- 19,316
- 9,890
Why wouldn’t we treat them as baseline though?
-
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
- Thread starter Mariogoods
- Start date
- Status
- 15,584
- 11,870
Because that's just the names we give the tiers. Even VFragging a mountain is not 7-A, for example.
- 4,863
- 1,311
Mr. Bambu allowed me to comment, so here I am. I'd like to ask a question.
Do we apply these principles to Pocket Dimension creation feats as well? Like, if the feat involves creating a pocket realm with no celestial bodies in it, would it be considered unquantifiable?
Do we apply these principles to Pocket Dimension creation feats as well? Like, if the feat involves creating a pocket realm with no celestial bodies in it, would it be considered unquantifiable?
- 15,584
- 11,870
I'd say so, maybe even moreso- you can equate a wall to a wall somehow, but say a pocket realm just contains a field, you have no idea how deep down it goes.
- 19,316
- 9,890
@Armorchompy that doesn’t really answer my question, why wouldn’t we treat creating a mountain or island or a building as baseline in general?
- 15,584
- 11,870
Because there's no such thing as a "baseline" wall. How do you quantify its energy? Anything you could think of is arbitrary. There's no way to prove creating a wall is 9-B in any way.
- 6,494
- 3,324
Glass allowed me to comment here
In that case, shouldn't we just calc the Creation range (instead of assuming "Oh it's a City so City level") using what is there, and see how it matches the Standard minimum sizes ? I feel like Creation feats, even on smaller degrees, are too relevant to just throw away like that
I recently calced a feat where the Pocket Dimension has literall Cities, Mountains and Forests and the range was bigger than Cyprus Island, our baseline 6-C. That should grant said Tier
In that case, shouldn't we just calc the Creation range (instead of assuming "Oh it's a City so City level") using what is there, and see how it matches the Standard minimum sizes ? I feel like Creation feats, even on smaller degrees, are too relevant to just throw away like that
I recently calced a feat where the Pocket Dimension has literall Cities, Mountains and Forests and the range was bigger than Cyprus Island, our baseline 6-C. That should grant said Tier
- 19,316
- 9,890
I’m not arguing creating a wall, I’m arguing creating a mountain or an island or building, why would that be unquantifiable? Why not have it as a baseline feat when that’s literally the feat in question?
- 15,584
- 11,870
Just cause you know something's volume doesn't mean you can just get the energy for that. Please explain to me the formula you would use to get the creation's energy, otherwise it's all arbitrary.
- 19,316
- 9,890
I’m not arguing for a formula to be applied, I’m arguing that at the very least it should be a baseline feat. Why is that not a reasonable suggestion for creation feats?
- 6,494
- 3,324
So if we can actually use GBE for smaller objects, why don't just use it ? It seems to be a good way to measure smaller Pocket Dimensions without needing to nuke such relevant feats
- 15,584
- 11,870
Because our tier names do not really reflect the objects themselves. Destroying a real mountain isn't usually 7-A, so why would creating one be?
- 19,316
- 9,890
So why is creation unquantifiable but destruction is for that instance? If they’re two sides of the same coin why can’t we assume they can destroy whatever they created?
- 15,584
- 11,870
No, not really. There's several kinds of destruction, first off, and obviously materials have different durabilies, but aren't necessarily more or less difficult to create as far as we know.
- 19,316
- 9,890
So if they’re not more or less difficult to create why can’t that apply to creation?
- 15,584
- 11,870
Why would it? What's your reasoning for creation to work this way? Is it just "he created a mountain so it's mountain level"? We got these ratings with a logic behind them, a logic that cannot be transferred to this completely different thing
- 19,316
- 9,890
Destruction and creation are two sides of the same coin, if you can create something, why would we assume you can’t destroy it unless specified you can’t destroy it?
- 15,584
- 11,870
No they aren't. Not scientifically, at least, nevermind that it's also been agreed that just creating something wouldn't scale to AP without evidence that it does. I'd really recommend you to reread the thread, you'd probably get all of your answers there.
- 19,316
- 9,890
The only answer I got is “it’s arbitrary” to scale creation to destruction. And DDM even said scaling them to baseline would be a reasonable thing to do when they’re treated as actual feats. I don’t see any reason to nuke creation feats from stuff that’s smaller than a moon.
- 15,584
- 11,870
I'd give a reminder that 7-A is not the tier of real life mountain destruction. And how is creating a country different from creating a city?
- 32,759
- 37,914
Countries lie on massive tectonic plates. Again though, that's just me.
