Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

[Jasonsith]

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.

Okay so...

Real propositions:
Me:
1. General GPE formula should only be used for any creation feat above mountain level or there is clear evidence materials are picked from the ground and formed as if the materials are in pulverised or vaporised forms (with my "weakened Regina makes large snow balls" model used before)
2. Objects shapes and sizes are determined assuming they are picked from a lump of materials off ground and moulded into a sphere first.
3. Any other feats will be examined on a case by case basis.
4. More preferably, 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 thin air)
(point 4 is my new suggestion)

DontTalkDT:
1. GPE can be extended use on creation of objects as if they are a "non-humanlike but humanoid enough" giant who can survive its own fall from a center of mass which roughly comes from half of the standing height.
2. Orientation/center of mass/border stuff are fair using Jasonsith model (assume creation from a lump of materials lying on the ground to form a sphere).

In both cases the object is assumed to be spherical (or squeezed to be spherical) and only radius / "half height" be used for the "height" used in objects floating well above ground.

Anyone wants to supplement?

 

[Agnaa]

Those all sound like awful ideas that take feats and turn them into things that they aren't. I have no clue how anyone can say with a straight face that those are more reasonable than something like air displacement.

Why not just do the volume/mass tables we were talking about earlier????????

 

[Antvasima]

Volume/mass-corespondent tier lists seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Jasonsith]

We need to settle on the formulae to use first before a table of data can be run from the formulae.

Are you trying to assume creation feats the same as restoration feats?
And then assume restoration feats as a reverse of explosions? (Where non-nuclear explosion is assumed and explosion yield can be calculated from one single blast radius)
I am personally against this idea as they are totally different things.

I am formulating a compromise for the creation feats we have just discussed.

 

[Agnaa]

We need to settle on the formulae to use first before a table of data can be run from the formulae.

I already ran a table of data using every method suggested (potential energy at 2m above the ground, air displacement GBE, explosions, fragmentation of rock, and reference objects for the tiers), and DontTalk compiled that into a suggestion of which of those values to use for which tiers.

Are you trying to assume creation feats the same as restoration feats? And then assume restoration feats as a reverse of explosions? (Where non-nuclear explosion is assumed and explosion yield can be calculated from one single blast radius) I am personally against this idea as they are totally different things.

I don't understand what you're saying here, I haven't brought up restoration feats or explosions.

 

[Antvasima]

I trust the judgements of DontTalk and Agnaa.

 

[Jasonsith]

We need to settle on the formulae to use first before a table of data can be run from the formulae.

I already ran a table of data using every method suggested (potential energy at 2m above the ground, air displacement GBE, explosions, fragmentation of rock, and reference objects for the tiers), and DontTalk compiled that into a suggestion of which of those values to use for which tiers.

Are you trying to assume creation feats the same as restoration feats? And then assume restoration feats as a reverse of explosions? (Where non-nuclear explosion is assumed and explosion yield can be calculated from one single blast radius) I am personally against this idea as they are totally different things.

I don't understand what you're saying here, I haven't brought up restoration feats or explosions.

If this is what you are bringing up, I am "currently" "against" it. I simply need to understand further into how each formula works as to how objects are actually created so that appropriate formulae for each method can actually be determined.

Maybe just give me more time to check if the methodology for each formula is reasonable in the first place. Like I am prioritising to check it first before my other tasks.

 

[Agnaa]

I outlined the entire methodology I used for each of those methods above the table in question.

 

[Jasonsith]

My feedback:

1. Gravitational potential energy (rock composition) formula
I am fundamentally fine with this,
except we should not arbitrarily use 2 m as the height. Rather we should use the radius of the object as the height.
If the object is not spherical, we should determine the volume of the object and derive the hypothetical radius has this volume be shaped into a sphere.

2. Air displacement formula
I am not comfortable with that. Seems very different from what a construction or creation is.

3. Gravitational binding energy formula
I am fine with this.
Except we may need to be sure whether such object draws its own gravity in the first place: that object should not be using this formula if the object is not meant to be drawing gravity.
Many fictional characters, no matter the size, do not draw gravity (and are in the story not meant to) even if their official mass or density should do so if we follow real life physics.

