• 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.

"Realms with starry skies" feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, but now we have to do something constructive about that in practice by writing an official regulation page.
 
Matthew made some really good guidelines here:
Matthew_Schroeder said:
I am fine with Starry Sky feats as long as:

1. It is made clear that what was created was an actual dimension with real space-time and not just some illusion, or distorted realm, or immersion effect

2. There's reason for you to believe the "shining dots in the sky" are actual stars.

3. There's reason to believe why this would scale to the character's offensive power.
Click to expand...
 
3 is the only valid one there.

2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.
1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.
 
00potato said:
3 is the only valid one there.

2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.
1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.
Click to expand...
This. Like I said on AKMs message wall too.

At the absolute least, it should be the oppositions burden of proof to prove the Stars in question aren’t real. Otherwise the Occam’s razor normally goes to the idea that they are stars.

And then after that, we go into the discussion in proving the feat scales normally and isn’t an outlier or hax ability.
 
Occam's Razor doesn't say the lights we see in any place are stars by default. If it was actually space, it would be stars by default, but this is some weird pocket dimension that we don't know the full extend of, so we shouldn't default to any light being = star.
 
Ionliosite said:
Occam's Razor doesn't say the lights we see in any place are stars by default. If it was actually space, it would be stars by default, but this is some weird pocket dimension that we don't know the full extend of, so we shouldn't default to any light being = star.
Click to expand...
That’s what I mostly meant actually.

If the realm is clearly something that resembles actual outer space, the Occam’s razor should be that the Stars are real first.
 
No, if the realm is specifically NOT space, but a pocket dimension, Occam's Razor is that they are lights, not stars, stars requires assuming a massive size for the realm.
 
Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.
 
SomebodyData said:
Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.
Click to expand...
For pocket realities that are wacky, cartoonish or otherwise I can see where your coming from.

But why would a pocket reality that actually demonstrates it’s similar to real outer space throw away the Occam’s razor?
 
A pocket dimension clearly made to look like space, obviously would be space. I mean what else would it be? A room with glowing moth-balls on it that are only modeled after space? Again that’s a ridiculous assumption. What
SomebodyData said:
Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.
Click to expand...
What setting ever goes over the gravitational laws of any dimension? Pretty much none of them, so you are only extrapolating this wacky theory of different gravitational laws from nothing. It logically would be the same thing, just condensed.
Also why does the outside size thing matter? It is called a pocket dimension for a reason, it is tucked away from the larger reasons
 
00potato said:
2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.
Click to expand...
It can be literally anything. The realm can be ilussory, it can be a visual effect, whatever.

00potato said:
1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.
Click to expand...
Because it could be an illusion or an immersion realm that's not real.
 
That is an assumption that needs evidence, it looks like space, smells like space, it is up to you to prove that it isn’t space.
You could give this “what if it’s X ridiculous idea.” Against everything and it would still be stupid. What if you aren’t even real, or don’t even belief what you are saying, or aren’t even the real Matthew Shodonger, but a hacker disguised as him?
Great Critical Thinking Skills.
 
It doesn't take a genius or the author going "Oh yes, inside the dimension there exists the exact same gravity as Earth despite not being set on a planet (most of the times)" to realize that most pocket dimensions don't have gravity functioning the same as the real world.

"It logically would be the same thing, just condensed." ...How exactly do you think gravity works?

Yeah, that's the point. Pocket dimensions already mess with its own size and by extension the spacing of things within it.
 
Matthew_Schroeder said:
It can be literally anything. The realm can be ilussory, it can be a visual effect, whatever.


Because it could be an illusion or an immersion realm that's not real.
Click to expand...
It sounds like “it can be” is trying to be taken as more of a priority over the burden of proof of it is fake.

Aka, it being possibly fake doesn’t matter when it’s just as likely that it isn’t fake. What matters is its proven, and the Occam’s razor should go for them being real than anything else first.
 
The burden of proof falls in the series proving its pocket dimensions are stellar in size, since assuming it is the bigger jump.
 
00potato said:
That is an assumption that needs evidence, it looks like space, smells like space, it is up to you to prove that it isn’t space.
Click to expand...
You can't smell like space.

Looking like space effectively just requires anything to having three dimensions.

You are inverting the burden of proof and immediately assuming intent, that is bad faith debating.
 
Matthew_Schroeder said:
You can't smell like space.

Looking like space effectively just requires anything to having three dimensions.

