Creation Feats

[Mariogoods]

Antvasima has allowed me to post this issue on staff forum, so I'll describe this.

In DebateJungle, I have seen the page https://debatesjungle.fandom.com/wiki/Creation_vs_Destruction. The wiki holds that creation feats = destruction feats. Creation feats are not necessary equalized to Stability feats, and there are characters who only shown creation feats or characters whose creation power is > destruction power. (Worse, there are characters who cannot even reality warping their creation) It may be necessary to create an instruction page for properly treating creation feats in VS Battles Wiki.

STAFF ONLY

 

[Antvasima]

Here are our current explanation pages regarding this topic:

Celestial Body Feats

In fiction, some of the more impressive feats are those involving constellations and celestial bodies in general. Those feats are often hard to quantify due to going beyond the physics. The following is the agreement on how it will be done. If a constellation is created by moving stars...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Mass-energy conversion feats

Matter-energy conversion is something that is often assumed for processes in calculations, but rarely justified. Matter-energy conversion happens quite often in nature. For example any chemical reaction that requires energy to run will convert the energy required by the reaction into a very...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Creation

Creation is the ability to create something from nothing, without manipulating existing things. The user can create organic or inorganic matter from nothing either as finished objects or simply unfinished elements. As long as it can be defined as object, the user has the power to make it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Perhaps we should write an addditional "Creation Feats" page to assemble all information into a more easily found location, and expand upon it a bit.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama @DontTalkDT @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

Would you be willing to give some input here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think the blog on said wiki looks good. And agree we could make our own page.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

 

[Antvasima]

@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

You can also provide input here if you wish.

 

[Damage3245]

I remember having some issues regarding Celestial Body Feats specifically before the forum move and didn't have a chance to make a thread on it at the time.

I'll gather my thoughts and post here later.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm very much against creation feats being scaled to AP in most circumstances, but the creation of a page detailing our standards is never a bad idea.

 

[Antvasima]

Damage:

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[KieranH10]

I'm also against Creation feats scaling to AP in most cases. But yeah, like Armor said, a page mentioning the standards in question would be a good idea.

 

[Ugarik]

I'm also curious about using GPE for creation.

or example if a character creates a building can we use GPE of that building as AP?

 

[Sera_EX]

Who's going to write this page? Dargoo was probably the best person for the job but he's no longer with us. Kep was another, yet he also has retired. I'm too busy and I believe Wok is busy as well. I'm not trying to undermine anyone else, I'm just saying that the people who have been the most vocal about creation feats and our standards about them are either retired or too busy right now to write up a page about it.

 

[Armorchompy]

Isn't GPE supposed to be about beings falling? A building isn't able to do that, at least on its own terms.

 

[AKM sama]

Who's going to write this page?

Well I guess it's time for someone else to step up to the occasion then.

 

[KieranH10]

Isn't GPE supposed to be about beings falling? A building isn't able to do that, at least on its own terms.

Yeah, I thought GPE regarded how much energy the object would have upon falling, we scale it assuming a character can fall and survive. A building would not fall under this since they shatter and crumble upon falling.

 

[Migue79]

I don't have a quite strong opinion on Creation feats at the moment. But I have a feeling that they should be handled more or less similarly to Stability feats in that they should just be put under a little more scrutiny than before.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I agree with the OP too.
Also another thing is that a awful lot of creation feats are scaled to physicals for little to no reason.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah, and as the writer tends to not consider them feats at all, they end up far stronger than the verse's average power level.

