(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

[omegabronic]

very simple, Existance Erasure is a hax not AP therefore profiles that have EE that have extenssive feats of affecting an determined structure with said hax EE should have an "with Existance Erasure", similar to how we list creation feats that don't scale to the characters statistics, so that should be a standard listed on the EE page, something like:
"feats made with Existance Erasure should be listed as such on the profiles" or idk, something along these lines

Edit: basically this is just doing to EE what we already do to Creation, very simple change

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Why is this in the staff discussion ?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

It counts if it's performing actual destruction feats instead of just erasing a person. plus this is extremely controversial

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I believe past a certain level, EE counts towards AP. The difference between erasing a universe, and destroying a universe is pretty damn blurry after all. Even more so if comparing erasing a higher dimension and destroying a higher dimension, you can't really quantify the difference.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Why is this in the staff discussion ?

Normally changes that affect multiple verses are made on the staff forums.

However, I have moved this to content revision for one simple reason: If you have a problem with some profiles, actually discuss them with the supporters. This thread will become completely unmanageable if left like this, as it pretty much aims to change a bunch of things ignoring any kind or context that may apply.

When also knowing that you made this specifically to discuss the linked profile (on a very transparent move, I might add), it becomes questionable the logistics of why this thread should even remain open.

I will leave it as is for the time being, but am tempted to simply close this.

Be better.

 

[omegabronic]

Why is this in the staff discussion ?

it is changing something of one of the site's hax pages, also to avoid derail from regular users

 

[omegabronic]

However, I have moved this to content revision for one simple reason: If you have a problem with some profiles, actually discuss them with the supporters. This thread will become completely unmanageable if left like this, as it pretty much aims to change a bunch of things ignoring any kind or context that may apply.

i am confused, i am not discussing any profiles in particular, i am just talking about EE in general based on a misunderstanding in another thread

what did i did wrong exactly?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

i am confused, i am not discussing any profiles in particular, i am just talking about EE in general based on a misunderstanding in another thread

what did i did wrong exactly?

Making an unnecessary thread.

 

[omegabronic]

Normally changes that affect multiple verses are made on the staff forums.

However, I have moved this to content revision for one simple reason: If you have a problem with some profiles, actually discuss them with the supporters. This thread will become completely unmanageable if left like this, as it pretty much aims to change a bunch of things ignoring any kind or context that may apply.

When also knowing that you made this specifically to discuss the linked profile (on a very transparent move, I might add), it becomes questionable the logistics of why this thread should even remain open.

I will leave it as is for the time being, but am tempted to simply close this.

Be better.

look if the problem was the profile linked in the op as am example, i deleted that part, this is not covering any verse or profile in specific

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Normally changes that affect multiple verses are made on the staff forums.

However, I have moved this to content revision for one simple reason: If you have a problem with some profiles, actually discuss them with the supporters. This thread will become completely unmanageable if left like this, as it pretty much aims to change a bunch of things ignoring any kind or context that may apply.

When also knowing that you made this specifically to discuss the linked profile (on a very transparent move, I might add), it becomes questionable the logistics of why this thread should even remain open.

I will leave it as is for the time being, but am tempted to simply close this.

Be better.

You know, this thing Omega is quoting is hotly debated, there are so many topics related to it, I think it should become a rule.

 

[omegabronic]

Making an unnecessary thread.

that was a thread about durability via existance erasure, i am sorry but i don't see how does that correlate to what i am proposing here, i could be seeing something wrong so, forgive if so

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

that was a thread about durability via existance erasure, i am sorry but i don't see how does that correlate to what i am proposing here, i could be seeing something wrong so, forgive if so

Simple. Your proposal is already acknowledged. We apply case by case basis. Some verses have alongside their AP a hax component (erasure in this case). That's why they are noted as AP.

When this is not the case, then the AP isn't even listed.

This thread is completely unnecessary.

 

[omegabronic]

You know, this thing Omega is quoting is hotly debated, there are so many topics related to it, I think it should become a rule.

what? dude no, EE listed in the profiles as AP is not that much debated

 

[Ikelaggan]

A thread like this has been done before

 

[omegabronic]

Simple. Your proposal is already acknowledged. We apply case by case basis. Some verses have alongside their AP a hax component (erasure in this case). That's why they are noted as AP.

When this is not the case, then the AP isn't even listed.

This thread is completely unnecessary.

well this thread is proposing for them to be listed in similar regards to "enviromental destruction"

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

well this thread is proposing for them to be listed in similar regards to "enviromental destruction"

The default assumption is that it's simply hax+range unless elaborated. As it should be.

 

[omegabronic]

A thread like this has been done before

and never got a conclusion, it wasn't rejected, nor was it accepted, it just kind of stopped getting answers, also this thread has a different proposal

 

[omegabronic]

The default assumption is that it's simply hax+range unless elaborated. As it should be.

yes, but if said range is big enough, then it should be listed in similar regards to enviromental destruction, since it is basically the same, destroying an area via something that isn't your own AP

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Making an unnecessary thread.

