL seem to be in favor of a volume list if calcs aren't possible, without clarifying which calc methods are valid.

Qawsed and Damage seem to want matter-displacement.

Andy and Planck have said "There should be a calculation" without clarifying which calc methods are valid.

Armorchompy is worried about counting empty space, which I haven't really seen others weigh in on.

DDM and Armorchompy are worried about PE inflating values for objects that are particularly tall.

You (Bambu) seem to want GBE for pretty much all sizes, using PE and heat when applicable.

Do, I'd like everyone else to discuss with DDM/DT/Ant/Elizhaa/KLOL the merit of a volume list. Since I haven't seen much back and forth on that.

I'd like everyone else to weigh in on matter-displacement, since I've only seen Qawsed/Damage/I weigh in on it.

I'd like everyone else to consider whether to count empty space or not, and how it should be accounted for, since I haven't seen many give their views on it.

I'd like everyone else to ponder what should be done, if anything, about PE inflating values for taller and skinnier objects, since it's a conundrum I can't easily answer myself.

 

[KLOL506]

While I am indeed in favor of volume calcs I am also in favor of the methods listed by Bambu.

 

[Antoniofer]

Just a note about PE: we can't rate a character to be [relatively] stronger than another just cuz it has the capability to create stuff in mid air.

If we go with accuracy, then "best" method would be mass-energy convertion, but this would yield unreasonable results; I wouldn't suggest using methods like GBE as form of calculating these kind of stuff, as its unrelated, and at that point we just trying to satisfy the system.

 

[Agnaa]

While I am indeed in favor of volume calcs I am also in favor of the methods listed by Bambu.

Bambu's in favor of using GBE at (all/pretty much all? I'm not exactly sure where he'd want that to stop) values, which would make volume calcs entirely useless.

 

[KLOL506]

Bambu's in favor of using GBE at (all/pretty much all? I'm not exactly sure where he'd want that to stop) values, which would make volume calcs entirely useless.

Depends upon the situation. Maybe hard-limit GBE to situations where a planet-like structure is actually formed? (As in, no flat-plain cities, it needs to be a mini-planet or somesuch to qualify).

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah I find that agreeable.

So for objects where GBE/PE/Heat doesn't apply, you would go with volume lists (we write down a list of volume baselines to reach various tiers) over matter displacement (0.1013 joules per cubic centimeter of volume)?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So for example, creating a superball out of nothing can use the GBE method; we'd insert absurdly low decimals in the calculator but doable. But Bambu is being quite reasonable yeah.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah I find that agreeable.

So for objects where GBE/PE/Heat doesn't apply, you would go with volume lists (we write down a list of volume baselines to reach various tiers) over matter displacement (0.1013 joules per cubic centimeter of volume)?

I guess so.

 

[Agnaa]

Okay, so.

Do you think PE making skyscraper-creation 8-A is an issue? If so, how would you resolve that?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay, so.

Do you think PE making skyscraper-creation 8-A is an issue? If so, how would you resolve that?

I think it mostly has to do with the fact that placing a skyscraper on its side would only increase its horizontal distance, and PE mostly works for stuff that have a significant vertical altitude. Which is why the values vary so wildly.

Also can you even call it a skyscraper if it isn't standing tall into the clouds? Such a massive building laying on its side would now be akin to that of something like the Boeing factory.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean that is the issue, but is it something we should correct for, and if so, how?

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm not sure GBE is going to be accurate for smaller objects. I'm not an expert on this but isn't the GBE of regular objects absolutely miniscule? What would the gbe of a building be for example?

 

[Armorchompy]

yeah i seriously think that the energy something makes by falling over is not the right thing to measure here.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure GBE is going to be accurate for smaller objects. I'm not an expert on this but isn't the GBE of regular objects absolutely miniscule? What would the gbe of a building be for example?

GBE is (3GM^2)/5R

Going by this calc...

Mass of a building is 1,022,088 kg.

That calc used a height of 8.53 meters, and a floorspace of 249.63 m^2. The latter gives the higher radius, so I'll use that; 15.8 meters.

Plugging that all in gives... 0.0026 somethings. I'm not sure what that something actually is because the calc I was using for reference gives a conflicting value at the results section. It says 3.422e23 / 1204.8 is 1.934e12 joules. When that seems to actually give 2.84e20.

