azontr
He/Him- 39,888
- 49,851
I heavily agree with this.
I am far too ignorant to actually comment on what these standards will be, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that we should have specific guidelines for Universal Energy Systems.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems
- Thread starter Hellbeast
- Start date
- Status
I am far too ignorant to actually comment on what these standards will be, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that we should have specific guidelines for Universal Energy Systems.
Stefano4444
He/Him- 6,102
- 5,212
Am i the only one who feel like the discussion has be derail for a bit too much?
Nearly everyone agree with the criteria/examples proposed for UES, and any needed correction was already taken care for what i understand.
If no one else has much to add, it may be time to make the actual page and start categorise which verses has applicable UES and which not.
Nearly everyone agree with the criteria/examples proposed for UES, and any needed correction was already taken care for what i understand.
If no one else has much to add, it may be time to make the actual page and start categorise which verses has applicable UES and which not.
Last edited:
- 311
- 190
I wouldn't say derailing, but I think the conversation has gone on long enough, considering how much agreement there was.
I think we're just arguing minor points while the final draft of the criteria is made.
- 4,451
- 1,949
Then you misunderstand, we're not giving a free pass for anything. We're saying if a verse has a power system that fits whatever criteria that we end up choosing, then it gets the general things a UES should have (which can also be debated).
- 4,451
- 1,949
We definitely should define what exactly a UES is if we're making standards for what qualifies as one, btw. I think that should be discussed here as well, because right now all we really have is "a power system a character uses for everything they do". If we're going to apply certain things to it like attacks scaling to other attacks and the like, then we should define what exactly a UES is.
- 311
- 190
I think we have most of the definition covered by our given criteria.
- 9,962
- 2,003
This rule you attempt to create basically encourage users to scale different spells/techniques to each other without the need of tangible proof or feats, as simply sharing the same nature and coming from the same user is proof enough. This sounds like a free pass to me.
- 311
- 190
......have you not read the very long and specific list of criteria that must be met in order to get this "free pass"?
You should be allowed to make well evidenced statements and connections freely. Yeah.
Short of you proposing your own, more stringent set of criteria, you're just being contrarian at this point. Your argument boils down to "I don't like it because it seems easy," without presenting any clear, wide reaching issues.
- 4,451
- 1,949
The idea is that people's general attacks should be able to be around the same power if you have a UES (which you have to qualify for, which is something you've seemingly missed). Saying a deity who is tier 3 or something and using a tier 7 attack doesn't mean that said deity can not also have tier 3 attacks. That defeats the entire idea of holding back or having stronger attacks at all.
Basically, if Naruto punches a building and it gets violently fragmented, then used another attack like a chakra arm or something on someone else, that other attack should at bare minimum be around the strength of the punch. Saying "the other attack doesn't have a feat of that level" is counterintuitive because it doesn't need one.
- 32,811
- 38,021
DT replied, he has stated the following, that attack energy ≥ creation energy should suffice, it doesn't need a strict >.
He also stated if a creation feat was casual, then an attack spell that is exhausting the user should scale. And if casual spells of them are somewhat comparable to those that are actually hard, then they would downscale to some extent.
But he hasn't replied to the situations where both the spells and attacks are shown to be casual without exhausting the character too much, but he has stated the following:
"But let me say one thing, just to make it clear: When we are talking universal energy systems we always have to clarify universal to what. Like, when we talk about a universal energy system regarding creation feats then we usually first and foremost mean that the creation feat and any kind of magic is comparable. It has nothing to do with scaling physical stats (i.e. Striking Streng and Durability), but only with scaling AP.
We also sometimes talk about universal energy systems when it comes to scaling supernatural Attack Potency to physical stats, but that is a separate issue, although in terms of mechanics of course similar in nature. A universal energy system that allows scaling supernatural power to physical stats doesn't necessarily allow scaling creation feats and vice versa."