Can you close this?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Can you close this?

No. I'll wait for further staff. My personal opinion isn't law.

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

Its a case by case basis and its already accepted that EE doesn't translate to AP without further context

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

No. I'll wait for further staff. My personal opinion isn't law.

I understand, I'll ask Medeus to comment here

 

[omegabronic]

Its a case by case basis and its already accepted that EE doesn't translate to AP without further context

well that isn't said in the EE page, so it should, plus this thread is more like proposing to treat EE similar to enviromental destruction depending on the case

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

this is barely debated dude, like, when was a thread ever created that proposed to list EE in the ap section in similar veins to Enviromental destruction ever created?

Its already accepted that if feats like that are done purely via hax then they're not listed in the AP section (not even as Environmental Destruction). You know, because they're feats performed via hax

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Since the discussion is not anymore about revising pages, but introducing wiki policy, I have moved this back to the staff forum.

I will delete any non-staff comment from here on out. Ask permission to participate.

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu

Thoughts?

 

[omegabronic]

Since the discussion is not anymore about revising pages, but introducing wiki policy, I have moved this back to the staff forum.

I will delete any non-staff comment from here on out. Ask permission to participate.

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu

Thoughts?

tbf that was always my proposal, i kind of worded wrongly firstly due to a misunderstanding, i am very sorry for the confusion i will try to do better next time

 

[omegabronic]

edited the op for better understanding of what the proposal is

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am getting tired of repeating myself, but I disagree. First of all, the Hakai or Energy of Destruction is part of the UES scaling regardless, and there are plenty of arguments where him nuking the universe was portrayed to be more so like a Ki Blast rather than a Hakai.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I am getting tired of repeating myself, but I disagree. First of all, the Hakai or Energy of Destruction is part of the UES scaling regardless, and there are plenty of arguments where him nuking the universe was portrayed to be more so like a Ki Blast rather than a Hakai.

You should've read the thread mate, instead of just reading what someone told you on a profile.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

You should've read the thread mate, instead of just reading what someone told you on a profile.

Yeah, just got back from work to see 42+ messages on the bell, so tend to get hasty when that happens.

But anyway, if this is just some general thread that isn't verse specific. I agree we don't default to EE feats scaling to physicals, but of course UES related ones can be exceptions.

 

[omegabronic]

Yeah, just got back from work to see 42+ messages on the bell, so tend to get hasty when that happens.

But anyway, if this is just some general thread that isn't verse specific. I agree we don't default to EE feats scaling to physicals, but of course UES related ones can be exceptions.

basically this thread is proposing that for cases like, someone erasing a timeline with EE to still be listed in the profiles in a similar manner as we list creation feats and environmental destruction

 

[ImmortalDread]

But it is already a case. I have seen plenty profiles doing it so.

What is exactly the issue here?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

But it is already a case. I have seen plenty profiles doing it so.

What is exactly the issue here?

I will answer, but please ask for permission.

He wants to make it a proper standard on the EE page.

 

[omegabronic]

I kinda don't know why it's even a staff discussion thread if this is all this thread want? Staff discussion threads are meant to be changing smth highly controversial or smth that normal users shouldn't be allowed to give input on, unnecessary comments, take it staff or CRT forum does get deleted. Just creating a minor rule or content of the page such as this thread doesn't seems to worth even near enough to be a Staff thread. We have Tier 1, wiki wide related, roles related revisions in staff discussion forum currently. This thread as much as it's worth, should be moved to CRT forum.

i mean, this is changing a wiki standard technically by putting a standard on a very popular hax page, the moment this was changed to normal thread it started to get derailed with db, which is why i made a staff thread in the first place, to avoid all derailment, from what i saw, threads that want to change a standard on the wiki instead of verse specific ones are recommended to be staff threads for this very reason, to avoid getting derail

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

i mean, this is changing a wiki standard technically by putting a standard on a very popular hax page, the moment this was changed to normal thread it started to get derailed with db, which is why i made a staff thread in the first place, to avoid all derailment, from what i saw, threads that want to change a standard on the wiki instead of verse specific ones are recommended to be staff threads for this very reason, to avoid getting derail

I agree with adding this note on the ee page (though it’s already accepted)

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Note: I gave permission to godofice to comment. I also deleted the derailing part of his comment.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I will be gone for a few hours, so will not be able to moderate the thread. I trust users will not, at the very least, try to derail the thread with things not related to the OP and it's proposition.

 

[Antvasima]

I am probably not the best suited for evaluating this thread.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I guess, but honestly, it should just be the range level of EE and shouldn't even be listed in AP . But so long as it's stated to be through EE then I don't much have a problem.

 

[ByAsura]

I guess this is kind of fine under some circumstances (especially because a few pages definitely have this already), but I don't have much else else to say other than the obvious 'case-by-case basis'.

Also, we should have examples on the page of what doesn't apply. For example, the De-Mat Gun from Doctor Who, which can affect Solar System level shielding, remodels the universe surrounding a target so that they just unhappened. It literally targets everything except its target.