• 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

Yeah it's just that, we looked at a bunch of potential methods for quantifying creation feats (potential energy at 2m of a spherical rock, air displacement, GBE, 20 PSI explosion equivalent radius, fragmentation of rock), and ultimately went with what was a lowball for every tier between 9-A and Low 7-B; mass of a spherical rock whose radius was equal to the minimum-sized 20 PSI explosion needed to reach that tier. We gradually moved from this to GBE over tier 6 to match the GBE-based tiers of 5-C and above.

Given that lowbally nature with a different focus, I'd think we'd have to look into developing a different table, if that's what ends up happening.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I missed that

I still don't think EE should be AP but I also think Creation shouldn't either so
 
Agnaa said:
Ultima said on Discord that he's not interested on responding since this choice is just semantics that he doesn't care about either way.

I'll point out from DMs that KLOL still agrees with DT, and Seiji agrees with me. But since that brings the tally to 5-5, going off of earlier counts, I'll re-open this thread for more input, and ping supporters of EE that haven't weighed in or been pinged already.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa
Click to expand...
sorry for commenting w/o permission but wasnt it agreed upon that EE would not be AP, excluding EE with potency of Tier 2 and above?
 
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
sorry for commenting w/o permission but wasnt it agreed upon that EE would not be AP, excluding EE with potency of Tier 2 and above?
Click to expand...
As you can see in the votes I linked, KLOL says that 5 people agreed with sub-tier 2 EE being AP.

And we've already allowed EE in AP for longer than I've been on the site, approving that wouldn't need a revision.
 
Agnaa said:
As you can see in the votes I linked, KLOL says that 5 people agreed with sub-tier 2 EE being AP.

And we've already allowed EE in AP for longer than I've been on the site, approving that wouldn't need a revision.
Click to expand...
for clarification, this thread was made to make a standard and make people specify that EE is Enviromental destruction most of the time, hence why the proposal was "Enviromental destruction with EE"
 
omegabronic said:
for clarification, this thread was made to make a standard and make people specify that EE is Enviromental destruction most of the time, hence why the proposal was "Enviromental destruction with EE"
Click to expand...
I also think that's a bad idea.

Environmental destruction is just AP that can't be effectively focused onto a human-sized target. Since I don't think EE should be AP in the first place (when below tier 2), I think it shouldn't be put down as environmental destruction.
 
I'd also like to point out the strangeness of quantifying EE as AP, when feats of erasing someone across time aren't rare, yet aren't rated at Low 2-C (for good reason; we don't allow small-scale effects like that to reach high tiers).

Any way we could handle this would be pretty weird. Whether it's treating it exactly the same as erasing someone at one point in time, putting it at Unknown (such that those feats are functionally weaker than any other EE feats), adding an arbitrary multiplier to the AP value it provides, or changing standards to put those at Low 2-C.
 
Agnaa said:
I'd also like to point out the strangeness of quantifying EE as AP, when feats of erasing someone across time aren't rare, yet aren't rated at Low 2-C (for good reason; we don't allow small-scale effects like that to reach high tiers).
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be High 3-A, even disregarding that? Or just arbitrarily high into 3-A if the timeline of that world isn't infinite. Not that I don't agree that we shouldn't rate it that high.
 
Armorchompy said:
Wouldn't it be High 3-A, even disregarding that? Or just arbitrarily high into 3-A if the timeline of that world isn't infinite. Not that I don't agree that we shouldn't rate it that high.
Click to expand...
You could construct a consistent system that way, but afaik we currently just don't tier feats like that. You could make an argument for EEing a person for 5 minutes to be High 3-A, but that's a bit too unintuitive for us to run with.

Especially since that sorta approach implies that pocket dimensions with their own time, no matter how small, would be rated at High 3-A.
 
I still agree more with DT's conclusion, though I sort of understand some concerns about the calculation methods being lowballed. But I need to wait for a day I'm off from work before I write my rebuttal. Perhaps Monday or so.
 
Well, EE being lowballed as it is RN, it is what it is. If someone can accurately increase EE's potency to make it look more impressive, be my guest.
 
...It's quite hard to respond to "I agree with DT FRA" when DT hasn't responded to some of the issues I've brought up.

Yeah, some of these are reasons why I don't think it should be quantified, but "We currently give zero way to quantify it, making indexing it against our rules" isn't something you can just FRA away. You HAVE to write new standards to make this suitable for profiles.

Whether that's something easy like adding notes saying what it's equivalent to, or saying that EEing is the one exception where we're allowed to eyeball it, or something difficult like figuring out a way to index it. The earlier work here was, at best, unfinished.
 
Agnaa said:
Ultima said on Discord that he's not interested on responding since this choice is just semantics that he doesn't care about either way.

I'll point out from DMs that KLOL still agrees with DT, and Seiji agrees with me. But since that brings the tally to 5-5, going off of earlier counts, I'll re-open this thread for more input, and ping supporters of EE that haven't weighed in or been pinged already.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa
Click to expand...
I still have most of my opinion on the agreement with Sub-Tier 2 EE being AP.

I am not sure about the improved calculation system, but if a rule is needed to point out that EE is an exception for AP, I could see it as fine.
 
Armorchompy said:
If we have to grant AP via EE, which I disagree with for Agnaa's reasons, I'd do it like our Creation feats, which have an equally arbitrary reason of just using the object's weight.
Click to expand...
I personally think that gauging creation and existence erasure feats in the same manner seems reasonable.
 
