Pocket dimensions with stars in them

[Antvasima]

Yes, I mean that we should mention that there are cases where there are blatant contradictions between attack power and creation feats.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I was thinking about cases like Kaguya Ōtsutsuki and similar or more extreme differences between regular demonstrated attack statistics and creation feats.

The issue with Naruto characters would be easier to solve if fans recognized the existence of outliers.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose so, but it doesn't hurt with some official explanation regarding our policies for this specific type of situation.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The issue with Naruto characters would be easier to solve if fans recognized the existence of outliers.

To be fair, Naruto isnt a good example because Kaguya's 4-C feat doesn't scale to her individual statistics. It's a prep feat, which was why its not an outlier for her.

Had it been a direct feat for her, that would be a different story.

 

[AstralKing7]

That's just a bad example entirely

 

[Omimi]

Oh yeah, for cases like that, it's shown that she cannot destroy planets or stars outside of said realm. And that she uses a different power separate from her main chakra abilities. But there are plenty of examples of physical and magical feats being interchangeable with each other.

bold was never state in manga or DB

The issue with Naruto characters would be easier to solve if fans recognized the existence of outliers.

if going from 5-C+ to high 4-C outliers than get ready for massive downgraded

since here we have many verse that goes from tier 7/6/5+ to tier 3/2/1

the gap between them are much much much larger then kaguya going from 5-C+ to high 4-C

 

[Agnaa]

@Ant I thought that sort of thing was already in place? Characters like Spooky, The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), SCP-3930, and Ougi Oshino are understood to have their creation not apply to AP, since they don't have AP-based attacks they can use that same energy source for.

I can try to find the thread about this to see if anything was put into the rules about it, when it was discussed.

EDIT: Here's the thread I was thinking of, from late 2018. Dargoo said he'd revise the Creation page to include a clause like that, but seemingly never got around to it/forgot about it.

 

[AshenCrow777]

For the people too lazy to click and check this is basicaly what Drag said.

"im actually working on a revision of the Creation page with the most recent CRT I made which includes this disclaimer:"-Dragoo

"Creation feats are treated as feats of Attack Potency on this wiki. This is because, near-universally in reality, creating an object from separate, smaller objects or energy often takes just as much, if not more energy than destroying said object.

Note that this only applies to the character's capacity to harm other characters if their Creation is 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."-Dragoo

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

Thank you. Would you be willing to add explanation sections for cases like this in the Creation and Celestial Body Feats pages? Or would you prefer to ask Dargoo to do so instead?

 

[Agnaa]

For one thing, I think the text Dargoo drafted (or rather, just the second paragraph, I don't think the first paragraph should be included at all) may need some slight alterations - it doesn't mention the sort of Outlier situations you seemed to want to cover. But then again, this may already be sufficiently covered by the Outlier pages in its current state.

Secondly, I think it only belongs on the Creation page since it's broader than just celestial body feats, but I'd be happy to apply it once the wording is finalized.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out. I would appreciate if you write down a suggestion for an explanation section.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Omini and Matt, need to remind you all that outliers are less about big gaps and frequency, and more about context and reason. Though there are other details to explain and it's off topic here. And Kukui said the creation feat required prep time, which also explains other things.

Anyway, creation feats are clearly still attack potency feats; if the same mystical energy is used to create planets, stars, and pocket realities, and the same characters' use those same mystical energy for physical attacks, then it's clearly something they scale from.

 

[Alonik]

Sorry to get off topic a little, but why we don't have an page standard for Pocket dimension with stars?

 

[EMagoIorSouI]

That could actually be quite useful.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We do have Pocket Reality Manipulation where there are explained details in it.

 

[Alonik]

@DarkDragonMedeus thank you, i was thinking that it was different from pocket dimension creation, so i don't read it, yet. I'll read now.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

So are pocket realities with stars inside them still going to count as 4-A im assuming?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, seems like it.

 

[AshenCrow777]

Yup there's no reason for them to be High 4-C despite the fact they have a bunch of stars inside them.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Yay!

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yup there's no reason for them to be High 4-C despite the fact they have a bunch of stars inside them.

Destroying a bunch of stars is High 4-C, and that's essentially what's being created here, so I'm not sure what reason we have for going up to 4-A based on the completely unknown factor of creating space, which can't be conventionally destroyed and doesn't have any definable amount of energy associated with it.

