We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

[KatBoi69]

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?

This is the basic conceit of universal energy systems.

 

[Axxtentacle]

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 do you assume it exerts them less to use it? What does it being a different ability matter? The point is that they can use whatever their energy is for X at whatever scale, and they can additionally power themselves up with said energy. The prior is proof alone they can use that much energy, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to use it for something else. If they can't, it's not exactly a UES.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

Different ability powered by the same energy source that requires less of that energy source to use.

This is the basic conceit of universal energy systems.

Then I, and our instruction pages on it, disagree with that basic conceit, I guess?

Why do you assume it exerts them less to use it?

Because that's the example we're discussing.

I have already, time and time again, said that I agree with scaling when it requires an equal or greater amount of energy from that energy system. The only point of conflict here is when the destruction feat uses less energy than the creation feat.

What does it being a different ability matter?

Because different abilities cause different amounts of exhaustion, and can have different caps and minimum requirements on energy needed for them.

 

[Axxtentacle]

And i'm saying that inherently, there's no real reason they shouldn't be able to use the energy they use for X to do something else on a similar scale or level of power if they qualify for a UES.

 

[KLOL506]

This is the basic conceit of universal energy systems.

Then I, and our instruction pages on it, disagree with that basic conceit, I guess?

That's why we're making a page solely dedicated for Universal Energy Sources to add these criteria for better qualifications because our current Instructions Pages are already lackluster as is?

Why do you assume it exerts them less to use it?

Because that's the example we're discussing.

I have already, time and time again, said that I agree with scaling when it requires an equal or greater amount of energy from that energy system. The only point of conflict here is when the destruction feat uses less energy than the creation feat.

You'd have to prove that it uses less energy tho, because by default there would be no conceivable way where flexing your muscles or breathing to casually create a universe is superior to your shoot-to-kill punch enhanced by the same energy source.

What does it being a different ability matter?

Because different abilities cause different amounts of exhaustion, and can have different caps and minimum requirements on energy needed for them.

Okay and? That wouldn't matter in the slightest if the creation feat they do doesn't even exert them in the least bit, in that case you wouldn't need statements to prove that it scales because the UES would take care of it automatically.

 

[KatBoi69]

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.

Different ability powered by the same energy source that requires less of that energy source to use.

This is the basic conceit of universal energy systems.

Then I, and our instruction pages on it, disagree with that basic conceit, I guess?

Why do you assume it exerts them less to use it?

Because that's the example we're discussing.

I have already, time and time again, said that I agree with scaling when it requires an equal or greater amount of energy from that energy system. The only point of conflict here is when the destruction feat uses less energy than the creation feat.

What does it being a different ability matter?

Because different abilities cause different amounts of exhaustion, and can have different caps and minimum requirements on energy needed for them.

Ok, but not accepting the basic idea of a UES is just ignoring an archetype/trope in a wide swath of fiction that has direct impacts on the Wiki's accuracy.

It isn't a tenable position.

 

[Agnaa]

And i'm saying that inherently, there's no real reason they shouldn't be able to use the energy they use for X to do something else on a similar scale or level of power if they qualify for a UES.

Things are getting confusing because you're adding stuff like "if they do something else on a similar scale or level of power".

We're talking about when they don't have any destructive feats more strenuous than their creation feats. And I have given reasons for why that shouldn't scale.

That's why we're making a page solely dedicated for Universal Energy Sources to add these criteria for better qualifications?

I'd prefer those added criteria to be ones I agree with.

You'd have to prove that it uses less energy tho, because by default there would be no conceivable way where flexing your muscles or breathing is superior to your punch

I thought we were already past that example? We discussed it in this thread and here's the screenshot of the comment where I conceded to that specific hypothetical.

It's just weird. I go "If they're both extremely casual it can be hard to tell which one requires more exertion", and you respond "What about this case where the destructive feat clearly has more exertion?" of course I'd agree with that. I agreed with feats that take more exertion scaling.

Okay and? That wouldn't matter in the slightest if the creation feat they do doesn't even exert them in the least bit.

It matters when all the destruction feats they do don't exert them in the least bit.

