• 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.

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Maverick_Zero_X

Blech, I don't feel like my arguments were properly engaged with, the most cogent of those being:
  1. Listing EE as AP is misleading, because an 8-B with EE can still EE a character who is tier 5, as long as their body's small enough. EE negates durability, so this form of reasoning about it is fundamentally flawed.
  2. If we do this creation scaling, this would put EEing a rock as two orders of magnitude weaker than fragmenting a rock. I don't understand how people can be okay with that.
  3. We still don't have a proper answer on how this would affect characters who erase someone across time. Is Misogi Kumagawa going to be upgraded to High 3-A from that, due to it involving erasing infinite matter? Or would that only be stopped because it was seen as infeasible to use his ability to EE the moon.
It kinda sucks that people were brought to this thread and just told "people disagree about this" without really saying why.

I also, in general, think that 6-4 is a really really weak margin to be passing a thread over.
 
Agnaa said:
  1. Listing EE as AP is misleading, because an 8-B with EE can still EE a character who is tier 5, as long as their body's small enough. EE negates durability, so this form of reasoning about it is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...
You can say the same about any kind of reality warping, including that of Tier 1 characters and stuff. In general I see little reason to give high-scale reality warpers such rating and low-scale ones not. Ultimately, it is still a sign of their EEs strength.

And, in general, I would argue the contrary to it being misleading: Listing a character that can erase Galaxies as 9-B without any mention of such a high scale EE power would be misleading.
Saying that a character with notable erasure powers has those powers is just informative.

Agnaa said:
  1. If we do this creation scaling, this would put EEing a rock as two orders of magnitude weaker than fragmenting a rock. I don't understand how people can be okay with that.
Click to expand...
For the same reason we are ok with listing creation that way.

Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, just one is the other played in reverse. In physics, there is the rule that doing something and reversing it takes the same amount of power. (In theory, in practice entropy yada yada yada)
In fiction, one could think of a clash between reality warpers, one trying to create something and one trying to undo that creation. It would seem probable that in such a clash neither has an inherent advantage due to their task for some reason being easier.
In short, it is a rather natural view to have creation ex nihilo and the reverse of that as the same rating.

In general, it being weaker than fragmentation is not an issue. We are judging feats by an immense rule of thumb here, because we acknowledge that it is better to rank them despite no strictly scientific way for that existing. Being conservative with our estimates is a given. IIRC fragmentation was even one considered option in the creation debate, but was ultimately disregarded for more conservative methods. There is no real reason to use fragmentation in particular.

Agnaa said:
  1. We still don't have a proper answer on how this would affect characters who erase someone across time. Is Misogi Kumagawa going to be upgraded to High 3-A from that, due to it involving erasing infinite matter? Or would that only be stopped because it was seen as infeasible to use his ability to EE the moon.
Click to expand...
I believe we have standards for how to rank the destruction of timelines that are less than universal in size, e.g. from pocket dimensions. (Unless some revision took them away without replacing them... we definitely had them once)
And, well, they would be judged just the same as that. Erasing someone from time is erasing their worldline. It's in effect absolutely no different from erasing the timeline of a human-sized pocket dimension.

As such, I don't think the concern impacts this discussion, as it really just comes down to following the standards of small timeline destruction feats.
 
Last edited:
Gonna try to keep this brief, shortening my responses where possible.
DontTalkDT said:
You can say the same about any kind of reality warping, including that of Tier 1 characters and stuff. In general I see little reason to give high-scale reality warpers such rating and low-scale ones not. Ultimately, it is still a sign of their EEs strength.
Click to expand...
Because those higher tiers involve infinite gaps in power. But I do think that only reality-warping which involves energy exertion or some kind of damage within that space should qualify, given by how we don't give tiers for mind manip/plot manip/concept manip on higher realms without associated energy-related physical effects.
DontTalkDT said:
And, in general, I would argue the contrary to it being misleading: Listing a character that can erase Galaxies as 9-B without any mention of such a high scale EE power would be misleading.
Saying that a character with notable erasure powers has those powers is just informative.
Click to expand...
We would list that in any or all of:
  1. The P&A section.
  2. The end of the AP section, under "can negate/bypass durability with...."
  3. The range section.
  4. The NA&T section.
I think all of that is sufficiently informative that we don't need to mislead people by implying that EE can be withstood simply by having finitely higher durability.
DontTalkDT said:
For the same reason we are ok with listing creation that way.

Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, just one is the other played in reverse. In physics, there is the rule that doing something and reversing it takes the same amount of power. (In theory, in practice entropy yada yada yada)
In fiction, one could think of a clash between reality warpers, one trying to create something and one trying to undo that creation. It would seem probable that in such a clash neither has an inherent advantage due to their task for some reason being easier.
In short, it is a rather natural view to have creation ex nihilo and the reverse of that as the same rating.

In general, it being weaker than fragmentation is not an issue. We are judging feats by an immense rule of thumb here, because we acknowledge that it is better to rank them despite no strictly scientific way for that existing. Being conservative with our estimates is a given. IIRC fragmentation was even one considered option in the creation debate, but was ultimately disregarded for more conservative methods. There is no real reason to use fragmentation in particular.
Click to expand...
My concern's here that we can't actually be conservative in the same direction with any consistency. It's all well and good to say that creation and destruction are the same, but there's many potential varieties of creation and many varieties of destruction, which strikingly, have different levels of plausibility depending on the direction. It's all well and good to say that we'll rank creation below mass-energy equivalence since fiction commonly portrays it taking energy, although not that much, likely implying it was teleported in from somewhere else or formed from existing particles, and thus, that it can be equated to a particularly weak form of destruction, but that argument breaks once you try to involve EE in it. Does fiction portray EE as requiring less energy than fragmenting an object of the same size? Is there a plausible alternative mechanism of EE involving teleportation of matter to some other place?
DontTalkDT said:
I believe we have standards for how to rank the destruction of timelines that are less than universal in size, e.g. from pocket dimensions. (Unless some revision took them away without replacing them... we definitely had them once)
And, well, they would be judged just the same as that. Erasing someone from time is erasing their worldline. It's in effect absolutely no different from erasing the timeline of a human-sized pocket dimension.

As such, I don't think the concern impacts this discussion, as it really just comes down to following the standards of small timeline destruction feats.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
I did read Agnaa's points and can empathize with some parts. I do agree on paper that the accepted proposal for how we are treating EE calculations would technically be classified as massively lowballing. If anything, Existence Erasure seems like a concept that exceeds any kind of fragmentation, pulverization, vaporization, atomization, sub-atomic destruction, or even Mass-Energy conversion is something that it could hypothetically be compared to. But at the same time, I don't think those are very good reasons to leave out interpretating them as not attack potency entirely. If anything, those sound more like reasons to advocate for those high end calculation methods rather than nuke the numbers outright. There are a lot of things that are going to feel misleading no matter where we go in directing them; forming a sword out of nothing to get City level results does sound quite excessive. But being able to erase entire planets, stars, or galaxies out of existence when his tier is listed as 10-B also sounds like doing someone dirty.

We already had lengthy discussions for how to treat creation feats less than Moon level, and a lot of proposals that are either overly convoluted and/or would reach massively high results sounded bad. So the fragmentation of rock method became our go to for anything High 6-A and less. Even our "Atomic Destruction" and "Subatomic" destruction tables are lowballed because they're calculated using the atomic fusion energy and sub-atomic fusion energy being contained in various forms of matter. And the energy required to disperse the entirety of those internal amounts of energy and separate all those atoms or sub-atomic particles is minimum equal to the supposed fusion energies. And when it comes to various highly precise lasers or melee attacks, or an explosion that actually destroyed a target on an atomic or sub-atomic level, I'd argue the energy required to perform such feats would logically be much higher than our baseline methods. As most of the calculations also assume energy efficiency is 100% and ability to control all that energy is perfect. But chances are, it's most likely not 100% or perfect, which means the energy being produced, or harnessed is considerably higher than the original basic requirement. It's similar to how GBE is technically just a bench mark calculation for the energy required to reduce a planet or other celestial bodies to broken beyond repair states. And especially if calculating the initial velocity of planet's fragments being scattered should realistically never be any lower than GBE and most of the time would be considerably much higher.