I'm assuming that's just an error in the calc, since our page on GBE says I used the right units, so the result is 0.0026 Joules. Which wouldn't exactly surprise me, since gravity is notoriously an extremely weak force.

EDIT: I think I've worked out the error in the calc I linked. It should be 1.934e9, 8-C. The wrong number was included in the final line, and an incorrect number was put into the calculator for the final step (1.2048 instead of 1204.8).

 

[Armorchompy]

we should probably calculate the volume of a wall/building/small building/mountain et cetera, maybe that could work?

 

[Agnaa]

we should probably calculate the volume of a wall/building/small building/mountain et cetera, maybe that could work?

Yeah that is a suggestion a lot of people seem fine with. I don't see how that really gets around the underlying problem of the tiers we're trying to assign not being based on the physical constructs in question, but that does stop us from having to eyeball things.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah that is a suggestion a lot of people seem fine with. I don't see how that really gets around the underlying problem of the tiers we're trying to assign not being based on the physical constructs in question

Well, it doesn't. this kind of feat is incredibly arbitrary and not comparable to anything IRL (Outside of E=mc^2 but we're NOT using that) and the only reason i'm suggesting this is that removing it completely would not be feasible.

but that does stop us from having to eyeball things.

And yeah that's why I'm suggesting it

 

[DMUA]

The Tiering System page's third note says that many tiers cannot be assigned without a calculation as their minimums are arbitrary values.

However, the Creation Feats page says that creation feats should be given tiers corresponding to the object that's created, i.e. creating a medium-sized building would be ranked at Building level. But the examples here contradict the note on the Tiering System page; which doesn't allow any tiers between 9

Just use E=MC^2

I'm sure nothing could go wrong and it is the way to measure how much energy is needed to make an amount of mass

I mean for the sake of not wasting people's time with memes, I'll just have to disagree with the note in general considering there is no real solid way to calculate a creation feat and if it can be argued to be applicable to AP, a building is building level

 

[Armorchompy]

However, there is a new idea. @KatBoi69 Has suggested using the "Energy to expand against an external pressure", essentially assuming that to create an object of a certain size, the air that was there would need to be pushed away against the atmosphere's pressure. Under our atmosphere that gives a result of 0.1013 joules per cubic centimeter. The issue with this is that many created objects involve a lot of empty space, such as buildings and towns, which would be heavily lowballed using this method.

This isn't a bad idea actually. Lowball-y, perhaps, but it's unquestionable that such energy would be emitted.

2129340000 cm^3 x 0.1013 = 215702142, Small Building level. This is for a building's mass, from Bambu's calc. So not too bad of a lowball. Creating a human is 62000 cm^3 which leads to 9-C btw, while creating our baseline for a 7-A (when fragged) mountain would give Low 7-B. Overall not too bad imo

 

[Agnaa]

This isn't a bad idea actually. Lowball-y, perhaps, but it's unquestionable that such energy would be emitted.

2129340000 cm^3 x 0.1013 = 215702142, Small Building level. This is for a building mass, from Bambu's calc. So not too bad of a lowball.

For some other examples, I heard a human has a volume of 62,000 cm^3, which would be 6,280.6 Joules, 9-C.

We consider a baseline volume for mountains 7.586e14 cm^3, which would be 7.684e13 Joules, 7-C.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm not sure GBE is going to be accurate for smaller objects. I'm not an expert on this but isn't the GBE of regular objects absolutely miniscule? What would the gbe of a building be for example?

Again, we decided GBE to only be usable for small planet-like objects that are round, flat plains or irregular-shaped objects that aren't prolate or oblate ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Agnaa]

Again, we decided GBE to only be usable for small planet-like objects that are round, flat plains or irregular-shaped objects that aren't prolate or oblate ain't gonna cut it.

Sure but even then, GBE is pretty dang low. 32 million kilograms of pure spheroid steel (10m radius) is only 4000 Joules. It's hard to find the exact border, but 100 mill kg (15m radius) gets out of 9-C at 28 Kilojoules. The same mass of rock (24m radius) also only barely scrapes by into 9-B, at 16.85 Kilojoules.

 

[KLOL506]

Sure but even then, GBE is pretty dang low. 32 million kilograms of pure spheroid steel (10m radius) is only 4000 Joules. It's hard to find the exact border, but 100 mill kg (15m radius) gets out of 9-C at 28 Kilojoules. The same mass of rock (24m radius) also only barely scrapes by into 9-B, at 16.85 Kilojoules.

well ****.