Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

[Antvasima]

@Promestein @AKM sama @Ultima_Reality

Would you be willing to help evaluate DontTalk's suggestion please?

 

[KieranH10]

Bumpo

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. I called almost the entire staff here, and barely received any feedback, even though this is an extremely important topic for the future of our wiki. That is disappointing.

I will try again.

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @WeeklyBattles @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Mindovin @Jvando @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dino_Ranger_Black @Gemmysaur @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79

We would greatly appreciate your help with evaluating Agnaa's and DontTalk's suggestions for how to tier creation feats that I quoted the last time that I called you here.

 

[KingTempest]

Hmm. I called almost the entire staff here, and barely received any feedback, even though this is an extremely important topic for the future of our wiki. That is disappointing.

I will try again.

I apologize, I typed an evaluation but forgot to submit it.

How would the volumes work with items of different densities?
Like would 2 objects with 918.418335996021 m^3 volume be worth the same amount of energy, even if one has a density of 9999 kg/m3 and the other one is 11 kg/m3?

 

[KieranH10]

How would the volumes work with items of different densities?
Like would 2 objects with 918.418335996021 m^3 volume be worth the same amount of energy, even if one has a density of 9999 kg/m3 and the other one is 11 kg/m3?

This seems like a good point, creating something 1 cubic metre that is as light as a feather should probably be considered less impressive than creating something of the same size but weighs as much as a mountain for example. I feel perhaps Mass should come into this is some way.

What were the arguments against GPE again?

 

[KLOL506]

This seems like a good point, creating something 1 cubic metre that is as light as a feather should probably be considered less impressive than creating something of the same size but weighs as much as a mountain for example. I feel perhaps Mass should come into this is some way.

What were the arguments against GPE again?

I agree, mass should definitely come into play here.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Creation Feats are weird when they are below Moon level as I find that there’s usually a way to calc Creation Feats depending on how they are done, like creating a country by raising it from the sea would use PE or KE, I honestly don’t know the best way to handle creating smaller things in general and have rarely ever encountered those types of feats

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are helping out.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I apologize, I typed an evaluation but forgot to submit it.

How would the volumes work with items of different densities?
Like would 2 objects with 918.418335996021 m^3 volume be worth the same amount of energy, even if one has a density of 9999 kg/m3 and the other one is 11 kg/m3?

We could easily do a mass scale instead.
Like, if we assume continental stone as standard (definitely the most used material in feats, followed by water), we could multiply the volume scale by 2700 kg/m^3 to create a mass scale. (might need to adjust the border to moon stuff a little again)

Although one could also argue against a mass scale. Like, if an object is reality warped into existence isn't the size more important than the mass? Does reality-warping care whether it creates iron or hydrogen atoms? It would also get somewhat weird with our pocket reality standards and in general how we do feats for celestial bodies and above.

What were the arguments against GPE again?

GPE as in the energy the object has due to its location? Well, exactly the problem that it has said energy due to its location. Is creating a skyscraper beside you while sitting in an airplane really more impressive than creating one beside you while on the ground?
One could also argue that GPE is relative. If someone creates a spaceship, relative to which celestial body would we measure the GPE?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Sorry for the late reply (crap internet).

I really don't know how much help I'd be in evaluating the above stuff given the way creation feats work and the fact that I'm not good when it comes to stuff like this in particular. But I'm fine with whatever the more sensible option. Apologies for not being helpful here.

 

[KingTempest]

We could easily do a mass scale instead.
Like, if we assume continental stone as standard (definitely the most used material in feats, followed by water), we could multiply the volume scale by 2700 kg/m^3 to create a mass scale. (might need to adjust the border to moon stuff a little again)

This seems better

Although one could also argue against a mass scale. Like, if an object is reality warped into existence isn't the size more important than the mass? Does reality-warping care whether it creates iron or hydrogen atoms? It would also get somewhat weird with our pocket reality standards and in general how we do feats for celestial bodies and above.

These are questions that need to be discussed.

I'd always say that mass is the main priority, but the scale of it depends too. Because you can create a rock that's denser than the entire earth's atmosphere, but the energy to spread the air all around the earth is relevant too.

