Smurf hax: Either defining or killing it

[Bobsican]

As some may be aware, currently we deem hax that can affect qualitatively superior characters/structures as having basically uncountably infinite "layers" or so in relation to qualitatively inferior characters, with that being the characteristic trait of smurf hax, even there being a whole side thread for ranking characters without this in relation to their tier out of how centralizing it is.

Regardless, we're not the balancing police or anything, but some concerns have been brought up off-site and in here:

- The whole reason smurf hax is assumed to be this way comes from seemingly correlating its range to potency, except that as of some hax revisions I did, not only range can't inherently correlate to potency, such potency can't inherently correlate to proper layers either, and so this remains as the exception for no reason so far.

- Concerns have also been raised on if a character that's physically stat-wise 4-D or above but isn't qualitatively superior (case in point, most tier 2 characters aren't of the size of a universe or above) are immune to "normal" hax relative to their existencial level (for example, if DBS Goku can be haxed by Sans), which seemingly has mixed reception, but in the end it seems we'll need a consistent answer for the sake of keeping quality on vs threads.

I'll note that even if we remove smurf hax in terms of "ignoring" resistances and whatever, stuff like higher-D type 8 or 9 immortality would still be as effective, even if now out of the semantic of being beyond the range of a "non-smurf".

 

[PsychoWarper]

I completely disagree with removing “smurf hax”

 

[Bobsican]

...explain why based on the current standards please

 

[PsychoWarper]

...explain why based on the current standards please

Because assuming its all based off range is just wrong, SCP-682 having tier 0 concept absorption has nothing to do with range it’s because his Tier 0 true form comes along and eats the things concept.

The Emperor of Mankind’s immortality neg nullifing Horus’ smurf immorality had nothing to do with range it is because 1-A beings couldn’t undo his destruction of Horus.

Gilgamesh having High 1-A plot manipulation isn’t range its just literally the power of a High 1-A being making him win.

I don’t see how those are range at all.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

SCP-682 having tier 0 concept absorption has nothing to do with range it’s because his Tier 0 true form comes along and eats the things concept.

That just sounds like him summoning a Tier 0 to eat the other guy

 

[BoastJr]

correct me if I am wrong but doesnt smurf hax usually stuff that comes from a higher dimensional being in relation to your dimension ? like either affecting them or gaining it from them

 

[God900]

correct me if I am wrong but doesnt smurf hax usually stuff that comes from a higher dimensional being in relation to your dimension ? like either affecting them or gaining it from them

It's potency based.

 

[DemiiPowa]

As some may be aware, currently we deem hax that can affect qualitatively superior characters/structures as having basically uncountably infinite "layers" or so in relation to qualitatively inferior characters, with that being the characteristic trait of smurf hax, even there being a whole side thread for ranking characters without this in relation to their tier out of how centralizing it is.

Regardless, we're not the balancing police or anything, but some concerns have been brought up off-site and in here:

- The whole reason smurf hax is assumed to be this way comes from seemingly correlating its range to potency, except that as of some hax revisions I did, not only range can't inherently correlate to potency, such potency can't inherently correlate to proper layers either, and so this remains as the exception for no reason so far.

- Concerns have also been raised on if a character that's physically stat-wise 4-D or above but isn't qualitatively superior (case in point, most tier 2 characters aren't of the size of a universe or above) are immune to "normal" hax relative to their existencial level (for example, if DBS Goku can be haxed by Sans), which seemingly has mixed reception, but in the end it seems we'll need a consistent answer for the sake of keeping quality on vs threads.

I'll note that even if we remove smurf hax in terms of "ignoring" resistances and whatever, stuff like higher-D type 8 or 9 immortality would still be as effective, even if now out of the semantic of being beyond the range of a "non-smurf".

I disagree

A dimension itself is simply a new axis, in short, a new direction you can move in that you could not before (Like how adding a 4th temporal axis to a 3-Dimensional model allows things to now move on that new axis)

“Smurf Hax” are just abilities that can reach into these extra directions that “normal hax” cannot, therefore I think it’s important to note that on profiles.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I disagree

A dimension itself is simply a new axis, in short, a new direction you can move in that you could not before (Like how adding a 4th temporal axis to a 3-Dimensional model allows things to now move on that new axis)

“Smurf Hax” are just abilities that can reach into these extra directions that “normal hax” cannot, therefore I think it’s important to note that on profiles.