Ok, but not accepting the basic idea of a UES is just ignoring an archetype/trope in a wide swath of fiction.

I'm not ignoring the idea of a UES, I'm just applying strict standards to when the energy scales. I'm not letting more exhausting creation feats scale to less exhausting destructive feats.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I'm not talking about more/less exhausting feats, I'm talking overall. That's just 1 point that was brought up that doesn't have to be universal. In a void, they should be able to do exactly what I said.

 

[KatBoi69]

This issue is that, if you accept everything else about a UES, then the exception Agnaa is talking about for creation feats seems arbitrary without further support.

Like it's fine that we have previously existing guidelines on creation feats, and those won't go away. They'll just be modified if a UES is in play.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not talking about more/less exhausting feats, I'm talking overall. That's just 1 point that was brought up that doesn't have to be universal. In a void, they should be able to do exactly what I said.

I don't fully understand what you're saying here so I find it hard to respond.

This issue is that, if you accept everything else about a UES, then the exception Agnaa is talking about for creation feats seems arbitrary without further support.

I don't know why it would be arbitrary. A UES shouldn't let you scale a weak-ass fireball you can cast in your sleep, to a creation feat that made you collapse from how exhausting it is.

 

[KLOL506]

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.

Different ability powered by the same energy source that requires less of that energy source to use.

Which still falls under the level of exertion argument.

That's why we're making a page solely dedicated for Universal Energy Sources to add these criteria for better qualifications?

I'd prefer those added criteria to be ones I agree with.

Then voice your opinions on what criteria you agree and disagree with, my response to Hellbeast's draft already addresses some of the criteria to which many people have accepted and agreed. We're open to change.

You'd have to prove that it uses less energy tho, because by default there would be no conceivable way where flexing your muscles or breathing is superior to your punch

I thought we were already past that example? We discussed it in this thread and here's the screenshot of the comment where I conceded to that specific hypothetical.

It's just weird. I go "If they're both extremely casual it can be hard to tell which one requires more exertion", and you respond "What about this case where the destructive feat clearly has more exertion?" of course I'd agree with that. I agreed with feats that take more exertion scaling.

Just conclude that they're both on the same level. It's not that hard.

Okay and? That wouldn't matter in the slightest if the creation feat they do doesn't even exert them in the least bit.

It matters when all the destruction feats they do don't exert them in the least bit.

Just proves that the feats are within the same ballpark. Look above.

Ok, but not accepting the basic idea of a UES is just ignoring an archetype/trope in a wide swath of fiction.

I'm not ignoring the idea of a UES, I'm just applying strict standards to when the energy scales. I'm not letting more exhausting creation feats scale to less exhausting destructive feats.

We're not doing that either. What made you come to the conclusion that we're gonna scale "more exhausting creation feats" in the first place? The argument was specifically for "less exhausting creation feats", not "more".

 

[KatBoi69]

This issue is that, if you accept everything else about a UES, then the exception Agnaa is talking about for creation feats seems arbitrary without further support.

I don't know why it would be arbitrary. A UES shouldn't let you scale a weak-ass fireball you can cast in your sleep, to a creation feat that made you collapse from how exhausting it is.

Wait, where did you read this conclusion in any of the posts?

 

[KLOL506]

This issue is that, if you accept everything else about a UES, then the exception Agnaa is talking about for creation feats seems arbitrary without further support.

I don't know why it would be arbitrary. A UES shouldn't let you scale a weak-ass fireball you can cast in your sleep, to a creation feat that made you collapse from how exhausting it is.

WHAT!? This is absolutely not what we're proposing nor something we'll do. Why would we have any intention of scaling weak-ass fireballs to creation feats that make you collapse?

The argument was specifically to scale to creation feats that you could do just by breathing or flexing.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

You guys literally just realized that's what Agnaa had been trying to say from the start? Lol

 

[KLOL506]

You guys literally just realized that's what Agnaa had been trying to say from the start? Lol

Regardless, it was never something that came to our mind nor something we would even think about proposing.

 

[Agnaa]

Which still falls under the level of exertion argument.

