• If you appreciate the VS Battles wiki, and can afford it, please make a donation to help keep our forum running, so we can continue to work hard to improve on the reliability of our wiki profile pages. If you want to be anonymous, don't enter your real name when you donate.

    Please click here if you are willing to help out.

Stability Feat Issues: The Do's, Don'ts & How We Should Handle Them

Status
Not open for further replies.
13,597
2,296
Sorry for having this thread suddenly posted in the staff forum of all places, but since some staff members ive spoken to have expressed issues with how this is being handled, I felt it was appropriate to post here. I myself won't be participating much so that its kept staff only. Anyway, getting the point of why this thread's made.

Stability Type Feats Issues

We need to have a discussion about how "Stability" feats are to be treated here. To clarify, what I mean by "Stability" here are feats where a character's existence, energy, presence, or whatever given factor from them sustains or stabilizes something on a given scale, and by that, their stats are tiered to being at that level of power. You can refer to this under the footnotes on our Tiering System page as well. Whether it's:

  • Stabilizing a planet and ending up as 5-B / 5-A
  • Stabilizing a star and ending up as 4-C
  • Stabilizing a galaxy and ending up as 3-C
  • Stabilizing a universe and ending up as 3-A or Low 2-C
  • Stabilizing a multiverse and ending up as 2-C / 2-B / 2-A
Whatever the given tier in question is. In regards to these feats, we tend to usually go with the notion that because X character is connected to Y Construct in some type of way, X's power or energy level has to be relative to the scale of Y Construct in order to it to be the case in the first place. Only, there are a few issues we might tend to overlook when analyzing these type of feats.

Issue 1: Attack Potency Being Relative

I wont be mentioning specific names here of where these issues came up, and people know what their issues are themselves. But this first concern was brought up by someone in staff that I've spoken to about sustainability feats. Why do we consider sustaining [insert here] construct to be the exact same tier as said construct? Or if wanting to be more specific, sustaining said construct as the same thing as creating or destroying said construct? We've had the same song and dance about creation and destruction feats here many times over, and we know how they generally work here. Energy being put into a destructive action? Obviously AP is relative. Energy being put into a creative action? AP is also relative, and with more backing to it when compared to the former. But Stabilization feats? They're more of an odd case when compared to the former 2.

Constructs like planets or universes being created/destroyed is one thing since your using a given amount of energy at your disposal to dispose or create of something on those given scales. But what comes about this when your sustaining them? As someone before once put it, It's like saying that the energy required to keep one individual domino from falling over is equal to the end result every domino in a chain falling over. We're going under the quick assumption that sustaining a given construct requires the same exact level of power that's put into creating or destroying said construct, and thats not always quite the case as it looks like on paper. It isnt as if sustaining the construct requires your given power to affect the total scale of what it makes up, not unlike creation or destruction where it does require you to do that. To create something, the given energy needs to be used to shape and establish the total scale of what it is. To destroy something, the given energy needs to be used to wipe out the total scale of what it is. But how exactly does sustainability play into this?

To add to this, there are even cases where sustainability does not require reserves of energy, power, or strength in the first place to keep whatever construct your connected to in check. The construct and what its connected to can and are sustained by other means in fiction that are independent to that of your strength statistics. But without a well defined standard of how we are to judge these feats, we immediately go with the highest interpretation that the character must be pushing out constant levels of energy in [insert here] tier to be relative to that construct and keep it in check.

To add even more salt to the wound here, lack of context mixed with assumptions can inflate sustainability feats to levels of power that your sustainability may actually not even cover. For example, lets say Character A's presence is able to stop multiple planets from going on a collision course with each other and crash into each other. Should these planets move and crash into each other, they will be destroyed in the process. Now for arguments sake, lets assume that Character A has to put in constant amounts of energy as "fuel" to keep these planets from so much as moving an inch towards or away from each other and can be granted a tier. Keeping the planets from moving is one thing, while the planets being destroyed is an entirely different circumstance that Character A's presence does not have dominion over. The job of Character A's sustainability over the planets isn't to directly keep these planets whole in existence, its job is to keep them from moving towards each other. If by any chance that they should fail, and they do start to move and crash into each other, Character A's job is done. They aren't holding any power over the planets anymore. So even if you can try to scale their sustainability to the movement of the planets and grant that a tier, you would certainly not be able to grant a tier to them for the destruction of the planets. But once again, we tend to take the higher interpretation that the characters sustainability would scale to the whole overall thing without actually giving credible evidence of that being the case. So this would need to be looked over at with a fresh pair of eyes.