I think what Bob is trying to say is that, this is simply range and doesn't exactly correlate potency or layers.

As of right, we assume hax that affects 4D beings to be always superior to 3D ones and that having 3D resistance to it means nothing.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, BTW.

 

[PsychoWarper]

That just sounds like him summoning a Tier 0 to eat the other guy

Im pretty sure he just has his own like soul/concept eat the enemy which happens to be his Tier 0 true form

 

[Bobsican]

Because assuming its all based off range is just wrong, SCP-682 having tier 0 concept absorption has nothing to do with range it’s because his Tier 0 true form comes along and eats the things concept.

Eh, we don't inherently correlate the physical tier of a character to their hax, as much Arceus doesn't have 6-D hax of any kind.

The Emperor of Mankind’s immortality neg nullifing Horus’ smurf immorality had nothing to do with range it is because 1-A beings couldn’t undo his destruction of Horus.

Similarly we don't know the hax potency of those characters trying to revive him (on this power in particular, for that matter), especially with the OP's proposal to stop treating smurf hax as the exception on not correlating range to potency, then potency to hax layers for seemingly outdated reasons.

Gilgamesh having High 1-A plot manipulation isn’t range its just literally the power of a High 1-A being making him win.

You also keep arguing based on a character merely being a certain tier also translating to all of their abilities also being of that tier, which simply doesn't work as said before while taking into account the current standards.

I don’t see how those are range at all.

These aren't range, they're simply not valid as is anyways from the look of things, as it seems such cases merely rely on their physical tier to then correlate to their hax, which is even worse as that's accepted already to be a no as seen with Arceus.

correct me if I am wrong but doesnt smurf hax usually stuff that comes from a higher dimensional being in relation to your dimension ? like either affecting them or gaining it from them

Not at all, as much not all characters inherit powers from other characters, sometimes they just have the innate ability to have their hax encompass qualitatively superior beings.

But yeah, as @Rikimarox2 explains, this thread doesn't aim to remove the idea of qualitatively superior range, far from that, I've even implied that with how the OP notes at the end that "smurf" variants of type 8 and 9 immortality would retain their effectiveness to some degree out of the range semantics.

Instead the aim is to discuss on if abilities that happen to affect qualitatively superior beings inherently can ignore any "normal-d" resistances (or counteractive powers, in some cases) or not, depending on the current standards, and if cases like beings that are stat-wise (not qualitatively) tier 2 or above are inherently immune to 3D hax or not, even if their full being would be entirely within range of a normal 3D ability in such scenario.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

So if I'm getting this right, the intent of this is to mainly just discuss how to define smurf hax since seemingly its mostly tied to range as it is or just remove it entirely and rely upon actual hax layers. Am I getting this right?

If I am interpreting this correctly, I'm just going to remain neutral for now and just wait out a few more responses.

 

[Bobsican]

So if I'm getting this right, the intent of this is to mainly just discuss how to define smurf hax since seemingly its mostly tied to range as it is or just remove it entirely and rely upon actual hax layers. Am I getting this right?

If I am interpreting this correctly, I'm just going to remain neutral for now and just wait out a few more responses.

More or less, yes.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Smurf hax or let's just call it what it really is Higher Dimensional hax isn't defined by range on it's own from what I can tell.

Example 1 (Smurf range): If I was a 3-D character that can send out a mind control wave that reaches across the entire timeline (universal space-time continuum), that is not 4-D hax, it's Universal+ range which would only mean my range makes me a smurf, nothing about the mind hax itself (potency wise) is 4-D because it's still basic mind manipulation with a wide range.

Example 2 (Smurf hax): If I'm a 3-D characters who's mind control wave effects a 4-D dimensional entity who is a higher dimensional being that obviously is unhampered by lower dimensional stuff, then the mind control is 4-D in potency and thus smurf hax.

Both make a character a smurf but for two different things. If a character has Smurf hax smiply because it can reach a higher dimension, it's not Smurf hax, it's just Smurf range. So no, Smurf hax is not defined by range solely. As for the Goku example, he's a 3 dimensional being with 4 dimensional raw power (2-C) and doesn't have higher dimensional existence so he 100% would be effected by another 3 dimensional characters hax unless he has the resistance showing otherwise.

 

[Agnaa]

Despite what y'all're saying something needs to be done. There's a fundamental contradiction here.

