• 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 Feats & Tiering System Note 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
All physical objects in the universe have GBE as DontTalkDT said; however, it would be extremely difficult to calculate non spherical objects. Such as the case why using the GBE calculator for Earth is technically a lowball since Earth isn't a perfect sphere combined with having a while variety of elements to configure. But even people have GBE and gravitational fields albeit very weak levels of it.
 
Agnaa said:
I'm trying to reverse-engineer the GBE equation to solve for mass, assuming a rock with a density of 2700 kg/m^3 in a perfect sphere. Here's my working out, but I'm a little bit rusty on algebra, and I don't want to create an entire table if I messed something up. Can anyone double-check this for me?
Click to expand...
Your derivation seems correct as far as I can tell 6am in the morning.
I also did the calculation my own way and got a result that appears to be equivalent to yours:
M = (1/6) * (10/pi)^(1/5) * (E/G)^(3/5)
 
Our results are nearly identical, up to 8 significant figures (which might have just gone astray from calculator rounding).

Yours seems much easier to work with, though, so I'll go with that, thanks.
 
Also, I'm unfamiliar with the reference objects for tiers 10 through 6. From what I recall, part of the issue is that, for almost all of them, there either is no reference object, or it was crafted after the values were chosen (i.e. arbitrarily selecting "1km nuke radius" for a tier, or this page in general).

But if someone can compile a list of them, I'll add them to my table.
 
I'm done with the calculations. Only thing that's missing are the reference objects, but there's some insights as-is:

All calculation methods except for GBE are linear, in terms of energy > required mass/volume. Out of those four, explosions are the most strict, followed by PE at 2m (0.75x lower baseline), followed by air displacement (0.52x lower baseline than PE, 0.61x lower baseline than explosions), followed by fragmentation as the most permissive (0.23x lower baseline than air displacement, 0.14x lower baseline than explosions).

GBE is less than linear, meaning it starts out as the most strict method, but eventually becomes the most permissive. It becomes more permissive than explosions at 7-B, more permissive than PE and air displacement at 7-A, and more permissive than fragmentation at 6-B.
 
Agnaa said:
I'm done with the calculations. Only thing that's missing are the reference objects, but there's some insights as-is:

All calculation methods except for GBE are linear, in terms of energy > required mass/volume. Out of those four, explosions are the most strict, followed by PE at 2m (0.75x lower baseline), followed by air displacement (0.52x lower baseline than PE, 0.61x lower baseline than explosions), followed by fragmentation as the most permissive (0.23x lower baseline than air displacement, 0.14x lower baseline than explosions).

GBE is less than linear, meaning it starts out as the most strict method, but eventually becomes the most permissive. It becomes more permissive than explosions at 7-B, more permissive than PE and air displacement at 7-A, and more permissive than fragmentation at 6-B.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79

What do you think about this?
 
Anyway, we would need to add a guideline list of tiers for volumes or the masses of created objects to our Creation Feats page, and likely also rewrite it a bit.
 
Yeah, once one of those 5 methods (or an intermediate value) is selected, the values should be easy to move over.
 
Agnaa said:
Also, I'm unfamiliar with the reference objects for tiers 10 through 6. From what I recall, part of the issue is that, for almost all of them, there either is no reference object, or it was crafted after the values were chosen (i.e. arbitrarily selecting "1km nuke radius" for a tier, or this page in general).

But if someone can compile a list of them, I'll add them to my table.
Click to expand...
For Tier 9-A I believe the reference was a tennis court or a small 5m-and-bigger shed or somesuch, as for 8-B I think the area of a cricket field was taken as an assumption (At least from my knowledge, these were the references in the Explosion Radius/Area page). High 8-C was for something like the Hagia Sophia or something.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
I'm done with the calculations. Only thing that's missing are the reference objects, but there's some insights as-is:

All calculation methods except for GBE are linear, in terms of energy > required mass/volume. Out of those four, explosions are the most strict, followed by PE at 2m (0.75x lower baseline), followed by air displacement (0.52x lower baseline than PE, 0.61x lower baseline than explosions), followed by fragmentation as the most permissive (0.23x lower baseline than air displacement, 0.14x lower baseline than explosions).

GBE is less than linear, meaning it starts out as the most strict method, but eventually becomes the most permissive. It becomes more permissive than explosions at 7-B, more permissive than PE and air displacement at 7-A, and more permissive than fragmentation at 6-B.
Click to expand...
Looks pretty good. That nothings more than an order of magnitude apart (aside from GBE) makes using an approximation based on this reasonable IMO.
Can I see how the air displacement thing was calculated?
Edit: Will look if I can remember some reference objects.
 
So, I believe several of our values come from this, which explains some reference objects.
Island level apparently starts at Mount Everest and Country level is based on the average country size.

Aside from that continent and multi-continent come from here.
Continent level starts at the area of Russia.
Multi-Continent at the area of Eurasia.

I'm not sure how we would compare countries here. One could calculate a volume using average elevation. Or one could look for a radius so that the circle has the same area.
 
DontTalkDT said:
So, I believe several of our values come from this, which explains some reference objects.
Island level apparently starts at Mount Everest and Country level is based on the average country size.

Aside from that continent and multi-continent come from here.
Continent level starts at the area of Russia.
Multi-Continent at the area of Eurasia.

I'm not sure how we would compare countries here. One could calculate a volume using average elevation. Or one could look for a radius so that the circle has the same area.
Click to expand...
We also have some reference for our values in the Explosion Radius/Area page as well in case that helps.
 
@DontTalkDT They're not quite all in the same order of magnitude, I only just now realized that I shouldn't have used radius for my comparison. Going by volume/mass (if we imagine the explosion as a sphere), explosions get the lowest result (strictest requirement), PE at 2m is twice as high, air displacement is twice as high as PE, but fragmentation is 80x as high as air displacement.