In short, how we measure and quantify sustainability feats isn't 1 to 1 clear, nor is it clear on how they would be the same tier as creation or destruction. Of course, I am not saying that power sources used to stabilize something on a given scale should be thrown out entirely by any means. Its a valid general practice that we should keep. But at the same time, we should be more strict and analytical over these kinds of feats where context greatly matters in determining the end result.

Issue 2: Scaling Sustainability to Stats

This second issue will probably be the biggest concern to be had with sustainability feats, and this will be going under the assumption that a characters energy is 100% fully relative to the tier of the given construct they are stabilizing. This issue involves scaling that level of power into normal means of attacking and surviving on that level. As someone else here that Ive spoken to about this have suggested, sustainability / stability feats should only be able to really be scaled to the totality of a character stats IF it can be proven that the energy they use to sustain something is the same energy they can use to hit people, or survive opponent attacks.

As a matter of fact, the very nature of the feat and what it is would actually suggest another logical interpretation here. That we shouldn't first assume the power being put into sustainability would scale to your AP & durability due to one key fact: the characters power is being focused onto sustainability. It's a similar idea to how a power source powering something would in turn only be used to power what they are supporting. If a character's own power is being entirely focused on sustaining a construct and keeping that construct in check, that first implies that their energy cannot be used for any other action but sustaining the construct. Which in turn, would mean that we cant and shouldn't assume that their energy would be able to be normally transferred into regular attacks or durability, things that their energy wasn't made to necessarily do. It would be the burden of proof of the individuals to make a case for and prove they could with credible evidence.

After all, its universally agreed by majority of us here that we would need to prove power put into creation or destablizing something can scale to regular AP, so why wouldnt that be the case for feats coming from sustaining something?

Tl;Dr


Sustainability / Stability feats as a general practice is valid and is still very much okay to keep here. I am not arguing for it to be removed or no longer be a valid practice. But what I am arguing here is that, as things stand, sustainability feats have a fair amount of concerns and confusions to its name that should be looked at over again, so we can determine the general dos and don'ts for these types of feats.
 
Last edited:

Matthew_Schroeder

VS Battles
Retired
30,467
16,778
Sustainability / Stability feats as a general practice is valid and is still very much okay to keep here. I am not arguing for it to be removed or no longer be a valid practice. But what I am arguing here is that, as things stand, sustainability feats have a fair amount of concerns and confusions to its name that should be looked at over again, so we can determine the general dos and don'ts for these types of feats.
I obviously agree with this take, but I imagine that finding precise standards to apply to the whole wiki are going to be a headache.
 

DarkDragonMedeus

The Sword and Shield of AKM Sama
VS Battles
Sysop
17,728
7,998
I pretty much agree with this thread. I agree on sustaining feats being AP, but I wouldn't quite scale them to striking strength or durability by default.
 

DemonGodMitchAubin

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
8,701
2,744
I agree with a lot of this, having the power to stabilize something is not the same as destroying it as stabilizing something takes far less work, I mean it’s the difference between destroying something via your own power and holding something back from destroying itself, the destruction part of stabilization has no connection to the person who is stabilizing said thing

For example, let’s say someone is holding a wobbling vase in place, they are preventing the vase from falling and therefore being destroyed, but that doesn’t mean they have the power to destroy the vase on their own, if they stop stabilizing the vase and it falls and breaks, that’s a mere chain reaction of letting go of said vase, that doesn’t mean the vase’s destruction is a direct result of the person’s own raw power, it just means they didn’t stop it from causing its own destruction
 

AKM sama

rawr
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,829
5,786
I pretty much agree with the general sentiment. A couple of pillars can sustain a large bridge and keep it from getting destroyed. It in no way means that taking out the pillar requires the same energy as taking out the entire bridge, even if the bridge will be destroyed if you take out the pillar. Sustaining something and preventing it from collapsing is dependent on several factors such as some imbalance causing the eventual destruction of the construct and it should not automatically be assumed to be the same as creating or destroying the construct.
 

