The Problem with the Pocket Dimension Star Feats

[Assaltwaffle]

Nah, it doesn't. Just pointing out that physics when it comes to these massive stellar destruction feats that don't involve space-time collapse are pretty much all equally impossible.

 

[Konaguna]

Uhhhh wtf is going on here?

 

[AshenCrow777]

Uhhhh wtf is going on here?

Im lost too...

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Most of the issues the OP brought up are pretty much finished in discussion here, we just flipped into discussing how to actually quantify the feats themselves and flew to another thread.

We need proof that a character isn't just teleporting someone to a pocket reality, however if we see stars or a sun in the sky they're assumed to be real until something contradicts it, like the ground having a defined area.

 

[IMadeThisOn8-1-2017]

Back to the topic, how do the results of this thread affect the currently debated and discussed "Creation = Destruction" thread? I would have assumed a conclusion here would have concluded the other given the link of pocket realities and creations of stars in them.

 

[Antvasima]

I removed the derailing comments.

 

[Konaguna]

So what I'm getting at is:

-crating a realm with a Star is high 4-C -You need proof that someone created said realm -You need proof the realm is real

Anything else?

 

[Bobsican]

I have to ask out of curiosity:

Getting AP via creating stars also scales to durability?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Getting AP via creating stars also scales to durability?

You'd have to reason it scales to their other forms of attacking first. After that taking hits from comparable characters or having energy-based forcefields could scale dura to the feats.

 

[Bobsican]

I guess Barney will just be a glass cannon in that case, as confrontation isn´t really something in the series.

 

[Bobsican]

Bumping just in case.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'll try and make a revised page for Celestial Body Feats, Creation, Pocket Realities, etc. that reflects the conclusions gain here and on the other thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It may be best to write a blog draft first and ask Azathoth to comment.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Alright.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

The problem with certain verses also comes with how their stars and celestial bodies are treated. Kirby, for example, and Mario, both have wildly inconsistent sizes for what they consider "stars" and "planets".

Kirby is more of a victim of the former whilst Mario suffers from both. We KNOW that accurate depictions exist in the verse, but we also know that some depictions have noticeably smaller scales of what we deem celestial bodies, so where are we to apply occam's razor in a series that's SUPER inconsistent? There comes a point when it's entirely based on interpretation for a certain scale of power shared between both series, and we technically can't say the other is wrong for thinking that these objects that are known to vary in size arem"t all set to their maximums in particular instances.

For Kirby, literally almost everything but what it deems "Stars" are accurate to our own universe, with few depictions of a star similar to our own, while Mario simply fails to stay consistent at all.

I also agree that creating a pocket dimension of a particular size doesn't mean they can suddenly blast you with the energy required specifically to create it, and the relationship between caster to dimension simply can be explained as the link being vanquished unless they are said to specifically power that dimension, as most cases I've seen of a dimension being atomized is a gradual effect instead of it fading away immediately upon losing its host and power source.

 

[Kaltias]

You'd have to reason it scales to their other forms of attacking first. After that taking hits from comparable characters or having energy-based forcefields could scale dura to the feats.

We never assume that creation feats are environmental destruction though.

But yeah, scaling to durability would require evidence

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We never assume that creation feats are environmental destruction though.

If we can't scale it to direct forms of attack / striking strength by definition it would be. You already just claimed durability needs evidence.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Fox brings up very good points, btw. Many verses have rather liberal ideas of what constitutes "stars" and "planets".

 

[InfiniteBlack123]

So where would this put Saint Seiya character like the Titans, Gods, and High Cosmo Saints.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So where would this put Saint Seiya character like the Titans, Gods, and High Cosmo Saints.

Nowhere if it's claimed they created it since our standards aren't really changing for rating them.

The feats would be disqualified if it wasn't stated or shown that they created them.

 

[Arceus0x]

would this affect kirito?

 

[Antvasima]

We preferably still need help from Azathoth.

 

[Kaltias]

If we can't scale it to direct forms of attack / striking strength by definition it would be. You already just claimed durability needs evidence.

There is a difference between "needs evidence to scale to durability" and "it's environmental destruction until proven".

The point was that our default assumption is that creation feats aren't ED, which is why we don't have stuff like "Low 2-C environmental destruction (created the universe)" for [Insert creator god here]

 

[Andytrenom]

Maybe Arceus is meteor level, and just has 2-B environmental Destruction

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The point was that our default assumption is that creation feats aren't ED, which is why we don't have stuff like "Low 2-C environmental destruction (created the universe)" for [Insert creator god here]

That's because it's pretty easy to connect the creation feats to their other powers and abilities that can be used for more direct methods of attacks. A bit of an extreme example, too.

