(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

[DontTalkDT]

I was under the impression that we rank EE, or more generally also reality-warping feats and the like, somewhat like creation feats already. Like, if someone erases the universe out of existence, that's universe level... and stuff.
So, I'm generally fine with that, but it probably is better to clarify that beyond the level of just EE.

 

[omegabronic]

I was under the impression that we rank EE, or more generally also reality-warping feats and the like, somewhat like creation feats already. Like, if someone erases the universe out of existence, that's universe level... and stuff.
So, I'm generally fine with that, but it probably is better to clarify that beyond the level of just EE.

Well, some pages already do, but it would be better to make it a proper standard

 

[Crabwhale]

Disagree, because I want to see Dragon Ball supporters suffer for their crimes.

But jokes aside, I suppose treating it similarly to environmental stuff and creation is fine.

 

[omegabronic]

so what do you guys think of a note like this:
"Existence Erasure can be listed in the Attack Potency of a character depending on circumstance, depending on the range and what they erase, for example, erasing an entire universe with Existence Erasure would be listed as "universal environmental destruction with Existence Erasure" since while it doesn't scale to the character's own Attack Power, it still is a damage done an area using a hax, similar to how creation feats are listed usually"

 

[ImmortalDread]

"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 universe 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.

Better formulated.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

@ByAsura allowed me to comment here

I don't understand how this is environmental destruction, since such a character is using his energy to destroy the universe or timeline, just to clarify one thing, this is not valid for DB, because the characters use Ki for high-scale attacks and it kinda consists of Ki giving all attributes to the characters. Zen'ō to be exact uses Ki to erase timelines completely


From what I know about environmental destruction with skill or without skill, it's like a character pulling some strings to destroy something that sustains and then all cosmology sustained by a certain pillar destroys itself, that's what I understand. Why are we assuming that such a character who uses his energy is an environmental wreck?

For those who don't know how this topic was made, it was in order to demote DB even more, Omega was endlessly derailing as before in CRT of DB, where this had nothing to do with such a subject.

And yes, my friends, this is about DB, before Omega specifically put Zeno'oh's profile here and then literally modified it, this change will affect all DB characters, as is the case with Beerus and Champa who would destroy two Universes through the his energy of destruction, just like Zen'ō destroying Universes through his EE or Ki

 

[omegabronic]

Better formulated.

Thank you very much

 

[omegabronic]

@ByAsura allowed me to comment here

I don't understand how this is environmental destruction, since such a character is using his energy to destroy the universe or timeline, just to clarify one thing, this is not valid for DB, because the characters use Ki for high-scale attacks and it kinda consists of Ki giving all attributes to the characters. Zen'ō to be exact uses Ki to erase timelines completely

This thread has nothing to do with db directly nor does it talks about it in anyform
https://imgur.com/a/dZn7RkO

From what I know about environmental destruction with skill or without skill, it's like a character pulling some strings to destroy something that sustains and then all cosmology sustained by a certain pillar destroys itself, that's what I understand. Why are we assuming that such a character who uses his energy is an environmental wreck?

Acctually it is an statistic that lists the damage a character does to an area without it scaling to his own attack potency

For those who don't know how this topic was made, it was in order to demote DB even more, Omega was endlessly derailing as before in CRT of DB, where this had nothing to do with such a subject.

No it was not, it was done when i saw a potencial confusion that could be done if a standard was not created, also stop with the petty acusations, you and other people were derailing too
Stop talking about that here when yhis has nothing to do with it

And yes, my friends, this is about DB, before Omega specifically put Zeno'oh's profile here and then literally modified it

yeah because i thought that he was a good example to use, clarification was given so i removed it since i saw that it had nothing to do with my proposal

this change will affect all DB characters, as is the case with Beerus and Champa who would destroy two Universes through the his energy of destruction, just like Zen'ō destroying Universes through his EE or Ki

Wheter this will affect any verse is irrelevant, so please don't derail with other verses

 

[omegabronic]

Seriosly, this thread did not even had a db tag on it, i didn't made this with any verse in mind, i just saw a point being rose in a db thread and thought that a proper standard should be created just to avoid confusion in the future, i just used an profile as an example, but i deleted it because i wanted to make it clear that this isn't about any verse specifically

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Now that I think about it it should probably be listed as like for example: 3-C with Existence Erasure instead of like 3-C Environmental Damage

