Smurf hax: Either defining or killing it

[Agnaa]

I agree with both of DT and Bob's most recent posts.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, I actually forgot to ask.

Would characters who are higher-dimensional, but not to the extent that would grant them a higher tier, be unaffected by most types of abilities? I'd also except similar reasoning to be applicable to characters like Scion (from Worm)'s second key, who exists in over 10^90 universes, and characters with Acausality Type 3.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hm. Something I've been a bit curious about (At the risk of potentially going off-topic), also, is how exactly certain types of defensive hax are to interact with higher-dimensional AP.

Like, say, someone with Type 5 Acausality or some similarly esoteric nature. Put them against a character that only has High 1-A brute force and absolutely nothing else (Also assuming no further metaphysics, so this would be either a 3-D character with High 1-A stats or just a creature with a large cardinal's worth of dimensions). Would we assume the latter character can bypass the former's immutability on the basis of AP alone? (You could probably consider a case where they can just nuke the reality where the Acausal character lives, but then I could just extend the scenario a bit and have it so the reality in question also shares of the same immutable nature)

 

[ShionAH]

Like, say, someone with Type 5 Acausality or some similarly esoteric nature. Put them against a character that only has High 1-A brute force and absolutely nothing else (Also assuming no further metaphysics, so this would be either a 3-D character with High 1-A stats or just a creature with a large cardinal's worth of dimensions). Would we assume the latter character can bypass the former's immutability on the basis of AP alone? (You could probably consider a case where they can just nuke the reality where the Acausal character lives, but then I could just extend the scenario a bit and have it so the reality in question also shares of the same immutable nature)

I remember asking this but no pure AP just because its a higher dimensional does not negate anything like that, You have AE 1 or 2? That brute force aint doing shit unless they use it to nuke the place. You have NEP? That brute force again not doing anything unless they nuke the place

So yeah they need to use the AP to nuke the character and if they cant they are handicapped, Idk how it would work on Aca 5 though I would assume its a similar case

 

[God900]

Yeah. It should be like a case by case scenario.
However, assuming the default would be range instead of potency is a huge strecht tbf.

Assuming an specific verse scenario for each verse in the way Hax mechanics differ, at least doesn't invalidate and make Smurf Hax useless, as I think the OP wants to propose.

 

[Bobsican]

Yeah. It should be like a case by case scenario.
However, assuming the default would be range instead of potency is a huge strecht tbf.

Assuming an specific verse scenario for each verse in the way Hax mechanics differ, at least doesn't invalidate and make Smurf Hax useless.

I mean, our current hax standards don't default to a correlation between range to hax potency as that's an assumption to say the least (and was concluded so, see the hax thread linked in the OP for more information, I'd rather avoid derailing), then assume further to relate that to quantificable layers either, so it's the other way around if anything.

However, this isn't making smurf hax useless or anything, but rather more of a semantic to keep in mind, most notably regarding nullifying (not resisting, I must reiterate) abilities reliant on a character's true form or similar that's too big to properly affect, most notably stuff like type 9 immortality as the OP mentions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Oh, I actually forgot to ask.

Would characters who are higher-dimensional, but not to the extent that would grant them a higher tier, be unaffected by most types of abilities? I'd also except similar reasoning to be applicable to characters like Scion (from Worm)'s second key, who exists in over 10^90 universes, and characters with Acausality Type 3.

We do in fact list pseudo-invulnerability as an application of HDE, which is also for characters that aren't tier 1. But of course that's limited to when it corresponds to the verse's depiction.

Hm. Something I've been a bit curious about (At the risk of potentially going off-topic), also, is how exactly certain types of defensive hax are to interact with higher-dimensional AP.

Like, say, someone with Type 5 Acausality or some similarly esoteric nature. Put them against a character that only has High 1-A brute force and absolutely nothing else (Also assuming no further metaphysics, so this would be either a 3-D character with High 1-A stats or just a creature with a large cardinal's worth of dimensions). Would we assume the latter character can bypass the former's immutability on the basis of AP alone? (You could probably consider a case where they can just nuke the reality where the Acausal character lives, but then I could just extend the scenario a bit and have it so the reality in question also shares of the same immutable nature)

Falls into a similar category as NEP, which has a note on that.

It of course depends on the defensive hax in question. But if you shoot a HIgh 1-A regular energy at a Type 5 Acausal it won't do anything. However, if you destroy their entire plane of existence they would be either dead or incapped, as they have nowhere left to exist (unless they have feats of the opposite).