4. Explosion
I am against this. The formula is simply irrelevant from our purpose.

5. Fragmentation
Personally I would use pulverisation as this better reflects how real life construction works are made from pulverised rock and cement then moulded to being.

6. Reference object model
Basically if we are about to adopt this model, we will be as well rewriting our attack potency table. This is by itself a whole new project. Maybe it is too rushed to determine which reference object to use for each tier.
In fact, the reference object model is more for re-calibrating our attack potency table than determining energy required to create objects.

 

[Agnaa]

1. 2 meter height was chosen because that's the elevation needed to crush most humans under an object. The actual center of mass is irrelevant for combat applicability since the object won't drop below that without being destroyed.
2. Air displacement is essentially a byproduct of creating something; the air that was there needs to go elsewhere, and needs to be pushed elsewhere by a force.
3. When used to actually source a rating, GBE would only be applied in those circumstances, it was included on this table merely as a reference for what tiers that formula lands at.
4. idk what you mean by being against it. It was used so we'd have a comparison to explosions needed to reach a tier, we've all been clear since that idea was suggested that it's not an actual analogue to creation, but merely a tool to let us see how it compares to destruction.

 

[Jasonsith]

I see different methods having their own strengths and weaknesses, with some having bigger strengths and reliability than others.
However, while these methods can be options in deriving the attack potency yield given a feat happened (some are not), I would pick pulverisation values as a base/primary formula for a table be actually be readily used as reference table - I mean a table that you Agnaa just created for the sake of readily slap a value for an object of given material type and volume.

TLDR: I pick pulverisation formula be the number one formula for volume/material/mass-corespondent tier lists for creation feats.

 

[Agnaa]

The two main issues with that are:

1. Even if we just go with fragmentation, it's the most permissive method. It's the method that makes the borders for higher tiers easiest to reach, at least until GBE's less-than-linear growth has it dip below frag at 6-B. Pulverization is over 26x more permissive than that. That's multiple orders of magnitude off every other method. Or in other words, this substantially inflates creation feats.
2. The only excuse I could see for it being so far off is that it's a good parallel to creation, but I don't see the relation at all between popping a building into existence and pulverizing it.

 

[KLOL506]

I believe the best way to do this would be by the following...

1. Relying on how much volume and/or area the IRL objects occupy, like massive building complexes like the Boeing Everret Factory for example, or your typical hills and mountains and countries and continents and the like

2. Using the mass of IRL objects

 

[Jasonsith]

The two main issues with that are:

1. Even if we just go with fragmentation, it's the most permissive method. It's the method that makes the borders for higher tiers easiest to reach, at least until GBE's less-than-linear growth has it dip below frag at 6-B. Pulverization is over 26x more permissive than that. That's multiple orders of magnitude off every other method. Or in other words, this substantially inflates creation feats.
2. The only excuse I could see for it being so far off is that it's a good parallel to creation, but I don't see the relation at all between popping a building into existence and pulverizing it.

But if pulverisation is the best "inverse" parallel to creation, I see this as the best and easiest to work on.

And a mere 26 times (rock composition) difference simply reflects how difficult it is to create and mould objects.
To avoid inflation I am already not using vaporisation, atomisation or even mass-energy conversion since creating a 1.4 kg longsword would have a mass-energy conversion energy of 1.25824E+17 J (City).
Meanwhile, creating a 1.4 kg sword out of grey cast iron sword would be proxied by a pulverisation energy yield of (1,400÷7.874×827) = 147041 J (Wall). mild fragmentation end still yields (1,400÷7.874×400) = 71120 J (Wall). To compare, real life swords are made from iron that are heated to a high temperature then forge it to a mould and remove stocks. Creation feats are meant to be crazy and impressive. And if they are not... More often than not those feats should be disregarded or debunked or treated as anti feats from being accepted rather than tweaking the formula to arbitrarily downplay them to the level one feels happy for the verse and character in question.

(I know that someone may have a verse where creation feats is meant to be If inflation is what you concern, then it is time to reflect if there are anti-feats making those creation feats invalid. Or if there are other feats to justify a tier setting)

I believe the best way to do this would be by the following...