There's no formula that can be pulled outside of mass-energy conversion?

 

[DontTalkDT]

There's no formula that can be pulled outside of mass-energy conversion?

In general? No. Like, there are many special circumstances in which you can calculate some values.
If air is dispersed or spread from somewhere that can be calculated. If an object is created high up you can quantify the energy to drop it onto the ground.
But if you just, say, magic up a building? There's no perfect fit for that.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with the size scale concern, I was about to talk about this but forgot how to word it. We absolutely need to look into the scale of the object being created.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with the size scale concern, I was about to talk about this but forgot how to word it. We absolutely need to look into the scale of the object being created.

What more needs to be looked into that hasn't been covered by this scale and DT's evaluation?

 

[Firestorm808]

@Antvasima

Sorry for the late reply.

The names for some tiers are arbitrary because it's just a general name for that level of power since things like buildings and islands vary in size. Depending on how a room is destroyed it could even go to higher or lower tiers.

We use the mass or GBE of the object created to estimate the energy used, but context matters on how it's created and who creates it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are helping out here.

 

[Jasonsith]

@Antvasima

Sorry for the late reply.

The names for some tiers are arbitrary because it's just a general name for that level of power since things like buildings and islands vary in size. Depending on how a room is destroyed it could even go to higher or lower tiers.

We use the mass or GBE of the object created to estimate the energy used, but context matters on how it's created and who creates it.

This sounds good.
But (in rare cases) there are masses that are created by pure energy.

While we have the gravitational binding energy formula as

U (GBE) = 3 G M^2 / (R * (5 - N))

We also have the mass-energy conversion formula as

E = M c^2

There will be a chance different results are generated by different methods. And given the radius of the object is an input variable, this can yield different results for the same mass. (This makes actual sense on celestial object but not so much on common objects)

There will also be a chance the object is not even a sphere.

Leaving for everyone to discuss.

 

[KieranH10]

Why cant we assume GPE values but under regular conditions? As if it were simply on the ground. We all agree that creating something higher up would obviously be no different than creating the same thing on the ground, so surely it's fair to give some leeway for this and simply use the objects centre of mass from the ground.

I just feel GPE seems too consistent and generally reliable to be left aside. Assuming objects are on the ground gives a fairly accurate tier for an object, just as it does with large sized calculations.

I feel Gravitational Binding Energy should be used for celestial bodies, likely anything that retains at least a relatively spherical shape should probably be fine to use for GBE, the only problem that would come would be non-spherical objects of similar size (as previously mentioned). But tbh I cant think of many feats like this at all, if someone is creating an object the size of a planet, from what I've seen myself, it's generally just a planet.

 

[Jasonsith]

Why cant we assume GPE values but under regular conditions? As if it were simply on the ground. We all agree that creating something higher up would obviously be no different than creating the same thing on the ground, so surely it's fair to give some leeway for this and simply use the objects centre of mass from the ground.

I just feel GPE seems too consistent and generally reliable to be left aside. Assuming objects are on the ground gives a fairly accurate tier for an object, just as it does with large sized calculations.

I feel Gravitational Binding Energy should be used for celestial bodies, likely anything that retains at least a relatively spherical shape should probably be fine to use for GBE, the only problem that would come would be non-spherical objects of similar size (as previously mentioned). But tbh I cant think of many feats like this at all, if someone is creating an object the size of a planet, from what I've seen myself, it's generally just a planet.

GPE is highly inflationary by adjusting the height where there may or may not be realistic way of making said material unless under specific circumstances. Like a sword created while floating in the air is already yielding higher GPE than a sword of the same mass created stuck on the ground, despite both cases involve creating a sword of the same mass.
I would say GPE is feasible under very specific circumstances, like when large snowballs are made from raising snow on the ground in a snowy mountain, but heavy caution is to be advised.

Also, creating an ice sword by picking ice from the ground, by freezing nitrogen, by freezing existing water and by freezing water vapour all the way into ice can generate vastly different results despite being making the same ice sword (maybe the chemical composition of the nitrogen sword is different).