As a result I've asked for a bit more clarification on this with regard to striking strength and dura (And most likely AP in general) involving situations where character casually breathes an object into existence and then using the same energy sources he amplifies his physical stats to punch, kick, shoot energy blasts and so on with greater intensity without much exhaustion, and how our guidelines would help mitigate this.
He also stated if a creation feat was casual, then an attack spell that is exhausting the user should scale. And if casual spells of them are somewhat comparable to those that are actually hard, then they would downscale to some extent.
But he hasn't replied to the situations where both the spells and attacks are shown to be casual without exhausting the character too much, but he has stated the following:
"But let me say one thing, just to make it clear: When we are talking universal energy systems we always have to clarify universal to what. Like, when we talk about a universal energy system regarding creation feats then we usually first and foremost mean that the creation feat and any kind of magic is comparable. It has nothing to do with scaling physical stats (i.e. Striking Streng and Durability), but only with scaling AP.
We also sometimes talk about universal energy systems when it comes to scaling supernatural Attack Potency to physical stats, but that is a separate issue, although in terms of mechanics of course similar in nature. A universal energy system that allows scaling supernatural power to physical stats doesn't necessarily allow scaling creation feats and vice versa."
As a result I've asked for a bit more clarification on this with regard to striking strength and dura (And most likely AP in general) involving situations where character casually breathes an object into existence and then using the same energy sources he amplifies his physical stats to punch, kick, shoot energy blasts and so on with greater intensity without much exhaustion, and how our guidelines would help mitigate this.
Last edited:
- 32,811
- 38,021
Last edited:
- 311
- 190
HM. My major feeling upon reading this is that the list of criteria we've been working toward is for determining a UES where everything scales (like Ki or Chakra), and I don't totally see the purpose of setting rules for systems only universal to a specific subtype of feat as defined by the wiki.
- 32,811
- 38,021
Exactly.
- 32,811
- 38,021
I also share the same sentiments here. I myself was talking in favor of determining UESes where everything scales. If it doesn't scale, then it's most definitely for all intents and purposes, not a UES.
- 311
- 190
I think this is the damn nomenclature thing again because this reminds me of my initial comments.
Either way, I think keeping the UES criteria to only admit verses where the UES causes significant scaling changes or interconnectedness would be the right move.
- 32,811
- 38,021
That was always the plan.
- 4,451
- 1,949
Seems like my terminology has become popular already, lmao
- 311
- 190
Congratulations. You have birthed new VSBW jargon...you absolute bastard! (Jk).
- 32,811
- 38,021
OK so I am discussing a few stuff with Agnaa on my wall regarding creation feats. He posted the following questions:
"Why does being stronger than the rest of the verse mean your creation feats scale to destruction feats that use less energy?
Why does doing the creation feat casually mean your creation feats scale to destruction feats that use less energy?"
I'm currently debating it with him there but if you wanna add anything additional here's the link.
"Why does being stronger than the rest of the verse mean your creation feats scale to destruction feats that use less energy?
Why does doing the creation feat casually mean your creation feats scale to destruction feats that use less energy?"
I'm currently debating it with him there but if you wanna add anything additional here's the link.
- 32,811
- 38,021
Is it bad that I like "Universal Power Source" better? UPS sounds significantly cooler.
- 311
- 190
Do we need one of those game theory squares with all 4 possibilities spelled out...
- 32,811
- 38,021
Go loud, I guess.
- 311
- 190
I think "system" is more telling of the fact that it's a big web of interconnected techniques.
- 311
- 190
Like
(Destruction feat is exhausting, creation feat casual)=
(Destruction feat casual, creation feat exhausting)=
Etc...
- 32,811
- 38,021
Sure, "Universal Power System", or how about the very unoriginal "universal power supply".
- 311
- 190
And then everyone just thinks we mean "united postal service" lol.
Ok but lemme give these 4 situations a shot...
