Small wording change for Supergenius.

[Axxtentacle]

So, the intelligence page says this for supergenius:


Take note that for a Supergenius rating to be given based on technological prowess, the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish on a massive scale with their inventions,

My issue? Massive has absolutely no basis in terms of size. You could easily describe a mountain as massive, or a supermarket. You could also call a Galaxy massive. People tend to be strict when it comes to cosmic scales with supergenius, and the page should reflect this.

The page should say a cosmic scale, not a massive scale, or any other wording that fits it best. But as it is, it's vague, subjective, arbitrary and should be changed.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

I agree with this.

 

[Axxtentacle]

bump

 

[Therefir]

My issue? Massive has absolutely no basis in terms of size.

And that's precisely why it was worded that way, it was left ambiguous on purpose. There are many machines created by supergeniuses that do not warp reality on a "cosmic scale" or even close to it.

So there is really no need to be more specific, "massive" can perfectly well mean any huge size, from a city to a whole universe.

 

[Axxtentacle]

And that's precisely why it was worded that way, it was left ambiguous on purpose. There are many machines created by supergeniuses that do not warp reality on a "cosmic scale" or even close to it.

So there is really no need to be more specific, "massive" can perfectly well mean any huge size, from a city to a whole universe.

That's part of my point. People are strict about it being cosmic a good bit of the time from my experiences, if it's not cosmic, then the issue of what qualifies as "Massive" still exists. What's the bare minimum for "massive"?

The definition of massive:

Definition of large as a follow-up:

Both of these definitions are incredibly vague, and I believe that there should be some kind of bare minimum. You could call a mansion massive, you could call a mountain massive, you could call a galaxy massive, etc etc.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I mean, for example, say a scientist created Anti-Matter. That is impossible by real world science. But that wouldn’t be on a cosmic scale.

 

[Axxtentacle]

This isn't talking about what i'm proposing, no? As that's not warping reality with technology, so that doesn't really have much to do with this. But something like that should also count imo, it's just not related to this.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

To quote something I've said earlier

Why isn't Extraordinary Genius for things that are exceedingly unlikely even for real-world geniuses, and Supergenius for superhuman intelligence in general?

Like, it's jarring to me that a character who is an abnormally good but feasible military strategist has the same intelligence rating as a character who is the best at literally everything and creates thousand-year-long evil plans that go off perfectly, manipulating millions of other confirmed extraordinary geniuses in the process.

And all because they specifically can't build tier 2 machinery (or just cosmic, if this thread succeeds). Which is only one type of intelligence anyway.

I'm also pretty sure 99.9% of fiction agrees that the definition of supergenius is looser than that.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I am not changing the standards overall. This is a single change on that 1 note, that specifically says technology. If you get it from technology, it needs to be something like that. I would really prefer things about general intelligence standards not be brought up here.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Fair point, sorry about the derail

 

[ElixirBlue]

This isn't talking about what i'm proposing, no? As that's not warping reality with technology, so that doesn't really have much to do with this. But something like that should also count imo, it's just not related to this.

Ok, then. This about the range for reality warping.

But wouldn't reality warping through science enough to qualify without range or is it reality warping on-top of range that is impressive for the rating?

 

[Cosmic_King_of_SAO]

Ok, then. This about the range for reality warping.

But wouldn't reality warping through science enough to qualify without range or is it reality warping on-top of range that is impressive for the rating?

I think what he means is that there are some people who won't accept reality-warping through science being super-genius unless it's on a cosmic scale.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Well, sure, but reality warping through tech is already above the qualifications of Extraordinary Genius, whether the range is cosmic or room size

But I guess I'm not sure how range factors in for qualification

 

[Cosmic_King_of_SAO]

Well, sure, but reality warping through tech is already above the qualifications of Extraordinary Genius, whether the range is cosmic or room size

But I guess I'm not sure how range factors in for qualification

Really? If that's the case then range doesn't really matter if reality-warping through tech alone is enough to warrant a supergenius rating and I suggest the removal of "on a massive scale" in the text since it might cause confusion by implying that only reality-warping through tech in a wide range can give you a supergenius rating.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Yeah my thing is that a lot of people restrict it to cosmic. I suggested changing it to cosmic since that seems to be a trend, my little note about "whatever fits it best" is there for any other potential suggestions or things people want to make it, like making it warping reality with tech in general, as you said.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Bump

 

[Frieza_force_soldier_100]