We let characters who have hax that isn't higher tiered, be able to use that hax on higher-tiered characters, as long as they don't reach those higher tiers through size (as that would cause a range issue).

However, we simultaneously assume that hax from higher-tiered characters ignores most resistances of lower-tiered characters.

We should be going all in one way or the other. Bob's OP is mainly focused on the idea of making it so that everyone can hax everyone, if they have the range, but that's not the only option. We could also revert to how the wiki was a few years ago, and disallow lower-tiered hax from working on higher-tiered characters.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Despite what y'all're saying something needs to be done. There's a fundamental contradiction here.

We let characters who have hax that isn't higher tiered, be able to use that hax on higher-tiered characters, as long as they don't reach those higher tiers through size (as that would cause a range issue).

Tier is irrelevant when it comes to hax unless dimensionality is involved as lower dimension beings obviously can't interact with higher dimensional beings.

However, we simultaneously assume that hax from higher-tiered characters ignores most resistances of lower-tiered characters.

Again, it's about dimensionality, how could a lower dimensional being resist something beyond it's dimension that it can't even comprehend?

We should be going all in one way or the other. Bob's OP is mainly focused on the idea of making it so that everyone can hax everyone, if they have the range, but that's not the only option. We could also revert to how the wiki was a few years ago, and disallow lower-tiered hax from working on higher-tiered characters.

You keep using the phrase higher tiered, do you mean higher dimensional, because a 9-A is going to effect a 3-D 3-A, with hax. However a 3-D 9-A character wouldn't be able to hax a 4-D entity that has literal higher dimensional existence making it uneffected by something of a lesser dimension. It makes so sense for a 3-D being to be able to hax a 7-D being that they can't even comprehend.

 

[Agnaa]

Tier is irrelevant when it comes to hax unless dimensionality is involved as lower dimension beings obviously can't interact with higher dimensional beings.

They can, but only in limited ways. Some examples of which would be concept manip, soul manip, information manip, plot manip, supernatural luck, causality manip, some forms of mind manip.

Really, anything where the "interaction" doesn't require targeting the entire physical size of the other being.

Again, it's about dimensionality, how could a lower dimensional being resist something beyond it's dimension that it can't even comprehend?

Why would some 10-dimensional being that sits at 6-A have hax that a High 1-A 3-D being wouldn't be able to resist? I don't see the sense in that. Their abilities can't even affect the entirety of the Earth, why would strong 3-D beings be unable to resist it?

You keep using the phrase higher tiered, do you mean higher dimensional, because a 9-A is going to effect a 3-D 3-A, with hax. However a 3-D 9-A character wouldn't be able to hax a 4-D entity that has literal higher dimensional existence making it uneffected by something of a lesser dimension. It makes so sense for a 3-D being to be able to hax a 7-D being that they can't even comprehend.

I don't mean higher-dimensional.

 

[KLOL506]

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 This would be of particular concern to you I believe.

 

[DaReaperMan]

They can, but only in limited ways. Some examples of which would be concept manip, soul manip, information manip, plot manip, supernatural luck, causality manip, some forms of mind manip.

Really, anything where the "interaction" doesn't require targeting the entire physical size of the other being.

Why would some 10-dimensional being that sits at 6-A have hax that a High 1-A 3-D being wouldn't be able to resist? I don't see the sense in that. Their abilities can't even affect the entirety of the Earth, why would strong 3-D beings be unable to resist it?

I don't mean higher-dimensional.

Now your applying range to smurf hax Agnaa

Tell me, is SCP-682 not a massive ******* smurf for being able to go 1-A+ if smacked hard enough? Is THAT just range? Is bringing its Tier 0 true form to vore something just range? Is SCP-6820 not a massive smurf when it's physical Durability and dimensionality is ******* 3-D despite it boxing true form 682 and overwriting one of These? Are those just range?

If you EE someone so hard even 1-A beings who use 1-A Concepts as ******* jokes can't bring them back, is that not 1-A hax?

If you just have Uni+ range... that's what it is, range. If something is physically 3-D but can box folks who can do 6-D shit, then no, effecting them with a hax isn't smurf hax

There are other cases where it's BOTH, like SCP-3143, he flattens folks to his level and plot on a 3-D level that effects 3-D inviduals.

