• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suggestions would be very appreciated.
 
Antvasima said:
However, I am concerned with scaling creating a small building to Building level and a city to City level, etcetera, as the names of our tiering system does not correspond well to the actual energy involved with destroying such objects at lower levels.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the reason why I said when in doubt go to the lower tier and that the objects should generally be of reasonable size. Personally, I didn't want to get much more precise.

If we really need to we could of course define volumes that equate to certain tiers based on typical objects equating to tiers. Like, for mountain level we could use to volume a mountain would have to equate to mountain level fragmentation wise. IIRC city level is based on a 4km diameter city, which one could possibly turn into a volume etc. And hopefully, stuff doesn't overlap then. It's a lot of precision for such an imprecise practice and I will definitely get complains in the years after for the specific choices, but ¯\(ツ)/¯
 
DontTalkDT said:
That's pretty much the reason why I said when in doubt go to the lower tier and that the objects should generally be of reasonable size. Personally, I didn't want to get much more precise.

If we really need to we could of course define volumes that equate to certain tiers based on typical objects equating to tiers. Like, for mountain level we could use to volume a mountain would have to equate to mountain level fragmentation wise. IIRC city level is based on a 4km diameter city, which one could possibly turn into a volume etc. And hopefully, stuff doesn't overlap then. It's a lot of precision for such an imprecise practice and I will definitely get complains in the years after for the specific choices, but ¯\(ツ)/¯
Click to expand...
I don't feel like revising all the AP value ranges for the entire tiering system is a good idea... Like you said, it would just cause more complaints
 
DontTalkDT said:
That's pretty much the reason why I said when in doubt go to the lower tier and that the objects should generally be of reasonable size. Personally, I didn't want to get much more precise.

If we really need to we could of course define volumes that equate to certain tiers based on typical objects equating to tiers. Like, for mountain level we could use to volume a mountain would have to equate to mountain level fragmentation wise. IIRC city level is based on a 4km diameter city, which one could possibly turn into a volume etc. And hopefully, stuff doesn't overlap then. It's a lot of precision for such an imprecise practice and I will definitely get complains in the years after for the specific choices, but ¯\(ツ)/¯
Click to expand...
Why would it equate to fragmentation, though? Especially since destruction values are by our own admission an oversimplification, I don't see how this is the right way to go about it. This is just an arbitrary standard to apply to it so that they can be used
 
I did think creating City sized pocket realities or Pocket Realities containing a city should just be treated as a baseline city level for simplicity sake. We still clarified the other details for the creation to be legit such as timeframe, universal energy source, creation method, ect. I think going boom and forming a city might be legit; though, I would not consider telekinetically throwing the pieces together to be legit. And sizes are also things to consider, but I'm unsure about creating an entire Castle out of nothing or how that would be indexed. I know an example of a verse having baseline 8-A via creation for forming a neighborhood out of nothing.
 
I suppose that you are probably correct, and that DontTalk originally likely suggested the least bad solution here then.
 
Don't know too much on the nitty gritty on calcing the realms with creation, but I agree that unless there's a Kaguya-like context on the creation feat where it requires a lot of outside help or a specific ability that's far greater than the user's own powers to begin with, I don't see why creation can't scale to normal AP.
 
Well, in terms of creation feats, just imagine how much energy is actually put over how much time in how many steps for the seen feat.

Say, if Groudon "created land" by raising earth crust from the bottom of the ocean in one wave of its hand, the GPE of the work done can be used for attack potency scaling.

However, if someone created a shining sun as an AP feat, then the energy to create a mass from energy, the gravitational energy and the supernova phenomenon itself have to be all considered. Just my opinion.

And creating one space-time continuum is on a different level from just creating objects contained within a space-time continuum.
 
1. Classify different creation feats.
2. Have a guideline of how different creation feats work.
3. Determine which creation feats can be used to justify AP and how. / to which degree.
 
Thank you. I was intending to ask for more specific suggestions for solutions though.
 
Thank you for the evaluation.

Are the rest of you fine with if DontTalk's suggestion is applied as well?
 
Thank you for the evaluation.

I would appreciate input from a few more people before we go ahead though.
 
DontTalkDT said:
That's pretty much the reason why I said when in doubt go to the lower tier and that the objects should generally be of reasonable size. Personally, I didn't want to get much more precise.

If we really need to we could of course define volumes that equate to certain tiers based on typical objects equating to tiers. Like, for mountain level we could use to volume a mountain would have to equate to mountain level fragmentation wise. IIRC city level is based on a 4km diameter city, which one could possibly turn into a volume etc. And hopefully, stuff doesn't overlap then. It's a lot of precision for such an imprecise practice and I will definitely get complains in the years after for the specific choices, but ¯\(ツ)/¯
Click to expand...
You have mentioned a future revision of the scale of attach potency. On top of clarifying/revising creation criteria that I have suggested.
 
Last edited:
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Very sorry to intrude into this real briefly but because I’m busy I wanted to quickly bring this up (and since stability is of a topic here, as the one who made the standards, I figured dropping a comment or 2 would be fine).

In regards to some of the potential creation criteria, how would the creation of things that are 2-A or more be effected by this? Since they’re now dealing with infinite multiverses and actual higher dimensional worlds from those tiers on.
Click to expand...
Sorry again to cut in with this, I would just like to know if this quick question could be answered please. And then I'll stay out of this thread.
 
