Universal Energy Systems

[Antvasima]

Then you misunderstood the fundamental motive of draft/page.

Its not a rulebook with criterea you need to tick off, its like "How to..." guide filled with friendly advice, for example "How to read stock market" type books.
It gives you insight/advice for identifying/judging several attributes of UES in a verse, which you would normally be unaware of or misinterpret.

Perhaps we can make a better job of making it look "friendly" and change any point that looks like a rule......but I strongly feel those points should be on that page to help people.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Promestein

What do you think about this?

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Promestein

What do you think about this?

DontTalk thinks there should be distinctions like "mandatory" and "supplementary criteria.

You really should write the page different in that regard. Stating a bunch of rules and then saying "but none of these rules really apply" doesn't help anyone. There should be a clear distinction between necessary requirements, sufficient requirements and supportive requirements. If the only sufficient requirement is having at least several supportive ones that should also be stated.

We initially tried doing that but it seems there was too much backlash from other staff members.

 

[Agnaa]

You do realize that lots of verses have commonalities like this when it comes to power-scaling, right?

Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball, Fairy Tail, Devil May Cry, God of War and many other verses use these methods for power-scaling their characters. Saying that they aren't valid doesn't exactly do justice to these verses at all.

Just because they have something in common, doesn't mean that should be added to the criteria.

What noise exactly? How do you exactly evaluate every verse on its own without knowing where to look and what to look for? These guidelines are literally tips and advices on how to do all of that.

Also those two questions are already in the draft, Criteria 1 and 7. I suggest you check those out as well. If DT's suggestions of bringing back the "Mandatory" and "Supplementary" headlines are carried out, Criteria 1 and 7 will become the two mandatory criteria to fulfill to qualify scaling the energy source to physicals, everything else after that will be supplementary criteria.

I think the "noise" would be anything besides the mandatory criteria. If all you need to qualify is one (or both) of the mandatory criteria, and the supplementary criteria would never be enough by themselves, why include them?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I think the "noise" would be anything besides the mandatory criteria. If all you need to qualify is one (or both) of the mandatory criteria, and the supplementary criteria would never be enough by themselves, why include them?

I think we should stop calling them supplementary criteria and and rather just call them "Advice" or something similar.

Call the mandatory criteria as Requirements.

That way we won't be confused on motives of this draft.

Because the bolded lines you quoted from Klol answer your own question.

These guidelines are literally tips and advices on how to do all of that.

Even if you feel they don't help identify UES, they definitely do help identify the nature of that particular UES. Figuring out attributes of energy system does help in scaling a lot.

 

[Agnaa]

That just sounds pretty pointless to me tbh.

 

[KLOL506]

You do realize that lots of verses have commonalities like this when it comes to power-scaling, right?

Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball, Fairy Tail, Devil May Cry, God of War and many other verses use these methods for power-scaling their characters. Saying that they aren't valid doesn't exactly do justice to these verses at all.

Just because they have something in common, doesn't mean that should be added to the criteria.

In that case, I would like to ask:

Why would the energy system being tied to one's life-force not work as a viable criteria of scaling their powers to their physicals, if shown that they need it to perform all their activities and that they would die or be severely crippled without it? This is a common trope used across several types of universal energy systems where powerful-enough attacks are shown to be severely exhausting the character (Be it by exhausting their magic/energy reserves tied to their life force or by exhausting their stamina reserves to which their abilities and physical characteristics are linked).

Why would using the same energy type for all their abilities and physical characteristics not be a viable criteria for cross-scaling said abilities to their physicals, assuming it is proven to do so? Do note that this would not limit the character from using different energy types for the same purpose as the main one.

These are basically all the supporting criteria that's left now, since most of the others would be relocated to the Notes section (Criteria 3 and 4), Criteria 5 would be moved to being a sub-bullet point for Criteria 1, with only Criteria 6 and 7 remaining unchanged as of now.

These guidelines weren't just made out of thin air, they were made based on observations of how each of these energy systems work, so as to tackle the basic major functions of these energy systems, the functions that allow for scaling abilities to physical statistics.

What noise exactly? How do you exactly evaluate every verse on its own without knowing where to look and what to look for? These guidelines are literally tips and advices on how to do all of that.