Now don't get me wrong, some cases exist where it is just range or the effected party doesn't have Higher-Dimensional Existence, that's not smurf hax, it probably isn't even smurf range!

 

[Agnaa]

Tell me, is SCP-682 not a massive ******* smurf for being able to go 1-A+ if smacked hard enough? Is THAT just range? Is bringing its Tier 0 true form to vore something just range?

You can call it "smurf" if you want. It's not exactly something that the other character would "resist" either way. No matter which way we write the standards, that ability won't function any differently.

Is SCP-6820 not a massive smurf when it's physical Durability and dimensionality is ******* 3-D despite it boxing true form 682 and overwriting one of These? Are those just range?

If you EE someone so hard even 1-A beings who use 1-A Concepts as ******* jokes can't bring them back, is that not 1-A hax?

You can treat it that way if you want. As I said, idc either way, but it's currently being applied inconsistently. Only in the upwards direction for bypassing resistances, and not in the downwards direction for automatically granting resistances.

If being able to EE 1-A beings is an impressive feat that makes such EE bypass resistance, then 1-As without resistances should be immune to EE from 3-D beings that doesn't have feats of working on 1-As. We are currently doing the former, but not the latter.

I just want consistency.

 

[Planck69]

Obviously, I disagree. Delegating all smurf-hax to just range when in many cases, it's a feat of potency that can't actually be feasibly replicated by other characters just by extending the number of axes their hax can cover is silly.

If being able to EE 1-A beings is an impressive feat that makes such EE bypass resistance, then 1-As without resistances should be immune to EE from 3-D beings that doesn't have feats of working on 1-As. We are currently doing the former, but not the latter.

I just want coconsistency.

Is this not something we already do? As far as I'm aware, it only doesn't apply to beings that are physically just 3-D and have higher tier raw power.

 

[Agnaa]

Obviously, I disagree. Delegating all smurf-hax to just range when in many cases, it's a feat of potency that can't actually be feasibly replicated by other characters just by extending the number of axes their hax can cover is silly.

If it's not range, there must be something else, but...

Is this not something we already do? As far as I'm aware, it only doesn't apply to beings that are physically just 3-D and have higher tier raw power.

From this, you seem to not actually care about the power involved.

Which leaves the only thing remaining the range.

The only differences for these characters are the extra axes, and the extra potency of their durability. You say that it's not the axes, but you're also not applying it to characters who only have the potency, and not the axes.

 

[deonment]

Agnaa is allowing for me post here

As some may be aware, currently we deem hax that can affect qualitatively superior characters/structures as having basically uncountably infinite "layers" or so in relation to qualitatively inferior characters, with that being the characteristic trait of smurf hax, even there being a whole side thread for ranking characters without this in relation to their tier out of how centralizing it is.

Regardless, we're not the balancing police or anything, but some concerns have been brought up off-site and in here:

- The whole reason smurf hax is assumed to be this way comes from seemingly correlating its range to potency, except that as of some hax revisions I did, not only range can't inherently correlate to potency, such potency can't inherently correlate to proper layers either, and so this remains as the exception for no reason so far.

- Concerns have also been raised on if a character that's physically stat-wise 4-D or above but isn't qualitatively superior (case in point, most tier 2 characters aren't of the size of a universe or above) are immune to "normal" hax relative to their existencial level (for example, if DBS Goku can be haxed by Sans), which seemingly has mixed reception, but in the end it seems we'll need a consistent answer for the sake of keeping quality on vs threads.

I'll note that even if we remove smurf hax in terms of "ignoring" resistances and whatever, stuff like higher-D type 8 or 9 immortality would still be as effective, even if now out of the semantic of being beyond the range of a "non-smurf".

This entire thread seems fine in the context of something being physically larger or the sort, and in that scenario, I am fine with this being applied.
In the case of ontology, however, this is certifiably false, as characters whose ontology is greater are not just simply larger in scope, but instead, fundamentally exceed all qualities which can be expressed within places with ontology lower than them, that is not just a simple matter of them simply just being larger, as the quality of being larger is one of the many qualities which they fundamentally exceed relative to the plane below them.
This exceeding of qualities would extend to things such as the mind, soul, etc, and affecting qualities that belong to a being who is ontologically greater than them would necessitate said hax to also function on such a level and thereby exceed the quality of resistance that another 3D character can express.

