Universal Energy Systems

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[KLOL506]

I gave an alternative.

As long as character shows feats in proportion with certain amount energy used out of an external source like magical weapon/artefact, the feat will be attributed mainly for weapon, but can be considered UES for Character+Weapon pair. Power Scaling aspects should also be considered as make or break factors.

I finally understand what this means now.

Basically, if a mystical weapon is shown with a certain feat and the character is unable to tap into its power source, then yeah, the character will not scale to the weapon's power.

However, if the character can tap into said weapon's power source to use it for themselves, then yes, they can scale to the weapon's power level. As Gilver already gave an example, the Devil Sword Sparda from DMC (Which turned fodder enemies like Arkham and Sanctus into mid-tier level enemies), or another example: the Power Stone from the MCU, used by both Ronan and Thanos.

Granted, this could have been explained a lot more clearly initially, but no harm done doing it now.

 

[AKM sama]

After reading everything thoroughly, I agree with Prom and Antoniofer. If you want my input, here goes:

The purpose of this page is to issue some guidelines for ease of determining what does and doesn’t qualify as a Universal Energy System, the metric by which we can argue whether or not a character’s feats with powers applies to their other statistics.

I think these guidelines overcomplicate things instead of making it simple. The only guidelines we need to follow to decide whether an attack dome through an energy statement scales to physical AP, dura and speed, is to ask the most logical questions.

• How does the verse explain their energy system (the answer to this depends on the verse, and every verse is different, with different mechanics and whatnot, it's all case-by-case)
• Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (these answers can also be provided directly by the verse which may or may not fit our perceived standards)
• Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (this is something very easy to prove)

Like, for example, I can create a power system that can meet every single one of the listed criteria and still not be a power that is "UES". Suppose:
1. Users explicitly draw from EnergyX for their myriad of abilities (meaning users of EnergyX can perform special techniques and attacks that have more AP than their physical bodies, say if their physical AP/dura is 7-A, they can use techniques and attacks that have 6-A AP)
2. EnergyX is a common source of power within the verse (a lot of people can make use of EnergyX)
3. EnergyX is tightly integrated to the verse's lore (it has deep seated lore and everything)
4. Users of Energy X can channel their powers to objects like swords and staffs to empower them (which doesn't necessarily mean they can empower themselves to the same extent)
5. A removal of EnergyX represents a dramatic loss in power for the user (users of EnergyX often have fixed level of physical capabilities, say, 7-A range, and they revert back to physically being normal humans after losing EnergyX)
6. More EnergyX means that the users can use more powerful special abilities and attacks (what was 6-A until now with special techniques, would be 5-C)

Here we have EnergyX fulfilling every single criteria, and yet it won't mean that EnergyX is directly tied to a user's AP/dura/speed. All it means is having EnergyX can make a normal human transform into a superhuman with 7-A physical stats, with 6-A special techniques, and more EnergyX would mean more powerful special techniques on the level of 5-C, or higher. It doesn't prove that EnergyX will make their physical AP on the same level as the attacks they do by making use of EnergyX, and it doesn't prove physical stats grow in proportion to the increase in EnergyX.

The point of this example is to show that the most important criteria is missing. It is the criteria that asks two simple questions (bolded above). Whether it is stated or evidenced that more EnergyX means more physical AP/dura/speed, and whether the AP derived from special techniques and abilities performed through EnergyX scale to the physical stats. Like, this is the first and foremost requirement which is being ignored here. None of the other criteria matter if these two questions are answered conclusively.

And unfortunately, none of the above criteria conclusively answer these questions. You can have a verse that will fulfill every single criteria and we'd assume that more energy = more physical AP/dura/speed and that AP feats done by making use of said energy scales to physicals. Without actually having to prove it directly. They just need to prove unrelated or semi-related criteria. If the point is to prove the existence of a "UES" then the above criteria are not enough to be able to decide that.



