• 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

The lol exists in our hearts, and that's good enough for me


Anyway i disagree with the OP for reasons stated by most people in the thread already
 
Is that true?

Yeah, a lightbulb follows the inverse square law, for instance. Anything that emits energy uniformly in three-dimensions has the energy disperse according to the inverse square law.

On vsbw we mainly use it for explosion calcs, because quite frankly that's a lot of fictional feats, but even here we've used it for luminosity feats.
 
Also, mad lad isn't hostile, but you said "*******"
 
So far it doesn't seem like we will reach an agreement here.
 
Tbh, it's not like anything new was brought up, and we had the majority consensus outcome a years ago. Some people who have problems with the current standards have always had those same standards. And me, Matt, and DontTalk already explained our side. And Agnaa brought up saying inverse square law isn't just about explosions, but dispersal/scattering of energy in general. We also use inverse square law for shock-waves and luminosity calculations, and pocket reality creation/destruction feats aren't too far off from those examples. And even Andy who was on Dargoo's side appears to have conceded after Agnaa explained it.
 
Unless if I'm misinformed, nuclear fusion, which is technically creation, produces more energy than nuclear fission, a form of destruction. The former is really much harder to accomplish, and normally almost impossible.

In one of the more simpler ways to put it, it's harder to build your sand castle than knocking it over and pulverizing it. It's pretty elementary, tbh.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I also agree with Agnaa here, who essentially explains a point I've been arguing this entire time.

There is no way to properly calculate these feats. As Agnaa put it, we set tier benchmarks in a way to explain feats that lack enough details to do a proper calculation, and this is exactly the kind of case we have here.

Just like a statement that has too little detail to attach a solid value to, but is still rated in a tier nonetheless, I see no problems in just identifying creation feats to be within a certain tier and refraining from trying to calculate the feats when there is no correct methods of calculations. As I've said before, there is no necessity to attach numbers to feats.

I'm not sure how so many people read Agnaa's comments as an argument for preserving the status quo, as he explicitly points out that the way we're calculating these feats currently is still objectively wrong.

On other points, though:

Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
One issue with much of these feats however, is that the object or pocket reality is all created simultaneously; there is no propagation of energy that would follow the Inverse-square law. The effect isn't more 'intense' at the epicenter as would, say, an explosion or other propagated effect is, it's more often than not some uniform "poof into existence".

Assuming that creation propagates in a way identical to some destructive effect doesn't make sense in the context of how most creation-based feats take place.

I can see I'm still in the minority opinion on this, and I don't expect this to change much on the site, but I'd rather us be self-aware that what we're doing with these feats is a pretty clear double-standard in regards to our philosophy on calcing feats as a whole.
 
@Dragopentling In short, you are misinformed.

Nuclear fusion only produces energy up to the element iron, at which point it starts losing energy. Nuclear fission works the other way around; only producing energy up to iron. This is more simply because those lower elements have more energy apart than they do fused, so when they fuse energy is released. Higher elements are the opposite, they have more energy together than they do ripped apart, so they release energy when fission occurs.

Even if this explanation is missing some details (as it's a simplified version I heard in high school years back), the central piece of "Fusion is only productive to a point, and fission is only productive to a point" stays, making comparing the energy output of the two kinda meaningless for creation feats as a whole.

@Dargoo I wouldn't be very upset if we stopped calculating creation feats entirely, we already lack calculations for many of them, but I think last thread it was agreed to keep them because they give close enough results, or something like that. If this discussion goes on any further I might want to double check and see what the exact distinction we made between town-level pocket realities and solar system pocket realities was.
 
I wouldn't be very upset if we stopped calculating creation feats entirely.

Agreed, we have no basis on how we get them calced.
 
"As I've said before, there is no necessity to attach numbers to feats"

Our tiering system literally categorizes numbers in the the form of energy output, so it's kinda impossible to not attach specific numbers to feats. Even stuff without a calc do have numbers attached to them , they are lowballed to the baseline of a tier, they also aren't really supposed to stay that, a calc is welcome whenver possible.

Between tier 10 and 3, feats that can't be calculated are incompatible with our system, so you either equalize them to other feats that can be calced, or simply not give a tier based off of it
 
Between tier 10 and 3, feats that can't be calculated are incompatible with our system, so you either equalize them to other feats that can be calced, or simply not give a tier based off of it

Not really, we give feats we can't calculate tiers all the time. We don't equalize them to another feat and calculate that, we just give them a ballpark tier.

I'm pretty sure that Dargoo already knows that without a calc they get the number at the tier's baseline, so I don't think this direction for the conversation is very productive.
 
I'm pretty sure that's not appropriate. If we are categorizing numbers in our system, which a quick look at the AP page will show that we do, how can we categorize feats that can't have a number attached to them. Reminder that if they are simply being lowballed, due to the feat being quantifiable, but precise data being unavailable, that's a different situation from a feat that fundamentally can't be calced
 
But then if we move into saying that fundamentally incalculable things shouldn't get a rating then we run into the issue of not rating creation feats at all, then it brings up the obvious question of why we'd rate creation of universes/multiverses at all then. It seems like an unproductive way to do things.

The system is the way it is for a reason - it went through extensive discussion before it became the way it is now.
 
Specific numbers only matter for tier 10-3, beyond which we delve into stuff not quantifiable by us mathematically.