Also those two questions are already in the draft, Criteria 1 and 7. I suggest you check those out as well. If DT's suggestions of bringing back the "Mandatory" and "Supplementary" headlines are carried out, Criteria 1 and 7 will become the two mandatory criteria to fulfill to qualify scaling the energy source to physicals, everything else after that will be supplementary criteria.

I think the "noise" would be anything besides the mandatory criteria. If all you need to qualify is one (or both) of the mandatory criteria, and the supplementary criteria would never be enough by themselves, why include them?

This is assuming DT's recommendation of adding back "Mandatory" and "Supplementary" is passed through, granted I myself and many other staff members have voiced our disagreements with giving out "Mandatory" and "Supplementary", while holding stock that the two criteria are the most important of them all. The guidelines were always meant to function in a similar fashion to the Lightning Feats page and the Light-speed Criteria page, where you would have to fulfill a bunch of criteria but you wouldn't have to fulfill all of them. Maybe we should have mentioned that as well, but that'll be irrelevant if we bring back the "Mandatory" and "Supplementary" headlines. Also saying that the supplementary criteria would never be enough by themselves is just, wrong.

 

[Agnaa]

It doesn't sound very mandatory if they can be skipped.

At this point I'd like DT/AKM to explain why they think the other criteria listed don't qualify. And if they have a point for some of them, I'd like those to be culled from the list entirely. Maybe we could end up with just 5 criteria, where meeting any one of them would qualify a power system as a UES.

 

[KLOL506]

It doesn't sound very mandatory if they can be skipped.

At this point I'd like DT/AKM to explain why they think the other criteria listed don't qualify. And if they have a point for some of them, I'd like those to be culled from the list entirely. Maybe we could end up with just 5 criteria, where meeting any one of them would qualify a power system as a UES.

Uhhhh... about that. I learned a couple of new things along the way.

Seems like some of the supplementary criteria fall under the mandatory Criteria (Specifically Criteria 5, the Weapon Energy Source Criteria, since it basically involves the same concept as Criteria 1: Tapping into an energy system to amplify physical statistics).

Criteria 3 and 4 (Common Power Source and Core Underpinning respectively) will already be moved to the Notes section as you suggested. And it seems that Criteria 2 (Singular Energy Source) sounds too familiar to Criteria 3, so that runs the possibility of being shifted to notes as well. Should we shift it to the notes instead? Since it sounds too familiar to begin with.

That just leaves us with 3 criteria: Criteria 1, 6 and 7. Criteria 1 and 7 being the questions that AKM initially proposed.

And maybe the other separate case-by-case-basis active/passive criteria.

Maybe we could end up with just 5 criteria, where meeting any one of them would qualify a power system as a UES.

AKM's two question proposal seems like you'd have to meet those two criteria at the bare minimum (So one might not be enough), but IDK, you could ask him on that instead.

 

[KLOL506]

bump

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I cannot force AKM, Promestein, and DontTalk to be further interested in this. My apologies.

 

[Hellbeast]

So where do we stand then?

 

[KLOL506]

I've made my own draft based on Hellbeast's OG draft and the proposals that AKM suggested to make and now we're sorta back to right where he wanted it. It still needs evaluations, but just thought I'd lay down my 2 cents.

Only two mandatory criteria remain (The weapon criteria having been merged with Criteria 1 for sharing the same basic concept and mechanic), and just one supplementary criteria left. And possibly the Active/Passive system if you wanna have a go at that. So we're at best left with just 4 criteria (Agnaa was aiming for having 5 criteria where fulfilling one of them would qualify for UES, but AKM's two-criteria-policy kinna flies in the face of that).

 

[Antvasima]

I've made my own draft based on Hellbeast's OG draft and the proposals that AKM suggested to make and now we're sorta back to right where he wanted it. It still needs evaluations, but just thought I'd lay down my 2 cents.

Only two mandatory criteria remain (The weapon criteria having been merged with Criteria 1 for sharing the same basic concept and mechanic), and just one supplementary criteria left. And possibly the Active/Passive system if you wanna have a go at that. So we're at best left with just 4 criteria (Agnaa was aiming for having 5 criteria where fulfilling one of them would qualify for UES, but AKM's two-criteria-policy kinna flies in the face of that).