I know the agreed creation method and thus being proposed for EE are even bigger lowballs than that. And I also recall DontTalkDT also mentioning that the ability to delete energy from existence and create raw energy out of nothing should be treated the same way but in reverse. And I have brought up an article for how that is the case. It's still hypothetical much like how anti-matter is to matter, but Stephen Hawking did propose an article that negative energy is to positive energy. That they're basically the same power but in reverse. The only thing that can erase X joules of positive energy is X joules of negative energy. And likewise, X joules of positive energy is born when it is separated from X joules of negative energy. I have seen some people try to argue that the energy required to erase the universe out of existence or energy output of a big bang should be the Mass-Energy conversion of a Neutron star while using inverse square law. Of course, I think calculating the energy required to destroy a spherical object 93 lightyears in diameter that has the density of a neutron star sounds like a rather outlandish calculation method. Universe destruction/creation feats could very well be much higher than the currently accepted 3-A baseline or even all the way up to High 3-A and by extension Tier 2 if space-time is concluded. But that's not something I'd rather go to far.

I also have heard of theories that even the absolute smallest quantities of creating/erasing 3-D sized objects should default to High 3-A. It comes from the theory that each dimension is infinite quantities larger than the last. Even a single line that is one inch contains an infinite number of 0-D points. Since between point 0 and point 1, there are points counting up from 0, 1/infinity, 2/infinity, 3/infinity, ect until we get to infinity/infinity that cancels out to equal 1. Same with an infinite number of lines to form a plane and an infinite number of planes to form a solid 3D object. The theory is that everyone and everything is made of an infinite number of quanta; which are 0-D particles that even the Macro-Quantum particles such as Photons and Electrons contain limitless amounts of. And there have been hypothetical theories that even quanta have energy that connects two or more quanta together much like atoms and molecules or sub-atomic particles. Which would add to equal infinity. I am super iffy on theories like this, and even the idea of quanta being lower dimensional is being questioned or if there's and infinite amount. And even if so, some may argue it's just Tier 11 energy that's connecting those together thus making those additions moot. And a lot of scientists even still question if quanta or Anti-Matter even exist in the first place... But I don't even really know where to go from there, but I'd rather get back the the main debate.

While I am trying to be open-minded. I do not support the idea of just nuking calculation policies outright and wish to find a general compromise. I could perhaps accept methods that would give higher results if our current method is technically too lowballed. And I do agree EE negates durability, but so does atomic destruction and sub-atomic destruction. Or realistically, even super durable alloys should have far more fusion energy than any known material, which means it would take that much more energy to atomize or cause sub-atomic destruction. Which same thing can't entirely be said for Mass-Energy conversion or for creation/existence erasure. And being larger size would more so warrant someone being able to withstand someone's EE without any sort of resistances. Also, while this is something often verse specific; there do exist characters where Character A can EE Character B but can't do it to character C because character C's PL is too high for character A to erase. Not saying it's entirely relevant, but something worth considering. And it indicates that there at least exist specific examples of EE potency and AP being linked to an extent. I am still leaning towards doing what was agreed with and DT proposed, but I feel like the only thing that will make me budge is if we find a new method that breaks the "Seems lowballed" concern.
 
Last edited:
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I did read Agnaa's points and can empathize with some parts. I do agree on paper that the accepted proposal for how we are treating EE calculations would technically be classified as massively lowballing. If anything, Existence Erasure seems like a concept that exceeds any kind of fragmentation, pulverization, vaporization, atomization, sub-atomic destruction, or even Mass-Energy conversion is something that it could hypothetically be compared to. But at the same time, I don't think those are very good reasons to leave out interpretating them as not attack potency entirely. If anything, those sound more like reasons to advocate for those high end calculation methods rather than nuke the numbers outright. There are a lot of things that are going to feel misleading no matter where we go in directing them; forming a sword out of nothing to get City level results does sound quite excessive. But being able to erase entire planets, stars, or galaxies out of existence when his tier is listed as 10-B also sounds like doing someone dirty.

