• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Stability Page Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
2,954
1,440
So after reading over the stability thread that was recently changed. I found many issues with the requirements as they are not consistent with the tiering system at all. Their are way too many hurdles for a character to qualify. For example in requirement 3 it says the destruction of the realms must be immediate. Why is this even necessary if character already meets requirements 1,2 and 4? Which means their stabilizing the whole structure with their power which according to Newton's law of potential energy and kinetic energy would require an even greater amount of energy to keep in place.

I will quote an article
"Energy is the amount of work a physical system is capable of performing so energy can be defined as that which changes the position, physical composition or temperature of an object. There are two categories of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy. The difference between them is whether the energy is being transferred (kinetic) or stored (potential). They are interconvertible.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion (the motion of waves, electrons, atoms, molecules) while potential energy is stored energy or energy of position that has the potential to do work (follow the kinetic and potential energy links for a more in depth discussion). The kinetic energy of an object is dependent both the mass of the object and its velocity.

K.E. = 1/2 m v2

Thus a 3,000 lb car moving at 50 mph will transfer more kinetic energy than a 2,000 lb car moving at the same rate. Energy can be stored in an object by lifting it up. The amount of potential energy would be

P.E. = mgh" here is the link to the article.

To add on in the tiering system it does not ask how long does it take for character A to destroy a planet or any structure for that matter. For example kaguya is given star level cuz its stated she can destroy her dimension. There was no time frame given. Their was no time frame for goku and beerus destroying a universe etc. It also says having an effect on a structure you should also scale to it. That being said we should also apply this logic to the stability thread to be fair.

Conclusion requirement 3 should be erased entirely as it goes against the tiering system(foot notes 1) and regular tiers as well not only that if said character in question meets the other requirements such as maintaining the entire construct with their power which according to newtons law you should scale to it. Then they should be given the scale.
 
Seeing as I was the one who suggested and got this standard made, I should be able to comment. And this will likely be closed anyway. But no, the recent stability standards do not at all conflict with the tiering system that many users, staff and non-staff, agreed were fine. And the thread went through a lot of why the given requirements were put forth.

Their are way too many hurdles for a character to qualify. For example in requirement 3 it says the destruction of the realms must be immediate. Why is this even necessary if character already meets requirements 1,2 and 4?

This isn't an argument for pretty much anything. Every single requirement listed on the page are necessary because, as the original thread already explained, stabilization isn't a 1 to 1 thing that can fall under the same case. To put it short, sustenance is extremely case by case as it depends on just what exactly is getting stabilized, what's doing the stabilizing, how the structure is being stabilized, and whether or not its a feat that can be appropriately scaled to a character's statistics. Let's go through the listed criteria real quick.

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

Self-explanatory. Criteria 1 is about specifying what specific structure is getting stabilized. A planet, star, galaxy. universe, multiverse, etc.

Requirement 2: Prove that the stabilized structure is being directly sustained by the power of the character and not from the character's abilities, life force, existence, magical properties or any unknown connection that is independent of their statistics.

Also self-explanatory. Criteria 2 is put here to require characters to be proven to use their actual power / energy to stabilize the given structure and not some unknown independent component that wouldn't scale to their statistics otherwise. And this should be fairly clear since a character's power is the basis for their AP and stats when tiering them.

Requirement 3: Prove that the character's stabilization is comparable to the scale of the structure they are stabilizing. Preferably, it should be proven that the character's sustainability is comparable to the destruction of the structure to best 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 occur. For example, if a character sustains the existence of a universe that would not be instantly or immediately destroyed when no longer supported, the power of their sustainability would not be comparable to destructive output that completely and immediately destroys a universe, and would not be sufficient enough to be given a 3-A or Low 2-C rating. However, their sustainability could be given either rating if the universe they sustain would be completely destroyed instantly or immediately without support.

Criteria 3 is about proving the character's sustenance is comparable to the structure they are maintaining so that their stability scales and isn't unquantifiable. 3-A and Low 2-C are used as examples because of the fact that a character's sustenance is counteracting levels of power that are on 3-A / Low 2-C levels. A universe getting instantly or immediately destroyed is unleashing 3-A / Low 2-C output. And the character's sustenance counters the totality of that output, stopping the universe from being destroyed in that instance. Thus, 3-A / Low 2-C sustenance can be granted.