 

[Planck69]

The only differences for these characters are the extra axes, and the extra potency of their durability. You say that it's not the axes, but you're also not applying it to characters who only have the potency, and not the axes.

Their level of existence and extent of all aspects of their beings being higher-dimensional aside then? I'm not applying it to characters whose only difference from a KFC employee is hitting X times harder and getting hit X times harder.

Cause regardless of how this thread goes, pure AP and dura isn't something that I'd ever agree to giving on innate immunity to lower dimension/order hax. At best, maybe for a few physical durability negation based powers like Deconstruction or the like.

 

[Agnaa]

Their level of existence and extent of all aspects of their beings being higher-dimensional aside then? I'm not applying it to characters whose only difference from a KFC employee is hitting X times harder and getting hit X times harder.

Cause regardless of how this thread goes, pure AP and dura isn't something that I'd ever agree to giving on innate immunity to lower dimension/order hax. At best, maybe for a few physical durability negation based powers like Deconstruction or the like.

As Deon said, I'm fine with ontology granting some sort of immunity. I wouldn't expect a character who sees a timeline as fiction to be affected by abilities from within that timeline, unless those abilities have shown the capability to bypass such R>F barriers.

I'm talking about characters with pure size stuff. Like, idk, having a hypervolume of aleph-5. Would those be affected by abilities such as soul/concept/mind manip, if they work in ways that can bypass scale.

And about whether abilities that work on such large (but not ontologically superior) entities should automatically bypass resistances of lower-tiered characters.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Frankly I think the issue depends a lot on the nature of the hax in question. Namely on whether or not it depends on a kind of physical interaction between A and B to work ("Physical" here meaning anything that falls under physics, so, non-material things like spacetime would count as physical, btw).

Let's take Spatial Manipulation as an example: Currently we consider it to negate durability, off the idea that matter is secondary to space, and as such if you bent space around a target, it'd work as well against a piece of cardboard as it would against something made of titanium. If the character has only ever demonstrated feats of controlling 3-D volumes of space (Even if this control is depicted as unlimited with respect to it), I wouldn't expect their power to work on a 4-dimensional being, since that's infinitely more volume than they've been shown to work with. It'd be similar to how a character who's been shown to manipulate a great-but-finite amount of fire wouldn't be assumed to be capable of controlling the entirety of an infinite cloud of flame.

On the other hand, if the hax in question doesn't require any sort of physical medium to propagate through, just by the nature of how it works, I'd say it should work just fine regardless of what higher physical dimension the character it's being used on exists in.

 

[Theglassman12]

I don't understand the premise of this thread, is this just supposed to ask what even qualifies for smurf hax or not? Because we had a thread a while ago where DontTalk explained the qualifications for what's smurf hax or not, or just what can affect higher tier beings in the first place.

 

[Bobsican]

I don't understand the premise of this thread, is this just supposed to ask what even qualifies for smurf hax or not? Because we had a thread a while ago where DontTalk explained the qualifications for what's smurf hax or not, or just what can affect higher tier beings in the first place.

Basically overall defining smurf hax deeply and its potential interactions with "normal" resistances and other semantics (including if being physically tier 2 or above grants an innate immunity to "normal" 3D hax and why), to then clarify the conclusions in a new paragraph or two in the Hax page.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

DontTalk explained the qualifications for what's smurf hax or not, or just what can affect higher tier beings in the first place.

To be clear, that thread never passed, but yeah it lays out well how I personally think it should be handled.

 

[Agnaa]

To be clear, that thread never passed, but yeah it lays out well how I personally think it should be handled.

Read the OP. I generally agree, but a few of my grievances are:

I'd probably rename the third category from higher-D to just obscenely large sizes in general. The same ideas would apply to a character that's got a volume of aleph-3 but occupies no more than three dimensions.

I think the things which affect characters on higher planes of existence would typically affect large-size characters as well. If the victim's mind doesn't need to be in range of the subliminal messages for the first case, it shouldn't need to be for the second either.

I also feel like it doesn't address some bits of hax in the section on large characters, particularly information manip and concept manip. You talked about similar stuff with mind/soul manip, but I wouldn't typically expect the concepts/information which apply to a being to grow massively in size as the being does. And in a similar vein, some death hax seems to work even if it only has contact/range for a tiny portion of a character; I know of a sword where even the lightest cut will kill a character, and I wouldn't be surprised if other similar cases existed.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'd probably rename the third category from higher-D to just obscenely large sizes in general. The same ideas would apply to a character that's got a volume of aleph-3 but occupies no more than three dimensions.

