(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody take the time to write a summary post regarding what is suggested here and the following discussion please? Otherwise it will be very hard to finish this.

 

[Agnaa]

A summary of my issues are:

1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.

It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:

1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.

On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:

Attacking on (sub-)molecular levels - Fiction sometimes establishes weapons, attacks, and abilities as bypassing durability by causing damage on a molecular, atomic, or subatomic level. Care should be taken to distinguish cases where such explanations are used to justify why something can negate durability, and cases where those terms are simply used to describe the sheer power of an attack. Since this works based off of the principle that even strong characters don't have comparably stronger atomic bonds, characters established to have such improved bonds would have Resistance to this type of durability negation.

So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

A summary of my issues are:

1. I think it's better to indicate the scope of EE in other sections of the page, such as powers and abilities, range, notable attacks and techniques, or still under the AP section, but under the explanatory text of "can negate durability with....".
2. I think scaling to creation is bad because our Creation Feats table was tailor made with the specifics of Creation feats in mind. I view EE in fiction as typically based on range/scale rather than mass, and if we were to assign a joule value to it, I think being two orders of magnitude less energy than fragmenting rock is a very inappropriate lowball.
3. I think scaling EE to other attacks through a UES is bad, because then we're not just loosely approximating to give a people an idea of how wide-scale their EE is, we're saying that it literally involves outputting that many joules, which I think is inconsistent with how EE is portrayed in fiction.
4. I think indicating the scope of EE this way is misleading, since it bypasses durability. There can be Tier 5 beings who can be deleted by building-scale EE.

It's hard for me to summarize those who disagree, but to try my best:

1. It's a sign of strength, so it should be listed in AP.
2. Creation and destruction are pretty much the same process, so EE should be rated the same as creation.
3. If creation is too much of a lowball, we could try to find a new method that would give higher ratings.
4. Atomisation and the like bypasses durability, yet we still give that AP ratings.

On point 4, after that main discussion, we had this thread, which led to this text being added to the Durability Negation page:

So we treat it as negating durability when it's established to bypass durability in that way, and we treat it as AP when it's used to describe the brute power of an attack.

I don't know of any cases where EE was actually used as a level of destruction outside of clear cases of hyperbole, so I think it should always land in the former and not be taken as AP.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234

What do you think we should do here?