@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama @Ultima_Reality @Sera_EX @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @MrKingOfNegativity @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @WeeklyBattles @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @Starter_Pack @Mindovin @Jvando @Abstractions @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Dino_Ranger_Black @Antoniofer @Gemmysaur @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Schnee_One @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Ogbunabali @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79

What do you think about DontTalk's suggestion above?
 
I'm not a fan of equating creation to fragmentation, it's very arbitrary. If we can't find a way to reliably tier creation of objects, then we just don't.
 
Yeah, Armor makes a lot of sense, if a feat isn't quantifiable, then there's not a lot we can do reliably.
 
Celestial bodies are easy since they have GBE and the like; so those are fine. And Mass Energy conversion is the biggest assumption, so no to that unless 100% explicit. But stuff smaller than celestial bodies such as buildings and towns shouldn't be compared to fragmentation or nukemaps. While we can't just pretend those aren't feats at all, if we have to consider it AP; then just using baselines would be the least bad option. And I already mentioned that scaling it to striking strength or durability is a different can of worms already explained by DT; which in that case the default is it doesn't quite. But things we don't know how to properly calculate or don't have a tier form, like creating small objects out of nothing or cloning yourself; those are just simply not AP.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Celestial bodies are easy since they have GBE and the like; so those are fine. And Mass Energy conversion is the biggest assumption, so no to that unless 100% explicit. But stuff smaller than celestial bodies such as buildings and towns shouldn't be compared to fragmentation or nukemaps. While we can't just pretend those aren't feats at all, if we have to consider it AP; then just using baselines would be the least bad option. And I already mentioned that scaling it to striking strength or durability is a different can of worms already explained by DT; which in that case the default is it doesn't quite. But things we don't know how to properly calculate or don't have a tier form, like creating small objects out of nothing or cloning yourself; those are just simply not AP.
Click to expand...
Okay. So should @DontTalkDT preferably adjust his suggested page text to include that creating objects smaller than a moon should be treated as unquantifiable?
 
What about using the ground level or airburst explosion calculation for the size of things below a moon size?

That could also be a solid measuring tool
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
What about using the ground level or airburst explosion calculation for the size of things below a moon size?

That could also be a solid measuring tool
Click to expand...
'Fraid that falls under the nukemaps argument that DDM brought up so sadly, it's gonna be a no.
 
I, personally, think this is another of the many case by case scenario, rather than something that can be considered a hard "yes" or "no". I do understand where the disagreement comes from since I do know a handful of abilities or conditions not related to the character's normal showings but with the amount of 3-A or higher feats that comes from creation, I don't think we should instantly drop the notion of scaling it to AP. If the guide covers this, then I suppose it's ok.
 
Okay.

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to adjust your suggested "Creation Feats" page text according with what Medeus wrote and the rest of us agreed with above please?
 
Is Medeus point we are talking about here to not use creation for less than celestial objects or to use baselines? In my understanding, he said the latter, but some people might have understood the former. Hence I ask to make sure.
 
Technically one could assign a GBE to smaller objects. We just wouldn't usually quantify their destruction that way, which is why nobody ever considered ranking them this way. It was always some creation = destruction idea.
Anyways, if the popular opinion is really to make everything less than moon level unquantifiable I can do that. I'm not personally I fan of that, but ok.
I guess it would look somewhat like this then:

Creation Feats​

Creation feats are feats in which a character creates objects from nothing by means like Reality Warping or similar. This separates them from feats in which objects are created from already existing materials, which would be calculated by conventional methods, or feats that qualify for Mass-energy conversion feats, which are calculated via the mass-energy formula.
These feats can not be calculated, and hence can't be quantified, within normal physics. However, at the same time, they are too impressive and relevant to simply be labelled as unquantifiable. As such tiering them poses a special challenge requiring its own rules and considerations.


Requirements​

In order for a creation feat to be tiered and applied to a character's Attack Potency, several conditions need to be fulfilled.
The first obvious requirement is that it must be certain that an actual creation feat took place. If, for example, stars appear to have been created it must be certain that those aren't just minor light sources looking similar.
Furthermore, the object in question must be of physical nature. Energy beams and hard light are typically not considered quantifiable by this method.
In order to apply to a character's capacity to harm other characters, that is their usual Attack Potency, their Creation has to be connected to their other abilities. For example, it can be reasoned that a mage who can conjure a city with little mana can destroy one with the same amount of mana, however a character who can create objects without other ways of harming their opponents wouldn't be able to harness that power to hurt another character, and would fall under a light form of Environmental Destruction.
Lastly, the creation of the object(s) in question needs to happen within a reasonably short timeframe for the whole result to apply to the Attack Potency.


Quantification​

In order for a feat to be quantified it must be performed at least on the scale of the creation of a moon, as there is no agreement on how exactly to sort the feats into tiers for lower levels of creation. We refer to feats of such a high scale as celestial body creation feats and more detailed decisions regarding what they are usually ranked as can be found here.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SunDaGamer
  • Locked
Minor change on the Creation Feats page
Replies
12
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fwyzzverse
Timeframe | Creation Feats (Revision)
Replies
33
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Hazbin Hotel and how to view song feats, plus the intro cinematic (possibly celestial body tier)
Replies
9
Views
2K
Rosa
Rosa
deonment
Semi-Major CRT for Yu-Gi-Oh Duel Terminal
Replies
4
Views
554
TartaChocholate
TartaChocholate
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Back
Top