1. Relying on how much volume and/or area the IRL objects occupy, like massive building complexes like the Boeing Everret Factory for example, or your typical hills and mountains and countries and continents and the like

2. Using the mass of IRL objects

I am afraid I do not understand what do you refer to. We have been almost setting on using pulverisation values as inverse parallel for creation feats while Agnaa suggest further toning down to mild fragmentation end but I fear this is down toning just for the sake of it. If you mean something else please politely correct me thanks.

 

[Agnaa]

But if pulverisation is the best "inverse" parallel to creation, I see this as the best and easiest to work on.

I fail to see how.

I think providing examples in 9-B is incredibly misleading due to how small that tier is. For a different example, for air displacement to reach baseline 9-A, you would need to create an object with a volume of 207 m^3. If this was a rock, puvlerizing it would be High 8-C+, just barely off of 8-B. To reach baseline 8-A through air displacement, you would need to create an object with a volume of 9.32x10^8 m^3. If this was a rock, puvlerizing it would be 7-B.

We have been almost setting on using pulverisation values as inverse parallel for creation feats while Agnaa suggest further toning down to mild fragmentation end but I fear this is down toning just for the sake of it.

I think this is a misleading way of presenting things. You use "we" and saying that it's almost settled even though you are the only one that has talked about using pulverization for this in this thread. You say that I'm the one suggesting it should be toned down, but both Armorchompy and DontTalk suggested using fragmentation before I did.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm not really on-board with the concept of air displacement as the primary method to be used, but I'm fully against pulverization, yeah.

 

[Agnaa]

To clarify.

The current plan, as proposed by DontTalk, isn't to use air displacement or pulverization or anything like that. I created a table showing where various methods of creation/destruction land. DontTalk created a list of suggested values from that table, mostly pulling from explosions (since that's the most restrictive method; it lowballs creation feats the most) but eventually shifting into GBE, as that's what moon level and above is based off of, and otherwise the benchmarks would have been discordant.

The idea is to simply get the volume (or maybe mass, we haven't come to an agreement yet) and refer to the table to give a tier.

This is not using a particular method to the object. It's just pixel-scaling and then referencing a table.

 

[Jasonsith]

So the tables are for displaying different values proxied by different methods - like how big an object is to make or build or create to achieve certain tier. Got it.

For the use of the table... Well calculation of a volume of an object always comes from calculation of the object size itself. Then, with the formula (or formulae) available, an energy yield from constructing an object can be obtained. A table does picturize how big an object has to be to breach certain tiers sure and this is it.

I see the biggest concern from Agnaa is that he/she/it/they wants to "restrict" the energy yield from a creation of an object to being comparable to the energy required to otherwise move the object and/or destroy it. My answer is: if restriction or down toning is what Agnaa concerns or wishes to achieve (such that the feat will look "tamer"), than one should focus on deternining the feat with yield of energy spent on creation of such object as outlier or antifeat.

Say, creating a 1.4 kg sword out of grey cast iron sword proxied by a pulverisation energy method will yield (1.4×1,000÷7.874×827) = 147041 J (Wall). GPE (2-meter) method for the same sword will yield (1.4×9.80665×2) = 27.45862 J (Below Average Human)
If some fictional character can create a sword then make it fly and stab a target at a certain speed, then the flight speed and the mass of the sword should be considered.
Say a 1.4 kg sword flying at 34.3 m/s will already yield 0.5 * 1.4 * 34.3^2 = 823.543 J (Street)
Or if the sword user can pulverise a 5 cm radius grey cast iron sphere, then the destruction yield will be 4/3 * pi * (5 cm)^3 * 827 ~= 433017 J (Wall)
See? There are many ways to tone down or power up a character's power even if a character has a creation feat at a yield of an amount the debatr may not get happy on. (But well if the character is that strong, so be it, or find a solid reason why such character should be calibrated otherwise)

If energy yields of destruction of an object is too different from moving it around, we should put judgment into which end fits better for that particular verse or feat, not tweaking the formula or calling a more fitting formula inapplicable or worse.

 

[Antvasima]

To clarify.

The current plan, as proposed by DontTalk, isn't to use air displacement or pulverization or anything like that. I created a table showing where various methods of creation/destruction land. DontTalk created a list of suggested values from that table, mostly pulling from explosions (since that's the most restrictive method; it lowballs creation feats the most) but eventually shifting into GBE, as that's what moon level and above is based off of, and otherwise the benchmarks would have been discordant.