Seriosly, this thread did not even had a db tag on it, i didn't made this with any verse in mind, i just saw a point being rose in a db thread and thought that a proper standard should be created just to avoid confusion in the future, i just used an profile as an example, but i deleted it because i wanted to make it clear that this isn't about any verse specifically

Luffy was problem misinformed it’s all good

 

[omegabronic]

Now that I think about it it should probably be listed as like for example: 3-C with Existence Erasure instead of like 3-C Environmental Damage

Like, if we did that people may confuse it as it scaling to the ap, put the enviromental part would make things more clear i think

Luffy was problem misinformed it’s all good

Tbf i did worded badly at the begining, my fault on that one lol

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Like, if we did that people may confuse it as it scaling to the ap, put the enviromental part would make things more clear i think


Tbf i did worded badly at the begining, my fault on that one lol

well just add a note on the EE page that it doesn’t scale to AP most of the time and there is exceptions

 

[Damage3245]

I think that erasure potency shouldn't be treated like Attack Potency.

Details on the EE can be elaborated on in the Powers & Abilities section; but not the AP section.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I think that erasure potency shouldn't be treated like Attack Potency.

Details on the EE can be elaborated on in the Powers & Abilities section; but not the AP section.

My sentiments are this

 

[omegabronic]

I think that erasure potency shouldn't be treated like Attack Potency.

it is not the "potency" per say, but the amount of "damage" dealt to an area with EE, no different than how environmental destruction and creation feats are still listed on the AP section

Details on the EE can be elaborated on in the Powers & Abilities section; but not the AP section.

i mean, what is the difference between the proposal and what we already do with creation feats and Environmental destruction?

 

[Damage3245]

it is not the "potency" per say, but the amount of "damage" dealt to an area with EE, no different than how environmental destruction and creation feats are still listed on the AP section


i mean, what is the difference between the proposal and what we already do with creation feats and Environmental destruction?

I think I'd much rather see them move elsewhere than expand the scope of the Attack Potency field further.

 

[omegabronic]

I think I'd much rather see them move elsewhere than expand the scope of the Attack Potency field further.

is there any difference between this and what it is done with creation feats for example? like, if we do for those we have to do for this to be consistent with ourselves, either remove both creation feats and environmental destruction or add this, if this doesn't make sense to add, then the other 2 also shouldn't exist since they follow the exact same logic

 

[Antvasima]

So which staff members think what here so far?

 

[omegabronic]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

I am personally fine with scaling erasing universes or more to a comparable attack potency tiering.

 

[Damage3245]

I am personally fine with scaling erasing universes or more to a comparable attack potency tiering.

Does it make much sense though? In theory there should be no difference between erasing a building and erasing the contents of a Universe other than range. Notwithstanding certain verse specifics.

 

[omegabronic]

Better formulated.

I am personally fine with scaling erasing universes or more to a comparable attack potency tiering.

dread proposed this reasoning to be put on the page, could you tag some staff to see if they are okay with this note?

 

[omegabronic]

Does it make much sense though? In theory there should be no difference between erasing a building and erasing the contents of a Universe other than range. Notwithstanding certain verse specifics.

i see the confusion here, this is not scaling it to potency whatsoever, but just putting the amount of damage the character can do a area with its EE, it is purely doing exactly what Environmental destruction does, aka, purely the damage done without any scaling to any potency or the attack power of the character

 

[Antvasima]

Does it make much sense though? In theory there should be no difference between erasing a building and erasing the contents of a Universe other than range. Notwithstanding certain verse specifics.

It is generally treated as raw power feats within fiction, and a case can easily be made that anybody capable of destroying time-space continuums are using existence erasure. I do not think that we should be overly picky, but rather go by intent in this case.

 

[Antvasima]

"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 universe 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.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think about this?

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Looks good.

 

[Antvasima]

"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 universe 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.

Your input would also be appreciated, @AKM sama and @DontTalkDT .

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For Low 2-C, sure, but I'd be against having it be applied to, say, 5-B.

 

[omegabronic]

For Low 2-C, sure, but I'd be against having it be applied to, say, 5-B.

why so?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

It looks good.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good.

