{PRE-CRT} Puella Magi Verse AP Issues

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Kal

Isabeau is 6-B regardless of barriers shenanigans because she could have obliterated France at her weakest if she wanted to. I'm not speaking of Isabeau but alright. Could you source that, to make sure that it's speaking of her destroying France over time instead of the whole country at once? I have no issues if you guys want to remove High 7-A, what i'm arguing for is that unless you're saying that "person who scales above Patricia four times over. I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm just saying to remove the higher tier, not to stop considering them as vastly superior than other characters. Regarding your outlier point, what I said actually doesn't support your argument. If a feat is unquantifiable it's completely irrelevant as far as consistency goes. If there are a handful of feats that happen to be consistent with each other (Aka the current ratings) if you want to prove that they are outliers finding the inconsistencies is up to you, not to me. Rebuble summed up the issues with it fairly easily. And there isn't a "couple handful of feats consistent with the other", there's one or two feats that are used to define characters in completely different legues to one another. I never asked you to find inconsistencies but okay. I just claimed they were inconsistent, Rebuble backed that claim, and here we are. But "pocket dimensions with unknown size discredit those with a known size" doesn't work. You misunderstand me. I'm saying "pocket dimensions of unknown size aren't support for pocket dimensions of known size". They should be disregarded altogether and aren't relevant to the discussion. Also, while i'm not familiar with MagiReco, if Alina can create barriers through her own power it does kinda show that it's not necessarily something that can't be accomplished through magic normally Surely not to the extent Witches do during their awakening/transformation. And Alina sounds like an exception rather than the rule, much like Kreimheld. Even then it sounds like something done over time.

@Somebody

Were you not implying the inital blast/creation was inreplicable and greater than anything they are capable of doing? If that's the case, then why are you also pointing out its far below what they're capable of? I'm not. I'm surely asserting the first point here, however I never made the second, and if I did then there was either a misunderstanding or I misspoke. I'm 90% sure that if the series says that the source of the power of witches is curses, then you need to prove that there is another source as well. Not me needing to prove there isn't. You're the one trying to provide a positive by saying witches have two sources of power. I don't need to prove there is another source. You need to prove that it shares a source. It's why we even wrote the page for Environmental Destruction, and this type of discussion is probably why it's ignored so often. I'd like less of a "90% sure" and more of a "here's a scan that supports what I'm saying so we can discuss this outside of our own memory of the verse". The fact that Oktavia is still in the middle of the barrier? The inital barrier was out in the open, not closed in like her final appearance. If it did move itself because of shifting parts, then we would have seen them somewhere in the inital barrier. There is also the fact that some barriers don't change at all, so this automatic change speculation is unfounded. You can't prove that though. She could have moved around in it for all that we're aware of. If we don't see her actively changing it, then we must take the least amount of assumptions. So instead of assuming she can completely change the appearance of her barrier, it's easier to say that she moved in it (which she can do) and that the girls entered it at a different point (which we also know is possible since it's a large structure). Or that she moved stuff around in it over time (which we see her do). So the speculation is on your part. Perhaps not, but its a showcasing that they do have control over their barriers. Yes, those specific witches do. Their barriers aren't brought out to reality though? And again, unless you have proof, you can't just say only stronger witches = scale to barriers. Yeah no. You have to prove it's something universally shared by witches or that the specific witch has it. I was explaining it away with "it's probably because they're stronger", sure, but the baseline here is you need to prove all witches can do it. PMMM is rather open with how its mechanics works too, if what your saying is true it should be rather easy to source. TYeah, but going by this train of thought, wouldn't you need to first prove they're correlated outside of just occuring at similar times? No? Without exception barriers either go through a significant change or are outright created when a witch transforms. Why would we assume they can do the same thing all the time when such an event only happens when there is such a large burst of energy being released? I'll look for sources on barriers being created when a witch transforms, I'm fairly certain this is explicitly mentioned.

 

[SomebodyData]

Huh. Could swear that was a point.

I don't think we actually treat Creation / Pocket Reality Manipulation as part of Environmental Destruction. At least, not based on the page.

Well like I said (I can relink it if you want) the barrier was completely barren outside of train tracks initially. It was just sky and a checkers-board style ground. There is nothing to move to or from.