That technically shouldn't be possible, but I suppose fiction may break rules, so that's ok.

I think the things which affect characters on higher planes of existence would typically affect large-size characters as well. If the victim's mind doesn't need to be in range of the subliminal messages for the first case, it shouldn't need to be for the second either.

That's true.

I also feel like it doesn't address some bits of hax in the section on large characters, particularly information manip and concept manip. You talked about similar stuff with mind/soul manip, but I wouldn't typically expect the concepts/information which apply to a being to grow massively in size as the being does. And in a similar vein, some death hax seems to work even if it only has contact/range for a tiny portion of a character; I know of a sword where even the lightest cut will kill a a character, and I wouldn't be surprised if other similar cases existed.

I would argue that it actually works similar.

We generally keep concepts limited to the scope of realm they are shown to govern. So if a concept that someone manipulates is only shown to govern 3D space, then it would be a stretch to say that it can affect the 4D portions as well. That's just beyond the scope of the world the concept governs.

Information can work in various ways. I know multiple cases of "information bodies" which actually kinda match the character's size. Another thing is that an infinitely larger character would usually have infinitely more information describing them, simply because there's more stuff to describe. But ultimately it's like concepts or souls/minds. Either information has a "volume" and hence manipulation is limited to the 3D portion if the character has no feats otherwise or information doesn't have such a thing and the probability that the "location" of the information is in 3D space is 0%. Like, there should be no way an information manipulation ability with 3D AoE is simultaneously able to access all information of a 4D character and likely to find the information in the 3-dimensional realm.

And what death hax is concerned... I actually wouldn't even necessarily buy that without higher dimensions. Like, a sword can scratch a human and it kills them? How sure are we the death effect actually has the range to kill a galaxy size being? Ultimately death manip is not immune to range either. If you need to magically spread an effect over a huge area, that would usually be harder than doing it in a small one. Ultimately it's a bit like the soul case: If the sword upon making a cut finds the character's life force and snuffs it out, then there are two cases: Either life force is something dimensional, in which case it's likely higher D as well and affecting the whole thing requires AoE beyond what the death hax had, or it's non-dimensional stuff and the death hax needs to find it in higher D space, which is infinitely harder than to do it in 3D space and requires an extra ability.

 

[Agnaa]

Y'know, phrased that way, I think that's fair enough.

Do you think there's opportunity for other ways of, I guess, "locating" the information? An idea I thought of (idk if any verse implements it) is there being a ledger of concepts/information on everything that exists, with the character being able to more easily narrow down a target by seeing them in-person, but not needing it. Granted, I can think of a few counterarguments against this working on sufficiently large characters (they exist outside of the range of what the universal-ledger covers, seeing an infinitesimal fraction of them doesn't actually let it be narrowed down).

And for the last topic, would your prescriptions stop hax that works on large size beings from automatically bypassing resistances on smaller beings? Would this also extend to beings who are ontologically above lower realities? If yes for the former but not the latter, how would abilities of those two types of beings interact were they to directly engage in a versus thread?

 

[Theglassman12]

@DontTalkDT We’ve followed this standard for a while though, I’d say it’s passed in my eyes when we have stuff like Sans being able to beat tier 2 DBS characters.

@Bobsican So why make an entire thread on something we’ve followed for a while? Anyone who’s been on this site long enough knows how smurf hax works.

 

[Bobsican]

As said before, to write such standards in the Hax page, clearly this is something not to keep as mere verbal regulations as misconceptions (regarding how it interacts with characters (including resistances) and what qualifies for it, not the mere definition) are coming left and right from newcomers and staff members alike.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Y'know, phrased that way, I think that's fair enough.

Do you think there's opportunity for other ways of, I guess, "locating" the information? An idea I thought of (idk if any verse implements it) is there being a ledger of concepts/information on everything that exists, with the character being able to more easily narrow down a target by seeing them in-person, but not needing it. Granted, I can think of a few counterarguments against this working on sufficiently large characters (they exist outside of the range of what the universal-ledger covers, seeing an infinitesimal fraction of them doesn't actually let it be narrowed down).