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

So, just to summarize, absolutely nothing will come out of this thread because we already work using the standards DT set in his thread.

 

[Bobsican]

Some standards will be written to the Hax page based on the conclusions drawn, I'll make a blog post proposing the stuff later.

 

[God900]

So basically thread's concluded

 

[Bobsican]

I'd have to also get what to actually add accepted and then into the page, please be patient, I'm not on my PC right now.

 

[Agnaa]

So, just to summarize, absolutely nothing will come out of this thread because we already work using the standards DT set in his thread.

DT's standards were rejected, the last time he proposed them.

Plus, those standards got fleshed out more.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Agnaa Are you sure? Because everything he said in terms of what works and what doesn't still applies in a lot of threads I've seen.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, that's what DT said, and looking back at the thread, nothing was applied because of it; it was closed with DT saying he'd write a followup in the future.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, that's what DT said, and looking back at the thread, nothing was applied because of it; it was closed with DT saying he'd write a followup in the future.

It wasn't rejected as much as postponed tbh. Basically, the thread got very chaotic because my explanations weren't great and I just never ended up redoing it.

 

[Bobsican]

It wasn't rejected as much as postponed tbh. Basically, the thread got very chaotic because my explanations weren't great and I just never ended up redoing it.

And I presume this thread basically covers it? Or is there anything else to handle regarding the topic while we're at it?

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, I guess DontTalkDT can make a CRT later on, for now I'll try to write some rewrite to add to the Hax page based on the conclusions given here:

Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant.

The most common hax are the ones that ignore durability, and their scale/potency are unrelated to their users' AP & Tier, however, they can be measured with their effectiveness against their targets' Durability. This is because, depending of the hax, the statistics bypassed may actually counter it if they have an higher enough scale. This, however, is not the case with certain hax, examples include Reality Warping, Probability Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, and other abilities that simply & logically cannot be countered by high statistics.

Having resistances to certain hax can help characters/things to withstand them, but only if the specific resistances are around the same amount of "layers" (or more) as the hax being used against them, and such resistance working on a sufficiently compatible manner. See the Notes section for more information on the matter.

A "layer" refers to a resistance above the default of merely resisting the ability (the baseline), out of being confirmed to still apply even as the hax it's counteracting is known to have previously overwhelmed a baseline variant of it. Layers can also be counted if this kind of interaction happens multiple times, such as X character having 2 layers of Mind Manipulation by applying such ability to A, who already resisted the same kind of ability from B, with B's ability also having bypassed C's resistance.

This is not to be confused with Resistance Negation, as Resistance Negation directly removes the given resistance to begin with, rather than merely overwhelming it, although the concept of layered Resistance Negation is similar the same way (in the sense of either nullifying or resisting Resistance Negation), but naturally requires being even more explicit on such regard. Of note is that Resistance Negation has more priority than any amount of resistance layers out of its nature, acting as an example of nullifying a resistance having more priority than merely overwhelming it.

Higher-Dimensional characters/structures are automatically immune to 3-Dimensional (or lower) hax that'd require directly affecting the entirety of their being to work, as they literally are infinitely more larger than them. The same logically happens to higher-dimensional hax in relation to even higher higher-dimensional characters/structures. Resistances also apply to higher-dimensional characters/structures, this needs to be hax of their same (or higher) dimensional range, and anything lower is not allowed to be added (due to being both inaccurate and misleading, making others think that the characters/structures can resist hax of their same dimensionality).

Characters that are merely Higher-DImensional (Tier 2 or above) stat wise but are otherwise 3D beings are still vulnerable as normal to 3D hax that fully ignores the involved statistic in question for them, meaning that, for example, while hitting a weak spot like a organ wouldn't work, erasing them from existence would. The same logically happens to 4D characters with 5-D (Low 1-C) statistics in relation to 4-D hax and so on.

Hax with the capability to encompass or affect the entirety of Higher-Dimensional characters/structures isn't inherently any better in terms of bypassing a resistance than normal hax even for relative Lower-DImensional characters in comparison, this comes from reasons including that the mere range of an ability doesn't necessarily correlates to its potency, and that such potency can't be directly quantified in relation to a resistance, just like how Statistics Amplification users aren't extrapolated on how much a given stat is exactly raised to make it comparable with other characters.