ByAsura

VS Battles
Sysop
7,273
1,049
I mostly agree with the OP.

IMO, if a being uses their own power (not existence) to sustain something (like a building) that's destroyed upon their death, it should scale to AP unless there's a reason why it doesn't. For example, the structure could have a special nature that only the character controls.

Off the top of my head, Vortigern is an example of a character that probably doesn't actually scale to sustaining a structure, despite it collapsing upon his death. The tower was magical, and increased his strength as more levels were added to it, until Vortigern eventually rivalled the original bearer of the power he gained.
 
Last edited:

Ogbunabali

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
4,875
1,231
I pretty much agree with the general idea of this. Getting a tier from sustaining something, a pocket dimension or similar, could grant you a tier but definitely shouldn't be the default assumption. We should really judge these instances on a case by case basis for individual feats, since there really isn't an answer that can be given in a vaccum for everything.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
This seems to make sense to me as well. I agree with AKM.
 

LordGriffin1000

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,528
1,549
I agree with the OP, I don't have much else to say given what people above me have said. It's another case by case thing and if someone wishes to apply this to a characters statistics, they'll need to have evidence to back it up.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
However, we need to decide how we should handle potential new standards for this. Do we need a more elaborate special instruction page for it, should we write it down in a preexisting such page, or add a new editing rule?
 
Last edited:
13,597
2,296
I pretty much agree with the general idea of this. Getting a tier from sustaining something, a pocket dimension or similar, could grant you a tier but definitely shouldn't be the default assumption. We should really judge these instances on a case by case basis for individual feats, since there really isn't an answer that can be given in a vaccum for everything.
Thank you for responding and ofc I agree, especially for it being a case by case basis.

For these types of feats, context should be extremely important in helping to determine the end result, and the first thing that should be determined from context is exactly what a characters sustainability is doing.

For example, when it comes to universes, what exactly is the character stabilizing in the universes? The existence of the universes? The movement of the universes?

What’s being stabilized should be defined first, since not all sustainability towards a construct should be scaled to the same extent of power as each other.
 
13,597
2,296
However, we need to decide how we should handle potential new standards for this. Do we need a more elaborate special instruction page for it, write it down in a preexistig such page, or add a new editing rule?
If I may suggest ant, @Sir Ovens may have an idea about this if you could tag him
 

Eficiente

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
11,764
1,763
How about this proposal just to start?; We make the Tiering acknowledge that all "stability" feats could always not mean the same as destroying or creating the structure stabilized, and that we can discard them as such if it's deemed appropriate due to the context of the feats or further info the verse can give, even making accepted feats like it discarded if they're eventually recontextualized by their series.
 

Elizhaa

VS Battles
Sysop
12,431
2,790
I pretty much agree with the general idea of this. Getting a tier from sustaining something, a pocket dimension or similar, could grant you a tier but definitely shouldn't be the default assumption. We should really judge these instances on a case by case basis for individual feats, since there really isn't an answer that can be given in a vaccum for everything.
I agree.
However, we need to decide how we should handle potential new standards for this. Do we need a more elaborate special instruction page for it, write it down in a preexistig such page, or add a new editing rule?
Personally, I think leaving the judgment on a case-by-case basis still works, in my opinion.
If I may suggest ant, @Sir Ovens may have an idea about this if you could tag him
To help, I can tag @Sir_Ovens
 
13,597
2,296
The OP makes a lot of sense. I agree, though where we would we begin setting the new standard?
To start this out, I had this idea:
For these types of feats, context should be extremely important in helping to determine the end result, and the first thing that should be determined from context is exactly what a characters sustainability is doing.