 

[Antvasima]

@Dargoo_Faust

You can also comment here if you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway , DontTalkDT is also very good at writing standards pages. In fact, he has written a large part of all of the ones regarding our mathematical standards and otherwise over the years.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think there are a lot of things in the page linked in the OP that don't need mentioning for us. Like, we probably don't have to explain that illusions and light effects looking like stars aren't stars or that the existence of minor inconsistencies doesn't invalidate feats. Those are general considerations applying to basically all feats. In the same vein that the creation feat needs to happen in a reasonably short time goes without saying I guess? That is basically a requirement for all Attack Potency feats. Although maybe it's worth mentioning since creation feats are prone to happen off-screen.
One thing we do different is the

This alternatively means that we would assume if you could create let’s say a Multi-Solar System pocket dimension you would also have the energy required to punch at that level.

part. We don't assume that creation scales to Striking Strength, i.e. physical AP like punches, but only scale it to magical power.
I'm not sure whether the page intends to argue that or the opposite, but obviously when we talk about creation feats case of using normal means, with tools or stuff, to create something would not actually fall in that category. We are exclusively talking about reality warping things into existence.

With all of that said, I wonder if it wouldn't suffice to extend the "Attack Potency Scaling" part of the creation page a little. It already does a good job explaining how creation only scales to certain powers.
Maybe one could simply add something like the following to the end of it?

Since fiction in general tends to be very inconsistent when it comes to creating matter out of nothing, Einsteins formula (E = mc2) shouldn't be used. (More information can be found on this page) As such precise ranking of creation feats is impossible. Since they are too important, and often impressive, to ignore they are instead roughly sorted into Attack Potency levels by the size of the creation in question. As such the creation of a medium sized building from nothingness might be ranked as Building level and creation of an area that is the size of a reasonably large city might be ranked City level. When in doubt it is advisable to take the lowest ranking that still appears plausible. For feats of creating entire celestial objects more detailed decisions regarding what they are usually ranked as can be found here.
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.

It should be noted that only creation from nothingness is ranked in this manner, while creation from already existing materials should be calculated by conventional means. Likewise, this standards do not relate to the creation of constructs made out of pure energy, such as energy beams.

 

[KieranH10]

While this is the best thread to mention it currently. I'd like to bring up my thoughts on how we treat Creation as a whole, and how I think it should be treated. As I believe this is relevant to the thread:
Currently I believe that we are too generous with Creation feats, while yes, you would have to infer some amount of energy required to create a structure, there is very rarely any amount of evidence to assume that characters are capable of using this said energy as an attack, and often characters are shown on a much lower level without taking Creation feats into account.

Due to this, I think Creation feats should follow the guidelines below, and should be along these lines:

• Due to its nature and often Reality Warping relation in some ways, Creation should be treated similarly to Weather feats, rarely being anything more than Environmental Destruction without more evidence.
• If a character creates a realm with many stars, but never shows any other offensive capabilities in the form of actual attacks on this level, then they should not be anything more than 4-A via Creation, which does not scale to attacks, and is not offensive, essentially Environmental Destruction.
• If a character survives the destruction of a realm on this level from one attack, then they're clearly have 4-A durability, any characters who hurt them are subsequently 4-A.
• If a character survives being in the creation of a realm, then they will not scale to the energy used to create it unless it is a clearly offensive attack that creates the realm, such as an explosion (Like the Big Bang for a good example).
• The creation of realms should not in any way scale to AP on its own, and will at most give the character a creation tier, which is essentially as useful as environmental destruction.
• However, if a character creates a structure and then sustains it, such as a planet or realm. Then Stabilization standards should come into play, and if the character adheres to those, then they can obviously scale.
• Likewise, if a character creates a realm that they then gain power from, then the minimal energy that structure (Either GPE, GBE etc) should be fair enough to scale to that character.
• In no case (Without serious evidence) should Creation feats scale to Physicals, since they just aren't. They are almost always directly Hax based powers.
• Some examples:
  • Character A creates a planet to live on, then fights Character B at a later point in time. Character B is not contending with the power used to create a planet, and therefor does not scale to Tier 5.
  • Character A creates a planet but their power is needed for the planet to stay stable, and they continually proceed to directly generate the energy needed to keep it intact. In this case, Stabilization Standards should be taken into account.
  • Character A fights with Character B and eventually gets overpowered, so as a last resort, Self-Destructs, this explosion creates a massive realm with visible stars, etc, and the explosion also kills Character B. This explosion clearly has Offensive Capabilities, and should therefor be a 4-A attack which justifies 4-A Attack Potency

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would find it rather hard to believe that a god that can create a universe via magic has, for example, just Wall level magic otherwise. At least unless special circumstances apply.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk:

I would personally prefer a separate "Creation Feats" page, as I am not fond of when we mix up instruction pages with powers and abilities pages, as it makes the wiki structure messy and incoherent.