Yes? That is the main argument I'm using?

Just conclude that they're both on the same level. It's not that hard.

We can't actually tell that, tho.

Just proves that the feats are within the same ballpark. Look above.

Not necessarily. Something that takes 10 mana and something that takes 100 mana can be a noticeable difference for a rookie mage, but can be inconsequential and laughably casual to a god-tier with 10^10^10 mana.

We're not doing that either. What made you come to the conclusion that we're gonna scale "more exhausting creation feats" in the first place? The argument was specifically for "less exhausting creation feats", not "more".

What made me come to that conclusion was me saying "We shouldn't scale more exhausting creation feats to less exhausting destructive abilities", and then having you, KatBoi, and Axxtentacle respond to me, disagreeing.

Wait, where did you read this conclusion in any of the posts?

I could dig through all of the posts if you want, but that'd take me a while. First one I could find was this one, where I said "A different ability that uses less energy shouldn't scale", and you responded with "That's the basic conceit of universal energy systems".

 

[KatBoi69]

You guys literally just realized that's what Agnaa had been trying to say from the start? Lol

I think the issue is that we haven't been trying to make that claim as it's silly to the level of "who would say that?"

 

[Axxtentacle]

I'm not talking about more/less exhausting feats, I'm talking overall. That's just 1 point that was brought up that doesn't have to be universal. In a void, they should be able to do exactly what I said.

I don't fully understand what you're saying here so I find it hard to respond.

I'm not talking about how exhausting the feat itself is, I'm saying that if a character does something of a certain scale and they use the energy they used for that for everything they do, it should be at a similar level. 2 attacks that function entirely different (going back to my naruto example) with a normal punch that he used his chakra to amp vs a chakra arm he shot out to punch someone, though they're both extremely different, they should at least be in similar levels of power because they're both being powered by Naruto's chakra.

This issue is that, if you accept everything else about a UES, then the exception Agnaa is talking about for creation feats seems arbitrary without further support.

I don't know why it would be arbitrary. A UES shouldn't let you scale a weak-ass fireball you can cast in your sleep, to a creation feat that made you collapse from how exhausting it is.

It's not. If that wasn't clear to you, then that's at least partially our fault. The whole point is that your abilities should generally be within the same tier, obviously with some variability. Nobody is arguing something like Naruto's finger flicks scaling to his rasenshurikens.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I think the issue is that we haven't been trying to make that claim as it's silly to the level of "who would say that?"

Well... ovo

 

[KatBoi69]

Wait, where did you read this conclusion in any of the posts?

I could dig through all of the posts if you want, but that'd take me a while. First one I could find was this one, where I said "A different ability that uses less energy shouldn't scale", and you responded with "That's the basic conceit of universal energy systems".

Ah....this is my fault in the sense that I was too lazy to pair your post down to highlight the specific point I was responding to.

Edit: yeah I was responding to solely the first sentence in that post.

Otoh, I did clearly state that (exhausting creation, weak destruction)= "??? Needs more info" when I detailed the 4 possible UES "creation and destruction scaling" situations under this UES proposal so like, guess we're all having trouble keeping up with the reading.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not talking about how exhausting the feat itself is, I'm saying that if a character does something of a certain scale and they use the energy they used for that for everything they do, it should be at a similar level. 2 attacks that function entirely different (going back to my naruto example) with a normal punch that he used his chakra to amp vs a chakra arm he shot out to punch someone, though they're both extremely different, they should at least be in similar levels of power because they're both being powered by Naruto's chakra.

If they use the same amount of Naruto's chakra, sure. If they use less, no.

It's not. If that wasn't clear to you, then that's at least partially our fault. The whole point is that your abilities should generally be within the same tier, obviously with some variability. Nobody is arguing something like Naruto's finger flicks scaling to his rasenshurikens.

Yeah this statement is very confusing. You're simultaneously saying they should scale (The whole point is that your abilities should generally be within the same tier, obviously with some variability), and that they shouldn't (Nobody is arguing something like Naruto's finger flicks scaling to his rasenshurikens).