A hypotetical character with no other abilities that creates a pocket dimension the size of a room can't be reasoned to hit with 9-A striking strength without proof to the positive. They'd still have 9-A AP it just wouldn't be applicable to harming opponents, hence Environmental Destruction.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

@Dargoo Is that the approach we would take to Castlevania, which seems to have a similar issue?

 

[Kaltias]

>That's because it's pretty easy to connect the creation feats to their other powers and abilities that can be used for more direct methods of attacks. A bit of an extreme example, too.

It's not though. "This dude created the universe with a thought" is a Low 2-C feat. No one says that it isn't (or that it's ED) because our current rules says that creation = destruction.

And it isn't really extreme because it's literally the same feat, but on a greater scale, but you can replace universe with planet/star/galaxy and the point would be the same.

>A hypotetical character with no other abilities that creates a pocket dimension the size of a room can't be reasoned to hit with 9-A striking strength without proof to the positive.

I'm not saying that it scales to striking strength though. Again, stuff that doesn't scale to durability =/= environmental destruction. This girl's attacks are >>>>>>>>>> her durability, doesn't make them ED.

I'm saying that it scales to attacks that aren't based on your physical strength, which is what we usually assume in those cases.

 

[MoonChosen]

Doesn't the Aurum invasion in Kid Icarus:Uprising firmly establish that there is outer space in that verse along with actual galaxies and stars?

 

[The_Causality]

I want to see 2-A Environmental Destruction for Madoka

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

@Moon

It does.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It's not though. "This dude created the universe with a thought" is a Low 2-C feat. No one says that it isn't (or that it's ED) because our current rules says that creation = destruction.

Could you give me an example of a character with no decent justifications for scaling combat-applicable AP to Creation feats without this "default assumption"?

I'm saying that it scales to attacks that aren't based on your physical strength, which is what we usually assume in those cases.

And I think it's a fair assumption for a number of characters. My point is you can't assume it for every character.

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, proving "We never assume that creation feats are ED until proven otherwise" (Which pretty much means disregarding creation = destruction, for the record) isn't really up to me, it would be up to you to prove that we indeed consider them as ED unless there is evidence of the opposite.

If you want an example, the Pokemon god tiers never blew up a 2-B multiverse, they simply created one.

That doesn't mean that they have Low 2-C AP and 2-B environmental destruction.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean, proving "We never assume that creation feats are ED until proven otherwise" (Which pretty much means disregarding creation = destruction, for the record) isn't really up to me, it would be up to you to prove that we indeed consider them as ED unless there is evidence of the opposite.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm fine with creation equaling destruction when there are attacks that can be scaled to said creation. However it's fair to say there are some characters who lack good reasoning to scale them. For example the Pokemon Gods you used as an example use just as much effort and arguably the same energy to use more direct attacks as they did to perform their best feats. It can be reasoned these attacks are on the same leve as said feats as a result.

If this is more a matter of principle though, and this is already set in stone as policy, there's not much else for me to say.

 

[Kaltias]

How do you even directly scale creation to destruction though.

If I created a universe with RW, the only way to "attack" in the same way would be reality warping you out of existence or something, which isn't really durability related.

If you mean that it's a matter of putting effort into it in order to scale, sure, but that already requires the assumption that it scales to your AP in one way or another.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If you mean that it's a matter of putting effort into it in order to scale, sure, but that already requires the assumption that it scales to your AP in one way or another.

It's more a matter of using the same energy to attack, since we can at least agree that creation uses some kind of energy, which can be arbitrarily quantified via our own standards.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

In my opinion, creation shouldn't be scaled to attack potency at all (or, by default, anyway).

 

[Konaguna]

So creating a universe still don't make you universal on your opinion? Damn

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Not unless you can spawn big bangs in your opponent's face, or similar.

 

[Konaguna]

I Disagree, creating something such as a universe or even a multiverse requires a lot of damn energy, power or whatever one may utilize to pull off such a feat.

By this logic a planet buster is more impressive in DC than someone who can fart universes to life. I don't really dig this logic, lots of characters are pretty high on scale because of impressive creation feats

 

[Rocker1189]

Depends, is the universe farter getting rekt by 9-Bs?