They are open about the mechanics sure, but this is a bit too much. I don't think they would just say "Oh yeah, every witch has the ability to alter a barrier." Baseline, I've shown stated several examples of witches doing so, none of which having some exclusivity over the ability, if given a few moments I could probably think of more. Though I'm curious, why do you think the barrier moves on its own rather than being a result of the witch's thoughts?

I wasn't talking about witch birth resulting in barriers, I was talking about initial burst of energy resulting in barriers though. Although, I'm starting to think somewhere along the lines we misunderstood each other, since I was talking about the burst of energy rather than the birth itself.

 

[SomebodyData]

Recalc of the Homura building feat btw

Might also be relevant, could also use both your expertise.

@Rebuble do you also want me to calc the other feat we talked about in chat a while ago?

 

[Kaltias]

Comment was truncated rip.

I meant that unless the person who stomps Patricia four times over being twice as strong is too big of an assumption (Which, for the record is a bigger lowball than saying that stomping someone who's 70 megatons makes you baseline 7-A), some of them would be 7-A.

Isabeau's stuff used to be on her profile, i'm in a hurry so I can't find it rn, but it's there.

I kinda answered Reby's point though. Like, the only one that you can really call inconsistent is Patricia's feat

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

@SD

Like Dargoo pointed out in the blog's comment section, Homura clearly did not tank all the force from the building shattering. Her durability would be significantly lower than 7-C.

@Kal

Elly's barrier is inconsistent as well, as the feat is comparable to Kyoko's (which we can assume to be 7-C at best, any higher is arbitrary), and is done passively. And I really feel like you keep ignoring that the method which was used to estimate it is incorrect.

 

[Kaltias]

And you keep ignoring that:

1) If you want to rate it via size, you compare it to the size of a town. Is it big enough? Yes it is.

2) That's an AoE fallacy unless you also want to tell me that Kyoko is 9-B at most because she gets injured by Homura's grenades despite the fact that those do not bust towns in those istances.

What that feat means is that Kyoko can harm herself when using a strong attack, which we have known for ages

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

And you keep ignoring that:
1) If you want to rate it via size, you compare it to the size of a town. Is it big enough? Yes it is.

2) That's an AoE fallacy unless you also want to tell me that Kyoko is 9-B at most because she gets injured by Homura's grenades despite the fact that those do not bust towns in those istances.

What that feat means is that Kyoko can harm herself when using a strong attack, which we have known for ages

1) Depends on how we're going to rate those, as there seems to be no consensus yet.

2) I'm not saying "Kyoko is 7-C because she died to her own attack". What I'm saying is "The feat that was done by a character way superior to a fodder enemy and killed said character in process makes a comparable feat done passively by a fodder an outlier".

And I believe that it being a strong attack makes my second point more solid.

 

[Kaltias]

1) Well the consensus in the thread was "via size". I opposed it because it's literally the old method but inaccurate, but here we are.

2) No, you are saying that said attack is at most baseline 7-C because it has an unknown radius and an unknown potency. That's what you're saying.

When said rating is just based on AoE, and an unknown AoE at that. Majin Buu was torn to shreds by an explosion with tier 7 AoE, we aren't downgrading DBZ to that.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

1) Well the consensus in the thread was "via size". I opposed it because it's literally the old method but inaccurate, but here we are.
2) No, you are saying that said attack is at most baseline 7-C because it has an unknown radius and an unknown potency. That's what you're saying.

When said rating is just based on AoE, and an unknown AoE at that. Majin Buu was torn to shreds by an explosion with tier 7 AoE, we aren't downgrading DBZ to that.

1) I was talking about PMMM in particular, but okay.

2) If the feat is that low-balled, then yeah it's probably unusable for our argument. I still don't know why you bring up Dragon Ball of all things, when it has plenty of other reliable feats to scale to.

Alright, Mami's Tiro Finale & Homura's (Low) 7-C feat seem to be all that's left.

 

[Schnee_One]

Dragon Ball has very few reliable feats to scale to past the Frieza Saga.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

1) Well the consensus in the thread was "via size". I opposed it because it's literally the old method but inaccurate, but here we are.