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT

We would still appreciateif you can help us reach a conclusion here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'll make an elaborate post later too.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[KLOL506]

bump

 

[AKM sama]

Then you misunderstood the fundamental motive of draft/page.

Its not a rulebook with criterea you need to tick off, its like "How to..." guide filled with friendly advice, for example "How to read stock market" type books.
It gives you insight/advice for identifying/judging several attributes of UES in a verse, which you would normally be unaware of or misinterpret.

Perhaps we can make a better job of making it look "friendly" and change any point that looks like a rule......but I strongly feel those points should be on that page to help people.

I haven't. If it's a "how to" guide, it's still a very bad guide with a lot of points being irrelevant.

Users need to explicitly draw from singular sources for their myriad of abilities

This condition is random and irrelevant in analyzing whether special/energy attacks are tied to physicals. A character can draw from a singular source for their myriads of abilities and it gives us absolutely zero information on what we are trying to prove.

Needs to explicitly be a common source of power within the verse

Same as above. A source of power being common or uncommon has zero relevance to the topic.

The energy source must have a core underpinning to the verse’s metaphysical or natural elements and/or must be tightly integrated into the verse’s lore

Same.

As long as the character shows feats in proportion with a certain amount of energy used out of an external source like magical weapon/artefact, the feat will be attributed mainly for the weapon, but can be considered UES for Character + Weapon pair (Basically what this means is that if a character can tap into said weapon’s power source and then is able to use that energy to perform their own feats, then it should be fine to scale their physical strength to the weapon, and it can be considered a character + weapon combo). One should also consider the aspects of power-scaling as make-or-break factors.

This is heavily case-dependent. And the default assumption should be opposite of what is being assumed above.

What do you think about this?

My stance remains unchanged. I don't think we need a guidebook for something that is going to be different for every verse and needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And the doc has many random conditions that are irrelevant in proving that an energy is tied with physicals.

 

[Antoniofer]

I still stand with the reasoning of these guides to be useless at best, reasonable users will simply look for feats in order to prove a character's physical strength scale to specific spells or techniques, whenever they come from an universal energy source or non-universal one is irrelevant, and no, that there's a dozes of verse that "follow" these guideslines does not chnage anything.

 

[KLOL506]

I haven't. If it's a "how to" guide, it's still a very bad guide with a lot of points being irrelevant.

This condition is random and irrelevant in analyzing whether special/energy attacks are tied to physicals. A character can draw from a singular source for their myriads of abilities and it gives us absolutely zero information on what we are trying to prove.

Shifted to notes in my draft.

Same as above. A source of power being common or uncommon has zero relevance to the topic.

Also shifted to notes.

Same.

Shifted to notes.

This is heavily case-dependent. And the default assumption should be opposite of what is being assumed above.

I can modify it in the draft as such.

I changed a lot of the criteria and put them in the notes.

I'd recommend checking this draft instead.

Most of the random conditions have been shifted to the Notes Section with the Two criteria you recommended now being part of the mandatory criteria.

My stance remains unchanged. I don't think we need a guidebook for something that is going to be different for every verse and needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And the doc has many random conditions that are irrelevant in proving that an energy is tied with physicals.

I disagree, even the two criteria you mentioned can be put in the guidelines page as conditions. To just say that it should be case-by-case using the criteria you mentioned and not even mentioning in any official page about these guidelines which we would use to determine our situations by case-by-case basis to begin with is disingenuous.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

This is heavily case-dependent. And the default assumption should be opposite of what is being assumed above.

Why should default assumption be opposite??
The only difference is energy pool is either external to one's body or internal.
It still remains UES if its used like one.
What's the difference??

 

[KLOL506]

I still stand with the reasoning of these guides to be useless at best, reasonable users will simply look for feats in order to prove a character's physical strength scale to specific spells or techniques, whenever they come from an universal energy source or non-universal one is irrelevant, and no, that there's a dozes of verse that "follow" these guideslines does not chnage anything.

Even the ones AKM mentioned initially? The ones we would use to determine our case-by-case basis to begin with?