We already had lengthy discussions for how to treat creation feats less than Moon level, and a lot of proposals that are either overly convoluted and/or would reach massively high results sounded bad. So the fragmentation of rock method became our go to for anything High 6-A and less. Even our "Atomic Destruction" and "Subatomic" destruction tables are lowballed because they're calculated using the atomic fusion energy and sub-atomic fusion energy being contained in various forms of matter. And the energy required to disperse the entirety of those internal amounts of energy and separate all those atoms or sub-atomic particles is minimum equal to the supposed fusion energies. And when it comes to various highly precise lasers or melee attacks, or an explosion that actually destroyed a target on an atomic or sub-atomic level, I'd argue the energy required to perform such feats would logically be much higher than our baseline methods. As most of the calculations also assume energy efficiency is 100% and ability to control all that energy is perfect. But chances are, it's most likely not 100% or perfect, which means the energy being produced, or harnessed is considerably higher than the original basic requirement. It's similar to how GBE is technically just a bench mark calculation for the energy required to reduce a planet or other celestial bodies to broken beyond repair states. And especially if calculating the initial velocity of planet's fragments being scattered should realistically never be any lower than GBE and most of the time would be considerably much higher.

I know the agreed creation method and thus being proposed for EE are even bigger lowballs than that. And I also recall DontTalkDT also mentioning that the ability to delete energy from existence and create raw energy out of nothing should be treated the same way but in reverse. And I have brought up an article for how that is the case. It's still hypothetical much like how anti-matter is to matter, but Stephen Hawking did propose an article that negative energy is to positive energy. That they're basically the same power but in reverse. The only thing that can erase X joules of positive energy is X joules of negative energy. And likewise, X joules of positive energy is born when it is separated from X joules of negative energy. I have seen some people try to argue that the energy required to erase the universe out of existence or energy output of a big bang should be the Mass-Energy conversion of a Neutron star while using inverse square law. Of course, I think calculating the energy required to destroy a spherical object 93 lightyears in diameter that has the density of a neutron star sounds like a rather outlandish calculation method. Universe destruction/creation feats could very well be much higher than the currently accepted 3-A baseline or even all the way up to High 3-A and by extension Tier 2 if space-time is concluded. But that's not something I'd rather go to far.
Click to expand...
I would prefer using a different method of estimating EE AP, and suggested doing so earlier. I would go for something like subatomic.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I also have heard of theories that even the absolute smallest quantities of creating/erasing 3-D sized objects should default to High 3-A. It comes from the theory that each dimension is infinite quantities larger than the last. Even a single line that is one inch contains an infinite number of 0-D points. Since between point 0 and point 1, there are points counting up from 0, 1/infinity, 2/infinity, 3/infinity, ect until we get to infinity/infinity that cancels out to equal 1. Same with an infinite number of lines to form a plane and an infinite number of planes to form a solid 3D object. The theory is that everyone and everything is made of an infinite number of quanta; which are 0-D particles that even the Macro-Quantum particles such as Photons and Electrons contain limitless amounts of. And there have been hypothetical theories that even quanta have energy that connects two or more quanta together much like atoms and molecules or sub-atomic particles. Which would add to equal infinity. I am super iffy on theories like this, and even the idea of quanta being lower dimensional is being questioned or if there's and infinite amount. And even if so, some may argue it's just Tier 11 energy that's connecting those together thus making those additions moot. And a lot of scientists even still question if quanta or Anti-Matter even exist in the first place... But I don't even really know where to go from there, but I'd rather get back the the main debate.
Click to expand...
This is incoherent, there is demonstrably not infinite energy in finitely large 3-D objects.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
While I am trying to be open-minded. I do not support the idea of just nuking calculation policies outright and wish to find a general compromise. I could perhaps accept methods that would give higher results if our current method is technically too lowballed. And I do agree EE negates durability, but so does atomic destruction and sub-atomic destruction. Or realistically, even super durable alloys should have far more fusion energy than any known material, which means it would take that much more energy to atomize or cause sub-atomic destruction. Which same thing can't entirely be said for Mass-Energy conversion or for creation/existence erasure. And being larger size would more so warrant someone being able to withstand someone's EE without any sort of resistances. Also, while this is something often verse specific; there do exist characters where Character A can EE Character B but can't do it to character C because character C's PL is too high for character A to erase. Not saying it's entirely relevant, but something worth considering. And it indicates that there at least exist specific examples of EE potency and AP being linked to an extent. I am still leaning towards doing what was agreed with and DT proposed, but I feel like the only thing that will make me budge is if we find a new method that breaks the "Seems lowballed" concern.
Click to expand...
KLOL506 said:
Oh yeah I forgot, going molecular and below constitutes as dura neg so uh...
Click to expand...
If that's being used as justification here, maybe that's a bad idea?