We can link between "Creation" and "Creation Feats" at the bottoms of the pages in "See also" sections instead.

 

[Damage3245]

Oh yeah, I remember what my main issue was. My issue is how we treat celestial body feats that go beyond just a single celestial body.

Furthermore, creating whole Solar Systems is ranked as Solar system level, multiple Solar Systems as Multi-Solar System level, Galaxies as Galaxy level and multiple Galaxies as Multi-Galaxy level.

GBE of Earth = 2.487e32 J

GBE of Sun = 5.693e41 J

Solar System level = 2.277e45 J

If somebody creates a planet (like Earth for example), they're scaled to the GBE of Earth. If they create a star (like the Sun), they're scaled to the GBE of the Sun.

But if they create a Solar System which is just a star plus multiple planets, they're scaled to Solar System level? That's about 4000 times higher than the energy required just to create the Sun. Considering that apparently 99.8% of the mass in the Solar System is inside the Sun anyway, why is creating a "Solar System" so much more impressive than a Sun?

I think we need to revise this line of the Celestial Body feats page in regards to Creation.

 

[KieranH10]

@DontTalk Without further evidence, yeah.
If a God in a verse has a feat creating the Universe, that also warrants Universal range, so if they're Omnipresent that would infer that they have a degree of control of this universe, so any other abilities would be available at any point in this universe:

• Let's say God creates the Universe and is Omnipresent throughout it. Later down the line, God burns a forest with Fire Manip, does that allow us to assume God has Low 2-C Fire attacks? (For lack of better analogies). No, the God had only shown fire manipulation on that level, but it is fair to assume he can apply it at any point within the Universe, because the God is everywhere, and has shown range on this level.

The reason we generally keep most abilities on the same level for characters is because there's someone to scale to, who can withstand these abilities.
With the new standards we mustn't forget, everyone will be affected, so these who currently scale will not be on this level either, so power levels will be the same.

As for a, let's say Tier 4 dude with much lower showings for actual attacks, why would it be wrong to assume this?
If a character has much lower showings for AP than they do for Creation, then they're clearly intended to be much lower.
Imo it's much more of a leap to say "If Character A shows tier 7 attacks against others, but creates a 4-A realm at one point not as an attack, then his previous tier 7 showings are all 4-A"
Than it is to say "If Character A shows tier 7 showings a bunch against others, but creates a 4-A realm at one point not as an attack, then he is Tier 7, with 4-A Creation"

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would personally prefer a separate "Creation Feats" page, as I am not fond of when we mix up instruction pages with powers and abilities pages, as it makes the wiki structure messy and incoherent.

We can link between "Creation" and "Creation Feats" at the bottoms of the pages in "See also" sections instead.

I guess we could for the most part just copy the section unto a new page then. Maybe with a bit of an introduction text. Should the "implied Powers" section also go on that page or would that be more about the power itself?

so if they're Omnipresent that would infer that they have a degree of control of this universe

Now that would be something I disagree with. Omnipresence doesn't imply any degree of control.

As for a, let's say Tier 4 dude with much lower showings for actual attacks, why would it be wrong to assume this?
If a character has much lower showings for AP than they do for Creation, then they're clearly intended to be much lower.
Imo it's much more of a leap to say "If Character A shows tier 7 attacks against others, but creates a 4-A realm at one point not as an attack, then his previous tier 7 showings are all 4-A"
Than it is to say "If Character A shows tier 7 showings a bunch against others, but creates a 4-A realm at one point not as an attack, then he is Tier 7, with 4-A Creation"

That's just arguing about consistency and "anti-feats" as the article in the OP calls it. If there is sufficient evidence contradicting it, yes. However, if we are talking about a spell with the same power source as the creation I think gigantic differences are unreasonable to default to.
A wish-granting device that can grant galaxy level creation wishes has no reason to be unable to grant destruction wishes on a similar scale. If a mage can create a planet with 10 mana, then spells with 20 mana invested in them shouldn't be billions of times weaker.
Creation is a feat for the amount of supernatural power a character possesses and that power should have similar potency in different techniques. It's like spells of lightning, fire and water would scale to each other, despite all applying the supernatural energy in different ways. I think it's a pretty big assumption that the efficiency between spells varies that greatly if there is no evidence for it.