Take any series that is listed on the doc for example. I'll pick everyone's favorite: Dragon Ball.
Does Dragon Ball need to go through these unrelated/semi-related criteria or can we just ask two simple questions:
1. Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (blatantly, they make use of ki to launch special attacks and also make use of ki to envelop their bodies and limbs to throw punches. Almost every fight proves that their special ki blasts scale to their physical dura/punches)
2. Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (blatantly, they have direct statements)

So what else is required? Just ask logical questions and let the verse answer them for you. Why make up a checklist with several of the irrelevant criteria that don't answer the main question directly? Why get around the point?

Take a case of a verse that doesn't qualify. I'll pick Harry Potter.
1. Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (uh, no. No such indication exists)
2. Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (again no, very clearly)

It's that easy. Of course answers will be different with different details because every verse has a unique set of power. We just need to ask these basic questions and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Not everything needs to be codified/standardized. Some things need to be flexible because fiction inherently is flexible.


If we want a guideline, here is one that works:
1. There should be statements or consistent feats that tell us that the AP achieved by making use of an energy system also equals physical AP/dura.
2. There should be statements or consistent feats that tell us that increase in said energy proportionally increases physical AP/dura/speed.

Let's make it more direct and straight to the point.

 

[KLOL506]

After reading everything thoroughly, I agree with Prom and Antoniofer. If you want my input, here goes:


I think these guidelines overcomplicate things instead of making it simple. The only guidelines we need to follow to decide whether an attack dome through an energy statement scales to physical AP, dura and speed, is to ask the most logical questions.

• How does the verse explain their energy system (the answer to this depends on the verse, and every verse is different, with different mechanics and whatnot, it's all case-by-case)

The core mechanics are to amplify one's physical characteristics, to be able to use said energy for everything they do.

• Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (these answers can also be provided directly by the verse which may or may not fit our perceived standards)
• Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (this is something very easy to prove)

Covered by the following criteria:

Direct correlation needs to be established between the universal system and outright power or potential capabilities

Like, for example, I can create a power system that can meet every single one of the listed criteria and still not be a power that is "UES". Suppose:
1. Users explicitly draw from EnergyX for their myriad of abilities (meaning users of EnergyX can perform special techniques and attacks that have more AP than their physical bodies, say if their physical AP/dura is 7-A, they can use techniques and attacks that have 6-A AP)
2. EnergyX is a common source of power within the verse (a lot of people can make use of EnergyX)
3. EnergyX is tightly integrated to the verse's lore (it has deep seated lore and everything)
4. Users of Energy X can channel their powers to objects like swords and staffs to empower them (which doesn't necessarily mean they can empower themselves to the same extent)
5. A removal of EnergyX represents a dramatic loss in power for the user (users of EnergyX often have fixed level of physical capabilities, say, 7-A range, and they revert back to physically being normal humans after losing EnergyX)
6. More EnergyX means that the users can use more powerful special abilities and attacks (what was 6-A until now with special techniques, would be 5-C)

Here we have EnergyX fulfilling every single criteria, and yet it won't mean that EnergyX is directly tied to a user's AP/dura/speed. All it means is having EnergyX can make a normal human transform into a superhuman with 7-A physical stats, with 6-A special techniques, and more EnergyX would mean more powerful special techniques on the level of 5-C, or higher.

Hellbeast actually had this in the draft originally but eventually other people suggested it to be too restricting, but here goes, this was the original proposal before people deemed it too restrictive:

• Users need to have the capacity to use their powers to directly channel their power through physical objects in a way that quantifiably enhances them such as:
  • Empowering and enhancing weapons
  • Empowering the user’s own physical capabilities, such as their physical strikes
  • Power described as “radiating throughout” the user’s body could certainly imply this

The point of this example is to show that the most important criteria is missing. It is the criteria that asks two simple questions (bolded above). Whether it is stated or evidenced that more EnergyX means more physical AP/dura/speed, and whether the AP derived from special techniques and abilities performed through EnergyX scale to the physical stats. Like, this is the first and foremost requirement which is being ignored here. None of the other criteria matter if these two questions are answered conclusively.

And unfortunately, none of the above criteria conclusively answer these questions. You can have a verse that will fulfill every single criteria and we'd assume that more energy = more physical AP/dura/speed and that AP feats done by making use of said energy scales to physicals. Without actually having to prove it directly. They just need to prove unrelated or semi-related criteria. If the point is to prove the existence of a "UES" then the above criteria are not enough to be able to decide that.