- 15,584
- 11,870
I mean, issue is that it has to be proven those tectonic plates are being created as well. That said those still don't have GBE, so
- 32,759
- 37,914
What about small moons that are the size of continents tho? What then?
Last edited:
- 15,584
- 11,870
That'd probably be fine, yeah not sure
- 9,960
- 1,999
The difference between destruction and creation is that the first one is possible to perform: great force crush matter, extreme heats melt them, etc; creation is the other hand is not something possible, if someone can create stuff its due having a power that allows it to do so. Any form of trying the calculate hiw much creation "yields" its arbitrary.
- 10,500
- 11,564
That said, destroying certain mountains would be 7-A. Not tiny mountains. As I suggested before, we could say that cities/mountains/countries need to have a specific size to qualify. That would at least solve that part of the problem.
We could if we want to abandon the creation = destruction concept we usually employ for these feats. Personally, I think it would be more consistent to not do so and just to go by size, but it's one way we could agree to do it.
- 6,494
- 3,324
Well I fully agree with you that creation size/range should be enough, we have standard minimum sizes for some tiers to cover that. However I'm also not against using GBE for them if just going by size is really thaaat arbitrary, as if we don't use some arbitrary stuff for other things since, well, it's fiction
By saying it's arbitrary we are already nuking the creation = destruction concept, so GBE would naturally be the solution/2nd way
By saying it's arbitrary we are already nuking the creation = destruction concept, so GBE would naturally be the solution/2nd way
- 29,940
- 31,020
Considering I was the one who considers creating pocket reality feats less than planetary; Town sized pocket reality = baseline Town level, Mountain sized pocket reality or pocket reality containing at least a mountain being mountain level, country sized one being country level ect. I think baselines if they're reasonable size seems like the least bad option. And yeah, I heard of GPE example is another method, but unsure about that. But I don't know how creating a castle out of nothing would equate too. Fragmentation for creation of smaller than celestial body objects seems iffy; GPE I can sort of see though.
But for other reasons, I still think DT's proposal of the page is solid.
But for other reasons, I still think DT's proposal of the page is solid.
Last edited:
- 2,335
- 1,007
Full stop, here. Gonna sound crazy, but hear Hop out.
After allot of reading (without quoting anyone's specific arguments), and Hop knows it sucks. But-
we really should stop trying to regulate "common feats/displays of power" like this.
This must one of those things that we take into account on a case by case basis. The utter amount of work and assumptions made (even in good faith) is detrimental as hell to the efficiency and ease of understanding for our wiki's purpose. Maybe an exaggeration, but this is a waste of time of us all and getting everyone on board is impossible. Even if staff is majority in support, new users have roughly 100+ pages of site rules, standards, and history to catch up as it is.
From day 1 on here, Hop has always seen creation = tier (unless literally contradicted or explicitly stated). If a 5-A beats a 3-A, we shouldn't be like "oh wow, he must have been lower tier than we thought. Gotta re-create our entire thought process on creation standards, durrr"
No, it's an outlier. Forgot those exist, did you? With all these new VSBW exclusive concepts we've been hot patching in? Outliers, which are Plot Induced Stupidity, happens in literally everyone's favorite verse, and our stories and characters have never been wholly consistent, hence why we're so eager to implement stuff like this.
Hop gets it. Gotta be close to correct as possible. But this is obsessive and draining. There are going to be instances where yes, we notice a pattern, so we get the ball rolling to set the record straight. We can do that. But each time we (and not just the staff, the regulars and new members too) try to do this, it becomes another instance where he re-haul dozens of pages, throw established characters and tiers and VS matches out the window, in one single thread that changed the way we see the wiki and its pages.
It has to be addressed, because if we settle on any side of the fence here, it's going to be challenged this year again anyway and we're going to be bothered to do it all over again. This kind of stress is why Hop distances from the wiki recently. It's out of hand and is why we are often viewed as a stain on the community. Hop's not out for blood and calling names, just asking if we can breathe and close this thread and follow the previous logic we did before. It'd be a step in the right direction.
Of course, Hop is open to thoughts and being challenged, so go ahead, Hop can't stop you. Hop's mind can be changed.
After allot of reading (without quoting anyone's specific arguments), and Hop knows it sucks. But-
we really should stop trying to regulate "common feats/displays of power" like this.
This must one of those things that we take into account on a case by case basis. The utter amount of work and assumptions made (even in good faith) is detrimental as hell to the efficiency and ease of understanding for our wiki's purpose. Maybe an exaggeration, but this is a waste of time of us all and getting everyone on board is impossible. Even if staff is majority in support, new users have roughly 100+ pages of site rules, standards, and history to catch up as it is.