However, destroying the cosmological structure that houses a being in question will always erradicate or incapacitate it by default, out of no longer having anywhere left to display relevant existencial traits. This is particularly relevant for users of abilities such as Incorporeality, Nonexistent Physiology, Type 5 Acausality and even High-Godly Regeneration.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay, I guess DontTalkDT can make a CRT later on, for now I'll try to write some rewrite to add to the Hax page based on the conclusions given here:

That seems to work, though I reworded it a bit for clarity.

Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can ignore or bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant.

The most common hax are those that ignore durability, and their scale and potency are unrelated to their users' Tier and Attack Potency. However, they can be measured by their effectiveness against their targets' Durability, as depending on the hax, the bypassed statistics may counter it if they have a high enough scale. However, this is not the case with certain hax, including Reality Warping, Probability Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, and other abilities high statistics logically can't counter.

Resisting certain hax can help characters or things withstand them, but only if the specific resistances have at least as many "layers" or more than the hax used against them and if the resistance works in a sufficiently compatible manner. A "layer" refers to resistance above the default of merely resisting the ability (the baseline). It remains effective even when the countered hax has previously overwhelmed a baseline variant. Layers also count if this kind of interaction happens multiple times. For example, if X character has two layers of Mind Manipulation by applying such ability to A, who already resisted it from B, who B bypassed C's resistance.

Layers should not be confused with Resistance Negation, which removes the given resistance instead of overwhelming it. Although layered Resistance Negation is similar (by nullifying or resisting Resistance Negation), it requires being even more explicit. Notably, Resistance Negation takes priority over any amount of resistance layers due to its nature, as an example of nullifying a resistance takes priority over merely overwhelming it.

Higher-dimensional characters and structures are automatically immune to 3-dimensional (or lower) hax that requires directly affecting the entirety of their being to work, as they are uncountably infinitely larger than them, meaning the lower-dimensional character could never affect more than an infinitesimally insignificant slice of them. The same logic applies to higher-dimensional hax against even higher-dimensional things. Adding any resistances to higher-dimensional subjects require them to resist hax of the same (or higher) dimensional range, as adding anything lower would be inaccurate and misleading, leading others to think that the characters/structures can resist hax of their same dimensionality.

Characters that are merely higher-dimensional (Tier 2 or above) stat-wise but are otherwise 3D beings are still vulnerable to 3D hax that ignore the involved statistic in question for them. For example, hitting a weak spot like an organ wouldn't work, but erasing them from existence would. The same logic applies to 4D characters with 5-D (Low 1-C) statistics against 4D hax, and so on.

Hax that can encompass or affect the entirety of higher-dimensional characters/structures isn't inherently better at bypassing a resistance than normal hax, even for lower-dimensional characters, as an ability's mere range does not necessarily correlate to its potency, which is unquantifiable against resistances the way Statistics Amplification users don't receive extrapolation on how much they raise a given stat to make it comparable with other characters.

However, destroying the cosmological structure that houses a being in question eradicates or incapacitates it by default, as it no longer has anywhere left to display relevant existential traits. This distinction is particularly notable for users of abilities such as Incorporeality, Nonexistent Physiology, Type 5 Acausality, and High-Godly Regeneration.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Okay, I guess DontTalkDT can make a CRT later on, for now I'll try to write some rewrite to add to the Hax page based on the conclusions given here:

Note 2 on the page explains it better than the thing you added regarding layers IMO. Generally, I would keep the notes, at most integrating them more and maybe expanding them.

Resistance Negation working regardless of the scale of resistance sounds generally questionable. (Honestly, this wasn't even part of what we debated here...)

 

[Bobsican]

Oh, I didn't plan on removing the Notes section, which is why a part of the original rewrite I posted (@IdiosyncraticLawyer 's version is neater for the most part but removed that) even asks to check such section for more information on some stuff, unless you think it'd be better to rewrite some of them as well to minimize redundancy?

Well, would ResNeg just be limited up to the amount of layers it has shown to negate then? I'm merely covering that as well to ensure the page covers all general semantics of hax well. After all, I'm being extremely notified off-site that the outcomes of this thread are considerably redefining how versus threads are going on the site.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

So just wanna clarify since I've kind of been ignoring this thread for a bit, affecting a physically higher dimensional/beyond dimensional character of a certain tier would net that ability that tier of smurf hax (Ex. affecting a 1-C who's inherently 7-D would give someone 7-D hax) but affecting an inherently 3-D character who just happens to be some tier 1 (like 1-C or something) wouldn't grant smurf hax because they're physically only 3-D?