Otoh, I did clearly state that (exhausting creation, weak destruction)= "??? Needs more info" when I detailed the 4 possible ues "creation and destruction scaling" situations under this UES proposal.

I think that should pretty clearly just be creation not scaling. I don't think it's a very hard call to make.

But if we're rewinding things back, I'll try to present my response to those four outcomes more clearly.

You said the following, and I'll bold the important bits.

(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.

I think that scaling in these cases is risky, and contrary to what you say, does matter.

Two feats exhausting a character to comparable amounts do not mean that the calculations we do for those feats will end up in the same tier. In fact, once you get past 9-B, they often won't be. In cases where the creation feat gets a higher result, we need to decide how to scale it.

I think that not having a noticeable difference in exhaustion doesn't mean that there's no difference in exhaustion, and so the stronger creation feat could be more exhausting to a point that doesn't translate to us as the viewer. So to play it safe, we should only scale the creation feat under a "possibly" conditional.

If the creation feat's weaker and doesn't scale I don't think that really comes up in indexing so it wouldn't really matter.

I also should say that with explicit statements (a character saying two techniques are equally straining, or numbers for how much energy something takes as in video games), we'd actually know for sure they take the same amount of energy, so they should scale.

 

[KLOL506]

Just conclude that they're both on the same level. It's not that hard.

We can't actually tell that, tho.

We can if the feats are done by mere breathing or casually-flexing (Or by casually existing if you wanna go that far), which I'm sure you can tell is a hell of a lot weaker than a full-powered kick, punch, tackle, energy blast etc.

Just proves that the feats are within the same ballpark. Look above.

Not necessarily. Something that takes 10 mana and something that takes 100 mana can be a noticeable difference for a rookie mage, but can be inconsequential and laughably casual to a god-tier with 10^10^10 mana.

UES would allow them to control that amount of mana to use for whatever they'd like tho, provided they have adequate mastery to do so, and I'm fairly certain the smartest of mages would be able to easily pull that off.

We're not doing that either. What made you come to the conclusion that we're gonna scale "more exhausting creation feats" in the first place? The argument was specifically for "less exhausting creation feats", not "more".

What made me come to that conclusion was me saying "We shouldn't scale more exhausting creation feats to less exhausting destructive abilities", and then having you, KatBoi, and Axxtentacle respond to me, disagreeing.

This is not at all what we were proposing tho.

Wait, where did you read this conclusion in any of the posts?

I could dig through all of the posts if you want, but that'd take me a while. First one I could find was this one, where I said "A different ability that uses less energy shouldn't scale", and you responded with "That's the basic conceit of universal energy systems".

Regardless. It's not what anyone would be arguing for to begin with.

 

[Axxtentacle]

They don't FULLY scale, obviously. Just the same general league of power, Goku's kamehameha is obviously stronger than his punches but it's within the same league of power.

If they use the same amount of Naruto's chakra, sure. If they use less, no.

Here's the thing, this is unquantifiable besides talking about exhaustion. But at that point you can only arbitrarily assume X takes more than X if they show similar effects on the person, but either way it shouldn't be out of the same league of power. There's no reason that a blast that makes you sweat a little and a blast that you get tired from should be tiers apart.

 

[KLOL506]

I think that scaling in these cases is risky, and contrary to what you say, does matter.

Two feats exhausting a character to comparable amounts do not mean that the calculations we do for those feats will end up in the same tier. In fact, once you get past 9-B, they often won't be. In cases where the creation feat gets a higher result, we need to decide how to scale it.

That just means the character has shit-tier stamina for the feats they're trying to perform. Nothing else.

I think that not having a noticeable difference in exhaustion doesn't mean that there's no difference in exhaustion, and so the stronger creation feat could be more exhausting to a point that doesn't translate to us as the viewer. So to play it safe, we should only scale the creation feat under a "possibly" conditional.

Again, we're not gonna scale "more exhausting creation feats" to base physical strength. The scaling would only work if the feat was done uber-casually.

 

[Agnaa]

We can if the feats are done by mere breathing or casually-flexing (Or by casually existing if you wanna go that far), which I'm sure you can tell is a hell of a lot weaker than a full-powered kick, punch, tackle, energy blast etc.