Oh yeah, I remember what my main issue was. My issue is how we treat celestial body feats that go beyond just a single celestial body.



GBE of Earth = 2.487e32 J

GBE of Sun = 5.693e41 J

Solar System level = 2.277e45 J

If somebody creates a planet (like Earth for example), they're scaled to the GBE of Earth. If they create a star (like the Sun), they're scaled to the GBE of the Sun.

But if they create a Solar System which is just a star plus multiple planets, they're scaled to Solar System level? That's about 4000 times higher than the energy required just to create the Sun. Considering that apparently 99.8% of the mass in the Solar System is inside the Sun anyway, why is creating a "Solar System" so much more impressive than a Sun?

I think we need to revise this line of the Celestial Body feats page in regards to Creation.

IIRC we pretty much had staff voting on that stuff before. It's a matter of opinion to a certain degree.

Personally, I think the way it currently is, i.e. not assuming the structure are created separately, seems more reasonable. Take it to a larger scale and your version would imply universe creation isn't universe level, but only on the level of the sum of the GBE of all celestial objects.

In general, the assumption of "things should sum up" doesn't actually hold in any way, if you think about it. Pretty sure the sum of the GBE of 4 quarters of a planet is less than the GBE of the planet for instance.

Also we had changed these standards back and forth before and had half a dozen debates about them since. I know it's an argument of practicality here, but it isn't doing us any favors to vote on this issue every 6 months.

 

[Antvasima]

I guess we could for the most part just copy the section unto a new page then. Maybe with a bit of an introduction text. Should the "implied Powers" section also go on that page or would that be more about the power itself?

I trust your sense of judgement regarding how the page should be structured, but you should preferably write down a suggestion here first, so you can get some input.

I mainly want all of our regulations regarding this issue to be copied to a single easily found place, and expanded on in the areas that we have not already covered.

 

[KieranH10]

Now that would be something I disagree with. Omnipresence doesn't imply any degree of control.

This was more of an example, I should have specified further, this wasn't the focus of the point anyways. If a character has Universal range, then they can apply the lower attacks at any point in the Universe.

That's just arguing about consistency and "anti-feats" as the article in the OP calls it. If there is sufficient evidence contradicting it, yes. However, if we are talking about a spell with the same power source as the creation I think gigantic differences are unreasonable to default to.

If Character A has his Tier 7 attacks, and his Tier 4 Creation which has never been shown offensively, and these attacks use the same source of power, there's still no evidence that they use the same amount of power.

A wish-granting device that can grant galaxy level creation wishes has no reason to be unable to grant destruction wishes on a similar scale.

That would fall under Reality Warping, not specifically creation, in which case sure, it has 3-C Reality Warping, .

If a mage can create a planet with 10 mana, then spells with 20 mana invested in them shouldn't be billions of times weaker.

That could very easily be boiled down to Plot Induced Stupidity if the more costly spells are on a much lower level.

Creation is a feat for the amount of supernatural power a character possesses and that power should have similar potency in different techniques.

Not necessarily though. If a character creates a planet with their power, but has not shown actual AP related attacks on this level, then they should not scale Attack Power to creating an object, as it was not intended as an attack, and cannot be used as an attack, their actual AP would come from elsewhere.

It's like spells of lightning, fire and water would scale to each other, despite all applying the supernatural energy in different ways. I think it's a pretty big assumption that the efficiency between spells varies that greatly if there is no evidence for it.