For example, when it comes to universes, what exactly is the character stabilizing in the universes? The existence of the universes? The movement of the universes?

What’s being stabilized should be defined first, since not all sustainability towards a construct should be scaled to the same extent of power as each other.
 
66
25
It's pretty obvious that stability based feat isn't something that should be scaled on AP/Dura ect in my opinion. the energy for destroy something isn't the same as maintaining it's stability throught some way, you can maintain a bridge with a couple of pillar, but you can destabilize and make it collapse if you can destroy even some pillars.

It Should be something unquantifiable and rated as unknown since even irl, there is a limit of what somthing can stabilize another one, you cannot make a decent conclusion about the scaling to the other stats, even real life exemple don't show case where maintaining something from collapsing is equivalent to destroy the whole structure, I agree about that.

For Unquantifiable tiering (above Tier 2 i guess), we should rant them as 'likely' since in the unquantifiable realm, we should assume at least the tier 2 rant.
 
Last edited:
13,597
2,296
So far it seems my thread has agreement from the following:

Staff: Matthew, AKM, Antvasima, Mitch, Eficiente, Damage, DarkDragon, Ryukama, LordGriffin, OgBunabali, Crabwhale, Elizhaa & Sir Ovens (13)

Non-Staff: Mmyself, YungManzi, Omimi, Blackejan, Nilverse, & KLOL506 (6)

Non-staff I counted since they liked my post and some of the comments made here.

Keeping up with the vote tally.
 

Warren_Valion

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,282
2,908
I sorta kinda don't agree.

I view stabilization feats, for the most part, as anti-destruction or indefinite creation feats; And that they should usually work like, and be viewed like, Netwon's Third Law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. With the action being the destruction of X thing (Planet/Sun/Dimension/etc), and the equal and opposite reaction being the person/thing maintaining the x thing from being destroyed with their power.

I don't understand why we should inherently assume that stabilization feats would be like a Dominio Effect or Chain reaction, without any indication that this is the case, instead of the character stabilizing the whole dimension/universe/etc.

I feel like the examples people are giving here aren't entirely accurate comparisons; Most stabilization feats, at least the ones I see, aren't about the person/creature/god/etc stabilizing the supporting pillars of their pocket dimension or universe or whatever (One example I saw referred to the legs/pillars of a bridge/building). From what I see, the feats are, usually, explicitly saying that they are stabilizing everything in X thing with their power - which sounds to me that the feat would be indicative of the entire bridge, to continue with that comparison.

And that the destruction that is caused in their absence isn't comparable to someone destroying the legs of a bridge which brings the whole thing down, but destroying the whole bridge in its entirety.


To give a fictional example, here is one from Mike Carey's Lucifer.

God left creation and his mark that is written on every atom begins to fade without him there to renew it, leading to the eventual destruction of all creation. And Michael takes up the mantle to continuously rewrite God's name, renewing creation every moment.

Essentially, Michael is continuously rebuilding creation, again and again indefinitely, to fight against its destruction.

From what I see, most stabilization feats are like this, and I feel that if a feat is described as, "This x things' existence is only maintained via y person's power supporting it, and without them, everything would be destroyed", it's very weird to assume that it means that, their power only sustains the support pillars that keep creation up and not the whole thing without any reason as to why that would be the case.

And obviously, there are examples of that being true, of character only supporting the pillars that keep something up and not the entire thing (Which would be a different tier entirely), but I feel like that isn't the norm with these types of feats and that we already determine whether that is the case on a case-by-case basis (For instance, stabilization feats that have the absence of whatever creature/item stabilizing the x thing disappearing, and the x thing taking a substantial amount of time to decay into nothingness would imply a domino effect/chain reaction - The Triforce sustaining the world in A Link Between Worlds being the first example that comes to my mind), and AFAIK, we already dismiss those types of feats for tiering, so I don't see how anything would be really any different going forward.
 