Again, this is incredibly frustrating.

I say "If they're on the same of exhaustion we can't tell"

You say "Well what if one's obviously more exhausting?"

I say "Sure, we can tell in those cases. But if they're on the same level of exhaustion we can't tell"

And you again respond with "Well what if one's obviously more exhausting?"

Please don't run us around in circles like this.

UES would allow them to control that amount of mana to use for whatever they'd like tho, provided they have adequate mastery to do so, and I'm fairly certain the smartest of mages would be able to easily pull that off.

If the series establishes that the only cap on the energy they can put into their techniques is the energy they have, then sure, but that wouldn't quite cover all situations, and we need standards for when those statements aren't present.

They don't FULLY scale, obviously. Just the same general league of power, Goku's kamehameha is obviously stronger than his punches but it's within the same league of power.

We just disagree then. Characters can have ultra-powerful techniques that are stronger than their other techniques to the point of reaching different leagues of power.

They should only be considered in the same league of power if backscaling can occur (i.e. a character's stronger technique greatly damages but doesn't kill an opponent, while their weaker techniques mildly damage the same opponent).

Again, we're not gonna scale "more exhausting creation feats" to base physical strength. The scaling would only work if the feat was done uber-casually.

"Uber-casual" can be more exhausting than "Turbo-uber-casual".

 

[KLOL506]

We can if the feats are done by mere breathing or casually-flexing (Or by casually existing if you wanna go that far), which I'm sure you can tell is a hell of a lot weaker than a full-powered kick, punch, tackle, energy blast etc.

Again, this is incredibly frustrating.

I say "If they're on the same of exhaustion we can't tell"

We can but you're the one who thinks "holding back on their power" isn't a justifiable position to take even tho that's what... being casual with their power means? It's obvious that they're not going at full power and nothing stops them from reaching their full power via an energy source which they can manipulate to their own wishes.

UES would allow them to control that amount of mana to use for whatever they'd like tho, provided they have adequate mastery to do so, and I'm fairly certain the smartest of mages would be able to easily pull that off.

If the series establishes that the only cap on the energy they can put into their techniques is the energy they have, then sure, but that wouldn't quite cover all situations, and we need standards for when those statements aren't present.

That's why the draft for said standards exists and I made a reply to it. I suggest you check that out. Also stamina is also most of the times tied directly to UES. It's one of the guidelines on the draft where drainage of a UES from a character is shown to severely exhaust the character or even kill them from energy loss.

They don't FULLY scale, obviously. Just the same general league of power, Goku's kamehameha is obviously stronger than his punches but it's within the same league of power.

We just disagree then. Characters can have ultra-powerful techniques that are stronger than their other techniques to the point of reaching different leagues of power.

They should only be considered in the same league of power if backscaling can occur (i.e. a character's stronger technique greatly damages but doesn't kill an opponent, while their weaker techniques mildly damage the same opponent).

Guess we'll agree to disagree here then.

"Uber-casual" can be more exhausting than "Turbo-uber-casual".

Only way that works is if the "turbo-uber-casual" stuff is done by merely existing and the "uber-casual" stuff is done by thought (Or flexing or spreading your arms wide if you want a more flashy example).

If all of this still doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.

 

[Axxtentacle]

We just disagree then. Characters can have ultra-powerful techniques that are stronger than their other techniques.


They should only be considered in the same league of power if backscaling can occur (i.e. a character's stronger technique greatly damages but doesn't kill an opponent, while their weaker techniques mildly damage the same opponent).

Yeah, stronger, but why would it be thousands to millions of times stronger if it's not that massive of an increase in exertion? It's extremely rare for any character to have an ultimate attack that just entirely dwarfs their usual power level by that massive amount. One of the only real people that would apply to is someone like Kaguya who dumps literally all of the chakra she can put out.

 

[KatBoi69]

Agnaa, in the face of the number of people who have agreed with this idea, and the fact that you're splitting hairs between "you need more information" and "just say it doesn't scale" (essentially equivalent statements)...I'm going to stop bothering trying to convince you of anything in this matter because it seems like there is no convincing you.