 

[Bobsican]

So just wanna clarify since I've kind of been ignoring this thread for a bit, affecting a physically higher dimensional/beyond dimensional character of a certain tier would net that ability that tier of smurf hax (Ex. affecting a 1-C who's inherently 7-D would give someone 7-D hax) but affecting an inherently 3-D character who just happens to be some tier 1 (like 1-C or something) wouldn't grant smurf hax because they're physically only 3-D?

Yes, although I'd remind that by current consensus smurf hax isn't much better than normal hax for much beyond consistently affecting characters/structures with HDE up to its level.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Yes, although I'd remind that by current consensus smurf hax isn't much better than normal hax for much beyond consistently affecting characters/structures with HDE up to its level.

Welp the entirety of the strongest smurf thread is going to need to be remade lmao. Hax layers and whoever has tier 1 immortality is going to dominate

Well, would ResNeg just be limited up to the amount of layers it has shown to negate then? I'm merely covering that as well to ensure the page overs all general semantics of hax well. After all, I'm being extremely notified off-site that the outcomes of this thread are considerably redefining how versus threads are going on the site.

I mean makes sense for resistance negation to only go up to the amount shown so I'd say yeah.

 

[Reiner04]

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).

What about this point, will a note to accommodate this point will be added?

A character who has resisted EE which has wiped out building won't be able to resist a EE that has destroyed Tier 1 structure or smtg along the line?

 

[God900]

Welp the entirety of the strongest smurf thread is going to need to be remade lmao. Hax layers and whoever has tier 1 immortality is going to dominate

Or for example, Tier 1 blessings, defenses. Like this MC

 

[Bobsican]

What about this point, will a note to accommodate this point will be added?

A character who has resisted EE which has wiped out building won't be able to resist a EE that has destroyed Tier 1 structure or smtg along the line?

I'd support a note on that as well, but I'm a bit unsure on how to write it as there's also the matter of not all of a qualitatively superior substance touching a lower-d character out of the higher-D axises being beyond their existence, as much a character that resists disease manip wouldn't be bothered if all the universe was filled with a disease out of their being not taking all of it at once (let alone that being difficult to correlate to layers), with higher dimensions just also having the disease in question.

AFAIK the focus is usually more on the amount of displayed layers for something like EE than the amount of stuff involved, as much it was agreed on the previous hax thread I did that the amount of people and hax potency (then potency to layers) don't correlate.

Or for example, Tier 1 blessings, defenses. Like this MC

That's more for the purposes of nullifying an ability, rather than resisting it, but yeah.

 

[God900]

That's more for the purposes of nullifying an ability, not resisting it, but yeah

Yeah. He just mentioned Tier 1 immortality, so I wanted to add that Tier blessings, or defensive Hax could work aswell.

Btw, pretty sure we already stablished these standarts, but it needed to be mentioned in the Hax Page, so nothing really changes as of now (I think).

 

[Bobsican]

I'd wait for @DontTalkDT to help clarify on the questions given out by now before proposing once more a rewrite idea for the Hax page.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Or for example, Tier 1 blessings, defenses. Like this MC

Wait why exactly would tier 1 blessings and defensive hax be useful? Is it because it's coming from a source that's tier 1 range away? Just wanna clarify

 

[Bobsican]

Wait why exactly would tier 1 blessings and defensive hax be useful? Is it because it's coming from a source that's tier 1 range away? Just wanna clarify

Yes, nullifying the source of something is difficult if it's beyond the range you can normally reach.

 

[PsychoWarper]

So in theory if we had a 1-A with 1-A hax but no layers or resistance neg and they tried to hax a 10-B with just a baseline resistance to said hax the 10-B would resist it? That seems to be the general direction hax is heading besides a few exceptions?

 

[Theglassman12]

However, destroying the cosmological structure that houses a being in question will always erradicate or incapacitate it by default, out of no longer having anywhere left to display relevant existencial traits. This is particularly relevant for users of abilities such as Incorporeality, Nonexistent Physiology, Type 5 Acausality and even High-Godly Regeneration.

What part of this is remotely relevant to smurf hax? Nothing about this has anything to do with what’s being discussed here

 

[Bobsican]

What part of this is remotely relevant to smurf hax? Nothing about this has anything to do with what’s being discussed here

Characters with qualitatively superior true forms and the like often have the capability to do that kind of stuff, and would indeed fall as smurf, besides, that was indeed brought up here:

It of course depends on the defensive hax in question. But if you shoot a HIgh 1-A regular energy at a Type 5 Acausal it won't do anything. However, if you destroy their entire plane of existence they would be either dead or incapped, as they have nowhere left to exist (unless they have feats of the opposite).

