Timeframe | Creation Feats (Revision)

[Fwyzzverse]

I'm going to continue the question I've been asking on this thread

Question 1:

But how how long is the maximum timeframe to be applicable to AP? Does it also depend on how big the pocket dimensions are?

As we know the creation page tells us verbatim:

the creation of the object(s) in question needs to happen within a reasonably short timeframe for the whole result to apply to the Attack Potency.

A member of the calculation group will reply, and I quote:

Probably about a second like we would do with getting the energy of watts per second

The fact that he uses "probably" is used to express an uncertain estimate. Why is it necessary to give a "reasonably short deadline"? If it is not specified, it should be inferred that it is automatically issued within a reasonably short time.

X create a 3-A structure but there is no verbatim statement or anything that gives a notional fact about the time of creation so we should infer directly that it is issued within a reasonably short period of time.

B create a 3-A structure but there's a verbatim statement or whatever that gives a notional fact about the creation lead time so we should induce it reasonably short based on the induced short lead time.

Here we have two cases: one in which the creation deadline is not specified, and one in which it is, and if it isn't, we'd have to say that it's reasonably short. And if I'm told, for example, that a character takes 2 minutes to create a universe in relation to cinematic time, he's induced into the Page Cinematic Time:

It passes at different speeds as the time in the story or completely leaves out time-frames.

In the same way that a character who crosses an infinite distance does so in zero time, despite the fact that cinematic time is slow (God of War: Kratos infinite speed as he follows Heimdall in speed, yet the cinematic movement delay is slow), a creative feat where no time limit is specified is done in a reasonably short time. Which would make more sense than cancelling certain creation feats because they don't have a TF.
The questions
Question 1:

What's intriguing is that the Time frame requirement only applies to the creation of the object(s) in question, and in the Hierarchy System object creation is totally distinct of any structure while a structure cannot be considered as an object otherwise it would be contradictory.

Question 2:

And also what do you mean by Reasonably Short Deadline? A delay of 1 minute? or more or less? the page isn't really precise on this?

Page Creation

Spoiler: Page Time Frame

(Intrinsic page to Time Frame that could become an official page if the changes here are implemented)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Fwyzzverse/Time_Frame

---

Here's what I propose for the TF (Time Frame)

Agree: @Omnificence @Rafaltmr
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[Reiner04]

You should have “Attack potency”, “Creation feats”, “Cinematic time” and “Timeframe” as tags rather than just “Content revision threads” and “Timeframe” tags.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Thanks, I've just added them as I've made some changes and forgotten some tags.

 

[Omnificence]

Looks great! I'm in agreement.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Rafaltmr]

I agree with the changes to be made and in particular the page concerning the TF that you created would be a good help too, I agree

 

[KLOL506]

This is a staff-only thread, people, non-staff should not comment.

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Pretty sure this is case by case.

 

[Omnificence]

This is a staff-only thread, people, non-staff should not comment.

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa

Why? You and DDM are the only staff that replied so far.

 

[Reiner04]

Why? You and DDM are the only staff that replied so far.

Only staff members and regular members staff have deemed highly trustworthy may participate in Staff Discussion threads unless an explicit exception is noted.

 

[Omnificence]

Oh yeah, my bad.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Pretty sure this is case by case.

Instead of telling me "I'm pretty sure it's case by case", I'd like you to give me a real argumentative opinion on the revision, without sounding insolent.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

I agree with the changes to be made and in particular the page concerning the TF that you created would be a good help too, I agree

Thank.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Instead of telling me "I'm pretty sure it's case by case", I'd like you to give me a real argumentative opinion on the revision, without sounding insolent.

Probably because they've often been given multiple times. But comparing them to Watts probably sounds a bit accurate in lack of better options and for sure, High 3-A and above would make timeframes irrelevant.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Probably because they've often been given multiple times.

What were they given several times about? I could talk to you with more precision in the semantics.

But comparing them to Watts probably sounds a bit accurate in lack of better options and for sure,

Really? And yet isn't it the TF that only applies to the totally distinct object of a structure? why would you want to veil a TF for the creation of a pocket dimension, for example, if the requirement only applies to the creation of objects that should be exercised in the structure and not the structure, given that objects are what make up a structure and in this case cannot be a structure. And structure can't be an object, so TF shouldn't be used for structure creation. And in the case of inducing a second one, of course, but in the case where it's not specified, it should be automatically admitted so as not to cancel a feat simply because it doesn't have a TF.