However, their sustenance wouldn't scale if the universe slowly deteriorates over a drawn-out timeframe since their sustenance isn't actually stopping true 3-A or Low 2-C destruction. It's stopping unknown levels of destruction happening to said universe that isn't destroying its totality. Thus, their sustenance is unquantifiable. This requirement is not that difficult to understand either.

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

And finally, Criteria 4 is also self explanatory. That you need to prove the power put forth into a sustenance feat scales to the character's overall stats, just like we do with creation feats. The nature of sustenance would, by default, not scale to stats since the character's power would be used for specifically one purpose and no other one, which makes the burden of proof here more of a requirement.

All of the requirements for the newly created sustenance feat standards, which were made and approved by staff and non staff, are easy to understand and do not conflict with anything.
To add on in the tiering system it does not ask how long does it take for character A to destroy a planet or any structure for that matter. For example kaguya is given star level cuz its stated she can destroy her dimension. There was no time frame given. Their was no time frame for goku and beerus destroying a universe etc. It also says having an effect on a structure you should also scale to it. That being said we should also apply this logic to the stability thread to be fair.
You forget that the simplest solution can be for us to simply apply that rule to the tiering system and mention timeframes are important.

But to answer, its more than likely not added into our tiering system rules because its a beyond self-explanatory rule that anyone should and can understand. Attacks that do not one shot or attack anything on a particular level in a single instance are not at the tier claimed for them. More than likely not anyway. If I use multiple hits to destroy a building, am I 8-C? No. If I take a thousand attacks to destroy a planet, am I unleashing 5-B power in one instance? No im not. And so on and so forth. Common sense tells you that if you cannot destroy X fast enough to reasonably say you can unleash that amount of power into your attacks, then you are not at that level. There's a difference between not being needed to instantly destroy something and destroying something in, like, hours or days.

Our tiering system more than likely doesn't list this requirement (which is very easily changeable) because its extremely simple.

And with that, im against any form of removal to the new sustenance standards that got evaluated and agreed on the short time it's been here thus far. They are simple, understandable, and do not require any significant change for the reasons given.
 
Also, I completely fail to see how the criteria gives "too many hurdles" for this type of feat to get accepted. They specify exactly what is, and what should, be needed for a type of feat that our site has never had any kind of standard for before.

Whats getting stabilized, what's doing the stabilizing, how it is, and whether or not it scales. These are very simple requirements that aren't big hurdles at all. They simply expect you to give a clear basis for a sustenance feat so that its not arbitrarily accepted like it has been up until recently.
 
Only staff can @ people to where it'll bring a notification.

imZb6UA.png

In the case that you don't know, regular users are allowed to comment if granted permission by a staff member.

So after reading over the stability thread that was recently changed. I found many issues with the requirements as they are not consistent with the tiering system at all. Their are way too many hurdles for a character to qualify. For example in requirement 3 it says the destruction of the realms must be immediate. Why is this even necessary if character already meets requirements 1,2 and 4? Which means their stabilizing the whole structure with their power which according to Newton's law of potential energy and kinetic energy would require an even greater amount of energy to keep in place.
You completely failed to understand what criteria 3 actually stated. Kukui stated it above me but I'll paraphrase.
Prove stabilizing 3-A structure = 3-A feat.
And your argument is basically "it follows most of them, so even if it doesn't follow this, it doesn't matter" which is beyond flawfull.
I will quote an article...
One issue I'm seeing is that you're trying to equate energy used for AP for stabilization feats, which is dead wrong.
You haven't explained why Kinetic Energy or Potential Energy should be used for stabilization feats.
Most stabilization feats aren't done via punching something. Newton's Law is also primarily for physical attacks, which is why even though we do refer to Newton's Law on the durability page.
Logically, characters capable of physically achieving a certain degree of energy output, must be able to at least withstand a comparable amount of damage, or their bodies would break apart from the strain and automatic counterforce, whenever they exert themselves.
We don't do it for all energy based substances or anything not physical. We don't give people's life force's durability for stabilizing structures.