Take any series that is listed on the doc for example. I'll pick everyone's favorite: Dragon Ball.

Does Dragon Ball need to go through these unrelated/semi-related criteria or can we just ask two simple questions:
1. Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (blatantly, they make use of ki to launch special attacks and also make use of ki to envelop their bodies and limbs to throw punches. Almost every fight proves that their special ki blasts scale to their physical dura/punches)
2. Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (blatantly, they have direct statements)

Read the part regarding "Direct correlation between power source and powers/abilities" criteria.

So what else is required? Just ask logical questions and let the verse answer them for you. Why make up a checklist with several of the irrelevant criteria that don't answer the main question directly? Why get around the point?

Take a case of a verse that doesn't qualify. I'll pick Harry Potter.
1. Does the verse explain or provide evidence to suggest that their power system is tied to their physical stats, meaning AP feats achieved by making use of said power can also be achieved physically (uh, no. No such indication exists)
2. Does the verse make it clear that the increase in physical stats (AP, dura or speed) is proportional to increase in power source (again no, very clearly)

It's that easy. Of course answers will be different with different details because every verse has a unique set of power. We just need to ask these basic questions and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Not everything needs to be codified/standardized. Some things need to be flexible because fiction inherently is flexible.

Once again, the "Direct correlation between power source and powers/abilities" criteria handles this.

Hellbeast will also respond to this after he's free from work.

 

[AKM sama]

"Direct correlation between power source and powers/abilities" is very misleading, as is proved by my example. Because powers/abilities don't mean physical stats.

 

[KLOL506]

"Direct correlation between power source and powers/abilities" is very misleading, as is proved by my example. Because powers/abilities don't mean physical stats.

Seems like a wording issue then, we could easily add "physical stats" into the mix and add more additional context based on your points.

 

[KLOL506]

If we want a guideline, here is one that works:
1. There should be statements or consistent feats that tell us that the AP achieved by making use of an energy system also equals physical AP/dura.
2. There should be statements or consistent feats that tell us that increase in said energy proportionally increases physical AP/dura/speed.

Let's make it more direct and straight to the point.

I suppose we could add these points to the criteria.

How about this?

Direct correlation needs to be established between the power source and the character's physical statistics, powers and abilities. There must be statements or showings that the character's feats performed via the energy system also equals to their physical strength/speed/durability, and there must be showings or statements that an increase in power levels also relates to a proportional increase in their physical strength/durability/speed.

That being said, wouldn't most UESes show evidence for this 99% of the time? And wouldn't this be covered by the first criteria which originally demanded that there be showings/statements/confirmations/thorough indications that the user be able to amp their physical statistics via said energy source after performing a feat with said energy source?

• Users need to have the capacity to use their powers to directly channel their power through physical objects in a way that quantifiably enhances them such as:
  • Empowering and enhancing weapons
  • Empowering the user’s own physical capabilities, such as their physical strikes (THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY)
  • Power described as “radiating throughout” the user’s body could certainly imply this- Ignore this one, too specific

 

[Hellbeast]

"Direct correlation between power source and powers/abilities" is very misleading, as is proved by my example. Because powers/abilities don't mean physical stats.

That’s not what we mean; we’re talking about the energy source with that ala Charka and Midichlorians

energy source where a higher connection or concentration = outright more power or potential then those with a lesser connection. That’s what that means specifically

Also didn’t we do that whole thing of feats with powers reflecting physical stats but then decided THAT was too restrictive

 

[KLOL506]

Also didn’t we do that whole thing of feats with powers reflecting physical stats but then decided THAT was too restrictive

Ye, apparently too many people thought this was restrictive. So IDK, but regardless, I'm not above adding it back.

 

[AKM sama]

That being said, wouldn't most UESes show evidence for this 99% of the time?

I mean, yes. If those conditions are met, why do we need to make them fulfill a whole lot of unrelated business. Think about this. If characters have an outright statement or consistent showings that the attacks that they launch using the energy system, can be matched by their physical strikes and durability, and if they have an outright statement or consistent showings that increase in the energy also means increase in their physical stats, isn't that enough? Why does it matter if they can infuse energy into objects or whatnot.

