• 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 said:
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

I thought that creation scales to tiering by size alone rather than energy, or do I misremember?
Click to expand...
We go with things that roughly correspond to size, but not exactly.
Up to High 6-A we decided to use the mass/weight of the object after much debate, as people thought it more reasonable to not scale creating 1000 m^3 of stone and 1000 m^3 of air as the same level.
Afterwards, we use GBE for things in the celestial body range and then for solar system and upwards we basically go roughly by size. (Which in practice means inverse square law, since that's what we used to determine the corresponding values on the AP scale)
For Universes and stuff we only go by size, as physics, and hence energy, is meaningless at those tiers.

Antvasima said:
Also, isn't anything that affects universal spacetime in its entirety, i.e. Low 2-C and above, technically a form of existence erasure?
Click to expand...
It definitely is breaking physics and can not be described as enrgy in the common sense. Whether it's existence erasure... well, logically it might be, but fiction of course depicts things however it likes.
 
Okay, so why can't we continue to rate existence erasure as tiers relative to the size or scale of what is being erased then?
 
Okay. That seems reasonable to me. Thank you. 🙏
 
DontTalkDT said:
Well, what should I say?
I'm generally still of the opinion that it (and other similar hax for that matter, like reality warping) should be treated by the same standards as for creation.

What placing it in the AP section is concerned: I would do it if it's particularly notable, i.e. above the characters usual tier. Noting the Tier 9 character can erase planets from existence seems in interest of the reader of the profile. It's a technique which self-evidently is much stronger than everything else the character has and deserves to be given particular attention. Otherwise, the character would just seem misrepresented.
This goes double when we get to incorporeal Tier 1 god characters that fight exclusively via reality warping and other technically not quantifiable yet self-evident stuff.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, for the matter
 
Okay. We seem to be in agreement then. Thank you for helping out. 🙏
 
Sure, we can simply add it as a note. Is anyone here would like to handle the overall thread, or should I take the task? I would suggest a final post to summarize everything and include our conclusion and its respective draft.

Edit: Apparently @omegabronic will take over the thread. I will be unfollowing the thread.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
Sure, we can simply add it as a note. Is anyone here would like to handle the overall thread, or should I take the task? I would suggest a final post to summarize everything and include our conclusion and its respective draft.
Click to expand...
This is the current draft for the note, i don't think that i understood your suggestion 100%, so please feel free to modify this to fit into your proposal:

"Existence Erasure" can be included in a character's Attack Potency, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure and what is being erased. For instance, if a character were to erase an entire universal space-time with the "Existence Erasure" ability, it would be classified as "universal+ environmental destruction with Existence Erasure". While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized. It is to be noted that this type of rating would not be listed for structures bellow tier 2 since Existence Erasure has no joule value and as such is not applying real energy, but in the case of tier 2 structures and above, there is little difference between "destroying" and "erasing" such structures, making Existence Erasure qualify for such tiers in "joule energy" per say"
 
Antvasima said:
?
Click to expand...
omegabronic said:
This is the current draft for the note, i don't think that i understood your suggestion 100%, so please feel free to modify this to fit into your proposal:

"Existence Erasure" can be included in a character's Attack Potency, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure and what is being erased. For instance, if a character were to erase an entire universal space-time with the "Existence Erasure" ability, it would be classified as "universal+ environmental destruction with Existence Erasure". While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized. It is to be noted that this type of rating would not be listed for structures bellow tier 2 since Existence Erasure has no joule value and as such is not applying real energy, but in the case of tier 2 structures and above, there is little difference between "destroying" and "erasing" such structures, making Existence Erasure qualify for such tiers in "joule energy" per say"
Click to expand...
I suppose, he handled it.

Although, in other thought, I think I need to edit it a bit. I will create a sandbox for this, so staff members can evaulate it properly.
 
I am already notified and already said what I agreed with even though my name has been misplaced a lot on what I agree with; I should have my name listed alongside DontTalkDT. And given I posted, there no need to ping me again.
 