(Destruction feat is exhausting, creation feat casual)= destruction feat is more powerful than creation feat. Creation feat is strictly below the tier of the destruction feat. No controversy. The destruction feat is shnasty or the creation is considered easy for the character/system, etc.
(Destruction feat casual, creation feat exhausting)= Creation feat scales above destruction feat. Probably needs context to say that the character is or is not capable of greater AP than the destruction feat. This would end up with a bunch of context dependence depending on the vs. Battle and rest of the verse. The only situation I see getting a "?" Flag.
(Destruction exhausting, creation feat exhausting)= they should scale similarly, but this doesn't matter because the destruction feat AP should be somehow measurable.
(Destruction casual, creation casual)= both feats scale. Should be non-controversial because, again, we have the destruction feat for AP reference. If the creation feat was somehow weaker, we end up with a "tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it" situation because the weakness of the creation feat doesn't seem relevant when we have an AP feat to scale the character by.
As it stands, I only see 1/4 situations with a nebulous outcome, and that vagueness can be resolved with scaling to other parts of the verse imo.
- 32,811
- 38,021
That's what Agnaa has a problem with. He's arguing that there's no way to know whether the Destruction and Creation are using the same amount of energy even with the effort shown here to perform them.
- 6,579
- 3,411
So...what's left do to here besides Agnaa's issues ?
- 15,049
- 12,815
@KatBoi I have an issue with that, you say that in the cases where destruction and creation feats result in the same level of exhaustion, that the calculated results would be similar. From what I've seen in fiction, this is usually not true at all. I think your grid of four situations should be changed in light of this, since as is, it assumes that both feats would get similar calculated results.
That's what Agnaa has a problem with. He's arguing that there's no way to know whether the Destruction and Creation are using the same amount of energy even with the effort shown here to perform them.
There is a way to know whether they're using the same amount of energy; statements. Absent from that, you can only tell when they're different, by characters being exhausted to noticeably different extents from the two techniques.
That's what Agnaa has a problem with. He's arguing that there's no way to know whether the Destruction and Creation are using the same amount of energy even with the effort shown here to perform them.
There is a way to know whether they're using the same amount of energy; statements. Absent from that, you can only tell when they're different, by characters being exhausted to noticeably different extents from the two techniques.
- 311
- 190
So in 3/4 situations it strictly doesn't matter. With the context that feats falling under a UES directly link to stamina, well, level of exhaustion should correlate to energy exertion.
In 1/4 situations, you can just use other scaling. I don't see any relevance to knowing the exact AP of a creation feat. Is it really that common for a creation to be a character's "best" feat?
- 32,811
- 38,021
Statements are just one way of proving it. Another way is, well, looking how much of a strain it puts on them. I've been repeating this for quite a while now.
- 4,451
- 1,949
I don't see why that's even needed. You showcase the ability to use a massive amount of energy with the creation feat itself, and if you can power yourself up there's no reason you can't use that much energy for that, or for another attack. The only argument is "there's no feats for that" but I don't see why you need the feat of using 60% of your energy in 1 way if you do it in another way already. I'm not seeing why that's a burden of proof thing.
- 311
- 190
Agnaa, I think you need to prove harms on your point. What harm comes from assuming the creation and destruction feat are similar in the case where neither (or both) cause exhaustion? I don't see why equating the two feats in power matters if the scaling to the AP is sitting there to give you a "comfortable" measure of the fighter's AP.
the worst outcome is "the creation is weaker" which isn't a big deal because characters are always capable of generating attacks weaker than their casual (or exhaustive) AP and the destruction feat already accurately represents that AP.
I get your point, it "could" be weaker, but it feels like a whataboutism
- 15,049
- 12,815
Is it really that common for a creation to be a character's "best" feat?
Yes, actually, it is very common.
Statements are just one way of proving it. Another way is, well, looking how much of a strain it puts on them. I've been repeating this for quite a while now.