High 3-A and above would make timeframes irrelevant.

Oh yeah, exactly the precise answer I was waiting for - thank you so much for telling me what I wanted to hear!

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@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 @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

What do you think about this?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Disagree. The assumption should not be always instant, this seems built solely to allow higher interpretations of feats without critical thinking put to them. Rarely do we have sufficient context to say what goes into creating a Low 2-C, 2-A, High 1-B, etc structure: even if the end result proves to be infinite in space, the time it takes to create it changes how we consider it. The baseline assumption should be conservative and a baseline, not aiming high.

 

[Fwyzzverse]

Disagree. The assumption should not be always instant,

I'm not suggesting that it has to be instantaneous, but that if it's not specified, it should be reasonably short, e.g. 1 second, like watts, rather than the feat itself being cancelled.

this seems built solely to allow higher interpretations of feats without critical thinking put to them.

Yes for feats giving no TF notional facts. It's a waste that a feat of creation isn't admitted because the TF isn't specified - that's why I want to award it reasonably short automatically.

Rarely do we have sufficient context to say what goes into creating a Low 2-C, 2-A, High 1-B, etc structure: even if the end result proves to be infinite in space, the time it takes to create it changes how we consider it. The baseline assumption should be conservative and a baseline, not aiming high.

I'll now come back to "structure": why is the TF necessary for a creative feat that inculcates a structure? when it's only admitted to an object that in no way plays the role of a "structure"? and I would like you to answer the question of the revision which charges the TF thank you.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm not suggesting that it has to be instantaneous, but that if it's not specified, it should be reasonably short, e.g. 1 second, like watts, rather than the feat itself being cancelled.

I don't think that's a reasonable baseline.

Yes for feats giving no TF notional facts. It's a waste that a feat of creation isn't admitted because the TF isn't specified - that's why I want to award it reasonably short automatically.

What do you mean "waste of a creation feat"? We're not aiming to give tiers arbitrarily for something that resembles a feat. If it isn't implied to be a very short timeframe, we shouldn't automatically assume it is one.

I'll now come back to "structure": why is the TF necessary for a creative feat that inculcates a structure? when it's only admitted to an object that in no way plays the role of a "structure"? and I would like you to answer the question of the revision which charges the TF thank you.

Timeframe is necessary in determining what sort of damage output a character can put out in actual combat. If it took a character ten months to create a multiverse, we're not going to list them at 2-A for all of their attacks- they can't actually achieve that in a single attack, they can only achieve it with ten months of prep time. This is why timeframe is important. If we don't have an objective timeframe, one can hopefully be gleaned from context of the feat- for example, if someone is creating a Low 2-C structure in the midst of a battle, we know that the timeframe is constrained to the duration of that battle.

Failing that, we should not assume it is a 1-second timeframe because of the implications this would have for arbitrarily assigning huge upgrades in tiers with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Agnaa]

I completely disagree with the page in the OP, and I kinda disagree with our current standards.

I believe that creation feats should simply divide the mass created by the number of seconds it took to perform the feat, and we should use that value to place it within the table on the Creation Feats page. We already do this sort of thing for non-creation feats, so I think it'd be reasonable to extend it that way.

For feats that land High 3-A or above, we could list it regardless (as dividing it by any finite amount of time would leave it at the same tier), but we have to be careful not to scale it to other attacks unless we know that those attacks take just as much time/energy. Our standards on Universal Energy Systems already make that clear.

I think that we can look into general context from the series to typically get a good idea of this. If a character was caught off-guard by it, it probably didn't take more than a minute. If it couldn't have started before some part in the story, and was done by another, we know it took place in that timeframe.

I have no idea why we would ignore Cinematic Time entirely, we should just incorporate that as we usually do.

 

[DarkGrath]

I agree with Mr. Bambu and Agnaa in this matter. Mr. Bambu summarised my concern quite aptly with this passage in particular.

What do you mean "waste of a creation feat"? We're not aiming to give tiers arbitrarily for something that resembles a feat. If it isn't implied to be a very short timeframe, we shouldn't automatically assume it is one.

The core issue I have is simply that the baseline suggested for the timeframe is arbitrary and not clearly justified by any precedent. It seems to me that the point of it is that it is meant to be a pragmatic assumption - that is, it is an assumption that makes it easier to work with creation feats that don't have clear timeframes - but the result is that it is also an assumption that we have no good reason to take on as a general rule. There's simply no reason to assert as a principle that a creation feat without a specific timeframe had a 'short' timeframe.