Matthew_Schroeder

VS Battles
Retired
30,467
16,778
To give a fictional example, here is one from Mike Carey's Lucifer.

God left creation and his mark that is written on every atom begins to fade without him there to renew it, leading to the eventual destruction of all creation. And Michael takes up the mantle to continuously rewrite God's name, renewing creation every moment.

Essentially, Michael is continuously rebuilding creation, again and again indefinitely, to fight against its destruction.
I don't think this example is comparable because in Lucifer's case Michael is explicitely doing this by constantly emanating his Dunamis Demiurgos energy and using that to stabilize the world in God's absence.
 

Warren_Valion

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,282
2,908
While this example is rather verbally direct, this is essentially what "stabilizing a dimension" means in most cases.

Having one's power stabilize everything and having that person's absence means the destruction of everything would mean that they are fighting back the destruction of their universe with their own power.

To assume that this is done via domino effect/chain reaction, without any evidence stating or implying as such, is facetious, imo.

But I am not in the mood for debating the topic, I just wanted to give my 2-cents on it.



All that you should take away from my comment is read Mike Carey's Lucifer and Neil Gaiman's Sandman, frfr.
 

Sir_Ovens

Resident Kitchen Appliance
VS Battles
Retired
11,399
3,259
Hi yes, sorry for taking so long.

I basically proposed a system where sustaining a construct would only lend you combat applicable AP only if there is a valid case for it (Otherwise known as case-by-case basis)

An example of valid sustaining feats granting AP would be Dark Souls. The First Flame keeps the sun in existence and in order to keep the First Flame lit, one has to feed their soul to the fire. The stronger the soul, the longer the fire stays lit. This directly correlates to AP as in-game dialogue confirms that a stronger soul makes one stronger AP wise. Thus, it would make sense that Dark Souls characters scale to the sun.

For an example of an invalid sustaining feat, the Moon Spirit in Avatar is just that. The Moon Spirit's existence keeps the moon in existence, but none of this power directly translates into any usable form of attack potency. As such, the Moon Spirit doesn't scale to the moon.
 
13,597
2,296
Okay so here's my thoughts about Warren's argument. Might be a bit long.

Issue 1:


First problem I have with this counter argument is that why are we first assuming that stabilization feats are "indefinite" creation feats? Or that they're constantly creating anything? Or that the characters energy is even keeping the given universe in existence in the first place? This is a problem that my OP was, or at least was trying, to point out as an issue for this. This argument first lives off this assumption that your stabilization is specifically going towards keeping the construct existing and that you have to fuel its existence with your energy at a constant rate. Or even worse, the things that make up the existence of the construct are being constantly re-created. This is a bad start to judge this kind of feat since stabilization isn't so much a universal thing. Stabilization can apply to a myriad of different things other than keeping the construct as a whole in existence. It can be keeping something from shaking, moving, colliding,. dying, being warped, etc. And to different extents for each of them. So before you can do anything with this, context needs to be very clear about what exactly is getting stabilized by the character and how they are doing it.

Now for arguments sake, lets assume for a moment that a verse's context is clear that "keeping something in existence" is the specific context of the characters stabilization, and that the character is stabilizing the construct in the sense of fueling it with their energy constantly. Another issue is still present.

Issue 2:


This is in regards to the point about "equal reaction":

"That Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. With the action being the destruction of X thing (Planet/Sun/Dimension/etc), and the equal and opposite reaction being the person/thing maintaining the x thing from being destroyed with their power."

Im not seeing why a sustaining feat would explicitly need to bring an equal amount of power into sustaining its construct against what could destroy said construct. What "equal and opposite reaction" is this referring to exactly? An attack from someone else that could destroy the construct? Or stopping the construct from destroying itself? Or for a lack of a better word, suiciding itself to be gone? In the case of the latter interpretation, we can analyze it in different ways.