I have a hard time understanding just how "massive" this reality warping has to be myself. I find it a bit absurd that Sweet Tooth can qualify for Extraordinary but Bowser cannot qualify for Super. Bowser has created reality warping technology, massive space stations and battle mechs, time machines, advanced medicine, and runs a kingdom, yet he is still in the same intelligence tier as a man who made one souped up ice cream truck that can turn into a robot. I have a hard time understanding where the line between Genius and EG and the line between EG and SG are drawn. I can understand maybe saying that anything is impossible to do with RL science counts as EG, but I don't see why that gives ST EG. Maybe I overestimate real life science capabilities, but most of the stuff with his truck I think is plausable in real life. Projectiles are easy enough to install in a vehicle. Invisibility? I thought that cloaking technology was actually a real thing in real life. Can we not currently turn things invisible with cloaking tech? I also thought that with enough time and man-power, a large group of RL scientists could feasibly build a battle mech. The only thing I actually saw as legitimately impossible was the forcefield.

My point is, it seems I overestimate what is required for EG rating and fail to understand what is truly needed for SG. Back when Composite Marvin the Martian was a thing, he was only listed as EG despite having a device that could suck up a galaxy and convert it into a block of matter, which DOES count as warping reality on a cosmic scale. I don't get it. What is needed for SG? Isn't like, being able to destroy and recreate a universe or build a time machine out of common household items enough? I really think these ratings should be better explained. First off, is it at all possible for any real life human to qualify for EG?

 

[Frieza_force_soldier_100]

Anyone gonna respond?

 

[Therefir]

If the size is irrelevant, then why not just put something like: "the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish with their inventions".

 

[Cosmic_King_of_SAO]

If the size is irrelevant, then why not just put something like: "the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish with their inventions".

Yeah, if it's irrelevant then the "massive" should just be removed and should be replaced with something else.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't mind if we change the wording from "massive" to "at least cosmic" instead.

 

[Frieza_force_soldier_100]

BTW, seriously, can anyone answer this for me? Is it possible for someone to create ANY impossible to exist technology without automatically qualifying for EG? Does making a raygun alone qualify you for EG? Doing some research, it seems that laser beams like the kind in fiction (death rays) cannot possibly exist in RL because they break the laws of physics right away just y being visible to the naked eye despite being made of light. Not to mention being able to function without an outside source of power, contain concentrated forms of light powerful enough to melt skin without breaking the gun from inside out, and the like. Should making a giant robot or mech make you EG? I think that mechs could feasibly be built in RL even now with enough time, resources, and hard work. They're just giant action figures with real weapons.

 

[Antvasima]

So, the intelligence page says this for supergenius:


Take note that for a Supergenius rating to be given based on technological prowess, the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish on a massive scale with their inventions,

My issue? Massive has absolutely no basis in terms of size. You could easily describe a mountain as massive, or a supermarket. You could also call a Galaxy massive. People tend to be strict when it comes to cosmic scales with supergenius, and the page should reflect this.

The page should say a cosmic scale, not a massive scale, or any other wording that fits it best. But as it is, it's vague, subjective, arbitrary and should be changed.

I don't mind if we change the wording from "massive" to "at least cosmic" instead.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

Would this be fine with you?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As far as size should play into the ranking I guess cosmic is as good as any.
So I'm ok with that, I suppose.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply.

Is it fine if I make the change then, or should I send a notification to more staff members?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Hmmm... maybe try calling in some. It is technically a change to the tiering of a statistic after all.
If nobody replies to that I think just applying it is fine, though, since it isn't a big change to a statistic without strict rules.

 

[Antvasima]

So, the intelligence page says this for supergenius:


Take note that for a Supergenius rating to be given based on technological prowess, the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish on a massive scale with their inventions,

My issue? Massive has absolutely no basis in terms of size. You could easily describe a mountain as massive, or a supermarket. You could also call a Galaxy massive. People tend to be strict when it comes to cosmic scales with supergenius, and the page should reflect this.

The page should say a cosmic scale, not a massive scale, or any other wording that fits it best. But as it is, it's vague, subjective, arbitrary and should be changed.

I don't mind if we change the wording from "massive" to "at least cosmic" instead.

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

Would this be acceptable to you?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Fine with me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Changing the wording is fine with me.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

This is fine.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm fine with replacing massive with cosmic.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the input. I will do so then.

 

[Antvasima]

I have done so. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Axxtentacle]

Yeah, that was the entire point of the thread. Go ahead and close it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Seems fine. Arbitrary, but fine.

 

[Wokistan]

Go for it

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

I will close this thread then.