 

[KLOL506]

It's because there's still the need to account for the amount of distance between those stars, and also due to the fact that everything within that distance would also be wiped out by the expanding explosion.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DontTalk explained the details above. And as Matt said, for the same reason destroying/creating a universe all at once being only 4-A. That's basically the equivalent of shit taking a shit right there. Same with creating galaxies all at once being only 4-B or creating thousands of stars across thousands of light years being only 4-A.

 

[AshenCrow777]

Basically all this ^^^^ Both Klol and DDM (also everyone against this) are right.

Last thing we need is a full blown universe being downgraded to galaxy level for highly illogical reasoning.

Honestly how does that makes sense to anyone???

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Creating a bunch of stars is High 4-C because it only requires enough energy to create the matter in the stars, so the surrounding space is not relevant.

If you're destroying them, it's 4-A because you not only need enough energy in the blast to destroy the stars, but it has to reach out over the light years of space in between them.

Creating a pocket dimension with a bunch of stars is 4-A because you're not only creating the matter in the stars, but also the space holding them. The total amount of matter in the stars themselves put together may be High 4-C, but matter is secondary to space, meaning that the pocket dimension can potentially fit a 4-A amount of matter in it. Therefore, it matters not if the pocket dimension is empty or has celestial bodies inside it if we have an indication of its size.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with DT, Matt and DDM for now. 4-A for making a universe is, in all honesty, dumb.

 

[Andytrenom]

4-A for creating a universe is only dumb, if you completely ignore the part that mechanics of a feat has to do with it's output. 3-A in our system is only as high as it is because we selected a explosion to represent it, which loses a vast amount of energy in proportion to distance. Creation likely wouldn't adhere to something like the inverse square law, so it wouldn't reach the same level as destruction. It's no different than how moon destruction can be 5-A, and building destruction can be 9-B, all depends on what kind of feat is happening

I'm tired of people making arguments like "it is dumb", or "common sense" dictates it. This idea comes purely from feeling, not actual logic

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It does come from logic if it's all at once; which is how pocket reality feats are. And besides, assuming pocket reality creation feats equates to simply creating stars one by one without or just the equivalent of created one star with the added total of the GBEs without space between them also comes from "Feeling".

 

[Andytrenom]

It does not come from feeling, it comes from simply not applying the mechanics of one thing, to something else entirely. Inverse square law is a rule related to explosions, why on earth would we apply it to creation, are we to just assume that every time a character creates something, they release some kind of "reverse explosion" that loses it's energy in proportion to the square of the distance traveled? Because that feels very arbitrary

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Except those feats happen all the time in fiction; giving birth to galaxies via a large explosion and a galaxy is formed. Giving birth to starry sky dimensions is really not all that different than those feats.

 

[Agnaa]

We have these tier benchmarks partially so that we have equivalents for incalculable/off-screen feats. If we don't have a method or timeframe but we know that a character destroyed the moon, we give them 5-C. Same for planets, and same for incalculable things like creation feats. I can see the logic with putting universe creation (which we can't really calculate) at 3-A for this reason.

Inverse square law is a rule related to explosions, why on earth would we apply it to creation

It isn't related to explosions, it's related to any dispersal of energy in 3-D space.

are we to just assume that every time a character creates something, they release some kind of "reverse explosion" that loses it's energy in proportion to the square of the distance traveled? Because that feels very arbitrary

GBE being used for creation feats is also insanely arbitrary. GBE is the amount of energy that needs to be added to separate two objects that are gravitationally bound together. That has nothing to do with creation.

If you're trying to find mathematical accuracy in poofing objects into existence, you'll never find it, perhaps outside of E=MC^2 which both heavily buffs and nerfs various feats.

 

[Andytrenom]

"It isn't related to explosions, it's related to any dispersal of energy in 3-D space."

Is that true?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Basically yes, and it's also technically possible for "inverse square law" to be a thing regarding multiversal stuff as well. Not really, but multiversal big bangs do exist in fiction.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, we literally can't use the normal explosion formula for stuff blowing up in space anyway so...

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know, it's not something mathematically calculate-able, but interdimensional big bangs are a thing.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

You ******* mad lad, you talked about this on discord but i didn't think you'd actually make a CRT for it

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay, there's no need to get too hostile...

I agree the topic is indeed overly redundant, but...

Nevermind, the "LOL" was supposed to be a sign it was meant to be comical...

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

I'm... not getting hostile tho?

 

[KLOL506]

"mad lad" isn't exactly hostile tho

If anything seems to me that he's celebrating

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I edited my comment...

And I didn't see the lol at first...