To add on in the tiering system it does not ask how long does it take for character A to destroy a planet or any structure for that matter. For example kaguya is given star level cuz its stated she can destroy her dimension. There was no time frame given. Their was no time frame for goku and beerus destroying a universe etc. It also says having an effect on a structure you should also scale to it. That being said we should also apply this logic to the stability thread to be fair.
A plethora of false equivalences.
  1. The first thing you did was bring up AP feats instead of stability feats. That's that.
  2. Next, you're trying to say that "AP does this, so stabilization should do this" even though those are 2 completely different concepts.
  3. You attempted to use the "this verse has this so everyone should have it" logic.
    1. Kaguya is given star level because her attack was stated to have the power to obliterate the dimension. Nobody cared about the planet and moon in there, it would destroy a star. And at the rate that it was expanding, it wouldn't take a long amount of time.
    2. You're completely wrong for the Goku point. There is also a calc for the energy ball that was going to destroy the universe. They have statements that their regular punches could destroy the universe. They don't scale over overtime destruction, which is why Goku's Manga Counterpart, who did the same exact feat, even in his strongest form, is Multi Galaxy level.
      1. At least Multi-Galaxy level (Capable of shaking the universe as well as eventually destroying it, however, the exact time frame is unknown)
    3. If they fail to follow the standards, then they should be downgraded. They are the exceptions, not the rule.
  4. For Attack Potency feats, we can calculate the energy output per second, per minute, per day if needed. For stabilization feats, we can not.
Conclusion requirement 3 should be erased entirely as it goes against the tiering system(foot notes 1) and regular tiers as well not only that if said character in question meets the other requirements such as maintaining the entire construct with their power which according to newtons law you should scale to it. Then they should be given the scale.
Requirement 3 could be changed from "immediate" to "in a short timeframe". Everything else you stated is irrelevant.

In Conclusion: This thread should be taken with a grain of salt until the OP can prove that KE and PE are able to be used in this situation.
 
Not a member of staff so this can be deleted but I feel like a sizable portion of this thread is arguing false equivalencies. If characters don't scale to a feat despite others qualifying then both of them should be put under scrutiny. This has been a tactic I've seen used a lot for these kinds of changes that amounts to basically nothing. So those examples with Goku and Kaguya mean essentially nothing.

I heavily agree with Kukui and KingTempest.
 
It does contradict the tiering system as it does not ask weather or not the destruction of a feat is immediate Nor does it incorporate the characters at least having an effect of the structure itself
Quote from foot notes 1
  1. Significantly affect" is used as an umbrella term for feats that don't involve direct creation or destruction but are comparable to them in power, such as warping and distorting the entirety of the structure in question, sustaining its existence with one's own, merging the structure with another one, etc.
  2. It should, on the other hand, be kept in
Another quote
Characters who can significantly affect[1], create and/ or destroy a universe at least the size of our own, but not infinitely bigger.

So the fact that it doesn't even incorporate the affecting part is already in conflict with the tiering system.

"This isn't an argument for pretty much anything. Every single requirement listed on the page are necessary because, as the original thread already explained, stabilization isn't a 1 to 1 thing that can fall under the same case. To put it short, sustenance is extremely case by case as it depends on just what exactly is getting stabilized, what's doing the stabilizing, how the structure is being stabilized, and whether or not its a feat that can be appropriately scaled to a character's statistics. Let's go through the listed criteria real quick"

If said character already meet 1,2 and 4 than 3 isn't necessary. Cuz your already proven to stabilize the entire structure with your power. Which according to Newton's law u should scale to. Requirement 2 already answers those question. It ask to prove whats being sustained, prove its being stained with power and the feat would automatically scale to the characters statics if they doing it with power.

"Criteria 3 is about proving the character's sustenance is comparable to the structure they are maintaining so that their stability scales and isn't unquantifiable. 3-A and Low 2-C are used as examples because of the fact that a character's sustenance is counteracting levels of power that are on 3-A / Low 2-C levels. A universe getting instantly or immediately destroyed is unleashing 3-A / Low 2-C output. And the character's sustenance counters the totality of that output, stopping the universe from being destroyed in that instance. Thus, 3-A / Low 2-C sustenance can be granted."