He mentioned these guidelines:

1. Users must show that their abilities scale or is equal to their physical stats via energy source

2. An increase in one's power/energy level should also result in a proportional increase in one's physical stats.

They are in the draft.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you support some very simplified guidelines about this instead AKM?

 

[AKM sama]

To just say that it should be case-by-case using the criteria you mentioned and not even mentioning in any official page where you are taught how to determine it by case-by-case basis is disingenuous.

I think some things don't need to be taught. This is a forum to debate and such stuff is highly subjective. Each case is open to a new type of debate because all verses have their unique mechanisms.
And if you look closely, I wouldn't call what I mentioned as "criteria". I would rather call them "thing that needs to be proved."

If you are arguing for a character getting resistance to a power, you wouldn't need a page detailing two or three criteria that need to be met:
1. There needs to be a statement saying the character is resistant to said power.
2. There needs to be explicit showing of a character resisting said power.
3. If the power is explained to be resisted through some mechanism which can be scaled between characters, it needs to be explained what that mechanism is and proof should exist that the character satisfies the condition of scaling.

Stuff like these can't and shouldn't be codified. These are logical questions that need to be addressed by default and we don't need a page for what is common sense.

 

[KLOL506]

Would you support some very simplified guidelines about this instead AKM?

I am all for this, but I am against not making a page to officially put these guidelines somewhere so that people don't complain when something like this pops up.

 

[KLOL506]

I think some things don't need to be taught. This is a forum to debate and such stuff is highly subjective. Each case is open to a new type of debate because all verses have their unique mechanisms.
And if you look closely, I wouldn't call what I mentioned as "criteria". I would rather call them "thing that needs to be proved."

I still think these "things that need to be proved" needs to be mentioned somewhere officially, much like our Lightning and Speed of Light guidelines, or else it just breeds miscommunication, like Hellbeast has stated.

If you are arguing for a character getting resistance to a power, you wouldn't need a page detailing two or three criteria that need to be met:
1. There needs to be a statement saying the character is resistant to said power.
2. There needs to be explicit showing of a character resisting said power.
3. If the power is explained to be resisted through some mechanism which can be scaled between characters, it needs to be explained what that mechanism is and proof should exist that the character satisfies the condition of scaling.

Stuff like these can't and shouldn't be codified. These are logical questions that need to be addressed by default and we don't need a page for what is common sense.

Saying that they shouldn't be codified and yet saying they're things that need to be proven... really makes no sense to me. Why would you ask for these to be proven and yet not put it out somewhere officially so people can know where to look when they want to ask about stuff like this? Why keep them in the dark and make them look through old forum threads for stuff like this? At least if these are put somewhere officially people will at least know what questions to ask and they won't have to look over and over again.

 

[AKM sama]

Would you support some very simplified guidelines about this instead AKM?

This is how the simplified guidelines will look:

If you want to prove that a character's physical strength/durability scale to their energy attacks and their level of energy is proportional to their physicals then you need to prove:

1. The characters strength/durability scale to their energy attacks. (can be achieved by explicit showings/statements)
2. Their level of energy is proportional to their physicals. (can be achieved by explicit showings/statements)

 

[KLOL506]

This is how the simplified guidelines will look:

If you want to prove that a character's physical strength/durability scale to their energy attacks and their level of energy is proportional to their physicals then you need to prove:

1. The characters strength/durability scale to their energy attacks. (can be achieved by explicit showings/statements)
2. Their level of energy is proportional to their physicals. (can be achieved by explicit showings/statements)

Seems a bit bare-bones compared to my draft (I already added your points there, both of them) but the whole "need" stuff makes it sound mandatory and not as guidelines like you want to propose. Other staff members literally had a war about it a few pages back (Though DT thinks we should stick with Mandatory and Supplementary, even if there are almost no supplementary stuff left). Also I think using "physical characteristics" seems much better.

Also I still think we should at least mention something about the case-by-case basis stuff, the bare minimums, if nothing else.

 

[Antoniofer]

It bare-bones because at the end it resolve at showing proof for some forms of attacks scaling others, either through direct feats or statements. In the best of the case, the proposed guidelines simply complicate our basic form of scaling creating arbitrary terms such UES; and at worst it could used as some form of verse-independent indirect scaling.