You're really really hard into whataboutism with statements like "outer exhaustion doesn't indicate true exhaustion"...we can only judge things that are visibly measurable unless we have reliable statements or data. You can't just appeal to unevidenceable differences.

 

[Agnaa]

We can but you're the one who thinks "holding back on their power" isn't a justifiable position to take even tho that's what... being casual with their power means? It's obvious that they're not going at full power.

It can also mean "Using techniques that aren't exhausting" even if there aren't stronger destructive techniques possible.

That's why the draft for said standards exists and I made a reply to it. I suggest you check that out.

I've looked at it, and I don't see that requirement in the draft.

Only way that works is if the "turbo-uber-casual" stuff is done by merely existing and the "uber-casual" stuff is done by thought (Or basically, flexing or spreading your arms wide).

Sure, I guess.

Yeah, stronger, but why would it be thousands to millions of times stronger if it's not that massive of an increase in exertion? It's extremely rare for any character to have an ultimate attack that just entirely dwarfs their usual power level by that massive amount. One of the only real people that would apply to is someone like Kaguya who dumps literally all of the chakra she can put out.

It doesn't have to be thousands to millions of times stronger to land in a different tier. But I do know an example that is on that level; Giovanni Potage just has street level weapons, but when using CRITICAL 13 on one of them he performed a 6 million joule feat. That's 20,000x above baseline street level, or I guess 6,000x above the conventional maximum for a baseball bat. I wouldn't wanna scale all of his attacks to 9-B.

Agnaa, in the face of the number of people who have agreed with this idea, and the fact that you're splitting hairs between "you need more information" and "just say it doesn't scale" (essentially equivalent statements)...I'm going to stop bothering trying to convince you of anything in this matter because it seems like there is no convincing you.

Fair enough.

You're really really hard into whataboutism with statements like "outer exhaustion doesn't indicate true exhaustion"...we can only judge things that are visibly measurable unless we have reliable statements or data. You can't just appeal to unevidenceable differences.

I don't see how that's whataboutism. We can only judge things that are visibly measurable unless we have reliable statements or data, which is why when we can't judge those things, it should only be a "possibly", due to not being certain.

 

[KatBoi69]

When the next working draft for UES criteria comes, show us a verse that fits all of the UES criteria but contains a wildly inconsistent feat that can't obviously be called an outlier and would result in massively upscaling the character in an unfair or inconsistent way.

Then we can talk about adjusting the criteria to avoid that issue.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not familiar with many verses, I tend to talk about standards absent of actual verse examples since I'm only familiar with a small number of verses (mostly low-power and not very battleboard-y) for this reason, so I won't be able to contribute in that way.

 

[KatBoi69]

I mean, for your Giovanni Potage example, I don't think that story functions on a UES by these criteria (even if it is based on dnd it seems like the overall story is just a separate verse) so it isn't really relevant.

 

[KLOL506]

We can but you're the one who thinks "holding back on their power" isn't a justifiable position to take even tho that's what... being casual with their power means? It's obvious that they're not going at full power.

It can also mean "Using techniques that aren't exhausting" even if there aren't stronger destructive techniques possible.

One word: Versatility.

I've looked at it, and I don't see that requirement in the draft.

The Draft says this (I edited my previous comment to account for the stamina thing to aid my case, but I was mostly talking about the "we need standards for when those statements aren't present" stuff, for which there's the draft)

• A removal of said power source needs to be represented as a dramatic loss in power for the user (even to the point of being no stronger than a normal human)
  • The loss of power being portrayed as traumatic or harmful would also support this claim.

Yeah, stronger, but why would it be thousands to millions of times stronger if it's not that massive of an increase in exertion? It's extremely rare for any character to have an ultimate attack that just entirely dwarfs their usual power level by that massive amount. One of the only real people that would apply to is someone like Kaguya who dumps literally all of the chakra she can put out.