Atomizing someone's skull only requires 9-B levels of energy. Are we actually going to say that every 9-A and above character has durability negation that lets them harm 3-As?

I think the more appropriate reading is that being 9-A or above requires being able to resist/dish out "durability negation" like that, unless the character/attack is extraordinarily large.
 
KLOL506 said:
Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
So your argument here, is that:
  1. Existence erasure is durability negation, meaning that it can damage characters of any tier.
  2. Destroying things on an atomic level is valid AP, as we can quantify that.
  3. Destroying things on an atomic level is also durability negation, meaning that it can damage characters of any tier.
  4. Therefore, existence erasure can be valid AP, even if we have to assume a way to quantify that.
I can see it in that vacuum, but it is inherently contradictory when you get to stuff like, Sophia, who doesn't have durability negation for her statement of threatening to atomize someone's skull. How you actually treat this in practice means a LOT.

Do you...
  1. Say that it doesn't negate durability, and is just a 9-B AP feat, and that all atomization feats should be treated similarly.
  2. Say that it does negate durability, and therefore that she could destroy Goku's head with one punch.
  3. Say that atomization and the like only negates durability in specific circumstances (which is something that we should have actual rules on).
  4. Say that atomization always negates durability and just ignore the inconsistency, never saying what to do with it.
 
I just personally see it as both an AP and a dura neg feat that doesn't scale to physical stats by default. There's no need to overcomplicate this in all honesty.

If you think that's self-contradictory and inconsistent, then that's your problem, not mine. I've said my piece and I intend to stick with it till the very end.
 
Just a heads up, it is possible for an attack to be both AP and durability negation. So I can see tanking as both durability and resistance to whatever hax it is. Likewise, in some cases; atomic destruction doesn't always work on certain levels of large sized characters to the same extent as it does on normal human sized characters.
 
Okay, I'll go make a thread to give every 9-A and above character durability negation, and resistance to it, then.
 
Agnaa said:
Okay, I'll go make a thread to give every 9-A and above character durability negation, and resistance to it, then.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say everyone... Just some people who demonstrated it on such a level. But the opposite that the hax also doubles as an AP feat that doesn't always scale to physical attacks unless connected via reasons such as UES scaling is a thing.
 
I personally think that DontTalk's suggested solution here seems like our least bad available option.
 
Meh, 7-4 with two bureaucrats, just go ahead with it.
 
Who's the 7th vote? I only remember Ant, DDM, DT, Ultima, Maverick and Elizhaa agreeing and with you, Damage, Bambu and LordGriffin disagreeing.
 
Oh my bad, I thought Ant hadn't voted before.

Blech, that makes things more annoying.
 
Last edited:
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 6 (Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X)

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 (Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234)
 
Okay, so I've decided I'd step in and give my own thoughts.

Main two things about my stance on this:
  • EE (And other forms of destruction) caused by supernatural ability, such as Okuyasu's "The Hand," or Thanos' "Infinity Guantlet" should not qualify for AP whatsoever.
  • EE (And other forms of destruction) that is caused by purely via physical attacks/actions should qualify as AP. An example would be if someone punched a planet so hard it literally vanished from existence (or similar). That would be grounds for me to call it a 5-B potency strike. Other examples would be if a collision between two people directly caused the deletion of a universe, multiverse, or otherwise.