Creation is equalized to destruction, that's how it is currently quantified. If we stop doing that, then not rating creation feats at all is better option than giving them a certain tier despite being unquantifiable
 
Stuff beyond tier 3 isn't quantifiable mathematically, but if we stop saying that creation's equal to destruction, why would we suddenly say it's equal in tier 2/1/0?

But like I said earlier, I don't really understand the relevance of this strand of conversation or how it's productive. It just seems to be confusion over terminology - Dargoo said "it's not necessary to attach numbers to feats like this" but was fine with them being lowballed to the tier. I am 99.99% sure that he knows that that technically puts a number on it.
 
Where did you infer I'm saying creation isn't equal to destruction

Lowballing every instance of a feat due to the kind of feat not being mathematically quantifiable is not good, we lowball stuff when a type of feat can be calced, but the specific details aren't there, such as explosion, destruction. I don't think it makes sense when you want to say the feat isn't mathematically quantifiable in the first place. That feels more like making up stuff than doing an approximation
 
Where did you infer I'm saying creation isn't equal to destruction

When you're talking about how any feats that cannot be calced, such as creation, shouldn't get a rating.
 
I'm saying when they inherently can't have a number attached to them,either by being uncomfortable, or not being able to be equalised to calcable feats, they shouldn't get a tier
 
What does it mean to be able to be equalized? Is saying that creation = destruction, therefore creating a town should be equal to some non-specific destruction of a town, and therefore should get baseline town level, count as equalization to calculable feats?

If that counts, then there's no issue and nothing to discuss. If that doesn't count, where does that chain break down?
 
It should be specific kind of destruction you're equalizing it to, but yeah
 
Well, I personally don't mind if we start to largely list creation statistics sepaeately from attack potency statistics, but I am not the best person to ask about this.
 
I'm still not budging based on the original ordeal proposed by me, DT, and Matt tbh.

Creation feats Tier 2 and above are clearly AP feats, I see no reason for why we should knit pick every single creator character in fiction just for creating things smaller than that. Creating planets and stars out of nothing would still require some form of GBE manipulation others-wise those same planets and stars would have 0 gravity.
 
@Ant Yeah, if no-one has any rewording suggestions, I'd like to add the following to the Creation page:

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.
@DDM Why would they need GBE manipulation other-wise those things would have 0 gravity? That doesn't make sense. Objects requiring GBE to be pulled apart comes inexorably with creating mass, no extra energy has to be added. In real life this comes about by some clouds of dust just happening to be more dense, and attracting more dust until a planet/star is formed, no input of energy necessary.
 
@Agnaa, when the Earth was first formed, it initially had a GBE of Low 5-B levels and it was created by a Low 5-B feat. And a gravity of a planet can raise or lower depending on events happening to it. A collection of Tier 6 events have shaped the Earth into what it is today. And not the added gravity stacked become 5-B.
 
I don't think that's necessarily true, even if it was true for Earth I don't think it's true for every star and planet... What Tier 5 events were around before any stars existed to create the first stars?

The gravity of a planet can raise or lower depending on events happening to it, but that's because to see big events in a short timeframe you'd either have so much KE with all the mass that's being brought that it would cause a high amount of damage, despite that damage being irrelevant to the GBE growing bigger, or you would need to forcibly remove parts of the Earth counteracting GBE and hence spending similar levels of energy. The latter is irrelevant to creation and the former is coincidental.

The point is that gravity, and hence GBE, come from mass, which objects just have. The only way to properly describe its creation is with E=MC^2, not with GBE.
 
Oh yeah, don't interpret my posts as support for just using E=MC^2 for all creation feats. We don't need tier 6 duplication and 3-C universe creation (or whatever crazy results that formula gives).
 
I much rather sticking to GBE for creation feats via saying creation = destruction rather than the Mass Energy Conversion.
 
I'm good with using GBE too, but only if created in a conventional way (like rock formation, magma and seas creation, etc.), however for an ex nihilo kind of creation shouldn't use that formula. Would also considere Creation feats as preparation feat if never happened on screen, similar to way destroy a galaxy out screen do not means galaxy level.
 
I disagree with that, forming planets out of nothing should still use GBE instead of Mass Energy conversion similar to how creating storms that happen inside buildings still use CAPE instead of mass energy conversion. We can't just go around saying, "Creation feats aren't feats" because that's the epitome of knit picking.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm still not budging based on the original ordeal proposed by me, DT, and Matt tbh.

Creation feats Tier 2 and above are clearly AP feats, I see no reason for why we should knit pick every single creator character in fiction just for creating things smaller than that. Creating planets and stars out of nothing would still require some form of GBE manipulation others-wise those same planets and stars would have 0 gravity.
Click to expand...
I suppose that we should probably stick with this solution then.
 
Agnaa said:
@Ant Yeah, if no-one has any rewording suggestions, I'd like to add the following to the Creation page:
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think that seems excellent.

Would other staff members be fine with if I add this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Setting Standard Sizes for Pocket Dimensions
Replies
5
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mythic381
Hazbin hotel celestial body tier?
Replies
17
Views
971
Mythic381
Mythic381
TartaChocholate
In the Garden, Balamb Garden, the lion talks to walls~~! (Final Fantasy VIII Revisions)
Replies
24
Views
2K
AlphaOmegaV1
AlphaOmegaV1
MrTayman616
OPM Garou Radiation Upgrade
Replies
3
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Minos_the_Judge
Saitama POSSIBLE 2-A environmental destruction?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Spectra_Schiffer
Spectra_Schiffer
Back
Top