First, the destruction of the construct itself. I already listed this example in the OP, but i'll list it here again. If a Character's energy is able to, say, keep planets from moving toward each other on a collision course so they wont destroy each other upon the crash, why would we scale their sustainability to the destruction of the planets? The character's job is not to keep the planets in existence as whole planets, their job is to prevent the planets from moving even an inch toward one another. Once they start moving, the energy from the character's sustainability isn't doing anything anymore. The character is not doing their job anymore. You may make a case for tiering their energy toward the movement of the planets since they're keeping them from physically moving, but you most certainly wouldn't be able to scale their power toward the destruction of them, as their energy is no longer effecting the planets once they start moving. More or less, this same principal can apply to that of keeping universes from being destroyed, if wanting to go that high. The destruction of the sustained universes would not be applicable to the tier the sustainability grants as the characters sustainability would not be applying to the universe's destruction. If it starts to get destroyed, the characters job at that point is done.

Another thing to be analyzed would be if the construct's destruction, as I pointed out above, would be coming from it just destroying itself without having whats essentially life support. Could we honestly sit here and consider a self-suiciding construct that's frail, delicate and will collapse the very second its not supported anymore to be relative to what its scale is normally supposed to be? I wont go into too much detail on this specific point rn, but I felt it should be asked.

On top of that, what can also be analyzed is the point about Domino and Chain Reaction effects that was pointed out before. As it suggests, even if your sustainability is somehow able to scale your power to the opposing destructive force of would happen to the construct, why would that be scalable to the entire tier of what the construct is? Because unless the verse in particular explicitly proves somehow that the destruction actually covers the entire construct, and the destruction is instant or very immediate, you wouldnt need to be the same tier as the construct to keep it from being destroyed as it would not be destroyed that fast. Such as if a universe slowly deteriorates or if a planet crumbles apart. The destruction isn't relative to the entire construct, so being equal to the destructive force with your sustainability wouldn't amount to a tier upgrade.

To add even more salt into the wound, all of the previous possible interpretations for stability-type feats all go under, yet again, another assumption on top of them. And thats if your sustainability is even required to keep the construct in existence and with power in the first place. For example, lets say a character creates a universe. Their energy is not yet being put into sustaining it. They just used normal creation to bring the universe into being, separate from their individual existence, and its existing just fine on its own. Then at some point later, they decide to then put their energy into their created universe so that it can continue to exist or be reinforced. The fact that their universe was able to exist on its own in the first place, without any additional assistance or reinforcement to its cosmic structure, would imply that it wouldn't need outside assistance to keep its structure from collapsing. So what exactly can their sustainability be tiered at? At the most, it would seem to be just unquantifiably effecting their construct to an unknown extent. Or in the worst case scenario, not effect anything at all and just linking the construct to the life, existence, or unknown component of the character thats indepedent of their statisitcs. It would be similar to the principal of 2 or more people being linked together, yet they do not need to actually sustain anything and dont scale to each other's strength. And aside from what Sir Ovens pointed out, there are tons of examples where linking =/= scaling is easily the case.

Now, in the former case of actually stopping attacks from destroying the construct with your sustainability, that can be an exception. After all, your sustainability is directly shutting down actual attacks of that level from destroying it, so it's easily able to be quantified. Meaning, your sustainability here would indeed be matching an opposing force of that level. The only burden of proof here in this case is proving your sustainability can do that and that it regularly scales.

Next i'll be addressing the example given.

Mike Carey's Lucifer


To give a fictional example, here is one from Mike Carey's Lucifer.

God left creation and his mark that is written on every atom begins to fade without him there to renew it, leading to the eventual destruction of all creation. And Michael takes up the mantle to continuously rewrite God's name, renewing creation every moment.


Now im no expert on this character or the verse he is from. And I have no say on whether or not he would get downgraded or stay where he is. But from what the given scan shows, this example like Matthew said before is not a fair comparison to make to this. But I have my own reasons for why it isnt.