That's saying one method is more accurate than the other.
All of them are equally inaccurate and arbitrary. We arbitrarily decided to use size for pocket realities smaller than celestial bodies. We arbitrarily decided to use GBE for Celestial bodies. We arbitrarily decided to use Inverse-Square for starscapes. Eve in the latter two it was agreed to disregard the feats under certain conditions, such as them being mostly empty.

Will post more later today @Kal @Somebody.

 

[Kaltias]

No, that's saying that the old method was method was based on a formula, this one is based on guesswork.

They are arbitrary as much as you want, but one arbitrary method gives actual values, the other one doesn't and it's based on "Looks like a town".

This is the Isabeau statement btw

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

No, that's saying that the old method was method was based on a formula, this one is based on guesswork.

The old formula was based on just as much guesswork. This was agreed on the thread.

They are arbitrary as much as you want, but one arbitrary method gives actual values, the other one doesn't and it's based on "Looks like a town".

The first method giving values doesn't make it more correct than the second one. You could conjure any other calculation method and make the same exact claim.

The size-based 'guesswork' at least recognizes that you can't exactly quantify the feats at that scale.

This is the Isabeau statement btw

Thanks, I'll read through and comment.

 

[SomebodyData]

I just want a size chart ;_; Makes this a lot easier.

@Rebuble ye, I will update the calc to take surface area into account. I'm also planning on removing one of the low-balls while I'm at it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I honestly don't think size should be used for the feats until we need to use Inverse-Square; we should instead determine the feat by what is created inside the pocket dimension.

The main issue is that PMMM almost exclusively relies on barriers for AP ratings.

 

[Schnee_One]

WHAT

DID I MISS

 

[SomebodyData]

@Dargoo ah, and your points for disregarding the size of the barrier entirely outside of inverse-square are?

And that is an issue because? Ignoring the issue that's not true outside of two feats, of course.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo ah, and your points for disregarding the size of the barrier entirely outside of inverse-square are?
And that is an issue because? Ignoring the issue that's not true outside of two feats, of course.

I've said them multiple times. Inverse Square actually accounts for objects created too, as it takes the farthest object and sees how much it would take to destroy it from a distance. As does GBE.

When you get smaller than that, what exactly composes the dimension matters far more. We already established that we equate creation with destruction, so we would need to quantify what it would take to destroy what is created. We don't use what would be probably the only accurate method (Mass-Energy) because we arbitrarily decided that the results of it weren't satisfying.

So if someone creates a city in a pocket dimension, then we would need to see what it would take to destroy said city. Frag may suffice. If there is a open sky in the pocket dimension and no ground, then we would need to see what it would take to destroy said clouds; which is hard but possible to quantify.

Using an explosion doesn't even account for what is destroyed unless we consider Inverse Square, which already does account for what is destroyed.

This would increase or decrease the potency of the feats depending on what is created, however it would be more in-line with our "creation = destruction" standards, as it is matter and not a fireball which is created.

It's the issue because the feats require a metric buttload of assumptions no matter what you do and are ultimately of questionable accuracy. While we can much more reliably quantify lower feats that take them effort and aren't done in burst released by a transformation.

 

[SomebodyData]

But if we use inverse-square, it would be against the new (relatively) rules wouldn't it? I know NTF is outright impossible, but this is basically an explosion formula with extra steps. It sounds like size is the only way to go.

Speaking of mass energy, we do use it when we find enough evidence to suggest it. While I do somewhat agree that its strange we don't use it despite its accuracy, going off what you said, the entire burst of energy = barrier creation, might be enough proof espically when combined with the entire entropy thing. I'd have to check with others tho.

Didn't we answer those assumptions with proof? Everything from altering the barrier to proving the barriers are a direct result of the witch has been provided. We've discussed everything from them being outliers to enviromental destruction, and shown them to not be the case.

There are a lot of magical girl feats I can calc from magia Record, but I have to take into account the fact that they're all chibi so idk what to do there.

What lower feats?

 

[Agnaa]

"this is basically an explosion formula with extra steps. It sounds like size is the only way to go."

