- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #81
okay we have a lot of agreement to it, i dunno how staff threads go usually, but if most staff agrees with it then it can be applied or should we still wait for the clarification i asked here?:
-
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
- Thread starter Omegabronic
- Start date
- 21,489
- 30,820
Should honestly just be range imo
- 31,577
- 28,025
Agreed.
This sort of goes against the notion of Attack Potency being how powerful an attack is, not just how much area a character can affect. If a character can apply EE on a Universal scale, then that's just Universal range, not "Universe level with EE".
- 18,393
- 14,323
I mean, the way some EE behaves, I would consider they get some recognition in attack potency because EE could be labeled as an attack.
tho I am pretty sure you mean adding the range in the hax itself?
Like:
existence erasure (4D or 2-C; justification)
Right?
- 31,577
- 28,025
So far as I'm aware though, the potency of Existence Erasure should be measured in what it destroys, not what level it destroys.
Existence erasure on one level may erase just the body (regardless of how durable that body is) while Existence Erasure of another level may erase the body, mind and soul, etc.
What if someone uses Existence Erasure to erase not the universe itself, but a character with Universal durability? Do they still get noted as being Universe level with EE?
If a character with Existence Erasure is only shown erasing Island level characters from existence, do they have a limit of "Island level with EE" now? If a character with Solar System level stats uses a country-sized EE, will their ratings be "Solar System level normally, Country level with Existence Erasure"?
- 9,982
- 10,821
Isn't haxes like EE, soul manp, concept manp supposed to bypass the durability of the character (dura neg?) and depends on if the one who being EE'd has resistance to it? That contradicts the notion of dura having any effect on EE potency.
But;
But;
Agree with this, if it's just EE then it's not AP.
- 18,393
- 14,323
This one is irrelevant, since we are talking about EEing structures.
Nope since EE is a durability negation in itself.
Wait, I guess there is misunderstanding, his physical AP won't be scaled to EE's potency.
- 9,982
- 10,821
The point is, EE potency depends on how fundamentally it can affect one person (body to soul or to concept) rather than range, it having range barely have any effect on character if he can still stay alive with soul (or just recall regen types smh), although if it's above L2C or equal it's potency will go upto spacetime but that's that, nothing more, it's same as EE having other mixed haxes with it. For instance hakai has soul manp mixed with it. Chrononavogator EE has causality manp mixed with it, etc.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I am not arguing over erasing someone's character existence (because i believe those feats are purely hax and range). I am arguing over erasing structures because those can be measured as AP (however not physical one, hence this staff thread exists).
Arguing whether the structure is low 2C or 4B, kinda irrelevant.
Arguing whether the structure is low 2C or 4B, kinda irrelevant.
- 9,982
- 10,821
I see. I don't have any problem with it being treated as environmental destruction either.
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #91
Yeah guys, the proposal is purely to add environmental destruction with EE, not to scale any potency of the said EE
- 31,577
- 28,025
Why does this need any change then? Wouldn't you just write "Universe level with Environmental Destruction"? Why does it need to be specified as EE except in the justifications section which is the case currently?
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #93
Because we need a proper standard for this to avoid confusion, some profiles may just have an "universal with EE" which could make users confused and thinking that the tier is the potency of the EE and that it is an ap, by creating a proper standard like this we avoid any future confusions that may arrive
- 21,489
- 30,820
By placing EE in the Attack Potency section, you create the issue in itself
- 3,346
- 1,912
Really not sure why this isnt a normal CRT, but what about EE where the range depends on the target?
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #96
I mean, we do the same for environmental destruction and creation feats, to not do it for EE would be a weird double standard when it follows the exact same logic
- 21,489
- 30,820
Environmental destruction and creation both have an AP factor, which is why we put it in the AP section
Environmental destruction, destruction/AP on a wide area that can't be focused on one person.
Creation, AP generated depending on our mass from our creation table.
We do the same because they're completely different things.
EE has no AP component. EE is flat out durability negation dependent on range.
It won't be a double standard because they aren't nearly the same
Last edited:
- 6,934
- 6,753
EE isn't even ED because the damage can be focused so the OP doesn't even work to begin with
- 9,982
- 10,821
Hax don't scale to AP at all. Samething can be said about concept manp, Spacetime manp and other haxes that affects Tier 2 and above structures affecting the multiversal structures. We don't do that unless there is a reason for it to scale to AP.
I myself don't know any character whose AP has been given him via EE w/o considering other factors other than "just EE".
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #101
well, people have spoken that there is up above, even if it will not be listed on the profile a note should still be put to say why it will not to clarify it for the future
- 9,982
- 10,821
Who said that there is a profile of a character who has his AP solely scaled via "just EE"? Can you or anyone else list that profile?