The idea is to simply get the volume (or maybe mass, we haven't come to an agreement yet) and refer to the table to give a tier.

This is not using a particular method to the object. It's just pixel-scaling and then referencing a table.

Thank you for helping out. As I mentioned previously, I have full faith in the judgement of DontTalk.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @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 @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Mindovin @Jvando @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @Zaratthustra @Dino_Ranger_Black @Gemmysaur @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79

This is still an extremely important topic regarding how we should tier creation feats, so useful and constructive input would be very appreciated.

 

[Armorchompy]

i think dt's method is probably fine

 

[Theglassman12]

DT’s lowball method sounds fine to me too.

 

[Jasonsith]

I think I would still insist on using pulverisation end until whenever GBE breaches pulverisation end.

Explosion end does not really fit. More not fit with air displacement.

Maybe I will be just outvoted or whatever, but we should not lowball a creation feat just for the sake of it. If a feat is somehow not fit to justify an attack potency, just let that calculation go away instead of discounting it to an arbitraty value.

 

[Armorchompy]

I disagree with pulv

 

[Jasonsith]

I disagree with pulv

Before I politely rebuke your disagreement, I would like to hear the reason.

 

[Armorchompy]

I simply believe it's as arbitrary as picking fragmentation or atomization, there's nothing to rebuke it's just a matter of opinion

 

[Jasonsith]

I simply believe it's as arbitrary as picking fragmentation or atomization, there's nothing to rebuke it's just a matter of opinion

It being a mere opinion is more dangerous to support a standpoint.
And I would like everyone to think about why one's point actually makes sense instead of just dump voting for one opinion.

Okay I am explaining why proxy of construction/creation by pulverisation makes most sense:

Situation - A battle mage creates a cement wall. Usually the mage will pick up soil from the ground, then use magic or geokinesis or whatever superpower to form it into one cement wall as if it were one whole piece of cement. There, soil as a raw material as if it were cement already pulverised, is formed into a cement wall as if it were one whole piece.
Another batttle mage launches an attacks and pulverises the cement wall, braking the defense. The energy to pulverise a wall will be the same as the energy to construct the wall.
Similar situations happen more times than not.

If one insists pulverisation yields too much for a creation feat, I can compromise by backstepping to violent fragmentation.

 

[Armorchompy]

Usually the mage will pick up soil from the ground, then use magic or geokinesis or whatever superpower to form it into one cement wall as if it were one whole piece of cement. There, soil as a raw material as if it were cement already pulverised, is formed into a cement wall as if it were one whole piece.

No, not really? Most creation feats are "I make the thing appear" with no more context than that.

 

[KingTempest]

Maybe we can create different ends based on the method of creation?

 

[Jasonsith]

No, not really? Most creation feats are "I make the thing appear" with no more context than that.

If this is the case then I need to stress that "creating something out of nothing" is far more impressive than "creating something out of some raw materials", which means "I make one cement wall appear" should be far more impressive than "I raise a cement wall from the ground picking soil". Which means even "creation turning soil into cement proxied by pulverisation of cement into soil" is a lowball.

I would also add that my method essentially also takes material type into consideration, so that creating a tougher object will have more merit of gaining a higher creation yield, which may make sense in a power scaling context.

 

[Armorchompy]

If this is the case then I need to stress that "creating something out of nothing" is far more impressive than "creating something out of some raw materials", which means "I make one cement wall appear" should be far more impressive than "I raise a cement wall from the ground picking soil". Which means even "creation turning soil into cement proxied by pulverisation of cement into soil" is a lowball.

Yes obviously we're not gonna be using E=mc^2, that doesn't change the fact that pulverization is a completely arbitrary choice that doesn't reflect the great majority of creation feats. The fact that it's lower than another theoretically possible method doesn't make it any more accurate.

 

[Jasonsith]

Yes obviously we're not gonna be using E=mc^2, that doesn't change the fact that pulverization is a completely arbitrary choice that doesn't reflect the great majority of creation feats. The fact that it's lower than another theoretically possible method doesn't make it any more accurate.