We do already do that but personally I think it's just sort of a blind assumption.

Agnaa is currently taking a break from the wiki so I'd wait
 
Okay. No problem. 🙏
 
What do we currently need to evaluate in this thread, and what are the conclusions here so far?

Also:

@Agnaa

It seems like you are needed here. 🙏
 
We are currently voting on whether EE below Tier 2 should be considered as AP, and if so, it would be done in line with how our Creation Feats are evaluated (Which we already do, but some think it's a blind assumption, while Ultima and DT think it works as it is RN, and Agnaa thinks we lowball our EE feats way too much). That's all that's left to do here.

The current votes are as follows-

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

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 4 (+1 thread mod) - Agnaa, Damage3245, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Armorchompy
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
We are currently voting on whether EE below Tier 2 should be considered as AP, and if so, it would be done in line with how our Creation Feats are evaluated (Which we already do, but some think it's a blind assumption, while Ultima and DT think it works as it is RN, and Agnaa thinks we lowball our EE feats way too much). That's all that's left to do here.

The current votes are as follows-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 - Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Ultima_Reality, DontTalkDT

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 4 (+1 thread mod) - Agnaa, Damage3245, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Armorchompy
Click to expand...
Thank you for your summary. 🙏

What should we currently do here then? Summon more administrators?
 
KLOL506 said:
We are currently voting on whether EE below Tier 2 should be considered as AP, and if so, it would be done in line with how our Creation Feats are evaluated (Which we already do, but some think it's a blind assumption, while Ultima and DT think it works as it is RN, and Agnaa thinks we lowball our EE feats way too much). That's all that's left to do here.

The current votes are as follows-

Agree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 5 - Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Ultima_Reality, DontTalkDT, Maverick_Zero_X

Disagree with sub-Tier 2 EE being AP: 4 (+1 thread mod) - Agnaa, Damage3245, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000, Armorchompy
Click to expand...
@AKM sama @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

My apologies for disturbing, but we seem to need more evaluations here. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏

Do we have sufficient consensus here to reach a conclusion now, or should we wait for further staff evaluations?
 
KLOL506 said:
Prolly type in some draft that states sub-Tier 2 EE feats to qualify for AP and that they should follow a similar basis as our Creation Feats standards and table chart and then apply it to the EE page.

Prolly ask @DontTalkDT or @Ultima_Reality on that front.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I think the edit of IdiosyncraticLawyer already went in that direction, but perhaps I can reword it a little to make that point more clear?

The revised version might be something like:
Existence Erasure can be included in a character's [[Attack Potency]], depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure, as well as what is being erased. A good rule-of-thumb regarding this is cases where the Existence Erasure is of a much higher tier than the character's other statistics, to the point it bears explicitly mentioning it separately. For example, if a character is physically 9-B but is capable of erasing an entire timeline with their abilities, such a thing would have a "'''9-B''', '''Low 2-C''' via [[Existence Erasure]]" rating. It should be noted that this is an unconventional rating and should hence not simply be scaled to other statistics. A [[Universal Energy Systems|Universal Energy System]] can make the scaling possible, but this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and with a higher level of scrutiny than for regular energy-based feats.
The classification of an Existence Erasure based ranking would follow the same criteria, charts and methods as used for [[Creation Feats]], being the reverse of the same process.
Further note that the potency of an Existence Erasure feat may be considered to be mere [[Environmental Destruction]] if the power isn't known to be able to be focussed on a small target in some fashion or scaled via a [[Universal Energy Systems|Universal Energy System]]. If that is the case, it should be listed as such.
Click to expand...
 
KLOL506 said:
Bump

Have the edits been applied?
Click to expand...
@Antvasima Can I apply DT's draft?
Existence Erasure can be included in a character's [[Attack Potency]], depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure, as well as what is being erased. A good rule-of-thumb regarding this is cases where the Existence Erasure is of a much higher tier than the character's other statistics, to the point it bears explicitly mentioning it separately. For example, if a character is physically 9-B but is capable of erasing an entire timeline with their abilities, such a thing would have a "'''9-B''', '''Low 2-C''' via [[Existence Erasure]]" rating. It should be noted that this is an unconventional rating and should hence not simply be scaled to other statistics. A [[Universal Energy Systems|Universal Energy System]] can make the scaling possible, but this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and with a higher level of scrutiny than for regular energy-based feats.
The classification of an Existence Erasure based ranking would follow the same criteria, charts and methods as used for [[Creation Feats]], being the reverse of the same process.
Further note that the potency of an Existence Erasure feat may be considered to be mere [[Environmental Destruction]] if the power isn't known to be able to be focussed on a small target in some fashion or scaled via a [[Universal Energy Systems|Universal Energy System]]. If that is the case, it should be listed as such.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lort15
Alien x ability correction again
Replies
29
Views
2K
Lort15
Lort15
  • Locked
Kaguya in Naruto has L2C
Replies
16
Views
2K
UchihaSlayer96
UchihaSlayer96
DavidTPPM
About Aizens existence erasure
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
Arcker123
Arcker123
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Chris_only9271
How to measure hax?, and what is the boundary of Durability Negation?.
Replies
12
Views
3K
Chris_only9271
Chris_only9271
Back
Top