Actually mass-energy conversion, while requiring high energy to create something, seems to be the most standard way of calculation, as this only involves the mass of the object created and nothing else.

Oh energy constructs created mid-space out of vacuum... this happens from time to time. Do not assume all things are created under Earth gravity.

 

[KieranH10]

GPE is highly inflationary by adjusting the height where there may or may not be realistic way of making said material unless under specific circumstances. Like a sword created while floating in the air is already yielding higher GPE than a sword of the same mass created stuck on the ground, despite both cases involve creating a sword of the same mass.

This is what I'm saying though, in finding the Mass of an object we very likely need to find it's height along the way. Cant we do the GPE calculations as if the objects were on the ground?
E.G: If Character A creates an object 300m in the air weighing 100 tonnes that is 15m tall. Couldn't we simply negate the height the object was created at for the calculation and simply use what the centre of mass would be on the ground (7.5m in this case)?

Also, creating an ice sword by picking ice from the ground, by freezing nitrogen, by freezing existing water and by freezing water vapour all the way into ice can generate vastly different results despite being making the same ice sword (maybe the chemical composition of the nitrogen sword is different).

I actually had an idea for a standard on this a while ago about ice stuff that I plan to propose in the future, I agree it would be a different case

Oh energy constructs created mid-space out of vacuum... this happens from time to time. Do not assume all things are created under Earth gravity.

Energy Constructs are an entirely different hurdle to be fair.

 

[Jasonsith]

This is what I'm saying though, in finding the Mass of an object we very likely need to find it's height along the way. Cant we do the GPE calculations as if the objects were on the ground?
E.G: If Character A creates an object 300m in the air weighing 100 tonnes that is 15m tall. Couldn't we simply negate the height the object was created at for the calculation and simply use what the centre of mass would be on the ground (7.5m in this case)?

I actually had an idea for a standard on this a while ago about ice stuff that I plan to propose in the future, I agree it would be a different case

Energy Constructs are an entirely different hurdle to be fair.

You raised another point: the center of mass. Which can be complicated with most constructs or summons being not shaped into a ball. So the application of GPE is trickier than you can imagine.

Also, some summons and reation feats are done out of thin air. Like from what objects are made or transmuted into the construct? Summoning 1 m^3 cube cotton then transmuting 1 m^3 of cotton into 1 m^3 of iron already takes less GPE for the summoning part than summoning 1 m^3 cube iron direct (the transmutation part is another issue I must admit).

Another point is most characters can summon objects into being but those do not necessarily turn into practical AP otherwise. Again, this is to be examined in a case-by-case analysis, but I believe I have to raise it out to prevent people from over-optimistically use it as a one size fits all formula.

 

[KieranH10]

You raised another point: the center of mass. Which can be complicated with most constructs or summons being not shaped into a ball. So the application of GPE is trickier than you can imagine.

We already use GPE in Large Size calcs and generally accept it to be around half of the overall height for lack of better options.

Also, some summons and reation feats are done out of thin air. Like from what objects are made or transmuted into the construct? Summoning 1 m^3 cube cotton then transmuting 1 m^3 of cotton into 1 m^3 of iron already takes less GPE for the summoning part than summoning 1 m^3 cube iron direct (the transmutation part is another issue I must admit).

I agree this is another issue. But I feel that this still makes sense, as arguably summoning something from nothing would potentially be considered more impressive than turning something into something else.

Another point is most characters can summon objects into being but those do not necessarily turn into practical AP otherwise. Again, this is to be examined in a case-by-case analysis, but I believe I have to raise it out to prevent people from over-optimistically use it as a one size fits all formula.

I agree with this, granted I've always been careful when considering creation feats since I believe in most cases they simply shouldn't scale to AP, but that's just my opinion and it's been discussed already in other threads.

 

[Jasonsith]

We already use GPE in Large Size calcs and generally accept it to be around half of the overall height for lack of better options.

We sometimes use GPE sometimes use inverse-square laws for large size characters.
But for stationary constructs, the orientation directly affected the height and the shape affected the center of mass. May indulge large amount of calculations esp. for irregularly shaped constructs. Not as clear-cut as sentient large size characters.