Then even an explosion formula will still be arbitrary. If anything, more arbitrary than pulverisation, therefore hampering authenticity even deeper.

Maybe we can create different ends based on the method of creation?

You mean, using pulverisation for small objects, gravitational binging energy for large celestial objects that generates significant gravity, and "explosion formula combined with GBE of a celestial object at the explosion edge" for destruction of solar systems or larger realms?

I can accede on it.

 

[Armorchompy]

Then even an explosion formula will still be arbitrary. If anything, more arbitrary than pulverisation, therefore hampering authenticity even deeper.

It's just as arbitrary, but it's at least simpler and more of a lowball. And I disagree with it being more arbitrary since that implies your method has more validity than it actually does. I don't think it has much validity.

You mean, using pulverisation for small objects, gravitational binging energy for large celestial objects that generates significant gravity, and "explosion formula combined with GBE of a celestial object at the explosion edge" for destruction of solar systems or larger realms?

GBE is already included in DT's method.

 

[KingTempest]

You mean, using pulverisation for small objects, gravitational binging energy for large celestial objects that generates significant gravity, and "explosion formula combined with GBE of a celestial object at the explosion edge" for destruction of solar systems or larger realms?

I can accede on it.

I wasn't thinking that deep, but that'd work.

I was more thinking the method of creation and not the scale of creation. For example. Someone brings together pieces of a broken wall to create a solid wall. Depending on the size of the pieces, whether it's huge fragments, mid fragments, dust, vapor, atoms, etc, different methods could be taken for that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I also agree with DT's method, though I thought I already commented on that.

 

[Jasonsith]

It's just as arbitrary, but it's at least simpler and more of a lowball. And I disagree with it being more arbitrary since that implies your method has more validity than it actually does. I don't think it has much validity.

GBE is already included in DT's method.

Why we should oversimplify things if creation is simply not as simple as one thinks of?

Taking the defensive mage vs offensive mage example back,
The offensive mage destroyed a (say 20 cm x 200 cm x 200 cm) cement wall which a defensive mage created.
The volume of the wall will be 20 x 200 x 200 = 800,000 cm^3
The attack potency to destroy a cement wall (say fragmentation) will be = 6 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 4,800,000 J (Wall)
This will be a very typical scene where two mages fight each other.
And it need not be proxied by an explosion radius or whatever. Just the current method we have already been using in assessing other feats.

I do not see why DT's method is better, especially if that does not reflect what a creation feat is, and is therefore more arbitrary. Oh creations involves objects being molded from something or just come into existence - it does not come in explosions.
If you want to suggest why one method is better than the other, please spell the reason instead of just blindly outvoting by spamming "DT FRA" "I also agree with DT's method".
I am not changing my stance - the stance here and here.
Should I ONLY be allowed to pick ONE method out of the methods that @Agnaa has already summarised, mark my choice as:
Fragmentation > GBE > Potential Energy at 2m > Air Displacement = Explosion

And I am not changing my choice currently even if some other option gets outpicked unless specific situations deem that method otherwise necessary.
Please think until things go too late.
Again, if you have strong reasons why the explosion method should be adopted, please raise it now - maybe it can be used in conjunction with other methods in a creation of a realm with some objects.

 

[Armorchompy]

I am not changing my stance - the stance here and here. And I will not adopt the DT method even if it gets outpicked unless specific situations deem that method otherwise necessary.

No, if it becomes a wiki standard I doubt you'll have much choice but to go with it, actually.

 

[Jasonsith]

No, if it becomes a wiki standard I doubt you'll have much choice but to go with it, actually.

Then we should rethink if you all insist on bringing up a wrong method should be adopted as a wiki standard at all. Change before things go too late.
Fragmentation is one method among Agnaa's tables right? I think this goes best If this is the choice we are left to. For small objects.

I have stepped back enough for the sake of compromising with Agnaa and DT and everyone of you while sacrificing as little authenticity of a creation feat itself as I try.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

What do you think about Jasonsith's intended compromise solution?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Creation should be equal to the AP it requires to completely destroy the thing that was created, so Pulverization does technically work

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

To be 100% precise, the energy required to create something is equal to the energy required to Erase something out of existence.