From day 1 on here, Hop has always seen creation = tier (unless literally contradicted or explicitly stated). If a 5-A beats a 3-A, we shouldn't be like "oh wow, he must have been lower tier than we thought. Gotta re-create our entire thought process on creation standards, durrr"
No, it's an outlier. Forgot those exist, did you? With all these new VSBW exclusive concepts we've been hot patching in? Outliers, which are Plot Induced Stupidity, happens in literally everyone's favorite verse, and our stories and characters have never been wholly consistent, hence why we're so eager to implement stuff like this.
Hop gets it. Gotta be close to correct as possible. But this is obsessive and draining. There are going to be instances where yes, we notice a pattern, so we get the ball rolling to set the record straight. We can do that. But each time we (and not just the staff, the regulars and new members too) try to do this, it becomes another instance where he re-haul dozens of pages, throw established characters and tiers and VS matches out the window, in one single thread that changed the way we see the wiki and its pages.
It has to be addressed, because if we settle on any side of the fence here, it's going to be challenged this year again anyway and we're going to be bothered to do it all over again. This kind of stress is why Hop distances from the wiki recently. It's out of hand and is why we are often viewed as a stain on the community. Hop's not out for blood and calling names, just asking if we can breathe and close this thread and follow the previous logic we did before. It'd be a step in the right direction.
Of course, Hop is open to thoughts and being challenged, so go ahead, Hop can't stop you. Hop's mind can be changed.
- 15,584
- 11,870
I really do get what you're saying. Personally I've always felt this sort of feat that clearly was not intended by the writers should be given a lower weight, if that makes sense. So we treat everything else as an antifeat, when that's just the intended power level of the series. And I'm not saying the author's word is holy and unbreakable, just that it should be given consideration.
That said, the issue here isn't just whether creation feats should scale to AP, and we should try and put down guidelines for newer users as well, but how they should when they do. So I believe we should still keep discussing this.
That said, the issue here isn't just whether creation feats should scale to AP, and we should try and put down guidelines for newer users as well, but how they should when they do. So I believe we should still keep discussing this.
- 165,049
- 71,897
Well, you tend to have the best sense of judgement regarding these issues. If you have a better solution, feel free to mention it.
- 165,049
- 71,897
Including a list for what tiers that different sizes correspond to into the Creation Feats page might be a very good idea, yes.
Well, I trust your sense of judgement.We could if we want to abandon the creation = destruction concept we usually employ for these feats. Personally, I think it would be more consistent to not do so and just to go by size, but it's one way we could agree to do it.
- 165,049
- 71,897
@Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer
I also understand your concerns, but agree with Armorchompy. Also, DontTalk had a good idea of including a list that states what volume of created objects that corresponds to different tiers, which would make it easier for our members.
Also, these are mostly preexisting standards that we would assemble into a much more easily found page.
I also understand your concerns, but agree with Armorchompy. Also, DontTalk had a good idea of including a list that states what volume of created objects that corresponds to different tiers, which would make it easier for our members.
Also, these are mostly preexisting standards that we would assemble into a much more easily found page.
- 15,711
- 7,686
I disagree with limiting Creation feats to some sets of tiers like 5-C and above. I think at least a few hundred pages would have necessary tiering change with the Creation's feats tiering limit. In my case, if a character can create something then just scale then the creation to the creation feat to baseline for the tier like Medeus said on the matter or to a calculation on the matter if possible. Of course, things like outliers and inconsistencies are taken into account when decided the results in which case the feat could be accepted, rejected, or just be environmental destruction.
Last edited:
- 19,316
- 9,890
just to clarify if I haven’t already. I’m ok with the case by case basis on how to treat creation feats as a whole and see if they actually scale to AP, as opposed to just deeming them unquantifiable as a whole and leave it at that.
- 165,049
- 71,897
So would the rest of you be fine with DontTalk's idea of including a list that states what volume of created objects that corresponds to different tiers?
As I mentioned above, this would likely make things easier for our members, as they would not have to rely on guesswork, and except for that I think that these would be preexisting standards that we would assemble into a much more easily found page.
As I mentioned above, this would likely make things easier for our members, as they would not have to rely on guesswork, and except for that I think that these would be preexisting standards that we would assemble into a much more easily found page.
- 15,711
- 7,686
- 29,713
- 24,650
Do we have any examples for feats lower than 5-C where this is required?
- Status
Similar threads