Requirement 2 already proves this if said character is preventing a universe from collapsing with his own power. Via potential energy u should scale to.


"However, their sustenance wouldn't scale if the universe slowly deteriorates over a drawn-out timeframe since their sustenance isn't actually stopping true 3-A or Low 2-C destruction. It's stopping unknown levels of destruction happening to said universe that isn't destroying its totality. Thus, their sustenance is unquantifiable. This requirement is not that difficult to understand either."


If the author says a character is maintaining as structure with their power alone. Why would you say otherwise? cuz it didn't happen immediately but if we are seeing the crumbling of the structure happening cuz they died then they were still keeping it together via potential energy. Which means it still can be quantified. I recommend you read Newton's law. Instead of expressing your personal opinion

expand...
You forget that the simplest solution can be for us to simply apply that rule to the tiering system and mention timeframes are important.

But to answer, its more than likely not added into our tiering system rules because its a beyond self-explanatory rule that anyone should and can understand. Attacks that do not one shot or attack anything on a particular level in a single instance are not at the tier claimed for them. More than likely not anyway. If I use multiple hits to destroy a building, am I

Well yall might as well downgrade half the characters on vs battles.
 
It does contradict the tiering system as it does not ask weather or not the destruction of a feat is immediate Nor does it incorporate the characters at least having an effect of the structure itself
It doesn't contradict the tierign system and several reasons for why it doesnt were already given here to explain why.
Quote from foot notes 1
  1. Significantly affect" is used as an umbrella term for feats that don't involve direct creation or destruction but are comparable to them in power, such as warping and distorting the entirety of the structure in question, sustaining its existence with one's own, merging the structure with another one, etc.
  2. It should, on the other hand, be kept in
You do realize this footnote involved sustainability feats before I got these standards created for them right? Mentioning this footnote here thats been updated with new standards does absolutely nothing to help your argument.

And the rest of what the footnote speaks about is purely hax-based feats on that scale, not creation or destruction.
Another quote
Characters who can significantly affect[1], create and/ or destroy a universe at least the size of our own, but not infinitely bigger.

So the fact that it doesn't even incorporate the affecting part is already in conflict with the tiering system.
See above. The footnote is irrelevant to this discussion, and even then, its another false equivalence as "significantly effect" can mean a myriad of different things that wouldn't have anything to do with a quantifiable feat on that scale, which is again exactly something we deal with when it comes to sustenance feats.

That and sustenance feats are not the same as other feats, King Tempest already pointed this out in his own response.
If said character already meet 1,2 and 4 than 3 isn't necessary. Cuz your already proven to stabilize the entire structure with your power. Which according to Newton's law u should scale to.
No, 3 would absolutely be necessary because you would need to prove that the sustenance actually supports the totality of the structure and not on scales that are anything less than that, in reasonable timeframes, in order for it to scale. 1, 2, and 4 are parts of the overall work you need to complete for getting the feat accepted, 3 is vital criteria for whether or not the feat is quantifiable in the first place.

Sustenance that only stops parts of a planet from crumbling apart, or parts of a universe from getting destroyed, isn't enough to get either 5-B or Low 2-C. To get 5-B, your sustenance would need to be preventing the entire planet from getting destroyed immediately. Same thing with universes, or any structure.

And this, by the way, is under the assumption that the sustenance is preventing destruction to begin with too, which is only one possibility among what Stabilization can cover.
Requirement 2 already answers those question. It ask to prove whats being sustained, prove its being stained with power and the feat would automatically scale to the characters statics if they doing it with power.
Uh, no it wouldn't? You keep skipping the necessary steps, going from beginning to end without addressing the middle. Doing it with your power is absolutely not enough for it to be accepted, as that doesn't mean the feat scales to you consistently. Just like a creation feat doesn't automatically scale, neither would this.
Requirement 2 already proves this if said character is preventing a universe from collapsing with his own power. Via potential energy u should scale to.
Again, it doesn't. Requirement 2 has nothing to do with the feat being quantifiable, it has to do with the method of the sustenance. As in the character using their own energy to do the feat instead of an independent component that doesn't scale to stats. Like a magical ability or just an unknown link.