Also didn’t we do that whole thing of feats with powers reflecting physical stats but then decided THAT was too restrictive

I mean, the point of this entire endeavor is to prove just that. How could you omit the condition that needs to be primarily proven. It's not too restrictive, it's the core of this discussion. Otherwise we are trying to prove something by not actually proving that thing directly, but through unrelated indirect means that don't necessarily prove it?

Although, I still think that we don't actually need a "guideline" page for what is just two logical and basic questions that need to be asked to each individual verse. The answers would either be in yes or no. So this seems incredibly trivial. So I'm with Prom on that one, we may need to codify a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them imo.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, yes. If those conditions are met, why do we need to make them fulfill a whole lot of unrelated business. Think about this. If characters have an outright statement or consistent showings that the attacks that they launch using the energy system, can be matched by their physical strikes and durability, and if they have an outright statement or consistent showings that increase in the energy also means increase in their physical stats, isn't that enough?

Okay then, I'm fine with adding it back. It was more so of a concern with regards to Creation Feats and whatnot. But still, I think the rest of the guidelines still help in further acting as reinforcement of the first point.

Why does it matter if they can infuse energy into objects or whatnot.

I guess you got a point there, once the first point is proven everything else is supporting evidence.

I mean, the point of this entire endeavor is to prove just that. How could you omit the condition that needs to be primarily proven. It's not too restrictive, it's the core of this discussion. Otherwise we are trying to prove something by not actually proving that thing directly, but through unrelated indirect means that doesn't necessarily prove it?

That being said, I'm still not too sure if this works as a good-enough guideline, since it's gonna be fulfilled almost 99% of the time, especially when something like this also involves Creation Feats.

 

[AKM sama]

I think Creation feats is its own can of worms and shouldn't be linked to this. Whether the ability to create actually scales to destructive output should still need to be proven despite the energy system. But I'll not go there right now.

 

[KLOL506]

I think Creation feats is its own can of worms and shouldn't be linked to this. Whether the ability to create actually scales to destructive output should still need to be proven despite the energy system. But I'll not go there right now.

The only reason Creation Feats even comes into play here is that due to the previous CRTs we had, where we concluded that the only viable way to scale them to physicals was via UES (Via having to show whether the Creation Feat is equally-or-less-taxing than normal base attacks or not, and with that having more additional requirements to show whether the character is holding back on their full power when performing destructive feats on lower levels casually or focusing all their power into a small area to avoid collateral or for precision-based attacks, etc.) or via blatant statements/confirmation.

There's also the realm sustaining question but that's sorta different from this one and that one's pretty straightforward which doesn't need much elaboration.

 

[KLOL506]

Although, I still think that we don't actually need a "guideline" page for what is just two logical and basic questions that need to be asked to each individual verse. The answers would either be in yes or no. So this seems incredibly trivial. So I'm with Prom on that one, we may need to codify a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them imo.

I still disagree, using two guidelines alone (Without actually putting them somewhere for people to see) without any supporting ones and no ineligible criteria would allow almost anyone to make verses qualify for high-end feats (Creation, Destruction, could be anything) scaling to normal base physicals via a universal energy source while ignoring all context and background behind said feats (For example, one could easily abuse it to make a uber-high-end vague-and-rarely-mentioned Tier 7 destruction feat to base physicals despite the character having consistent showings of feats lower on that level).

 

[AKM sama]

while ignoring all context and background behind said feats

I mean, wouldn't you necessarily need context and background information to be able to answer those questions anyway? Like, if there is info that can put into question the validity of whether the energy attacks match physical AP/dura and whether the increase in energy is proportional to the increase in physical AP/dura/speed, then those cases won't qualify. We just need to be vigilant and enforce proper judgment. I don't think you can rule out this potential contradictory piece of info even with those guidelines in place. Or do you have an example in mind where something like this can be possible? (It will make me understand your point more clearly).

