• 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.

Feats involving constellations

Well, it greatly depends on how the feat is displayed.

Is the character created totally new stars, then GBE could be the best answer.

Now, if it moved stars that already exists... Like DT said, I think that the best is to add an "At least" followed by the level according to the object moved.
 
I am...uncertain. I genuinely don't believe moving multiple stars should be ranked as Multi-Solar System level, as it is more akin to a range feat than an AP feat. The character need only reach and be able to affect the stars, not the entirety of the space in-between, which is what would make it Multi-Solar System level. Since we can't use FTL KE, as that would lead to abusrdly inflated values, and feats of moving around multiple stars has been calced closer to "Large Star level" before, I think ranking such feats as "At least Large Star level" is the safest bet.
 
Like they said, moving them at absurb distances at high speed will be FTL, therefore it can't be calculated due to physics...

So, I agree with everyone. That will screw up some ratings btw
 
I agree with what DT said but shouldn't any physical mass be able to move at FYT speeds in the first place?
 
@Azathoth

Yes. That is the crucial issue that I have mentioned earlier myself. I am also uncertain regarding this.

However, given that affecting several stars at once would spread out the telekinetic energy over stellar distances, it is likely not purely a range issue either.
 
Hmm, since that Azzy is unsure in regards to this topic, should I wait for his decision, or should I write up the constellations page according to DT's suggestions?

It would be be preferable that this be finished soon however.
 
Since most of the staff agrees with DontTalk, you can probably adjust the page according to his specification for the moment.

I would appreciate more input concerning this issue however.
 
@Ant

It depends, I suppose. However, if you were to use telekinetic powers to say, pick up and move two boulders, each at opposite sides of Australia, that would not be a Tier 6 feat, since we would not assume the energy was spread over all of Australia just to pick up the boulders. We would assume the energy to be focused on the two boulders, hence why they were being moved.

It is the same as how, when moving several stars, the necessary force need only be applied to the stars. One would not need to control the entirety of the area between every star controlled in order to move them, which is what would qualify for MSS level.
 
Hmm. I suppose that you have a point. This is a somewhat complicated issue.

What do the rest of you think?
 
That does make this much more complicated.

Perhaps placing the stats like: "Lowball amount, likely the higher amount" might work?

Of course, the difference may be astronomic at times so I don't necessarily believe in this suggestion....
 
@Azathoth: That as a concern of me as well, as mentioned in my first post.

What nudged me more into the favor of treating Solar systems and galaxys as a seperate unit is that in my opinion throwing a galaxy is more realistically rated as Galaxy level then as Solar System level.

Similary for reality warping for example, making a whole galaxy disappear into nothingness technically also just requires making every planet and star disappear, but it is in my opinion also better rated galaxy level.

It is a problem with feats that can not be quantified in terms of energy, that it is inherently difficult to properly rank them on an energy scale, which is exactly the reason why I wanted do decide this by popular vote. The only way to really legitimise a decision here is by common agreement on it.
 
@DT

This is very true. However, I feel that in the case of constellations, it is better treated as only affecting the stars themselves, since that is all that needs to be moved. Galaxies are more often than not treated as a unit in fiction, so a character moving a galaxy is treated as having moved the entire galaxy. Constellations on the other hand, have always been treated as the stars themselves as opposed to the indvidual solar systems surrounding each one.

Now, say if a character is stated or shown to have moved a constellation simultaneously, as in, taking a pre-existing constellation and moving it to another location without changing its structure in any way, I can see good arguments being made for the source of the feat having affected all space between the stars, as well. The constellation would have appeared to have moved as a unit, and thus could likely be treated as such. However, with making new constellations or moving stars around to create new ones, I feel as though treating it as MSS will only lead to greatly inflated statistics, and will not be a good representation of the character's actual power.
 
Hmm... So in other words we shouldn't per default assume that if a constellation is created by moving stars whole solar system are moved, but just the sum of the stars?

I would be fine with that, given that we don't know wether more than the stars themselfs is actually moved.

If we know Solar systems or Galaxys are moved we would still rank it as Solar System or Galaxy level then, correct?
 
Ok, I have made the changes here and renamed the page, since this could easily be generalized to also apply to celestial bodies other than just constellations.

For the destruction part I will probably write a seperate page on how to calculate things with the inverse square law, given that that method is used on several calculation instruction pages already.
 
For the destruction part, the usual case for destroying celestial bodies is via explosions, correct? The inverse square law should be appropriate for this then.
 
@DontTalk Thank you very much for the help. I will add a link to the front page help section.

@Grudgeman1706 I appreciate that you are trying to help by closing unnecessary discussions, but please wait until they are actually finished. Also, staff discussions are in less of a hurry to be closed, as they are not open to everybody, and sometimes need time to get thoroughly evaluated.
 
Hmm. After reading through the page, I am somewhat concerned about that there is an inherent contradiction in that moving multiple stars at astronomical distances from each other, at the same time, is considered to require less energy than moving a single star and its surrounding planets.

We will likely receive lots of complaints about that this seems incoherent over the coming years.
 
Well, that is the "unit"-problem I and Azathoth were talking about. Basically no matter how we do it, things will never quite add up liek you expect them to, because:

The sun has 1 solar mass.

The solar system has 1.0014 solar masses.

The galaxy has about 10^12 solar masses.

So if we for example say a galaxy is galaxy level.