Requirement 3 deals with the feat being quantifiable or unquantifiable. Requirement 2 deals with how the sustenance is being done. Easy differences.
"However, their sustenance wouldn't scale if the universe slowly deteriorates over a drawn-out timeframe since their sustenance isn't actually stopping true 3-A or Low 2-C destruction. It's stopping unknown levels of destruction happening to said universe that isn't destroying its totality. Thus, their sustenance is unquantifiable. This requirement is not that difficult to understand either."

If the author says a character is maintaining as structure with their power alone. Why would you say otherwise? cuz it didn't happen immediately but if we are seeing the crumbling of the structure happening cuz they died then they were still keeping it together via potential energy. Which means it still can be quantified. I recommend you read Newton's law. Instead of expressing your personal opinion
Thats not what I said, or what I meant. And stop referencing Newtons 3rd law as King already covered why this is a false equivalance.

We aren't saying a character isnt sustaining a structure if it doesnt completely collapse immediately. The point is that their sustenance's power isnt equal to the scale of the structure if the structure isn't immediately collapsing completely. If it can stand on its own for a notable amount of time without support, that means the output of the character's sustannce isn't countering the output of the structures total destruction since the structure can survive on its own for a length of time. Basically imagine it like this:

Character A's energy is what keeps a universe sustained. When Character A dies, the universe they support would vanish in a matter of seconds. Their sustainability scales because their sustenance was countering immediate universal destruction.

Now we have another character, Character B, who does the same thing as Character A. But in Character B's case, when he dies, their universe collapses much more slowly and will be able to remain for a matter of hours. That means Character B's universe isn't being destroyed by immediate universal destruction. So what amount of output is Character B's sustenance stopping from their universe? An unquantifiable level of it since they are no longer countering anything with their sustenance since they're dead.

Character A's case has them stopping total universal destructive output, Character B's case only has them stopping unquantifiable output.
Well yall might as well downgrade half the characters on vs battles.
I can assure and even promise you that majority of the characters here do not fit under this case like you seem to believe they do. And if any of the characters do happen to, they will be downgraded.

Once again, stop mentioning false equivalencies or other verses to try and support your argument as you will only get those verses scrutinized and downgraded as well.
 
Not a member of staff so this can be deleted but I feel like a sizable portion of this thread is arguing false equivalencies. If characters don't scale to a feat despite others qualifying then both of them should be put under scrutiny. This has been a tactic I've seen used a lot for these kinds of changes that amounts to basically nothing. So those examples with Goku and Kaguya mean essentially nothing.

I heavily agree with Kukui and KingTempest.
Its pretty much this now^

A lot of what's being brought up here was dealt with in the thread that got these standards made, and the little bits that weren't were addressed as nothing more than false equivalences used to go against the standards.

This thread should just be closed.
 
Hold up, I'd suggest using the prime example of using Michael as a reference for the opening page needs to be removed. Going by the Stabilization thread itself, he shouldn't quantify as his feat took a week to do, which is vastly above the time limit.



Either remove him and pick someone else who actually meets the requirements or don't use a picture for it at all. We shouldn't be using a flawed feat as a valid comparison on the page.
 
Hold up, I'd suggest using the prime example of using Michael as a reference for the opening page needs to be removed. Going by the Stabilization thread itself, he shouldn't quantify as his feat took a week to do, which is vastly above the time limit.
No, Michael is fine to use. Because even though it took him a week like you claim to be the case, Michael is sustaining a 1-A structure.

Sustaining a cosmology with infinite X-dimensional realms kinda makes timeframes irrelevant. Same for anything that’s pretty much 2-A or more.

Now if it would’ve take him an infinite amount of time to do the feat, your point would have more to stand on (and yes, infinite time would be a counter since we for instance don’t make Altair from Re:Creator 2-A for needing infinite amounts of time to destroy infinite universes, She only caps at Low 2-C because of that.)