- 12,253
- 6,205
He will speak Zen'ō, lol
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #104
not "solely" but if the problem is that it is there at all, btw these are the people who said that there is:
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #105
this is starting to get annoying, stop bringing up db in a thread that has nothing to do with it
- 9,982
- 10,821
He suggested examples of what feats that involves EE doesn't apply, same as what I did several times above. in my posts. I asked if there is even any profile as such that list "EE" solely as AP justification.
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #107
dread and byasura said that there are profiles that already do what the thread is proposing, you asked who had said that there is and i showed
not that i know of, but this thread is not about this so why bring it up?
- 9,982
- 10,821
Look at the context above, I said hax don't scale to AP anyway, which this thread is proposing to scale and proceeded to say that this has been not done either on any profile I know of, same as you, you also don't know any profile that do so. But you responded to my comment saying that "they have", to justify that we do scale ig? So I asked which profile. I didn't said anything that is not related to the OP (scaling EE to AP as environmental destruction and all)
I dunno, man, I can only see them giving examples of times when EE of a character hasn't been scaled to AP, not that they have, unlike Zeno and others as they have reasons. If we have any profile as such, you or others can link it.
- 12,451
- 4,476
- Thread starter
- #109
no this thread is not doing that at all
i have never affirmed it, i am saying that i personally never saw, but still this thread is proposing for it be listed as enviromental destruction via EE, i was just saying that even if this is not accepted we would still need to put a note on the page and remove from any profile that has it, look ask them both which one does have, since they were the ones who affirmed that it has, either way is not the proposal of the thread to removes from any profile that it has, but to add a note on the EE page
if people are saying that there is then just ask them instead of me
both of them said that there are profiles that already do what this thread is proposing, anyway this starting to clogg so, just ask them in their walls instead of going back and forth
- 168,514
- 77,231
Okay. So what should we do here then, more specifically?
- 18,393
- 14,323
Kingtempest, we are still discussing erasing structures' existence, not characters.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I am confident that my draft clarifies this particular point. However, I am uncertain why the discussion of structures is being interjected with the most common natural EE utilized on characters. In fact, my draft explicitly states that this EE will not be adjusted to reflect physical AP.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- 18,393
- 14,323
How are you in agreement with Tempest when he is only addressing characters instead of structures? With all due respect, I am still confused how your statement even relate to what Tempest meant. Like I am being open-minded, but neither of you both actually explaining anything.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,941
- 22,652
Your argument rests solely on the basis that EE to, say, a building, is somehow different than to a person. Doesn't make sense to me, so I am in agreement with Tempest. As has been pointed out, it is my belief that the EE feats you are hypothetically speaking about are a matter of range rather than AP-applicable Environmental Destruction.
Do we need to do anything? If we must, then a note could be added to EE to declare that such feats aren't AP-applicable, I suppose. I'm just stating that I am opposed to the proposition of, for example, "Low 7-B via Existence Erasure".
- 18,393
- 14,323
And how it does not make any sense to you? You still are not explaining anything yet. How would you rate a character that erased the whole 1-A structure's existence and being only rated as 7B because that EE is not scaled to AP? Hell, in the range section, it won't even be added.
It would be 10x better if you list it in the AP section, implying it is not psychical AP but still can effect that structure.
It would be 10x better if you list it in the AP section, implying it is not psychical AP but still can effect that structure.
- 168,514
- 77,231
Well, I am fine with if we avoid mentioning existence erasure in the AP sections, but I do not think that we should give it a disfavourable special treatment in term of not allowing it to scale to tiering whereas other powers do.
- 18,393
- 14,323
The thing is, people are confusing with the draft that EE is being scaled to physical AP while it is clearly not, hence the rating exists in the first place, it shows distinction in the positive way.
I am against giving this rating if the character EEed other character because this is clearly a durability negation, but as a structure, I feel mentioning it is somehow worth, at least to visitors.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,941
- 22,652
What is there to explain? You assume it is self evident that EE to a structure is different from that of a character when there's no real reason for that to be the case. You also haven't really abated the argument that this is indeed just a matter of range, except by referring to this strange distinction.
Our AP section refers to destructive values below the higher-dimensional levels. Thus it is absurd to have "8-C via Existence Erasure", as no level of existence erasure will lead to an 8-C AP value. It literally doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't need added to the range section- nothing needs done, our range section is self evident in its purpose. If you can erase a 1 km expanse of land then you have 1 km range, not [arbitrary level] AP via EE.
I'm not confused about this scaling to physicals, and not once have I said anything remotely related. The proposal is just bad.
Our AP section refers to destructive values below the higher-dimensional levels. Thus it is absurd to have "8-C via Existence Erasure", as no level of existence erasure will lead to an 8-C AP value. It literally doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't need added to the range section- nothing needs done, our range section is self evident in its purpose. If you can erase a 1 km expanse of land then you have 1 km range, not [arbitrary level] AP via EE.
I'm not confused about this scaling to physicals, and not once have I said anything remotely related. The proposal is just bad.