My reason for the first take stems from that kind of destruction inherently not being tied to the physical potency of the ability in question. Abilities like EE, Sub-Atomic Matter Destruction, and etc, are durability-negating in nature. And note when I say "ability" here I am referring to powers with supernatural cause. Magic, pseudo-magic, etc.

In this case, the only difference between having the ability to erase a person and the ability to erase a moon is the scope of said ability. Nothing actually changes about its potency or complexity. It's still doing the same thing, just over a larger volume. This applies to both pre-tier 2 and post-tier 2.

I think it's even worse to say otherwise when EE isn't even the main focus of the ability, but rather something that happens as a result of another ability. Like "The Hand" for example. It is explicitly spatial manipulation that results in the elimination of space from an area he targets, which causes things to be erased. There's no "potency" regarding that at all. It's just manipulating space to delete sections of space.

You may then say, "Well range doesn't = scope." You're correct, being able to erase someone from 2km away doesn't mean you can erase everything for 2km, sure. But that isn't a good reason to incorrectly label an ability as attack potency. Simply explain the scope of what the ability can affect in either the P&A, Range, or NA&T sections.

Now, when it comes to people erasing or destroying targets with their physical might, I can see this being grounds for scaling to AP. We already treat it this way when it comes to things like molecular destruction, for example. Someone who punches another person so hard they are molecularly deconstructed, will scale to the value of molecular destruction of a human being. However, if said person was to just use some matter ability to destroy them the same way, we wouldn't scale that to the same value, but rather denote that they have the ability to destroy someone like that.

Erasure in my eyes should be treated the same way. I can see an author being like "well my character is so strong he can erase entire universes by punching!" That happens all the time. Just look at Dragon Ball. In sub-tier 2 I'd be fine with the same practice applying, so long as it is proven to be purely the result of physical actions, rather than an unexplainable or supernatural thing.

My only exceptions to this (And I'm still on the fence) are cases where a character is described as being so strong that perhaps even their "thoughts" or "presence" is enough to destroy or erase things to a certain extent. Though this must be thoroughly discussed as those are cases that can easily be the result of a supernatural aura or thought-based hax.

I think this is a very consistent and useful approach to this idea.

That's about it. If you have questions or want me to clarify things, I'll be ready to answer.
 
Firestorm808 said:
This discussion is ten pages long, so forgive me for skimming and correct me if I'm mistaken on some site standards.

Can someone link/summarize the points between the "Tier 2 EE being AP" parties?
Click to expand...
vsbattles.com

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

You are arguing with the person who made the whole regulations. oh, man i feel dumb for not have seen that before lol, thanks for showing me
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

vsbattles.com

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Maverick_Zero_X Blech, I don't feel like my arguments were properly engaged with, the most cogent of those being: Listing EE as AP is misleading, because an 8-B with EE can still EE a character who is tier 5, as long as their...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

vsbattles.com

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Maverick_Zero_X Blech, I don't feel like my arguments were properly engaged with, the most cogent of those being: Listing EE as AP is misleading, because an 8-B with EE can still EE a character who is tier 5, as long as their...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

These are the ones I could find so far.
 
Yeah I'm with Phoenks on this one.

AP isn't so much a problem as determining the method of EE. If something was erased from existence physically, that's not hax in my book. Something akin to burning an object until nothing is left is still caused by a physical force and the damage can be measured. But simply thinking an object out of existence is unquantifiable.

Perhaps AP should only apply to EE attacks if the method of destruction comes from a physical force. We could further validate this by indicating in the P&A section whether an EE ability is physical or supernatural. Something like "Physical/Supernatural Existence Erasure (Summary explanation)". This format can be further standardisation by breaking down physical and supernatural EE into types 1 and 2.
 
The problem is that physical destruction alone would not constitute as EE anymore as it's no longer hax.