So in theory if we had a 1-A with 1-A hax but no layers or resistance neg and they tried to hax a 10-B with just a baseline resistance to said hax the 10-B would resist it? That seems to be the general direction hax is heading besides a few exceptions?

Yep, although the "few" exceptions basically boil down to feats involving layers and the like, as smurf hax isn't inherently any better than normal hax for these purposes, that, and overloading someone with a certain kind of hax, although there's still some discussion on this as while qualitatively superior poison is by definition far more than what a 3D being can take, all of that poison can't interact with the 3D being out of its nature, and naturally the 3D being wouldn't be absorbing all of it either as their physical area isn't the same as the poison's, meaning that an argument can be made for a resistance still working even in such cases.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

So in theory if we had a 1-A with 1-A hax but no layers or resistance neg and they tried to hax a 10-B with just a baseline resistance to said hax the 10-B would resist it? That seems to be the general direction hax is heading besides a few exceptions?

a 3D being haxing a 7D being would be smurf range but a 7D being haxing another 7D being would be potency
So the hax feat from 3D being would be 3D but it simply has range and thus can be resisted by another 3D being with resistance to it
but the hax feat from a 7D being who haxed another 7D being would be potency and wouldn't inherently mean they can be resisted by 3D being with base resistance because the 7D being isn't haxing someone via range but by potency on their level of existence and as per qualitative superiority the higher being is infinitely far stronger than the lower being so does the power he uses that worked against a being on his level of existence.

I believe this is the argument in DT's original thread
quoting this response from him

Depends on what you mean with higher dimensional hax.

For example: Hax from an 8-B character that can harm a 6D being could be resisted like normal by a 9-B character.
However, I don't think hax from 1-C character that can harm other characters on that tier could be resisted by a 9-B character without special showings against such stuff. That's a consequence of the 1-C character simply being infinitely more powerful.

 

[Bobsican]

a 3D being haxing a 7D being would be smurf range but a 7D being haxing another 7D being would be potency
So the hax feat from 3D being would be 3D but it simply has range and thus can be resisted by another 3D being with resistance to it
but the hax feat from a 7D being who haxed another 7D being would be potency and wouldn't inherently mean they can be resisted by 3D being with base resistance because the 7D being isn't haxing someone via range but by potency on their level of existence and as per qualitative superiority the higher being is infinitely far stronger than the lower being so does the power he uses that worked against a being on his level of existence.

I believe this is the argument in DT's original thread
quoting this response from him

Depends on what you mean with higher dimensional hax.

For example: Hax from an 8-B character that can harm a 6D being could be resisted like normal by a 9-B character.
However, I don't think hax from 1-C character that can harm other characters on that tier could be resisted by a 9-B character without special showings against such stuff. That's a consequence of the 1-C character simply being infinitely more powerful.

Hmmm... that seems to also be up to debate right now as currently there's also the brought up concern me and others off-site have on smurf hax being weirdly the exception to the hax standard of potency not being inherently compatible with layers, as much it was also accepted over there that haxxing an infinite amount of people isn't better than haxxing a single being for the purposes of layers and the like.

There's also the matter that by default we don't correlate the tier of a character to their potency (see Arceus), so deeming a hax as "true smurf" just out of the user seems inconsistent/inappropiate with the precedent.

 

[PsychoWarper]

So essentially hax potency is irrelevant with these changes, its just range and layers

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

it is mostly for smurf hax and how they should be rated base on what they affected

 

[God900]

Yeah, honestly, I don't think killing Smurf Hax like that is a good idea tbf..

 

[Bobsican]

Smurf hax will still be a thing, but it just would no longer be any better than normal hax for bypassing resistances and the like, bar cases like straight up deleting a cosmology. In any case, we're starting to go in circles here, so maybe it'd be best to just wait for @DontTalkDT to comment on the previous questions and concerns.

 

[God900]

Smurf hax will still be a thing, but it just would no longer be any better than normal hax for bypassing resistances and the like, bar cases like straight up deleting a cosmology. In any case, we're starting to go in circles here, so maybe it'd be best to just wait for @DontTalkDT to comment on the previous questions and concerns.

̶I̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶e̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶v̶e̶r̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶S̶m̶u̶r̶f̶ ̶H̶a̶x̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