Then a solar sytsem would be expected to be 10^12 times lower (approx.), which would mean it is solar system level (good), but moving a star is solar system level as well in that case.

If we on the other hand say a star is star level, then the solar system would also be star level and the galaxy would be Solar System level.

If we say a Solar System is Solar system level, than a Star is Large Star level+ and a galaxy approximately Solar System level+.


So no matter how we decide, if one looks at the relations in detail (in the relations of their mass in the case I have done here), it seems things won't quite match up.


So ignoring the scaling in that way is probably the best option.

So the question really is wether we want to consider moving multiple stars as adding up stars (as azathoth favours) or as solar system level.

And probably if moving a certain amount of stars would even be multi-solar system level.

Personally I have no strong opinion about which is the better idea here.
 
I would personally take the spacing into account to resolve this issue. For instance, if we have a binary star system, and someone moved the two stars, then it will be large star or what have you. If the stars are spaced light years apart, then moving the two stars would constitute as multi solar-system.

I think it's the only way to make this sensible.
 
I think that Tivanenk seems to make sense.

However, it would be good if DontTalk could insert a brief clarification/explanation into the page regarding why we decided to scale the way that we do, in order to avoid dealing with a large number of future complaints.
 
So, what do the rest of you think about Tivanenk's suggestion?
 
Okay. I would appreciate if you would adjust the page accordingly then.
 
I agree with Tivanenk's suggestion as well. However, just adding in: Moving two or more galaxies at a time constitutes for Multi-Galaxy level regardless, correct?
 
I think that it counts under the same rules as reality warping, yes.
 
"If multiple Solar Systems are moved at FTL speed or groups consisting of other celestial bodies that are several lightyears apart, the feat will be ranked as Multi-Solar System level."

This is the main part I'm concerned about. As of right now, there are usually considered to be 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, yet only ~4500-6800 are visible from Earth at any given time. Given the vast difference here, that the gap between our Solar System level and Multi-Solar System level is ~1.0x10^12 apart, and that the gap between our Multi-Solar System level and our Galaxy level is merely ~5.6x10^8 apart in comparison, I'm not actually certain manipulating several stars visible to the human eye would actually qualify as MSS by our tables.

The only argument I see would be that, since the furthest visible star is potenially over 16300 light years away, our visible night sky would include a sizable chunk of our galaxy in terms of how far away we can see.
 
@ThePerpetual

It's impossible to assign energy values to FTL movement. That's why we threw out the energy system for this scenario and came up with a situation that we have agreed upon, without relying on the energy scale.
 
I'm not trying to assume energy values to FTL movement, I'm trying to point out that something quite simply doesn't add up here. Under current rules, many profiles should be listed as Multi-Solar System for moving two (or a similar small number of) solar systems, even though the total value for busting/creating/etc. these solar systems woun't add up to anything more than twice (or several times more than) the original value. It's apparent we also count the space in between the solar systems, but how exactly does this affect what we're working with?

What I am trying to do is work through any potential methods of solving this dilemma, as obviously we can't purposefully mislabel profiles and the like, but such is proving to be difficult to do on my own. That is why I'm bringing it to everyone's attention.
 
No, the total value for busting these solar systems will actually come out as multi solar system, since the blast will also have to encompass the surrounding space as well.

Or are you talking about busting them individually? Because in that, it's not comparable to moving several solar systems at a time. Rather, it is comparable to moving a solar system at a time, which would be rated as solar system level.
 
I know that already. I am talking about moving them individually through space, as that is currently an important topic that I am involved in a discussion concerning.

Moving the solar system itself through space does not imply one is moving all of the space around it, as well. That is why I see no reason to assume that moving two seperate solar systems through space consistutes a Multi-Solar System rating: the space between isn't involved.
 
It kind of is. Whether you are using telekinesis or some other power, you need to spread that power over that space to reach your target. So the distances between stars is also involved.

And what is your proposition, by the way? If you disagree with certain methodology, then you need to propose an alternate solution. So far, this one has been the most sensible.
 
You don't need to "spread" anything. You lock onto the object you are trying to move, then move it with whatever force is available. It's just like throwing a ball: you do not have to manipulate all of the air particles between you and your target and spread the energy over the space between the two of you. You just throw the ball, applying force in a direction and letting that force carry the ball through the medium (air) as it will. The only difference here is that this force is being continually applied, so that it can be guided along a course of action.

I don't see why I have to whip up some half-baked plan in 5 minutes to point out a problem I see in a thought process, doing so is one of my jobs around here. To assume I can do better without any sort of consideration/discussion with peers, in so short a time, would be rather arrogant and frankly just silly of me in general, for lack of any better way to put it.
 
Your analogy, frankly put, does not make any sense considering the discussion.

And of course there will be problems, no matter what system is chosen, as faster than light movement does not abide the laws of physics. This is why this is a discussion, so that we can come to conclusion and an agreement on a sensible solution. If you cannot propose another solution that is more sensible, then this one stays as it creates the least amount of problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Timeframe | Creation Feats (Revision)
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Theglassman12
  • Locked
Fighting game standards
Replies
29
Views
2K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
PonePoster
Hazbin Hotel and how to view song feats, plus the intro cinematic (possibly celestial body tier)
Replies
9
Views
3K
Rosa
Rosa
Gamin_Yoon23
Question on how creation feats are treated on this wiki.
Replies
3
Views
852
Gamin_Yoon23
Gamin_Yoon23
Back
Top