Like you basically said yourself, such a thing would need to have feats of actually having the range necessary to locate the information in higher D space. Otherwise, there would be little reason to assume it can.

And I guess one would have to evaluate by which logic type 2 information works in the verse to see if an attack would be effective if it is located.

And for the last topic, would your prescriptions stop hax that works on large size beings from automatically bypassing resistances on smaller beings? Would this also extend to beings who are ontologically above lower realities? If yes for the former but not the latter, how would abilities of those two types of beings interact were they to directly engage in a versus thread?

That depends a lot on logical comparison made case-by-case, I guess. That, and a good portion of verse equalization. So it is hard to answer conclusively.

For the first question: If we take poison as an example, then a poison that is lethal for an infinitely larger being is likely to bypass basic resistances on the smaller being. That's pretty much how lethal dose works. Something the infinitely diluted is lethal, would be far far above baseline lethal when not diluted. As another example one could take existence erasure. If you can EE a Tier 1 sized structure, that can probably be taken as a power feat. So someone that can only resist EE that at best deletes a building is unlikely to resist that. On the other hand, take mind manipulation. There the issue is really just range. So mind manipulating a Tier 1 character (unless some special explanations are given) would probably not allow bypassing of regular resistances. A similar thing could be said about death manipulation (unless, for example, it's said that it erases a Tier 1 lifeforce or something like that).

For the second question: If you mean with being who are ontologically above lower realities something like being with a R>F difference, then I would again handle them differently. However, that as well depends on what makes sense. I brought up the idea of mind manipulation via subliminal messages affecting them. A feat like that I would then not consider to bypass regular resistances. However, most feats of affecting a character with R>F where the character should technically be unaffected would likely show that the ability bypasses regular resistances. Like, if a character can EE a storyteller, then it could also EE the script in which their reality exists. I think EE at such a level would not be covered by regular resistance, just like EE form the storyteller itself would not be covered. Like, the feat of affecting a character with R>F above you, basically proves that your technique in itself has R>F transcendence over the world.

And interaction of such different kinds of smurf hax is of course difficult to tell in general. I think one can compare it to the question "if a character with R>F over 3D space fights a 4D character, how do they interact?" Technically neither should be able to touch the other, despite being the same tier, but historically we have used verse equalization to say that they can fight. So, I suppose following the same reasoning, a smurf 5D hax via large size (that is smurf in potency not just range) and a smurf 5D level hax via R>F would be considered "equally strong" and hence balance each other or something. Ultimately, case-by-case comparison is the best answer. One has to see what makes sense.

 

[God900]

Ultimately, case-by-case comparison is the best answer. One has to see what makes sense.

Pretty much this. Trying to lump all Smurf Hax into the same bag just doesn't work, given how each verse treats Hax in a unique manner which may differ much from another.

 

[Agnaa]

That mostly makes sense, but I do now kinda think that you could reasonably talk about EE, even of massive structures, as merely an issue of range. So I think I disagree with the conclusions you draw from that specific one.

Despite the fact that EE'ing a 1-A size structure gives a 1-A rating, I don't think that makes the "potency" of the EE over each cubic meter 1-A. In the same way that a character who can raise the temperature of all of space in a 1-A structure would get a 1-A rating, but the potency of heating up a cubic meter of space wouldn't be 1-A.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That mostly makes sense, but I do now kinda think that you could reasonably talk about EE, even of massive structures, as merely an issue of range. So I think I disagree with the conclusions you draw from that specific one.

Despite the fact that EE'ing a 1-A size structure gives a 1-A rating, I don't think that makes the "potency" of the EE over each cubic meter 1-A. In the same way that a character who can raise the temperature of all of space in a 1-A structure would get a 1-A rating, but the potency of heating up a cubic meter of space wouldn't be 1-A.

I guess one could look case-by-case on whether they can "focus" the power or not. Like, for something like destruction energy with an EE effect, you can focus it into an energy beam and that case should be pretty clear.

 

[Bobsican]

I guess we'd similarly treat cases of hax with qualitatively superior range ("smurf"), including affecting physically qualitatively superior characters (not just in stats) as unable to ignore "normal" proper resistances by default if the AoE can't be concentrated specifically for the purposes of potency then? I'd note that merely lowering the Area of Effect doesn't inherently means the potency of a hax ability is also raised accordingly, let alone then correlate that to layers as well, as concluded from the hax CRT I linked on the OP.