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Michaels feat also isn’t just purely a sustenance feat, it is also a creation feat simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
Reio wanted to make another response, so I will unlock this thread, but it seems like a waste of time, so I will likely lock it soon again.
 
The mods you tagged here already agreed with the standards and requirements when I got them created in the first place. Your concerns were brought up and addressed already in the original thread.

So if your response doesn’t actually bring anything new to this, this is pointless.
 
You completely failed to understand what criteria 3 actually stated. Kukui stated it above me but I'll paraphrase.
Prove stabilizing 3-A structure = 3-A feat.
I already did in order to stabilize an object with power you have to produce more energy than the mass object itself. For example for the potential energy formula. U need to calculate the mass×height×gravitational pull.

"One issue I'm seeing is that you're trying to equate energy used for AP for stabilization feats, which is dead wrong.
You haven't explained why Kinetic Energy or Potential Energy should be used for stabilization feats."
Most stabilization feats aren't done via punching something. Newton's Law is also primarily for physical attacks, which is why even though we do refer to Newton's Law on the durability page."


Fair enough but it still deserves some sort of quantification as stabilizing or holding something together can still be quantified with potential energy. For example it takes 1 kilogram of tnt(2 million joules )to destroy a small car while it takes 100s of joules to hold a car a 2 meters above the ground but when comes to things like planets and universes stabilizing them is alot more relative to complete destruction cuz keeping them from colliding or collapsing would take far more energy than destruction cuz the distance between them is much greater than 2 meters. Lets say you keep to planets from colliding . And using newtons 3rd law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you preventing complete destruction of something you are displaying a equal and opposite reaction to the force or destruction regardless of time frame.

"One issue I'm seeing is that you're trying to equate energy used for AP for stabilization feats, which is dead wrong.
You haven't explained why Kinetic Energy or Potential Energy should be used for stabilization feats.
Most stabilization feats aren't done via punching something. Newton's Law is also primarily for physical attacks, which is why even though we do refer to Newton's Law on the durability page."


That's why i want newtons law incorporated into the stability page as it can quantify many stabilization feats. Newton's law you can quantify the joules of energy needed for a stabilization feat. Like keeping things from falling or colliding.

"We don't do it for all energy based substances or anything not physical. We don't give people's life force's durability for stabilizing structures."

That's incorrect you gives ap feats for plp destroying things with energy blast. Only difference is a character is stabilizing something with energy instead of destroying it. And typically for a lot of verses energy scales to stats.

    1. "Kaguya is given star level because her attack was stated to have the power to obliterate the dimension. Nobody cared about the planet and moon in there, it would destroy a star. And at the rate that it was expanding, it wouldn't take a long amount of time.
    2. You're completely wrong for the Goku point. There is also a calc for the energy ball that was going to destroy the universe. They have statements that their regular punches could destroy the universe. They don't scale over overtime destruction, which is why Goku's Manga Counterpart,who did the same exact feat, even in his strongest form, is Multi Galaxy level.
      1. At least Multi-Galaxy level (Capable of shaking the universe as well as eventually destroying it, however, the exact time frame is unknown)
    3. If they fail to follow the standards, then they should be downgraded. They are the exceptions, not the rule.
  1. For Attack Potency feats, we can calculate the energy output per second, per minute, per day if needed. For stabilization feats, we can not."

The rate is unquantifiable. It having the power to obliterate the planet does not mean it will immediately obliterate a planet using the logic for the stabilization thread. Even tho characters power can stabilize a planet. They still need more context and the effects have to be immediate if the stabilizer dies. Lets say a character said they created a universe. Then you come in and ask "well how long did it take? By what means did he do it?" This is exactly how stabilization is being treated.

Lol you just proved my point manga goku was still multi galaxy even tho the rate of destruction is unquantifiable.


You can calculate stabilization with potential energy and newtons 3rd law of equal and opposite reactions. Which can mean keeping something from falling,collapsing,merging or colliding. Action stabilizing the universe,reaction preventing universal destruction
 
No, Michael is fine to use. Because even though it took him a week like you claim to be the case, Michael is sustaining a 1-A structure.
Hold on one moment, from what i recall and feel free to try to correct me here but why would the timeframe for a 1-A feat be any different than a Low 2-C feat? Both are infinite in nature albeit different levels of infinity.