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

@DarkDragonMedeus gave me permission to speak here

Its already standard that characters' EE feats aren't listed in their AP section (see Scarlet Witch erasing an infinite amount of Darkholds or Heaven Ascension DIO erasing an infinite amount of Funny Valentines) unless it was used on a tier 2 structure. Also what prompted this thread was characters scaling to their EE feats (they don't without context)

TLDR we don't list a character's EE feats in their AP section if the feats are tier 3 and below

So this idea is against standard

 

[omegabronic]

@DarkDragonMedeus gave me permission to speak here

Its already standard that characters' EE feats aren't listed in their AP section (see Scarlet Witch erasing an infinite amount of Darkholds or Heaven Ascension DIO erasing an infinite amount of Funny Valentines)

it is not written anywhere, and this is changing this

Also what prompted this thread was characters scaling to their EE feats (they don't without context)

nope, it was me seeing a possible future confusion on the matter if a proper standard was not written

TLDR we don't list a character's EE feats in their AP section if the feats are tier 3 and below

So this idea is against standard

show me the rule, plus this is exactly changing that, since it doesn't make sense to treat it like that when it is exactly the same situation as environmental destruction and creation

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am hearing it for the first time as well.

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

Its not some written rule (I concede to the idea that it should be), we just don't list tier 3 range (and below) EE feats as AP because usually done via pure hax. I gave some notable examples

In fact, it doesn't just apply to EE, it also applies to other hax (like King Crimson's Time Erasure spatially obliterating the entire universe not giving 3-A)

 

[ImmortalDread]

Your statements involve significant assumptions and generalizations, lacking any established rules or verified evidence to support your reasons.

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

I mean I'm just pointing out that hax tends to not warrant AP ratings like that

If that changes, then whatever, but there's a reason why its the case

 

[Reiner04]

(I got permission from @Dereck03 to comment, I won't be commenting any further and also advise regular users to not comment anything "beyond" giving a suggestion or your thoughts, it's not a place of endless debate, if you have spoken your mind, that's enough, you're not one to judge)

I am not against "pure EE" being listed as nothing beyond EE (not being an energy attack but "just turning smth into nothingness" kind of how thanos turned half of the Universe into dust, it was deconstruction I know but just smth along the lines, another example is of beerus turning Zamasu into nothingness and many other).

The problem here with the revision is that many of our characters have their EE via their AP, destroying Universe, multiverse, planet out of "existence", "to nothingness", for instance beerus and Toppo, Zeno their, AP has mixed EE in it. Most of the "big feats" in fiction, such as destroying Multiverse, Universe, or even planets sometimes tends to have a hax mixed with it (destroying concepts, spacetime, laws, nuking them out of Existence, etc). "Pure EE" is too rare in fiction, atleast way more rare for feats that involves anything beyond L2C.

TL;DR I've same opinion as @Antvasima

It is generally treated as raw power feats within fiction, and a case can easily be made that anybody capable of destroying time-space continuums are using existence erasure. I do not think that we should be overly picky, but rather go by intent in this case.

and also that EE will be hax if it'll be treated as "just" hax in fiction and "won't" if not. Same as how "Destroying concept" will be conceptual manp unless more things are given. So I think creating such rule will only lead to misleading abuse of such standards if specifically made for only "EE", I can say same to be made for "concepts" and many other haxes but that's just unnecessary.

 

[omegabronic]

The problem here with the revision is that many of our characters have their EE via their AP

if it is AP of them, then it shouln't be listed as Ee hax

, destroying Universe, multiverse, planet out of "existence", "to nothingness", for instance beerus and Toppo, Zeno their, AP has mixed EE in it.

Both of them have pure AP feats, plua db has universal power system, so they are a specific case anyway

Most of the "big feats" in fiction, such as destroying Multiverse, Universe, or even planets sometimes tends to have a hax mixed with it (destroying concepts, spacetime, laws, nuking them out of Existence, etc). "Pure EE" is too rare in fiction, atleast way more rare for feats that involves anything beyond L2C.

I don't see much of the problem here, they significantly affecting a large area with hax, which fits perfectly with environmental desreuction, which is what this thread is proposing, environmental destructioj with EE

and also that EE will be hax if it'll be treated as "just" hax in fiction and "won't" if not. Same as how "Destroying concept" will be conceptual manp unless more things are given. So I think creating such rule will only lead to misleading abuse of such standards if specifically made for only "EE", I can say same to be made for "concepts" and many other haxes but that's just unnecessary.

I mean, i don't see how? Like, it is proposing environmental destructioj after all, if there is other hax that could be used in the same logic as EE, do tell me on my wall so we can see if it is worth another thread for them

 

[Elizhaa]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think about this?

It seems fine.