The scan is ultimately specifying that Michael is writing gods name onto every atom of existence. Your substances, the substance of water, stones, air, stars, everything. Michael's power isn't just being put forth into certain aspects or parts of existence, its being put towards the very fabric of existence as a whole. Everything that there was, is, and ever will be in existence. Extending through all of creation at once. Think of this case like this. The power that Michael emits to keep creation stabilized would be pretty much omnipresent. Its power extends everywhere and nowhere at the same time, to put gods mark on every atom in existence. It's encompassing everything and has explicit context to prove it, which would make it one of the best examples of where sustainability is applied and can actually count.

In addition to this, another reason as to why Michaels feat would be an unfair example to compare this to is that its not just a sustainability feat. Its simultaneously a creation feat as well. Micahel isn't just sustaining existence in Gods place, he is constantly recreating every part of existence with his power, which is essentially him recreating creation as a whole.

Overall, like I and others have said, there a lot of ways to go about sustainability feats here on different case by case basis's. And because it can go a lot of different ways, it is exactly why this standard needs to be more strict and analyzed with closer lens where context matters quite a lot.
 
Last edited:

TISSG7Redgrave

The World's Unluckiest Person
Joke Battles
Sysop
12,315
2,011
I just want to ask. Say you created a multiversal pocket dimension and also sustain it but when you lost it collapses on top of you yet you live. Would that scale to the durability since you were within the dimension as it collapsed and were able to survive it collapsing?
 
13,597
2,296
I just want to ask. Say you created a multiversal pocket dimension and also sustain it but when you lost it collapses on top of you yet you live. Would that scale to the durability since you were within the dimension as it collapsed and were able to survive it collapsing?
By multiversal, you mean if its a pocket dimension with multiversal durability? And for the collapse, id say it would scale to dura in the case since you survived the destruction of the dimension.
 

Matthew_Schroeder

VS Battles
Retired
30,467
16,778
I just want to ask. Say you created a multiversal pocket dimension and also sustain it but when you lost it collapses on top of you yet you live. Would that scale to the durability since you were within the dimension as it collapsed and were able to survive it collapsing?
Side-note but collapses are often non-physical.

There are examples in fiction of "universes collapsing" that just result in the dimension magically fading like dust into a white void in an event that in't physical or destructive, much less explosive. And in those cases I don't think it's a durability feat to "Survive it".
 
13,597
2,296
@ProfessorKukui4Life

So we're coming up with clarifications and acceptable contexts?
Yeah. To keep it nice and short, the general practice of stability feats can stay. It is still valid and it can still be done.

The goal of this thread is, for the reasons I gave, to convey the point that we need to be much stricter with stability feats with an actual standard. Not make the default assumption of sustaining something tierable. Stability can be done in a lot of different ways and to different extents that are very case by case basis, so evidence and context are extremely important for these type of feats.
 
13,597
2,296
I think all of the basic ones were mentioned here already. Ultimately it comes down to case by case basis's and what the evidence and context strongly refer to.
 
13,597
2,296
Assuming that there is enough support for this thread's proposal to be finalized, here's the summary of what would be left for us to do here.

We would have to write out a well detailed explanation of the standard, either on an already existing page, a new page, or somewhere in the editing rules (I will let staff choose where this can be listed). In the explanation of our Stabilization standards, we would need to list out requirements the feat needs to meet before it can be accepted, give evidence of consistency being at play, and kindly note that stabilizing a structure isn't something that can be universally applied in all circumstances, making it a case by case basis where context and evidence are important.
 
13,597
2,296
If I may suggest, here's what requirements I thought of that the page could have listed on it:

Before a character with a stability feat of sustaining a structure can have the feat accepted and applied to their statsitcs, it needs to meet the following critera:

Requirement 1: Specify what exactly is being stabilized so that it is made clear what the character's sustainability is doing precisely.

Examples: Stabilizing the structure's very existence, its separation from another structure, the structure's movement, the structures shape, etc.

Requirement 2: Prove that the stabilized structure is being directly sustained by the characters power and not an ability from the character, the life force of the character, the character's existence, magical property or any unknown connection to the structure that's independent of their stats.

Requirement 3: Prove that the character's sustainability is comparable to the scale of the structure they are stabilizing. If possible, its preferable that the character's sustainability is proven to be comparable to the destruction of the structure to show that their power rivals the destructive output of what would destroy the structure in the first place. Please keep in mind that this may vary depending on how the structure's destruction would happen.