Low 2-C is still infinity, so going by your own words, the timeframe should be irrelevant.
Sustaining a cosmology with infinite X-dimensional realms kinda makes timeframes irrelevant. Same for anything that’s pretty much 2-A or more.
I find your usage of "kinda" to be somewhat suspect, as this isn't written down anywhere nor is it noted. Regardless, this isn't the best example to use due to 1-A nonsense, I.E not a feat that can compared to others as a reference for the most part. The reference picture should preferably use something that's easier to use a general comparison, as most verses don't work on a 1-A structure.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Michaels feat also isn’t just purely a sustenance feat, it is also a creation feat simultaneously.
Haven't seen Re:Creators yet so i'm not gonna make a comment on that, but this if anything is another reason why this shouldn't be used as the prime example of Sustaining a structure, as it's more along the lines of a Creation feat as Michael's feat primarily consists of him undoing the damage as opposed to sustaining the verse for every second that passes by. If we're to use a feat of stabilization, either hsi feat here works much better as this one doesn't have any feats that are outright creation. (This one is him maintaining a pocket dimension and it crumbling away due to him not being there.) or creation being at risk due him being disturbed. dunamis demiurgos is a inherently and objectively better image and example to use in comparison to God's Mark. Also from what i'm gathering from Reio35's comment is that he's arguing that you can still calculate AP values for Universal destruction that doesn't happen instantly, such as Manga Goku having 3-C via a universal feat that took an unknown amount of time. A feat involving the destruction of a 3-A structure over time isn't 3-A but it's something that can still be quantified, rather than throwing it away as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Hold on one moment, from what i recall and feel free to try to correct me here but why would the timeframe for a 1-A feat be any different than a Low 2-C feat? Both are infinite in nature albeit different levels of infinity.

Low 2-C is still infinity, so going by your own words, the timeframe should be irrelevant.
Because a Low 2-C structure is not automatically infinite in terms of it's size or amount of given space. It is entirely possible to have a space-time continuum that is finite in size.

1-A is an entirely different ballbark in this case since not only are we talking about a tier that's much much above that of 2-A ( a tier where we now actually deal with a structure thats infinite in scope since it's an infinite multiverse), but this tier involves that of infinite higher-dimensional planes that are also being separated infinitely and those who reach 1-A stand out from the entirety of their verse's infinite hierarchy.

It is a very different situation than what Low 2-C deals with.
I find your usage of "kinda" to be somewhat suspect, as this isn't written down anywhere nor is it noted. Regardless, this isn't the best example to use due to 1-A nonsense, I.E not a feat that can compared to others as a reference for the most part. The reference picture should preferably use something that's easier to use a general comparison, as most verses don't work on a 1-A structure.
I wouldn't be opposed to this. My points moreso that Michael should stay as an example on the page, but im fine if everyone else wants to use a different example for the reference picture.
Also from what i'm gathering from Reio35's comment is that he's arguing that you can still calculate AP values for Universal destruction that doesn't happen instantly, such as Manga Goku having 3-C via a universal feat that took an unknown amount of time. A feat involving the destruction of a 3-A structure over time isn't 3-A but it's something that can still be quantified, rather than throwing it away as a whole.
I will be responding to Reio after posting this. Was busy yesterday.
 
You completely failed to understand what criteria 3 actually stated. Kukui stated it above me but I'll paraphrase.

I already did in order to stabilize an object with power you have to produce more energy than the mass object itself. For example for the potential energy formula. U need to calculate the mass×height×gravitational pull.
Again, Potential Energy cannot be equated to a sustenance feat like it can to a normal AP feat. King mentioned this before.
"One issue I'm seeing is that you're trying to equate energy used for AP for stabilization feats, which is dead wrong.
You haven't explained why Kinetic Energy or Potential Energy should be used for stabilization feats."
Most stabilization feats aren't done via punching something. Newton's Law is also primarily for physical attacks, which is why even though we do refer to Newton's Law on the durability page."