I like Agnaa's suggestions for changes to the creation feat standards, though they can probably be discussed in more depth in a separate thread. At present, though, the discussion is on the changes suggested in the OP, and I can't pass on them as they are.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm in agreement with DDM that this can't be given a concrete value but rather has to be done case-by-case, where each feat has its timeframe measured based on the circumstances and context, instead of trying to slap on a one-size-fits-all value (For feats below High 3-A that is, obviously you can't apply timeframe beyond that as infinity divided by anything is still infinity, same reason we don't allow downscaling to Low 2-C from 2-C simply because a character might've only chip-damaged a 2-C construct or provided half the energy to blow up 2 universes, doesn't work like that).

Also, getting rid of Cinematic Timeframe? Shit move to make in general for any kind of feat when they are our most reliable means of calculating timeframes for feats in moving media.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think there may have been a misunderstanding on what was advocated. High 3-A and above pretty much rule timeframes as irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long it takes when we get to that level because dividing infinite power/energy by a finite amount of time would still be infinite. Or even 2-B sized multiverses, even if we assumed the individual universes were created one by one over time, the absolute lowest they could be lowballed to is Low 2-C; with 2-A and above literally being impossible to lowball for the same reasons.

For 3-A and below, there may be points against assumed timeframes. A 4-C or 4-A sized pocket dimension may be deemed much less impressive it it took "Untold millennia" to create as opposed to a matter of seconds. And some characters, they may be self explanatory that it would have to be short. Since a feat might have been done shortly after a character even received a power up that grant them any sort of creation powers, and thus could not have taken very long. Creating "A flow of time" and/or "Temporal dimensions" also cannot be divided by timeframes for aforementioned reasons either.

 

[Agnaa]

I think there may have been a misunderstanding on what was advocated. High 3-A and above pretty much rule timeframes as irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long it takes when we get to that level because dividing infinite power/energy by a finite amount of time would still be infinite. Or even 2-B sized multiverses, even if we assumed the individual universes were created one by one over time, the absolute lowest they could be lowballed to is Low 2-C; with 2-A and above literally being impossible to lowball for the same reasons.

My only concern with this, is that it may not necessarily be treated that way in fiction. That a character who can charge for 10 seconds to create a timeline can also dispense infinite energy with no charging by flicking their finger.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @DarkGrath @Qawsedf234

Can you try to reach a consensus here please?

 

[KLOL506]

Really the only one who can help us here now is DT and Ultima, but DT isn't due for returning until next month as per his own words.

DDM, Agnaa and Grath already responded with Bambu giving a kudos to his comment.

If you want to ask my opinion tho, I think DDM's suggestion fits best, this can't be a one-size-fits-all thing and needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so Bambu, Agnaa, DarkGrath, and Medeus agree with each other here? And in that case, what were their agreed upon conclusions?

If not, I would appreciate if they try to discuss the issue with each other until they reach an agreement.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay, so Bambu, Agnaa, DarkGrath, and Medeus agree with each other here? And in that case, what were their agreed upon conclusions?

From what I can tell they all seem to disagree with OP, but how they choose to solve this conundrum is different.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It would be good if they try to agree regarding a potential solution then, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Agnaa]

As far as I can tell, the views are:

• Time never matters: 0
• Time matters at 3-A and below, but not at High 3-A and above: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, KLOL506)
• Time always matters: 3 (Mr. Bambu, Agnaa, DarkGrath)

Although my opposition to time not mattering at High 3-A and above is more due to common fictional portrayals, rather than the physics at hand.

 

[Antvasima]

As far as I can tell, the views are:

• Time never matters: 0
• Time matters at 3-A and below, but not at High 3-A and above: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, KLOL506)
• Time always matters: 3 (Mr. Bambu, Agnaa, DarkGrath)

Although my opposition to time not mattering at High 3-A and above is more due to common fictional portrayals, rather than the physics at hand.

Thank you for the summary.

@Ultima_Reality

What do you think?

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

To me a reasonably short timeframe basically means that the action that causes the universe to be created must happen in a quick manner. The character isn't just like making a pocket dimension and letting it linger for eons while its slowly populated or anything like that. Its why making a Big Bang or starting a new universe are considered examples of a "Reasonably short timeframe". While I do think that it can be expanded with an example or two, the intention is that the timeframe of the event must be small and not drawn out. So I would be in the "Time always matters" group.