Even for summoning simple objects:
A 1 kg spear versus a 1-kg cannon ball
A lying spear will have a smaller distance from ground to center of mass than a cannonball, but a standing spear will have a bigger distance from ground to center of mass.
Unless you attempt to assume creation of objects from a single material, assume the material be lumped into a ball resting on the ground, then shape it into any shape desired.
In this case, GPE will be always deduced from a material and be assumed as a sphere first. Like when I summon a 1-kg ice spear, I start from assuming ice can be readily picked from the ground, raise a 1-kg ice into an ice ball sphere, deduce GPE from the ice ball and we have a potential energy yield. In fact I have made an example. See if it works or to what extent it can be made for other feats.

I am sleeping soon. But feel free to drop other suggestions.

 

[KieranH10]

I understand now, the 1kg spear vs cannonball problem would be a pretty big one that's essentially impossible to counter in this case. I suppose that GPE would have its flaws too then.

 

[Agnaa]

Why cant we assume GPE values but under regular conditions? As if it were simply on the ground. We all agree that creating something higher up would obviously be no different than creating the same thing on the ground, so surely it's fair to give some leeway for this and simply use the objects centre of mass from the ground.

I just feel GPE seems too consistent and generally reliable to be left aside. Assuming objects are on the ground gives a fairly accurate tier for an object, just as it does with large sized calculations.

The main worry people have with GPE is that it can give vastly different results for tall and skinny objects depending on their orientation. Apparently creating a skyscraper standing tall would be 8-A, but creating it lying on its side would be 8-C (although I haven't verified this myself).

I feel Gravitational Binding Energy should be used for celestial bodies, likely anything that retains at least a relatively spherical shape should probably be fine to use for GBE, the only problem that would come would be non-spherical objects of similar size (as previously mentioned). But tbh I cant think of many feats like this at all, if someone is creating an object the size of a planet, from what I've seen myself, it's generally just a planet.

We're not really talking about the creation of planet-sized objects. This revision is specifically for tiers under tier 5.

We already use GPE in Large Size calcs and generally accept it to be around half of the overall height for lack of better options.

It's not like it's impossible to get the mass of the constituent parts of a being/construct, and model where the center of mass should be. It's just more difficult than lazily going "Eh, I'll just say it's half the height".

We sometimes use GPE sometimes use inverse-square laws for large size characters.

No, we are not allowed to use inverse-square for large-size characters anymore. GPE is the only method that's allowed.

 

[Antvasima]

So have Agnaa's and DontTalk's suggestions been accepted, or are there valid objections to them? And if so, what are the realistically workable alternatives?

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Hop's opinion is still to not get all up in this discussion and leave it as it was, a case by case (or general destroy = create, create=/= destroy) mindset.

 

[Jasonsith]

So have Agnaa's and DontTalk's suggestions been accepted, or are there valid objections to them? And if so, what are the realistically workable alternatives?

Actually the new GPE model is only agreed to work under specific circumstances.
I have an illustrative example in which specific situation can the GPE model be used. Like you can use this model if a character was shown to lift snow on a snowy ground to form a giant snowball.
Objects of different shapes are much more debatable and will fall back to case-by-case analysis. And therefore no general formula.

And like the GPE giant model (requires some requirements) or even the KE giant model (requiring harsher requirements), it is not a one size fits all solution.
I doubt if this can be considered accepted.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @AKM sama

Would any of you be willing to help organise this thread please, so we can reach a constructive solution?

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise what we currently need to do here please?

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Agnaa

Your help with trying to organise this thread towards constructive conclusions would still be very appreciated.

 

[Antvasima]

All other staff and knowledgeable regular members are also very welcome to try to help out in this regard.

 

[Agnaa]

Sorry but I'm too exhausted to go over the entire thread right now. I've already summarized it multiple times back when I had more energy.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is very unfortunate.

 

[Antvasima]

It's going to be extremely difficult to summarize to any readable extent, but I'll try.

I noticed that the Creation Feats page and the Tiering System page disagree on what to do with sub-cosmic creation feats (below tier 5). The creation feats page says to eyeball them and assign a tier based on that, the Tiering System page says most of those tiers can never be assigned without a calculation, since their borders are too arbitrary.