AFAIK, Ultima and DT's sentiments revolve around not hard-capping EE feats to Tier 2 and above, as DT's example includes erasing planets, which would be 5-B.

DontTalkDT said:
Well, what should I say?
I'm generally still of the opinion that it (and other similar hax for that matter, like reality warping) should be treated by the same standards as for creation.

What placing it in the AP section is concerned: I would do it if it's particularly notable, i.e. above the characters usual tier. Noting the Tier 9 character can erase planets from existence seems in interest of the reader of the profile. It's a technique which self-evidently is much stronger than everything else the character has and deserves to be given particular attention. Otherwise, the character would just seem misrepresented.
Click to expand...

So I'd suggest removing this part and its subsection completely:

It should be noted that this rating won't be assigned to structures below tier 2, as Existence Erasure lacks a joule value and doesn't involve actual energy transfer.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
Wait a minute. After reading through the draft, it does not seem to follow what I think that I, DontTalk, and Ultima agreed about, i.e. that EE should scale to attack potency based on size or scale.
Click to expand...
Isn't EE scaling directly to attack potency what many staff members here disagreed with?
 
Deagonx said:
I believe the compromise was that it would only scale above a certain tier.
Click to expand...
Ultima stated this:

Ultima_Reality said:
It seems fine to me. Though it's important to note, of course, that there are cases where the Existence Erasure feat has direct ties to the character's overall AP, so it isn't always a separate rating altogether.
Click to expand...

DT also stated that in the case it is not tied to one's physicals, EE should still be fine to list as a separate AP rating akin to Environmental Destruction.

DontTalkDT said:
Well, what should I say?
I'm generally still of the opinion that it (and other similar hax for that matter, like reality warping) should be treated by the same standards as for creation.

What placing it in the AP section is concerned: I would do it if it's particularly notable, i.e. above the characters usual tier. Noting the Tier 9 character can erase planets from existence seems in interest of the reader of the profile. It's a technique which self-evidently is much stronger than everything else the character has and deserves to be given particular attention. Otherwise, the character would just seem misrepresented.
This goes double when we get to incorporeal Tier 1 god characters that fight exclusively via reality warping and other technically not quantifiable yet self-evident stuff.
Click to expand...
 
@ImmortalDread After reading your draft...

  • While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized.
Is automatically rendered redundant by the following:

  • In certain instances, the Existence Erasure ability is closely linked to the character's overall Attack Potency, making it not necessarily a distinct rating on its own.
Plus whatever else Ultima and DT said.

Basically, it should be reworded according to what DT and Ultima said, that in case there is no evidence that the ability is tied to the character's physical statistics (AKA their striking strength and physical durability), it should still be fine to list as an AP feat separate from the character's physical statistics similar to how Creation Feats are categorized (Such feats are also typically categorized as Environmental Destruction Feats).

And of course, whether the ability scales to physical stats (Striking Strength and Physical Durability) or not, should, as usual, be determined on a case-by-case basis.
 
Is this a better version?
In instances where there is no discernible correlation between the ability and the character's physical attributes, such as striking strength and physical durability, it is permissible to list the feat as an Attack Potency feat independent of the character's physical statistics. This categorization aligns with how Creation Feats are typically classified, often falling under the designation of Environmental Destruction Feats.
  • However, the determination of whether the ability scales with the character's physical stats, should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as is the norm.
Click to expand...
I added the links in the drafts. So you may review the draft to see how it looks like at the end.
 
Seems okay, but you might wanna consult DT and Ultima to see if it's good in their books as well.
 
Klol, you speak as I have some super mod permissions and omnipotent powers to summon them here, you are the guy here with pings permission, not me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Saitama resistance to Antimatter manipulation
Replies
21
Views
1K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Chris_only9271
How to measure hax?, and what is the boundary of Durability Negation?.
Replies
12
Views
2K
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
Back
Top