Also, from what I can tell, this currently goes well beyond the scope of the actual topic being talked about now, that being whether sub-Tier 2 EE feats should qualify as AP or not.
 
Just to note, the proposal is for EE in the AP section to be labbeled in a similar manner as Enviromental Destruction and creation, so it wouldn't scale to the Character's normal statistics in a similar manner to how Enviromental destruction and creation aren't, unless there is good reason like an UES that is
 
omegabronic said:
Just to note, the proposal is for EE in the AP section to be labbeled in a similar manner as Enviromental Destruction and creation, so it wouldn't scale to the Character's normal statistics in a similar manner to how Enviromental destruction and creation aren't, unless there is good reason like an UES that is
Click to expand...
And this.
 
KLOL506 said:
The problem is that physical destruction alone would not constitute as EE anymore as it's no longer hax.
Click to expand...
Why does it not being hax suddenly mean it isn't EE?

It isn't hax in the sense that they can harm people above their tier by negating durability, but they can still completely erase beings on their level or below it with their physicals. This would pretty much negate high-level regen, resurrection, immortality, etc. Its something that other forms of physical attacking can't do, so it would be a notable thing to include.

We can simply expand the definitions on the EE page to encompass this, potentially in the way Ovens described. It's not that hard.

KLOL506 said:
Also, from what I can tell, this currently goes well beyond the scope of the actual topic being talked about now, that being whether sub-Tier 2 EE feats should qualify as AP or not.
Click to expand...
Urgh, but it also addresses that at the same time? I'm simply coming at this from a more dynamic perspective, because I think limiting yourself to such black and white "agree" and "disagree" options isn't useful and frankly isn't even consistent with how we treat other hax like deconstruction on the wiki.

omegabronic said:
Just to note, the proposal is for EE in the AP section to be labbeled in a similar manner as Enviromental Destruction and creation, so it wouldn't scale to the Character's normal statistics in a similar manner to how Enviromental destruction and creation aren't, unless there is good reason like an UES that is
Click to expand...
I'm very aware. I am against supernatural EE abilities being listed in the AP section for reasons I've listed above.
 
Last edited:
Phoenks: I more just don't know any examples of things that are legitimately EE that are caused by raw physical strength destroying someone on that level.

The only things I've seen that approach that sort of thing (i.e. "His blast made that planet disappear") seem to more invoke "destroyed it so quickly and completely that no relevant fragment of it was left behind", not a complete removal of all the matter from existence. And without at least one example of something like that, I don't want a carve out for it.
Firestorm808 said:
This discussion is ten pages long, so forgive me for skimming and correct me if I'm mistaken on some site standards.

Can someone link/summarize the points between the "Tier 2 EE being AP" parties?
Click to expand...
My summary against giving AP for EE below tier 2 can be found here.
 
KLOL506 said:
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 6 (Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X)

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 (Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234)
Click to expand...
Firestorm808 said:
This discussion is ten pages long, so forgive me for skimming and correct me if I'm mistaken on some site standards.

Can someone link/summarize the points between the "Tier 2 EE being AP" parties?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT

We need your help with proper explanations and arguments here.
 
KLOL506 said:
Current vote tally-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 6 (Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Ultima_Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X)

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 (Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, Qawsedf234)
Click to expand...
Firestorm808 said:
This discussion is ten pages long, so forgive me for skimming and correct me if I'm mistaken on some site standards.

Can someone link/summarize the points between the "Tier 2 EE being AP" parties?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
We need your help with proper explanations and arguments here.
Click to expand...
@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris_only9271
How to measure hax?, and what is the boundary of Durability Negation?.
Replies
12
Views
1K
Chris_only9271
Chris_only9271
Fwyzzverse
Timeframe | Creation Feats (Revision)
Replies
33
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Chris_only9271
Question about Wanda's Existence Eraser
Replies
9
Views
1K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
SunDaGamer
  • Locked
Jujutsu Kaisen Hax Removals (Staff Only)
2
Replies
49
Views
9K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Accelerated_Evolution
Mario & Luigi: Toon Force and EE minor change + other changes
Replies
12
Views
1K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Back
Top