Again, not without evidence to support it, the only reason we commonly do it on profiles is because the character has harmed others with all of them:

• Let's say Character A has 8-C Fire.
• Character A uses 8-C fire on Character B, which Character B survives but gets harmed by.
• Character A then uses Lightning/Water/Earth/etc attack on Character B, which also harms them.
• This allows us to assume Fire, Lightning, Water, Earth attack are similar through scaling, which is what most profiles do, which is why it's common to see it.

Likewise:

• Character A has 8-C fire
• Character A uses said Fire and harms B once again
• Character A uses Lightning on B which harms them
• Character A does not use Earth or Water.
• What is the reason to scale Earth and Water to 8-C?

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Following. Will read and comment when I can.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already said my piece on the three bullet point reasons used on the previous thread. I do agree that the characters should prove they actually created the stars in the background as opposed to using illusions. If it's a simple hand wave and a starry sky background appears, the standard assumption is that it's an illusion. But if they mention creating a realm or body of space, and said realm or body of space has stars, the logical assumption is to compare the stars to actual stars unless explicitly stated the realm was only planet sized.

And as for scaling it to other powers, I think DT summarized it that universal power sources and what not are worth looking into. I'm not saying simply drawing from the same pool of energy automatically makes everything 1 to 1, but the level of energy or mana manipulation used for their feats or techniques are valid. If it's done with a specific power up that's far stronger than their regulars, or it's done with their most powerful technique that's far more consumptive than all of their attacks, it wouldn't quite scale to other powers. However, if it's done with only moderate levels, it should logically scale to their other moderate level precision attacks. If they harness energy into their creations, and can equally harness just as much energy into their physical strikes, then it should logically scale. Or if they can do it for other magic attacks, just not physicals strikes, then it would still scale to AP via magic, just not striking strength. And a lot of characters could use magic amp physical strikes, but simply saying "They use magic for one and they also use it for the other" isn't enough evidence. There still needs to be prove they do it with as much as advanced levels of energy control and what not.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I trust your sense of judgement regarding how the page should be structured, but you should preferably write down a suggestion here first, so you can get some input.

I mainly want all of our regulations regarding this issue to be copied to a single easily found place, and expanded on in the areas that we have not already covered.

Assuming we aren't going to change our standards I would make this proposal for a page:

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​

The quantification of valid creation feats follows a general rule of thumb and common sense. The creation of a medium-sized building from nothingness might be ranked as Building level and the creation of an area that is the size of a reasonably large city might be ranked City level. When there is any doubt whether a certain object qualifies for a certain tier, for example in the case of particularly small mountains, it is advisable to take the lowest ranking that still appears plausible.
For feats of creating entire celestial objects more detailed decisions regarding what they are usually ranked as can be found here.

As the entire judgement of the feats follows no precise method of quantification, no precise energy value should be assume. If absolutely necessary to do so, it is advised to default to the baseline of the tier in question.

Does that sound ok? I decided to leave the Implied powers thing on the creation page, as it's more of a P&A thing.

If Character A has his Tier 7 attacks, and his Tier 4 Creation which has never been shown offensively, and these attacks use the same source of power, there's still no evidence that they use the same amount of power.

No. Assuming the character might hold back or does not use its full power in the attack it isn't. However, it is evidence for a full power attack of said character to be on that level, given that it demonstrates the capability to use a certain level of power output.

That could very easily be boiled down to Plot Induced Stupidity if the more costly spells are on a much lower level.

To quote out AP page:

A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

The fact that an attack causes few environmental damage is (practically) never to be used as proof of a low attack potency. Assuming PIS in a general level is hardly a valid argument, to begin with. PIS is an exception invoked if a fiction contradicts itself. If there is no clear contradiction it shouldn't be invoked.

Not necessarily though. If a character creates a planet with their power, but has not shown actual AP related attacks on this level, then they should not scale Attack Power to creating an object, as it was not intended as an attack, and cannot be used as an attack, their actual AP would come from elsewhere.