For example, if a character sustains the existence of a universe that would not be instantly or immediately destroyed, the power of their sustainability would not be comparable to destructive output that immediately destroys a universe, and will not be given a 3-A or Low 2-C rating. However, their sustainability could be given either rating if the universe they sustain is destroyed instantly or immediately.

Requirement 4: Prove that the power of the character's sustainability consistently scales to their regular statistics, similar to our standards for creation feats.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
I am very overworked and distracted by real life right now, so I would appreciate if somebody else could handle it please.
 

DemonGodMitchAubin

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
8,701
2,744
Last edited:
13,597
2,296
Okay. Also does anyone have a better picture of that michael scan? I want to use that picture for the page but rn its really small.

EDIT: Nvm pic is fine.
 
Last edited:

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
Yes. That is true, and the image needs to be smaller and to the right of the page.
 

Warren_Valion

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,282
2,908
I think the structure of the page is kind of weird.

Honestly, I don't think the Possible Uses section and Possible Limitation section need to be there, the rules already explain what makes a stabilization feat valid or invalid.

I think it would be best to order it like this:
  • Stabilization Heading with a summary + Image
  • Stabilization Rules
  • Viable and Unviable stabilization feats with numerous examples for both and each list being clearly named as which is valid and which isn't.
That would be a better look for the page, imo.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
Thank you. I will check.

Would you be willing to copy the contents from the blog to a sandbox instead, so Warren can help out with improving the contents?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
There did not seem to be significant changes except for an inaccurately placed and scaled image.
 

DemonGodMitchAubin

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
8,701
2,744
I still think the examples need better explanations for why the scaling does and does not scale to the AP of the characters
 
13,597
2,296
I think the structure of the page is kind of weird.

Honestly, I don't think the Possible Uses section and Possible Limitation section need to be there, the rules already explain what makes a stabilization feat valid or invalid.

I think it would be best to order it like this:
  • Stabilization Heading with a summary + Image
  • Stabilization Rules
  • Viable and Unviable stabilization feats with numerous examples for both and each list being clearly named as which is valid and which isn't.
That would be a better look for the page, imo.
Do you still have these reccomendations in mind Warren?
 
13,597
2,296
Looking back at the suggestions, I personally think listing the possible limitations should be fine to have as they would give people visiting the site more insightful examples of how stabilization feats can be invalid. IMO.

What does everyone else think?
 

Warren_Valion

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,282
2,908
There is nothing to apologize for, I am just saying that I don't care if they are kept or not.

Whatever the case, if it is fine.

Then use it.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
102,929
21,947
I also think that the current version of the draft seems fine, except for that it may need more examples, and that I made some minor cosmetic modifications.

Thank you for helping out.
 

Elizhaa

VS Battles
Sysop
12,431
2,790
I don't think Kami and Shenron should be Unviable Example. Kami is currently rated as being stronger than Shenron. I don't believe Dende was Porunga's creator. I think it is best to remove this Unviable Example. Dende did create a new Shenron from what I know, after his training.
 
Last edited:
13,597
2,296
I don't Kami and Shenron should be Unviable Example. Kami is currently rated as being stronger than Shenron. I don't believe Dende was Porunga's creator. I think it is best to remove this Unviable Example. Dende did create a new Shenron from what I know, after his training.
Yeah Dende created Shenron as the new god of earth. I added him and Kami as their status as gods to show you can be linked to someone/something without being connected via power.

But if you want to remove that part off the page, that’s perfectly fine.
 
1,056
159
Magic is different from Ki so it’s very possible that Dende could just have powerful magic. Shenron is based on his creator’s power anyway, which in this case, is magic.
 

Eficiente

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
11,764
1,763
We should change how the summary calls "Stabilization" a type of feat, Stabilization is just a word. The page should be called "Stability Feats Standards" and the summary should explain what we mean by Stability/Stabilization in context, which is not the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top