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, wouldn't you necessarily need context and background information to be able to answer those questions anyway? Like, if there is info that can put into question the validity of whether the energy attacks match physical AP/dura and whether the increase in energy is proportional to the increase in physical AP/dura/speed, then those cases won't qualify.

This is where we'd generally check to see if it matches up with the criteria.

We just need to be vigilant and enforce proper judgment.

And to be extra vigilant and enforce proper judgment we'd need something to look towards, something to take assistance from. Like guidelines, for example.

 

[Hellbeast]

I mean, yes. If those conditions are met, why do we need to make them fulfill a whole lot of unrelated business. Think about this. If characters have an outright statement or consistent showings that the attacks that they launch using the energy system, can be matched by their physical strikes and durability, and if they have an outright statement or consistent showings that increase in the energy also means increase in their physical stats, isn't that enough? Why does it matter if they can infuse energy into objects or whatnot.


I mean, the point of this entire endeavor is to prove just that. How could you omit the condition that needs to be primarily proven. It's not too restrictive, it's the core of this discussion. Otherwise we are trying to prove something by not actually proving that thing directly, but through unrelated indirect means that don't necessarily prove it?

Ask Agnaa who railed against it; we just modified the page to fit that criteria

Although, I still think that we don't actually need a "guideline" page for what is just two logical and basic questions that need to be asked to each individual verse. The answers would either be in yes or no. So this seems incredibly trivial. So I'm with Prom on that one, we may need to codify a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them imo.

I mean we kinda do, these “logical and basic questions” are nowhere to be found on the wiki officially so I had to probe the forums and the wider community (Crisis’ Vader video) for anything resembling a means of doing so. It actively came up during a debate I was in and became a center point for one of my proposed ratings in a revision

It’s also weird to call this trivial since there’s entire verses that are effected by this element and I’ve seen whole blogs simply base themselves off non existent criteria or just the physical amping. We need something to vet inaccurate reasoning and have it easy for users to understand why certain powers can be equated to physicals and others cannot.

It’s incredibly unfriendly to newer users to leave what shreds of information exist on that scattered throughout the forums and actively breeds miscommunication and, in turn, inaccuracy and terrible arguments borne of loose standards

 

[KLOL506]

I mean we kinda do, these “logical and basic questions” are nowhere to be found on the wiki officially so I had to probe the forums for anything resembling.

It’s also weird to call this trivial since there’s entire verses that are effected by this element and I’ve seen whole blogs simply base themselves off non existent criteria or just the physical amping. We need something to vet inaccurate reasoning and have it easy for users to understand why certain powers can be equated to physicals and others cannot.

It’s incredibly unfriendly to newer users to leave what shreds of information exist on that scattered throughout the forums and actively breeds miscommunication

This.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Howdy, took me a bit to get around to reading the doc, my apologies.

I still think the requirement of "You must be able to bestow your power on an object" is silly and arbitrary, but if this is similar to our standards for light (where some must apply, but not necessarily all) then I don't think this is a big issue.

A minor nitpick, can you please add a "The" before "Weave (Dungeons and Dragons)"? The Weave is just a construct that spans the multiverse that allows people to make use of magic. It's accurate as a UES, it's just annoying to see it called just "Weave".

Other than that, I think this is a much more thought-out page with significantly improved criteria. I can accept this.

 

[KLOL506]

Howdy, took me a bit to get around to reading the doc, my apologies.

I still think the requirement of "You must be able to bestow your power on an object" is silly and arbitrary, but if this is similar to our standards for light (where some must apply, but not necessarily all) then I don't think this is a big issue.

Howdy there mighty Bambu, "Bestow your power on an object" is no longer mandatory, yes (If anything it's just minor supporting evidence at this point). Most of them are like that.

But you must be able to have showings/statements that you can amp your physical statistics with the energy source much like how you used said energy source to do said feat (Basically AP feat done via UES must also equal to physical AP and dura via said UES), and that a direct increase in power must also result in a direct proportional increase in your physical statistics (Both of which I'm sure is going to be fulfilled 99% of the time in most fiction with a UES like chakra or Ki but oh well, they asked for it to be a requirement, so it's a requirement). I knew I shouldn't have joined in with the other fellow folk to remove it in the first place.