Yes but it's size based on the size of the matter created, not the range over which it was created. We don't really use range for other creation feats, if a character creates a forcefield around a town we don't calculate it with an explosion that destroys the entire town and the forcefield.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Didn't we answer those assumptions with proof? Everything from altering the barrier to proving the barriers are a direct result of the witch has been provided. We've discussed everything from them being outliers to enviromental destruction, and shown them to not be the case.

There are a lot of magical girl feats I can calc from magia Record, but I have to take into account the fact that they're all chibi so idk what to do there.

What lower feats?

I mean, I'm still debating that with you alongside the validity of the 'proof'. You're speaking as if a conclusion was reached already, I was still working on another megapost to respond to Kal and you. The tone is a bit rude, no offense.

Calcing more feats for support is great. If we have them anywhere in the range of the pocket reality feats then the tier should be fine, although other issues with the barriers are still there to be discussed.

Practically everything calculated besides the two pocket realities as of now?

 

[SomebodyData]

@Agnaa

That sounds like an errorenous analogy. The feat here includes creating the entire space. Here's a more accurate analogy: Someone creates a city and the space around it and the forcefield that surrounds it, and there ya go.

Not to mention, we do the same with universe creation, despite GBE not being enough to even warrant the tier.

@Dargoo

"It's the issue because the feats require a metric buttload of assumptions no matter what you do and are ultimately of questionable accuracy."

And is this not the very same tone, not only saying no matter what we do its all assumptions and of poor quality at best? And sorry if you think there was some malicious tone in mine, but outside of the altering the barrier point, I thought we had already addressed them?

You mean like, stopping the gravity of the Earth or Madoka's cloud feats, because most aren't lower? The only two lower feats I could think of are Kyoko's suicide feat (Which is outdated, as stated above) and Homura's feat (Which is in the middle of re-evaluation and done by one of the weakest characters).

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa

That sounds like an errorenous analogy. The feat here includes creating the entire space. Here's a more accurate analogy: Someone creates a city and the space around it and the forcefield that surrounds it, and there ya go.

Not to mention, we do the same with universe creation, despite GBE not being enough to even warrant the tier.

Creating space requires 0 energy. None at all. Creating two neutron stars an observable universe apart is the same energy as creating two neutron stars right on top of each other.

That analogy's erroneous since you're including the actual physical town there, which is enough to give town level by itself. A more accurate one would be, well, something more like the two neutron stars I mentioned earlier.

Universe creation is the exception, not the rule.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Agnaa

Unless something new happened in the science community, I'm pretty sure it was known (even here) that energy is needed to create space, even a vacuum. The reason we don't use it is because there is no one formula, with an astronomical gap between the low and high ends for even creating 1 cubic meter of space.

The issue (Like Kal mentioned) is that we know they can create towns or cities or even a massive church in a barrier, they just don't do it because they don't want to. Barriers like Homulily's or Stacy's are examples of that, despite both canonically being low and mid-tier (physically) witches respectively.

We do something similar for solar systems and galaxies no? Or for example, in Digimon (Just crtl+f galaxy) they consider the fact that its a realm bigger than a galaxy when it comes to AP. Similarly would happen for other pocket dimensions.

 

[Agnaa]

@SomebodyData That was a misinformed interpretation.

You're talking about the zero-point energy of space, which is the minimum amount of energy that a region of space can have. The astronomical gap is because of the measured low-end, and the calculated high-end. All this gap meant was that there is a massive failure in our scientific theories, it doesn't mean that the value may actually be higher than we mentioned.

However, the important part is that energy is not used when space expands. If it was, then the universe would stop expanding some time in the big freeze, which is pretty ludicrous. On top of this, you'd find energy constantly disappearing into an unusable state across the universe, which we don't see happening. On top of this, it would mean that a region of space without enough energy wouldn't expand, which again, goes against our current models.

Then we can rate the pocket dimensions based off what was created in them. There's hundreds of characters on the wiki that are probably capable of more than what they've demonstrated, but we have to go off of what they've actually shown.

I believe we do it for solar systems and galaxies but not for constellations.

 

[SomebodyData]

"it doesn't mean that the value may actually be higher than we mentioned."

You refer to the aforementioned 0 energy?

"On top of this, you'd find energy constantly disappearing into an unusable state across the universe, which we don't see happening."