Their actual AP comes from other techniques, but the power behind those techniques can be on the scale of the creation feat if the are fed from the same power source.

Again, not without evidence to support it, the only reason we commonly do it on profiles is because the character has harmed others with all of them:

• Let's say Character A has 8-C Fire.
• Character A uses 8-C fire on Character B, which Character B survives but gets harmed by.
• Character A then uses Lightning/Water/Earth/etc attack on Character B, which also harms them.
• This allows us to assume Fire, Lightning, Water, Earth attack are similar through scaling, which is what most profiles do, which is why it's common to see it.

Likewise:

• Character A has 8-C fire
• Character A uses said Fire and harms B once again
• Character A uses Lightning on B which harms them
• Character A does not use Earth or Water.
• What is the reason to scale Earth and Water to 8-C?

Because a similar amount of power is put into the spell. And you're wrong about the fact that we argue like that. It is in fact not our standard. If it were, then most characters with multiple keys would in higher keys have a separate AP tier for techniques that they haven't used in their more powerful keys yet. For instance, while I don't recall Vegeta ever using the Destructo Disk in Dragon Ball Super he doesn't have a separate "4-B with Destructo Disk" tier for the case that it doesn't scale to universe level as all his other Ki fueled techniques do. Why? Because he has universe level Ki output and there is no good reason to assume he can't put that into that technique.

 

[Ugarik]

What about the potential energy? Does creating some mass in the air = raising that mass in the air?

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't think it should, I mean the matter is being made there, not being lifted from the ground.

 

[DontTalkDT]

What about the potential energy? Does creating some mass in the air = raising that mass in the air?

Unless there is an indication of that (i.e. wind), I would assume the created object likely just replaces the stuff in the area it was created in. If there is wind one could potentially calc that.
Would be kinda weird in regards to timeframe, but one can probably make some assumptions.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

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.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

DontTalkDT's suggestions seem great at a glance.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

This seems very case by case like every feat, I mean whether or not a Creation Feat scales to regular AP depends on the context of the verse, like if there is a universal energy source like magic and they used said magic to create a planet and can use that same magic for attacks, I have no issues with saying that said person can attack with Planet level AP unless said otherwise

As for creating a Solar System, it should stay the same as it has for Celestial Body Feats

 

[Jasonsith]

Thanks for inviting me in.

As my opinion:

There are several matters to consider in a creation feat.

1. If that creation feat is something specific for summoning or "making" objects. Usually some fictional characters can summon objects super easily but in rare but possible cases these summoners cannot even lift their creations.
2. Summoning can take a few steps and may even involve an energy manipulation for a few chain or no chain reactions:
Energy is transformed into simple particles with a mass.
Particles undergo nuclear or chemical reactions to form other particles and objects, manipulating energy in the process.
Internal heat may be spread out or taken in during the process.
If this is a celestial object, a further gravitational binding energy is required to stick the particles to form an object with its own meaningful gravity.
Which stages should a creation feat count into consideration when creating an object, say, create a giant green boot the material of a real boot size of a single house under room temperature and pressure? Would it be different for a creation of a boot at a temperature of 1000 degrees Celsius or for a boot with absolute zero temperature?

3. For pocket reality manipulation this can be tricky: Creating extra space can be super convenient and practical yet super difficult even for most fictional characters. Yet sometimes characters may "create dimensions" for specific purposes but totally irrelevant with energy manipulation, even if space manipulation takes a lot of energy IRL.

4. Space-time continuum creation can potentially be something different from just creating one universe from a big bang. I mean, this will involve creating not just space, but a time axis as well. This, again, may involve reshaping a part of our current tiering system.
Like manipulation of a few universes may actually be similar to manipulating one large universe the same size as the sum of a few smaller universes.
But manipulation of one space time continuum may be 4-dimensional, manipulation of a 5-dimensional construct will be 5-dimensional. I can open a new thread if this is necessary - in fact I am ready to bring this out whether in this thread or a new one.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I think that DontTalk's suggested page content mostly seems fine, so I thank him for the help.

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.