A minor nitpick, can you please add a "The" before "Weave (Dungeons and Dragons)"? The Weave is just a construct that spans the multiverse that allows people to make use of magic. It's accurate as a UES, it's just annoying to see it called just "Weave".

You're da boss, boss.

Other than that, I think this is a much more thought-out page with significantly improved criteria. I can accept this.

Thank you.

 

[Hellbeast]

Howdy, took me a bit to get around to reading the doc, my apologies.

I still think the requirement of "You must be able to bestow your power on an object" is silly and arbitrary, but if this is similar to our standards for light (where some must apply, but not necessarily all) then I don't think this is a big issue.

Not mandatory; same way light guides work

A minor nitpick, can you please add a "The" before "Weave (Dungeons and Dragons)"? The Weave is just a construct that spans the multiverse that allows people to make use of magic. It's accurate as a UES, it's just annoying to see it called just "Weave".

No you’re cringe
But yeah will do

Other than that, I think this is a much more thought-out page with significantly improved criteria. I can accept this.

Chur

 

[Agnaa]

Ask Agnaa who railed against it; we just modified the page to fit that criteria

I don't remember railing against that criteria.

I was against the way "A character needs to show a loss of power when losing their UES" was implemented, as you seemed to consider "Their highest feat was done when explicitly using a UES, but they never lost their UES canonically" enough evidence to meet the requirement. My issue with that being that that applies to every time you'd bother using a UES for scaling (and it's something that'd still be met by AKM's example above).

 

[KLOL506]

Ask Agnaa who railed against it; we just modified the page to fit that criteria

I don't remember railing against that criteria.

I was against the way "A character needs to show a loss of power when losing their UES" was implemented, as you seemed to consider "Their highest feat was done when explicitly using a UES, but they never lost their UES canonically" enough evidence to meet the requirement. My issue with that being that that applies to every time you'd bother using a UES for scaling (and it's something that'd still be met by AKM's example above).

Well it doesn't matter anymore, we removed it as being "enough evidence" for the "loss of power" criteria.

 

[Hellbeast]

I don't remember railing against that criteria.

Huh weird; I’ll read it over

I was against the way "A character needs to show a loss of power when losing their UES" was implemented, as you seemed to consider "Their highest feat was done when explicitly using a UES, but they never lost their UES canonically" enough evidence to meet the requirement. My issue with that being that that applies to every time you'd bother using a UES for scaling (and it's something that'd still be met by AKM's example above).

We didn’t, you had to show the character lost their UES and said loss Made them physically less capable, not sure where your thing came from

 

[KLOL506]

Howdy, took me a bit to get around to reading the doc, my apologies.

I still think the requirement of "You must be able to bestow your power on an object" is silly and arbitrary, but if this is similar to our standards for light (where some must apply, but not necessarily all) then I don't think this is a big issue.

BTW, this goes without saying, but, it was only two hours ago that I noticed that Hellbeast royally screwed up there. He wrote this:

Users need to have the capacity to use their powers to directly channel their power through physical objects

WHEN IN FACT HE SHOULD'VE ALSO DONE THIS:

Users need to have the capacity to use their powers to directly channel their power through their bodies and physical objects

Literal OHGODOHFUCJ moment

JK Hellbeast you cool, you still need to fix the draft tho

Granted we can do without the "physical objects" part since that's "minor supporting criteria/evidence" now

 

[Hellbeast]

BTW, this goes without saying, but, it was only two hours ago that I noticed that Hellbeast royally screwed up there. He wrote this:

**** you I’m downgrading AC after this
But yeah I’ll fix that up real quick when I get home

 

[KLOL506]

**** you I’m downgrading AC after this

Nooooooooooo Not my precious generic bi-annual Witcher-rip-off

 

[Theglassman12]

Already said it last thread and I’ll say it again, I’m more than welcome to have a guideline on the UES for verses.

 

[KLOL506]

Already said it last thread and I’ll say it again, I’m more than welcome to have a guideline on the UES for verses.