So explosions/PE/Air displacement are all in the same order of magnitude, frag's off by two orders of magnitude, and GBE's all over the place.

@KatBoi69 Said they'd do an in-depth write up how air displacement was calculated over the weekend, but here's the quick explanation I got when asking about it
The more in depth formula is work=p(delta)V with v in liters and p in atmospheres. This gives an answer in litre-atmospheres, and one of those is 101.3 joules.
Click to expand...
@KLOL My main worry with using that is that it's basically what I did in my calc; taking the borders of the tiers and seeing what values line up with it. It's not what those tiers are actually based on.
 
Agnaa said:
@KLOL My main worry with using that is that it's basically what I did in my calc; taking the borders of the tiers and seeing what values line up with it. It's not what those tiers are actually based on.
Click to expand...
Well there isn't much we can do about that.

Anyway, for 8-B, I believe you should also add the full area of Hagia Sophia.
 
Why the Hagia Sophia?
 
KLOL506 said:
Because a non-nuclear air-burst explosion would generate anywhere between 5.4-30.31 tons of TNT depending on how much of the complex you wipe out.
Click to expand...
Is there anything demonstrating that that was used when deciding the tiers (or when arguing for their placement), or is it just a random building that we've seen that has happened to somewhat line up with it?

I really don't want to include the latter, since you could include literally anything there.
 
Agnaa said:
Is there anything demonstrating that that was used when deciding the tiers (or when arguing for their placement), or is it just a random building that we've seen that has happened to somewhat line up with it?

I really don't want to include the latter, since you could include literally anything there.
Click to expand...
Probably the former but I don't remember, the values for that I believe were added long ago, long before I became a fully-fledged member.
 
A big thank you to everybody who are helping out here.
 
To be frank, my opinion is:

Assume all creation feats are not AP-applicable except for anything moon level or above, except otherwise says so. And we have to look at how the characters perform against other characters to determine the AP standing.
For instance, fictional magicians can create fire constructs, water constructs, light constructs, earth constructs, grass constructs, etc. Energy converted in scientific terms and their methodologies can be different, but the fiction author usually treats them as similar with their own "Pokemon type effectiveness chart".

But this problem may come with inconsistency with people being able to evaporate clouds instead of just pushing them away - depending on the timeframe, pushing large amount of clouds can generate a ridiculously large amount of KE.
 
@Jason I don't understand how one could say "Creation shouldn't scale to AP, unless it's moon level or higher". From all I've seen, the issues with taking creation feats as scaling to AP don't just suddenly stop there.
 
Bump.
 
Should I send notifications to our staff members again?

It would be useful if you could summarise the discussion and conclusions so far first though, so they can more easily evaluate it.
 
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:
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.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
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-B and 7-B to be assigned without a calc.

So, are creation feats an exception to this note, or should they not be assigned values for those tiers? If they're not an exemption quite a few pages would need to be changed. I'd also wonder if there's any fallback; i.e. we're allowed to assign 9-B without a calc, does that mean that creating buildings could be given a 9-B rating since a wall was created? Large Country level isn't able to be assigned without a calc, does that mean that creating one could get a 6-B rating? Although, taking this to its extreme, even creating small cities would only give Wall level...

If they're an exception that should be mentioned in the note on the Tiering System page.

Bonus Question: Can the creation of other objects be loosely equalized to tiers? Can the creation of a massive tree the size of a skyscraper give a character Large Building level AP?
Click to expand...
Let me have a deep look...

Okay it is because we also pick up energy on building objects and construction projects and the energy spent may not be the same as destroying them I guess?
 
Agnaa said:
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?
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT said:
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:
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.
Click to expand...
@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

Given that this is an extremely important topic for our wiki, we would greatly appreciate if you can help out with evaluating the information that I quoted above please.
 
Dino_Ranger_Black said:
So these formulas will be utilized every time a creation feat below 5 occurs?
Click to expand...
Which formulas and whose proposal?
In my proposal you would just estimated the created volume and check it against the volume table that tells you which tier is assosciated with that. (The feat would be assumed baseline of that tier)
 
Dino_Ranger_Black said:
So these formulas will be utilized every time a creation feat below 5 occurs?
Click to expand...
The formulas are simply used to find the boundaries. Now that we have the boundaries, we'll just measure the volume of an object, and give the tier that corresponds to on the table.

Although I feel like I should ask @DT and others, does the "volume" count empty space or not? Buildings are 80% hollow, and towns/cities would be much more than that.
 
Agnaa said:
Although I feel like I should ask @DT and others, does the "volume" count empty space or not? Buildings are 80% hollow, and towns/cities would be much more than that.
Click to expand...
For something like creating pocket realities we definitely should. For other things, it's more debatable. For the sake of consistency with our higher tier practices (which should remain as they are), I would say we count it, unless we have a reason to assume they didn't reality warp (or whichever other way the creation was accomplished) the entire area.
 
If it is about deducing of attack potency from creation of objects just from a reverse of destruction value from an explosion, I would disagree.
This will highly make further discrepancies with other summoners who can manipulate items at a certain energy level.

True creation of objects should be the higher of GBE or the e=mc^2 thing. Just my thoughts.
(And as said before, creation feats should be examined as if they contradict with other feats.)

Restoration can be a different story, but basically it should only be applicable to the objects that were destroyed before.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
Tier 2 revision/question?
Replies
1
Views
707
Wankbreaker
Wankbreaker
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Questions about Multiverse level feats and Multipliers
Replies
14
Views
1K
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
DC Comics: The Light of Creation/The Great Darkness/The Presence (Vertigo) - Clean-up
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
SunDaGamer
  • Locked
Minor change on the Creation Feats page
Replies
12
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top