It doesn't have to be thousands to millions of times stronger to land in a different tier. But I do know an example that is on that level; Giovanni Potage just has street level weapons, but when using CRITICAL 13 on one of them he performed a 6 million joule feat. That's 20,000x above baseline street level, or I guess 6,000x above the conventional maximum for a baseball bat. I wouldn't wanna scale all of his attacks to 9-B.

If the CRITICAL 13 statements don't line up with the UES guidelines, sure. But that's verse-specific so we'll leave it to its own verse.

I don't see how that's whataboutism. We can only judge things that are visibly measurable unless we have reliable statements or data, which is why when we can't judge those things, it should only be a "possibly", due to not being certain.

I honestly don't see how energy exertion isn't a reliable set of data to go on.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, for your Giovanni Potage example, I don't think that story functions on a UES (even if it is based on dnd it seems like the overall story is just a separate verse).

I didn't realize that when Axx said "It's extremely rare for any character's ultimate attack to dwarf their usual power by thousands or millions of times" that I had to give an example from a story with a UES. I thought it was just a general claim about characters' statistics not being too disparate.

In that case I can't give an example.

One word: Versatility.

I don't understand how this is a response.

The Draft says this

"Losing the energy source is traumatic/harmful/results in loss of power" is not equivalent to what I said, which was "The only cap on the energy the character can put into their techniques is the energy they have/can wield".

I honestly don't see how energy exertion isn't a reliable set of data to go on.

It is when the difference is noticeable or stated. It isn't when the difference is unnoticeable but still potentially extant.

 

[KLOL506]

One word: Versatility.

I don't understand how this is a response.

EDIT: Okay, I get what you mean now, but the whole "even if there aren't stronger destructive techniques possible." just doesn't work for the situations I explained previously before.

The Draft says this

"Losing the energy source is traumatic/harmful/results in loss of power" is not equivalent to what I said, which was "The only cap on the energy the character can put into their techniques is the energy they have/can wield".

I was assuming you were more so talking about the standards of UES in general, which is why I told you to give a look at the draft. But now that I look at it, I don't see how this condition would necessarily affect one using the same amount of energy for both creation feats and attacks to scale to their physicals.

I honestly don't see how energy exertion isn't a reliable set of data to go on.

It is when the difference is noticeable or stated. It isn't when the difference is unnoticeable but still potentially extant.

We need to be shown that it's potentially extant. Or else we can't use it to just get rid of the argument for energy exertion being connected to physical exertion.

 

[KatBoi69]

I mean, for your Giovanni Potage example, I don't think that story functions on a UES (even if it is based on dnd it seems like the overall story is just a separate verse).

I didn't realize that when Axx said "It's extremely rare for any character's ultimate attack to dwarf their usual power by thousands or millions of times" that I had to give an example from a story with a UES. I thought it was just a general claim about characters' statistics not being too disparate.

Yeah, that's the thing here. The list of conditions that need to be met to qualify something as a counterexample here is so stringent that like...I don't know, I think it kind if proves the point that this proposal doesn't make anything easier or less stringent.

 

[Agnaa]

Gilver made several comments comment based on that a few pages back.

OH that thing.

I don't see how that applies here. Gilver said that "Sometimes you spend more mana to get versatility, not more AP". I don't see how that's a response to me saying "Casual feats can be techniques that don't exhaust the character, even if the character doesn't have stronger destruction-based techniques". It just seems unrelated to the conversation we were having.

I was assuming you were more so talking about the standards of UES in general, which is why I told you to give a look at the draft. But now that I look at it, I don't see how this condition would necessarily affect one using the same amount of energy for both creation feats and attacks to scale to their physicals.

Because we weren't talking about someone using the same amount of energy for both creation feats and attacks...

I said that characters may have a destructive spell that costs 10 mana and a creation spell that costs 100 mana, without us being able to distinguish the two because the character has such an enormously large mana pool.

You said:

UES would allow them to control that amount of mana to use for whatever they'd like tho, provided they have adequate mastery to do so, and I'm fairly certain the smartest of mages would be able to easily pull that off.

Which I took as meaning that you think a UES means that the mage could apply that 100 mana to a destructive spell if they so wished.

I responded that if the series establishes that there isn't a cap on the mana they can channel into destructive techniques, then sure that sorta scaling should be allowed, but that we should have standards to cover series where that isn't established.