Trying to resolve this has led to a wider discussion of what to do with sub-cosmic creation feats.

There are many ways of calculating creation feats below that tier, but they all seem to be missing something:

• Gravitational Binding Energy, the energy that needs to be added to a gravitationally-bound system to make it no longer held together by gravity.
  • The issue with this is that it only makes sense for gravitationally-bound objects, like meteorites, asteroids, and planetoids, it gives nonsensical answers when things like buildings are plugged in.
• Gravitational Potential Energy, the energy that an object has by virtue of being a certain elevation above the ground.
  • The issue with it is that this makes the most sense for objects that are created in the air, and even then just gives the energy they'd output squishing an opponent with that object.
  • There is also the worry that, since it's based on an object's center of gravity, a skyscraper created standing would end up in 8-A, and a skyscraper created lying on the ground would end up at 8-C, while ideally the orientation of a created object shouldn't change its tier that much.
• Temperature Change, the energy needed to heat/cool an object a certain amount.
  • The issue with is is that this only applies to creating things of notable temperatures, like fire or ice.
• Mass-Energy Equivalence, the amount of energy in raw matter itself, the amount of energy needed to create matter out of nothing in real life.
  • The issue with this is that it gives such obscenely high results (roughly as high as doing newtonian lightspeed KE with the object) that it's seen as unreliable.
• Air Displacement, the energy needed to push away the air (or theoretically water) that the created object now occupies, for a given atmosphere.
  • The only issue with this is that many don't think it accurately reflects creation feats in fiction, and thus should only be used when creation demonstrates air flowing away from the object.

There has also been the idea of using a volume list if no calculation methods are applicable, you'd simply find the volume of the created object and see which tier that corresponds to. I've made this list of where various AP methods land to help that be decided. I've summarized my findings here and here.

Armorchompy also thinks our current way of including empty space in all forms of creation feats is weird, since intuition should say that takes no energy. Our current way of incorporating it is as if there's an expanding creation-sphere creating every object along the way, that gets dimmer with the distance it travels. However, this is the only way to get universe creation feats into 3-A. Without it, iirc, they either land in 4-A or 3-C.

So I guess the current questions are:

1. In what circumstances should each of those calculation methods be considered valid? Should GBE be used for non-planets? Should GPE be used for objects not created in the air? Should Air Displacement only be used when there's an explicit demonstration of it?
2. When we don't have a way to calculate a creation feat, should we eyeball it, give it unknown, or use a volume list to give it a tier?
3. Should we reconsider the way we treat empty space?

For reference sake, I wanted to include the affected volume for explosions to Agnaa's chart, i.e. the volume covered by the airburst shockwave assuming it's spherical (which it should be).
So here are those values:

Spoiler: Explosion Volumes

10-C: N/A
10-B: 1.76714586764426e-3 m^3
10-A: 4.44517767564e-3 m^3
9-C: 0.013305788427678 m^3
9-B: 0.659583660806484 m^3
9-A: 918.418335996021 m^3
8-C: 4.58297546924977e4 m^3
High 8-C: 3.66638037539982e5 m^3
8-B: 2.02627123649643e6 m^3
8-A: 1.84765190210613e7 m^3
Low 7-C: 1.84252218395764e8 m^3
7-C: 1.06747173142195e9 m^3
High 7-C: 1.84765190210613e10 m^3
Low 7-B: 1.84252218395764e11 m^3
7-B: 1.160997799232515e12 m^3
7-A: 1.84765190210613e13 m^3
High 7-A: 1.84252218395764e14 m^3
6-C: 7.921807530280032e14 m^3
High 6-C: 1.8476519021061302595e16 m^3
Low 6-B: 1.8425221839576427015e17 m^3
6-B: 1.2882493375126645898e18 m^3
High 6-B: 1.8476519021061302595e19 m^3
6-A: 1.3984798859696923644e20 m^3
High 6-A: 8.172832344362823178e20 m^3

So explosions would kinda be the highest volume for each tier (GBE for low tiers aside).