You are inverting the burden of proof and immediately assuming intent, that is bad faith debating.
Click to expand...
Did you take that bit seriously? Did you actually believe I meant space had a smell? I am not sure if you are trolling or not at this point, impressive in its own right.
Do you seriously not know what space looks like Mattew, it is a little more then just anything in 3-D? Dark sky, little white lights throughout, we can often see the moon. While worlds a bit farther out, past our earthly view. It’s wonderful, you should check it out sometime.

Me inverting Burden of proof? You are the one claiming what looks like stars in space should be treated as fake lights modeling stars by default. Stop projecting and get to critical thinking.
 
A Pocket Reality or Pocket Universe is best defined as a usually smaller than average universe that can either exist outside the traditional space, or be contained in an object via Hammerspace. The "Outside size" is completely irrelevant and it's typically accessible only via a portal, teleportation, or dimensional travel. The components within the pocket reality or the actual size may vary greatly.

But it's the standard assumption to use the most observable comparisons to the real world; if it has starry skies, nebulae, or galaxies, the logical standard is to consider those actual stars, nebulae, or galaxies unless statements say otherwise. If it specifically says planet sized, sure we consider it planet sized and maybe consider more outside skies not legit. But if there's no real statement other than the fact that it's an "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World" or "Quantum Space". It's also not the logical assumption to assume it's tiny just because the portal is rather small. You do not assume the door of a house is the same size as the entire house. If a dimension is accessed via a mirror or a painting that happens to be magical; the painting is merely a painting sized portal and it is not assumed that the dimension is as small as said painting. Same with a character's mouth, it's not assumed the pocket reality is the same size as one's stomach, but rather that their pocket reality stomach exists outside traditional space and their mouth is a dimensional gateway.

But yes, we should prove that a reality or dimension was created, and not just assume that in place of teleportation, illusion abilities, ect.

Anyway, Kukui is right as usual that we should try to maintain a respectable and friendly society as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
Gonna be honest, all this talk about the different types of pocket realities makes me wonder why we dont just seperate them into what I just said. Different types.

Kinda like how we used to seperate voids into different types to differentiate fake voids from real ones, we could do the same with pocket realities to differentiate ones that are real with actual outer-space qualities and distances from ones that are more wacky and cartoonish.
 
00potato said:
What if you aren’t even real, or don’t even belief what you are saying, or aren’t even the real Matthew Shodonger, but a hacker disguised as him?
Great Critical Thinking Skills.
Click to expand...
Don't incite reactions from others. I have been observing and your behavior hasn't been great in threads. Take it as a warning. If you can't properly respond with actual arguments without throwing shade at others and being confrontational, don't bother.
 
Yes. I have also noticed that 00potato has been a repeated disturbance ever since he first came to the wiki and constantly interfered in rule violation threads.

He needs to make a serious effort to shape up and be friendly, constructive, and polite, just like most others here are trying to do.

Anyway, what is the staff consensus here, and is somebody willing to assemble our current standards and conclusions in this thread to a new instruction page?
 
But that was actually to get a point across, you can say “What if it’s x.” But that wouldn’t make it a reasonable default assumption. The whole post was mostly constructive argument, maybe somewhat repetitive. You can’t really accuse me of not being constructive when the whole thread, I was somewhat constructively working with or against everyone else.


Also why are you saying complaining about “polite constructive-ness.” When Schroeer is right there? And Efieciente is still a Mod? I can assure you nothing done here is worse then their attitude yet you are fine with that. Not really saying much is wrong with them specifically or that their position is unwarranted but it’s weird that they are considered perfectly fine around here.
 
Matthew has not been a problem for quite a long time now. You are dragging up old issues, and both he and Eficiente have continuously tried to help out with evaluations and other important work. As such, they are valuable resources. In addition, Eficiente has been repeatedly severely reprimanded recently, and AKM will talk with him even further in private.

That you have tried to cause hostility between the staff and the regular members based on exaggerations and misrepresentations is part of the problem with you.
 
We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?

What's happening is obvious, but because it happens to be a high tier feat we immediately start making assumptions that haven't been indicated and only serve to lowball the feat. This is just a vs debating mentality which sometimes ignores common sense and warps what is presented to you in very simple terms.

Assuming these realms to not be starry skies is a much bigger exercise in hypotheticals and I don't find it to be a good assumption at all
 
Andytrenom said:
We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?

What's happening is obvious, but because it happens to be a high tier feat we immediately start making assumptions that haven't been indicated and only serve to lowball the feat. This is just a vs debating mentality which sometimes ignores common sense and warps what is presented to you in very simple terms.

Assuming these realms to not be starry skies is a much bigger exercise in hypotheticals and I don't find it to be a good assumption at all
Click to expand...
This. So much this.