Guess that means you agree with the draft then? Once it's had all the corrections applied, of course.

 

[Theglassman12]

Pretty much

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know there's a lot that probably needs my attention, but for now, I still really agree with KLOL, and it's not "Overcomplicating things" it's doing the exact opposite. It helps bring out the list of blue prints; also people seem to be getting actual universal energy systems or "Semi-Universal" energy systems mixed up. Also, having multiple variants of energy sources doesn't make them "Not Universal". A verse can just have multiple different universal energies within the same verse; example being that Reiki and Maki from Yu Yu Hakusho are both universal energy systems but the difference is different races have one or the other. Also, in the Harry Potter example, that's an example of something that's only "Semi-Universal" as opposed to Universal outright. If it "Scales to everything except for physicals" it's not really called a universal energy system but rather semi-universal. That's what you call it if it scales to a characters, fire, water, wind, electricity ect manipulation abilities but just not physical melee attacks.

Also, some of the people downright strawmanned what the draft is actually saying. Not that it's "Every verse" just verses that have lore. Also, the "Energy depletion thing" is confusing AP with stamina where the whole "They revert to normal human levels when they use up all energy". That's not always assumed AP consists of entire pool of energy. And yes, strongest attack vs basic attacks are a different can of worms. And we do not need to regress the topic on the "Creation things" part again. The thread was even made in the 1st place to tackle when we scale creation feats or weather manipulation ect to physical stats. Which again is case by case. Guidelines are educational in that regard.

Of course I have a lot more to say on the matter, but it's late here.

 

[Hellbeast]

Just modified the "underpinning" point into a sub bullet for the "common source" trope and I've reworded the empowerment point in accordance with KLOL's edits.

Is there anything else we need to edit into the Doc and should I make a list of all who agree or disagree?

 

[AKM sama]

I'd wait for DT's input on it too.

 

[Antvasima]

AKM makes good points above. Maybe we are overcomplicating things.

At the very least, his main relevant criteria should preferably be incorporated into the new page, if it is accepted.

 

[KLOL506]

AKM makes good points above. Maybe we are overcomplicating things.

I disagree, we've already made several changes to the draft in accordance with his words, and we're in the work of making things a bit clearer.

At the very least, his main relevant criteria should preferably be incorporated into the new page, if it is accepted.

That's exactly what we're doing ATM, but I also disagree with removing any of the current criteria, since they're not mandatory rules and they serve to be supporting evidence.

 

[KLOL506]

I'd wait for DT's input on it too.

Already notified him way back when. Guess we just gotta wait.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

@KLOL506
Should a guide point about passive/active energy systems be put on page?

I think we should.

 

[KLOL506]

@KLOL506
Should a guide point about passive/active energy systems be put on page?

I think we should.

Yes, there should indeed be a point about passive/active energy systems.

 

[Promestein]

I still maintain my previous stance and agree with AKM, this really seems like an unnecessary and potentially misleading system to have to go through the pains of codifying and using. We've done just fine without it thus far; sure, misrepresentations happen, but those will happen no matter what. All we can do is be vigilant, not put up more unnecessary nets.

But if the page is still gonna exist it should absolutely just be guidelines.

 

[KLOL506]

I still maintain my previous stance and agree with AKM, this really seems like an unnecessary and potentially misleading system to have to go through the pains of codifying and using. We've done just fine without it thus far; sure, misrepresentations happen, but those will happen no matter what. All we can do is be vigilant, not put up more unnecessary nets.

Once again, I have to disagree with this for Hellbeast's reasons. These misrepresentations happen solely because we're not officially told anywhere on the wiki how to be vigilant about it and how to avoid such misrepresentations. This is what is actually misleading.

And once again, they're not unnecessary nets, we've already clarified time and time again that they are not mandatory rules anymore, just guidelines one can use to help be vigilant and enact proper judgment in these cases.

But if the page is still gonna exist it should absolutely just be guidelines.

That's literally what the point of this thread is about? We literally removed the whole "Mandatory" and "Supplementary" headlines just to hammer this point home.

THEY ARE GUIDELINES, NOT ABSOLUTE MAXIMS.