If we look at all this I would say we should throw out GBE for those low tiers, as it doesn't fit well with the rest. The rest all have more or less the same order of magnitude (or are one or so off), so I would simply take the highest volume of those and round it to some nice value (no need to be overly precise here, given that this is imprecision incarnate). By taking the highest volume value, we get a nice low-end as far as methods are concerned. It's also larger than the reference objects, which is good.

The result could look something like this:

10-C: N/A
10-B: 2*10^-3 m^3
10-A: 4*10^-3 m^3
9-C: 0.01 m^3
9-B: 0.7 m^3
9-A: 900 m^3
8-C: 4.6 * 10^4 m^3
High 8-C: 3.6 * 10^5 m^3
8-B: 2 * 10^6 m^3
8-A: 2 * 10^7 m^3
Low 7-C: 2 * 10^8 m^3
7-C: 1 * 10^9 m^3
High 7-C: 2 * 10^10 m^3
Low 7-B: 2*10^11 m^3
7-B: 1 * 10^12 m^3
7-A: 2 * 10^13 m^3
High 7-A: 2 * 10^14 m^3
6-C: 8 * 10^14 m^3
High 6-C: 2 * 10^16 m^3
Low 6-B: 2 * 10^17 m^3
6-B: 1 * 10^18 m^3
High 6-B: 2 * 10^19 m^3
6-A: 1 * 10^20 m^3
High 6-A: 8 * 10^20 m^3

That was my first idea. However, I wonder if we should maybe lower the requirements for 6-B and above a little. Why?
The volume of our moon is 2.1958*10^10 km^3 = 2.1958e19 m^3.
In other words, due to those low ends 6-A and High 6-A kinda overlap with where we start moon level.
We could go
High 6-A = 1*10^19 m^3
6-A = 7*10^18 m^3
High 6-B = 4*10^18 m^3 (like the air displacement value).
That would prevent conflict between celestial body ranking and this, be in the range of values we are given and make for a smooth transition.

These were the best summaries above that I could find.

Help to make this thread progress would be very appreciated.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally, I might be ok with the approach to take PE of the target as it were if it was standing on the ground as value. We argue for giant characters that they could always at minimum fall over as an attack against an opponent. I suppose one could argue that such a character could at least make it collapse unto someone as an attack and hence have that AP in at least a certain sense. That's of course not really the potency of the creation either, but seeing as nothing as we might as well take it.
When it comes to orientation I would assume the one demonstrated or, if not visibly demonstrated, that make the most sense (e.g. skyscraper standing upright) If neither of that applies we simply go for low-end as usual.
The center of mass needs to be at least reasonably approximated, of course.

For the border where we switch from that method to our celestial body one, I would say we do so once we reach moon-sized volume. Or would limiting it to moon level AP be better?

Edit: moved this thread from the Q&A to the Content Revision Board for obvious reasons.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not a huge fan of using PE that way since that puts all adults into 9-C.

I also don't think it makes much sense for many constructs to collapse onto someone. Creations such as mountains have pretty much already settled, to get their center of mass any lower you'd need to actually destroy it and then break it apart.

Orientation/center of mass/border stuff seems fair though.

 

[Jasonsith]

So to summarize we should only use a general GPE formula for any creation feat above mountain level (with my "weakened Regina makes large snow balls" model used before)

Any other level will be examined on a case by case basis eh

Or will the feat yield be a summation of (a) GPE of picking up raw materials and (b) energy to bind raw materials as equivalent to raw energy required to pulverise materials (condensation/vaporisation for making things out of things air)

 

[Agnaa]

So to summarize we should only use a general GPE formula for any creation feat above mountain level (with my "weakened Regina makes large snow balls" model used before)

Any other level will be examined on a case by case basis eh

Or will the feat yield be a summation of (a) GPE of picking up raw materials and (b) energy to bind raw materials as equivalent to raw energy required to pulverise materials (condensation/vaporisation for making things out of things air)

Wait, I don't understand how that's a summary, I don't remember any of that being talked about suggested before. No-one said that GPE should be used for every creation feat about mountain level, or about GPE for picking up raw materials, or using energy required to pulverize/condense/vaporize materials.