You mean like entropy? I'm not sure if using physics counterargument, espically modern ones, really work when you consider they're creating both space and energy (impossible onto itself) as well as dealing with entropy (which is also no longer a proper theory).

As for the rating part: One thing is knowing they're likely or possibly higher, but another thing is having definitive proof they are (Obviously I got to first prove to both of you that this is the case, just saying if we prove it true then comes this)

Isn't that because constellations don't create space, rather just the stars? If so, then it wouldn't be connected.

 

[Agnaa]

"You refer to the aforementioned 0 energy?"

Yeah.

"You mean like entropy? I'm not sure if using physics counterargument, espically modern ones, really work when you consider they're creating both space and energy (impossible onto itself) as well as dealing with entropy (which is also no longer a proper theory)."

Creating space is kinda possible, that's basically what cosmological inflation involves, more space exists now than there did in the past.

The thing is, calculations like this are based on modern physics. I don't like using modern physics formulas when they don't apply just because fiction does impossible stuff. Also, I didn't really get what you were implying with entropy here.

"Isn't that because constellations don't create space, rather just the stars? If so, then it wouldn't be connected."

Sure but creating galaxies/solar systems in already existing universes uses inverse square even though space isn't created, just the objects.

It's been a while since the thread, but I think the conclusion was something like "Use inverse square law unless there's vastly less matter than there usually is in creation feats of that range", which is why creating a pocket dimension with two neutron stars on opposite ends of the observable universe wouldn't give a character 3-A.

 

[SomebodyData]

Energy:

At the same time, even if the scientific theories are lacking, wouldn't it still be more reliable to assume energy is needed rather than to not be related at all.

Physics:

Well in PMMM the heat death / Big Freeze is what sets the plot in motion. My implication was that what you just said as a counterargument occurs in the actual series.

Constellations:

Yeah, that's why we use inverse sequare for those cases and size for smaller cases like in PMMM. It's the conclusion we use on the PR page.

 

[Agnaa]

Energy: Not at all, because assuming energy's needed for space to expand breaks astrophysics in many extremely notable ways.

Physics: I don't really see how.

Constellations: I was under the impression that "size" was "size of matter created" not "size of area affected".

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Actually size itself is not what matters in the Inverse-Square pocket reality feats; we explicitly agreed something like two stars on either end of a galaxy-sized space in a pocket reality doesn't count for Tier 3.

 

[Agnaa]

I was talking about sub-celestial feats when mentioning size.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I was talking about sub-celestial feats when mentioning size.

I know, Somebody was using Inverse-Square as a support for using size for the smaller feats, when we don't even technically use size for Inverse-Square.

 

[Agnaa]

Wait, how isn't size used in inverse-square?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Wait, how isn't size used in inverse-square?

It's meaningless without objects for references.

Creating a 100lightyear x 100lightyear empty space is not a feat, for example.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree, but inverse square law does still use size, even if it needs more than size to get a results above 0.

 

[SomebodyData]

Energy: I was refering to the minimum amount of energy in a space.

Physics: You don't see how your counter argument occurs in the actual series or how entropy and big freeze / heat death are related to PMMM's physics?

Constellations: Well the page does refer to the area in that segment rather than anything created.

 

[Agnaa]

Energy: Okay? But while space does have a minimum amount of energy, that doesn't mean that energy is spent to create space. Space is really weird with having that property, but it has it.

Physics: I don't see how what I said is a counter argument to what occurs in the series.

Constellations: Maybe a thread should be opened to discuss how it's worded then?

 

[SomebodyData]

Energy: Well even assuming energy is not spent, wouldn't a witch still actively have to put energy there at the very least?

Physics: I meant your counterargument using the implications of what would happen if energy is spent actually occurs in the series. Sorry if I didn't phrase it well enough.

Constellations: If you wish.

 

[Agnaa]

Energy: Nope. Only the matter they're creating would take energy.

Physics: Space stops expanding during the series?

 

[SomebodyData]

Energy: No as in to fulfill the absolute minimum energy space must have.

Physics: No, the big freeze / heat death by delaying maximum entropy is what the Incubators are trying to avoid during the series, it doesn't actually occur because of the Puella Magi system. I can give scans of this if you want.