What I was trying to say but 100x better.
 
00potato said:
Me inverting Burden of proof? You are the one claiming what looks like stars in space should be treated as fake lights modeling stars by default. Stop projecting and get to critical thinking.
Click to expand...
You have to prove that any fancy starry sky effect is a real dimension that stretches across thousands of light-years and has burning balls of plasma millions of miles in diameter riddled across its space. Yes. That's the burden on you because it's a positive claim.
 
Andytrenom said:
We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?
Click to expand...
I don't know man. I don't make judgements over what any would-be author might or might not be implying here. They could just think it looks cool and that' it. In fact, most of the time that's all it ever is.

You only start getting the "Oh, this is a dimension light-years in size with stars" when you are already fully immersed in a perpetual battleboarding mindset and you look at everything as a feat.
 
Both Andytrenom and Matthew make good points regarding this, so I am not sure what we should do beyond that we need to create a new instruction page after we reach a decision.
 
I'm with Andy. While I do agree with Matt on some things, such as one; I agree the first piece of evidence is a pocket (dimension/reality/universe) being created, not simply teleported or a character having the ability to create fancy illusions of a starry sky background with a simple hand wave. But if it's a confirmed, "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World", Andy is right that the logical assumption is too consider the stars real unless otherwise shown or stated the stars are small or illusory.

Furthermore, created a starry sky dimension is a 4-A creation feat; usually for one specific spell. If that's technically their strongest spell, it won't scale to any other spell unless they happen to have spells that are stronger tier wise. There should be proof that it scales to other stats; there are no objections that destroying them outright are solid AP feats. A generic same energy source isn't enough in itself unless they use the same amount has evidence, but a detailed 1:1 scale if proven is fine, but there should be better clarifications on 1:1 scale.

Also, if you have problems with other staff members, politely message HR groups in private and show more recent examples. Matt's last extreme comment was on July 2020, which he already received a final warning for that. But please, do not mentioned it publicly any further until he actually makes a comment just as bad past this point. Otherwise, try to keep all on site comments simple with no direct attacks.

That's what I can say for now before my work shift.
 
Andy and Medeus:

Okay. So do either of you have an alternative suggestion for a set of guidelines than the ones that Matthew suggested?
 
Last edited:
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm with Andy. While I do agree with Matt on some things, such as one; I agree the first piece of evidence is a pocket (dimension/reality/universe) being created, not simply teleported or a character having the ability to create fancy illusions of a starry sky background with a simple hand wave. But if it's a confirmed, "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World", Andy is right that the logical assumption is too consider the stars real unless otherwise shown or stated the stars are small or illusory.
Click to expand...

You also need evidence that this is an actual pocket / alternate dimension.

A character going "Welcome to my world!" or whatever bullshit isn't enough. Things can be quite blatant visual effects, or illusory, or much smaller than it looks.

This is like when Power Rangers was 3-C because of this scene where a character pulls another to another dimension and says "This is my world". Calling something "yours" is not evidence that you created it in the slightest.

Likewise, being the "Lord of a Realm" or whatever isn't evidence either. People can rule over nations and countries and not have created them. Why would it be different with realms or dimensions.

You need explicit evidence that a character created this dimension. Preferrably with something along the lines of "He created this whole dimension".

And then after this is established you need evidence that he did this in a way that scales to AP. And "Oh I think it makes sense for it to scale to AP because its magic energy and blahblahblah" is not evidence for that. This is like saying that people who can summon storms can have their individual lightning bolt attacks scale to the entire storms.
 
The scaling portion isn’t the issue here, everyone agrees we need evidence that it scales to overall AP.

The issue here is what should first be taken as the Occam’s razor and what should then become the burden of proof for these feats.

And i for one am not seeing how “it can be fake, an illusion, etc” means the Occam’s razor normally means a dimension is fake first before anything else. “It can” isn’t an argument since it’s just as much likely that dimensions can be real ones.

Simply put, this discussion is shifting around where common sense and logical assumption should be placed before the need for evidence comes. You need to have a reason to think the dimension would be an illusion or a fake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Expectro2000xxx
Absolute Zero Standard Revision
Replies
33
Views
2K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Setting Standard Sizes for Pocket Dimensions
Replies
5
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
SunDaGamer
  • Locked
Minor change on the Creation Feats page
Replies
12
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Keeweed
SBA change that should have happened forever ago (stopping the hyper active murder man)
Replies
8
Views
1K
Keeweed
Keeweed
Back
Top