 

[AKM sama]

much like our Lightning and Speed of Light guidelines

This is not a comparable case. We have a guideline for "light" and "lightning" feats because simply shown or stated to be either of those things is not enough. If that was enough, we wouldn't have those guidelines.

 

[KLOL506]

It bare-bones because at the end it resolve at showing proof for some forms of attacks scaling others, either through direct feats or statements. In the best of the case, the guidelines simply complicate our basic form of scaling creating arbitrary terms such UES; and at worst it could used as some form of verse-independent indirect scaling.

How would it complicate our basic form of scaling? Do tell. We're already placing a heavy emphasis on requiring some form of direct feats or statements.

And what is this indirect scaling you speak of?

 

[KLOL506]

This is not a comparable case. We have a guideline for "light" and "lightning" feats because simply shown or stated to be either of those things is not enough. If that was enough, we wouldn't have those guidelines.

Even though "being stated to travel at the speed of lightning/light" or "showing some properties of light/lightning" is literally one of the few guidelines one can use to qualify for them being legit? Not that those alone would be enough.

Same thing for UES (Or whatever name you wanna give it).

 

[Antoniofer]

Turning basic scaling into "character require x energy, energy that needs to be common in all the verse, present in every character or object; then, in order to scale to physicals, one needs to infuse weapons with such energy, amplifying its properties and blah blah... Btw, even if the requeriments are met, if the verse say 'no scale' then it does not scale" is just adding more words to the basic case-by-case method of scaling, that may cause more confusion at the end.

 

[KLOL506]

You do realize that we literally just removed a bunch of these requirements and shoved them into the notes section, right? Also I was more so talking about expanding on AKM's guidelines, not any of the other ones.

Turning basic scaling into "character require x energy,

Moved to notes. No longer a criteria. It's supportive stuff but you don't need to qualify for it to scale.

energy that needs to be common in all the verse,

Same thing as above. It's too similar to the "characters require x energy" stuff.

present in every character or object;

Also moved to notes. Same thing as above. Viewed as too limiting, so it was moved to notes to further emphasize that you don't necessarily need that anymore.

then, in order to scale to physicals, one needs to infuse weapons with such energy,

This was never mandatory. Ever. This was more so of a supporting point.

amplifying its properties and blah blah...

Also was never mandatory. Look up above.

Btw, even if the requeriments are met, if the verse say 'no scale' then it does not scale" is just adding more words to the basic case-by-case method of scaling, that may cause more confusion at the end.

That's... literally met by the two guidelines AKM posted?

If the verse says "no scale" then just assume that it failed to qualify said guidelines (Because if it says "no scale" then it means those criteria were never met to begin with). Just end it as an exception. End of story. Not that hard to grasp.

Also I'd like to see in what kind of verse that would even happen sensibly. Because this one is way too specific from what I can see.

 

[Antvasima]

I am personally fine with AKM's suggestion, although the language structure would need to be improved, and possibly expanded upon somewhat.

Also, where should we place those instructions? A whole separate page for them seem to be a bit much.

 

[KLOL506]

I am personally fine with AKM's suggestion, although the language structure would need to be improved, and possibly expanded upon somewhat.

I already added AKM's suggestions in full in my draft (Word for word I think) quite a while back and added some additional info alongside it. Further evaluations are welcome and the page will be edited accordingly.

 

[Antvasima]

I am personally fine with AKM's suggestion, although the language structure would need to be improved, and possibly expanded upon somewhat.

Also, where should we place those instructions? A whole separate page for them seem to be a bit much.

I already added AKM's suggestions in full in my draft (Word for word I think) quite a while back and added some additional info alongside it.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

 

[KLOL506]

Also, where should we place those instructions? A whole separate page for them seem to be a bit much.

It's not like they can fit into any other page either.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[KLOL506]

2. Their level of energy is proportional to their physicals. (can be achieved by explicit showings/statements)

Actually, about this one.

Wouldn't the 1st criteria of yours render it redundant?

If the first one is met, we really sorta don't need a second criteria that asks for energy levels to be proportional to their physical power level (As in, increase in energy level or amount of energy used from energy system resulting in a proportional increase in physical power levels), if we already get confirmation that they can use the energy system to have their abilities scale/be equal to their physical stats, wouldn't that usually be enough?