One sentence later I said you could tell when different amounts of energy are used by how much of a strain it puts on them. Please read the entirety of my comments before responding.
I don't see why that's even needed. You showcase the ability to use a massive amount of energy with the creation feat itself, and if you can power yourself up there's no reason you can't use that much energy for that, or for another attack. The only argument is "there's no feats for that" but I don't see why you need the feat of using 60% of your energy in 1 way if you do it in another way already. I'm not seeing why that's a burden of proof thing.
Because those are different things.
Agnaa, I think you need to prove harms on your point. What harm comes from assuming the creation and destruction feat are similar in the case where neither (or both) cause exhaustion? I don't see why equating the two feats in power matters if the scaling to the AP is sitting there to give you a "comfortable" measure of the fighter's AP.
the worst outcome is "the creation is weaker" which isn't a big deal because characters are always capable of generating attacks weaker than their casual (or exhaustive) AP.
Like I said in the post you responded to, "Level of exhaustion the character demonstrates" =/= "Calculated energy of the feat according to us".
The worst outcome is "the creation is more powerful".
Yes, actually, it is very common.
Statements are just one way of proving it. Another way is, well, looking how much of a strain it puts on them. I've been repeating this for quite a while now.
One sentence later I said you could tell when different amounts of energy are used by how much of a strain it puts on them. Please read the entirety of my comments before responding.
I don't see why that's even needed. You showcase the ability to use a massive amount of energy with the creation feat itself, and if you can power yourself up there's no reason you can't use that much energy for that, or for another attack. The only argument is "there's no feats for that" but I don't see why you need the feat of using 60% of your energy in 1 way if you do it in another way already. I'm not seeing why that's a burden of proof thing.
Because those are different things.
Agnaa, I think you need to prove harms on your point. What harm comes from assuming the creation and destruction feat are similar in the case where neither (or both) cause exhaustion? I don't see why equating the two feats in power matters if the scaling to the AP is sitting there to give you a "comfortable" measure of the fighter's AP.
the worst outcome is "the creation is weaker" which isn't a big deal because characters are always capable of generating attacks weaker than their casual (or exhaustive) AP.
Like I said in the post you responded to, "Level of exhaustion the character demonstrates" =/= "Calculated energy of the feat according to us".
The worst outcome is "the creation is more powerful".
- 311
- 190
But other than "muh perfect accuracy"...which is impossible anyway....I don't actually see the issue.
Slap a "possibly higher due to x creation feat" on it. Additionally, how can you know a creation feat is a character's best feat if you have no real scaling basis, under your opinions?
- 15,049
- 12,815
Perfect accuracy being impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But if you truly don't think that inaccuracy is an issue, I don't think I could say much to convince you otherwise.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But if you truly don't think that inaccuracy is an issue, I don't think I could say much to convince you otherwise.
- 4,451
- 1,949
If someone can use the energy to do X to a certain capacity, they should be able to do (whatever other ability they have) to an at least similar capacity. You can't just use dogma to insist they should be different and that it is a requirement to prove they can apply a certain amount of their power to something else. That's absolutely the burden of the person arguing it to prove.
- 311
- 190
I think that a useful approximation is better than avoiding ballparking something because it's ballparking and being left in the dark entirely.
- 15,049
- 12,815
If someone can use the energy to do X to a certain capacity, they should be able to do (whatever other ability they have) to an at least similar capacity. You can't just use dogma to insist they should be different and that it is a requirement to prove they can apply a certain amount of their power to something else. That's absolutely the burden of the person arguing it to prove.
Why should they be able to? It's a different ability, and it exerts them less to use it. Why would you think they're putting an equal or greater amount of energy into it?
Why should they be able to? It's a different ability, and it exerts them less to use it. Why would you think they're putting an equal or greater amount of energy into it?
- 32,811
- 38,021
Different ability powered by the same energy source. It's not like an MHA quirk where every single one is unique and has their own operating mechanisms.
- Status
Similar threads