Fair enough but it still deserves some sort of quantification as stabilizing or holding something together can still be quantified with potential energy. For example it takes 1 kilogram of tnt(2 million joules )to destroy a small car while it takes 100s of joules to hold a car a 2 meters above the ground but when comes to things like planets and universes stabilizing them is alot more relative to complete destruction cuz keeping them from colliding or collapsing would take far more energy than destruction cuz the distance between them is much greater than 2 meters. Lets say you keep to planets from colliding . And using newtons 3rd law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you preventing complete destruction of something you are displaying a equal and opposite reaction to the force or destruction regardless of time frame.
Again, King already mentioned this. Newtwons 3rd law deals primarily with physical attacks, which are normal AP attacks that you scale your durability to. Energy, which is what the basis for a sustenance feat is here, does not "have" durability in the same sense as this, so Newtwon's 3rd law would not be applicable to it.

And as for Potential Energy, that also wouldn't work here. The planets example is what I actually already pointed out as being wrong in the thread that got these standards created in the first place. The movement of planets for instance (which is a different sustenance feat than destruction) wouldn't have your sustenance scale to the totality of what happens. Your sustenance is only preventing the given planets from so much as moving one inch towards one another, not from them getting destroyed upon the collision. Once they actually start moving towards each other to create a collision, your sustenance isn't doing what its supposed to be doing anymore. It's not doing it's job anymore. The movement aspect of the feat is the only thing it could scale to, the destructive aspect would be a result that differs from the purpose of your sustenance.
That's why i want newtons law incorporated into the stability page as it can quantify many stabilization feats. Newton's law you can quantify the joules of energy needed for a stabilization feat. Like keeping things from falling or colliding.
See above. You can't. Nor can the law be applicable here either.
"We don't do it for all energy based substances or anything not physical. We don't give people's life force's durability for stabilizing structures."

That's incorrect you gives ap feats for plp destroying things with energy blast. Only difference is a character is stabilizing something with energy instead of destroying it. And typically for a lot of verses energy scales to stats.
We give characters AP from energy destroying things because the energy has an actual destructive output to be rated by point blank. Stability differs in the factors of how and what the feat is doing since its not destruction or creation. It's extremely case by case.

And as said before, energy doesn't have a durability, so you cant apply Newtons 3rd Law to a sustenance feat that counters the structure's destruction.
The rate is unquantifiable. It having the power to obliterate the planet does not mean it will immediately obliterate a planet using the logic for the stabilization thread. Even tho characters power can stabilize a planet. They still need more context and the effects have to be immediate if the stabilizer dies. Lets say a character said they created a universe. Then you come in and ask "well how long did it take? By what means did he do it?" This is exactly how stabilization is being treated.
Im not seeing the purpose of this counter-point since from the start, part of the sustenance standards was to treat them similarly to how we analyze creation feats as well. Proving it scales to their stats. And for creation feats, we obviously don't just hand every character with a creation feat a tier without context proving they did it reasonably fast enough (immediate may be the wrong word to use here, but the actual point still stands).

We have characters with creation feats that aren't done fast enough to be given a tier. And we also don't just automatically give a destruction feat full value without similar context either. So im not seeing what this particular point is supposed to be referring to.
Lol you just proved my point manga goku was still multi galaxy even tho the rate of destruction is unquantifiable.
The feats quantifiable because the feat in the manga version was not just destruction, but also shaking the universe, which has enough to be calced and given a tier off of that alone. And considering the fact that Goku and Beerus's punches all in one panel were showing these shockwaves quickly traversing U7, both the mortal realm and the Kai's realm, the rate of their feat in both cases would have a reliable basis to claim the rate would be extremely fast.

That, along with the fact that DB's universe is larger than our own in its observable size, which would give more quantifiably bigger results.
 
Kukui:

Tell me here when you think that this should be closed.
If you ask me, it should already be closed.

The only small thing from Reios points that I guess could be changed on the page is changing all the “immediate” wording to “quick timeframe” as I think that would cause less confusion and be more clear.

But aside from that tiny thing, there’s nothing posted here that requires the pages standards to be changed significantly. All of the concerns were pretty much addressed the first time, and the new things brought here were addressed here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top