-
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.
Pocket dimensions with stars in them
- Thread starter DMUA
- Start date
- 32,359
- 20,298
The issue with Naruto characters would be easier to solve if fans recognized the existence of outliers.Antvasima said:
- 16,960
- 4,860
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.Matthew Schroeder said:
Had it been a direct feat for her, that would be a different story.
- 14,409
- 1,692
That's just a bad example entirely
- 4,141
- 419
bold was never state in manga or DBDarkDragonMedeus said:
if going from 5-C+ to high 4-C outliers than get ready for massive downgradedMatthew Schroeder said:
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
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,568
- 13,854
@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.
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.
- 1,596
- 177
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
"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
- 167,861
- 76,479
@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?
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
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,568
- 13,854
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.
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.
- 31,461
- 34,321
@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.
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.
EMagoIorSouI
They/Them- 2,170
- 321
That could actually be quite useful.
- 31,461
- 34,321
We do have Pocket Reality Manipulation where there are explained details in it.
- 958
- 798
@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.
- 16,960
- 4,860
So are pocket realities with stars inside them still going to count as 4-A im assuming?
- 1,596
- 177
Yup there's no reason for them to be High 4-C despite the fact they have a bunch of stars inside them.
- 16,960
- 4,860
Yay!
- 15,637
- 5,392
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.AshenCrow777 said:
- 31,461
- 34,321
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.
- 1,596
- 177
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???
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???
- 12,524
- 3,492
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.
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.
- 10,758
- 6,491
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
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
- 31,461
- 34,321
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".
- 10,758
- 6,491
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
- 31,461
- 34,321
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
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,568
- 13,854
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.
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.
- 10,758
- 6,491
"It isn't related to explosions, it's related to any dispersal of energy in 3-D space."
Is that true?
Is that true?
- 31,461
- 34,321
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.
- 31,461
- 34,321
I know, it's not something mathematically calculate-able, but interdimensional big bangs are a thing.
- 10,688
- 4,810
You ******* mad lad, you talked about this on discord but i didn't think you'd actually make a CRT for it
- 31,461
- 34,321
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...
I agree the topic is indeed overly redundant, but...
Nevermind, the "LOL" was supposed to be a sign it was meant to be comical...
- 10,688
- 4,810
I'm... not getting hostile tho?
- 31,461
- 34,321
I edited my comment...
And I didn't see the lol at first...
And I didn't see the lol at first...