You said "read the draft", and soon we arrived here. Where you have now changed the argument to "But what if they use the same amount of mana for creation feats and destructive attacks?" That's not what this shard of conversation was about, so I'd appreciate if you rewound to respond to something earlier in the chain, or dropped it.

We need to be shown that it's potentially extant. Or else we can't use it to just get rid of the argument for energy exertion being connected to physical exertion.

We don't tend to need to show that potential explanations sourced from reasonable real-world parallels exist. Usually it's the other way around; the one arguing for a higher rating needs to show that those alternate explanations don't apply.

Yeah, that's the thing here. The list of conditions that need to be met to qualify as a counterexample here is so stringent that like...I don't know, I think it kind if proves the point that this proposal doesn't make anything easier or less stringent.

I'd still prefer it to be safe, since I really wouldn't want a series like that qualifying, and I don't want to miss it because we thought of 20 verses that don't slide through like that.

 

[KLOL506]

Gilver made several comments comment based on that a few pages back.

I changed my reply to that a while back after realizing your comment's true intention.

Which I took as meaning that you think a UES means that the mage could apply that 100 mana to a destructive spell if they so wished.

I responded that if the series establishes that there isn't a cap on the mana they can channel into destructive techniques, then sure that sorta scaling should be allowed, but that we should have standards to cover series where that isn't established.

You said "read the draft", and soon we arrived here. Where you have now changed the argument to "But what if they use the same amount of mana for creation feats and destructive attacks?" That's not what this shard of conversation was about, so I'd appreciate if you rewound to respond to something earlier in the chain, or dropped it.

I included the "what if they use the same amount" to support the basis for UES users being able to manipulate their mana to whatever level they want, and that obviously includes applying the same level of mana from a creation feat to a destruction feat. That's what I meant.

We need to be shown that it's potentially extant. Or else we can't use it to just get rid of the argument for energy exertion being connected to physical exertion.

We don't tend to need to show that potential explanations sourced from reasonable real-world parallels exist. Usually it's the other way around; the one arguing for a higher rating needs to show that those alternate explanations don't apply.

Once again, they wouldn't apply if the character was shown to be utterly casual with their feat and showed no signs of exhaustion. As for the levels of casualness I already clarified that via the various forms of "uber-casualness" and your coined "turbo-uber-casualness".

Yeah, that's the thing here. The list of conditions that need to be met to qualify as a counterexample here is so stringent that like...I don't know, I think it kind if proves the point that this proposal doesn't make anything easier or less stringent.

I'd still prefer it to be safe, since I really wouldn't want a series like that qualifying, and I don't want to miss it because we thought of 20 verses that don't slide through like that.

We're plenty safe with the new guidelines as is.

 

[Agnaa]

I changed my reply to that a while back after realizing your comment's true intention.

Ahh okay.

EDIT: Okay, I get what you mean now, but the whole "even if there aren't stronger destructive techniques possible." just doesn't work for the situations I explained previously before.

Maybe not for the specific situations you proposed of "A muscle fiber twitching creates a universe and they punched" and their ilk, but for the more general case of "Effortless creation feat, and effortless destruction feat" it does apply.

Once again, they wouldn't apply if the character was shown to be utterly casual with their feat and showed no signs of exhaustion. As for the levels of casualness I already clarified that via the various forms of "uber-casualness" and your coined "turbo-uber-casualness".

They would apply. Not everything that causes 0 exhaustion takes the same amount of energy. It's effortless for me to raise my pinky 5mm, and it's effortless for me to raise my pinky 7mm, but the latter takes more energy.

We're plenty safe with the new guidelines as is.

Agree to disagree then.

 

[KatBoi69]

I think I'd be willing to engage with your position further if you took the time to do the research and find a solid counter example, where a UES qualifying verse (under these standards) would solidly become something game breaking for the wiki due to this addition.

I get that you aren't familiar with many verses, but are familiar with and have been involved in the creation of many wiki guidelines. However, this addition is fairly specific to a much narrower subset of series than you might be expecting.