We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

[KLOL506]

Is the Google doc up to date?

Well, we're still to add the exhaustion argument and the "lore importance with regards to the creation" part under the outlier section thingy. Regarding the "exhaustion" part, we're thinking about whether to add it to the Creation Feats page, or the UES page, or both, or just add the "exhaustion" part to the Creation Feats page and then link to the UES page as a shortcut to the guidelines. There's also my reply about the draft and what I think of the specific criteria. Of course, if anyone can think of better suggestions or anymore criteria to consider to make the inspection easier, we're more than willing to accept.

 

[Agnaa]

If the game shows enough context that the storm feat was quite casual for him, yeah, sure, go for it.

Though "loss of power" argument might pose a problem, assuming Ganon can replicate the same feats without magic. But if he can't and he's shown to be weaker without magic, yeah why not.

From what I've heard it sounds like the game shows zero context and it just happens off screen.

Why the hell is that enough to assume the feat is casual?

Ah. Then it should be fine to scale. The rest would be covered by powerscaling (You know, Link being able to trade blows with those that can harm him and then Link hitting Ganon with his punches). If there is also evidence that Ganon becomes extremely weakened due to loss of his magic where it causes him pain and exhaustion, it would solidify the UES scaling even further.

Assuming Ganon can replicate the same storm feat without his magic at play, yes.

It's fine to scale because he has an island-level storm feat and every other feat he performs is tier 8? And because he never replicates that creation feat physically (which would be impossible)? THAT is meant to prove that magic massively empowers him?

If this is how the standards are being applied they're gonna change nothing. Creation feats are already used in scaling because they're the highest feat, if that's all that's required for them to scale then these standards kinda suck.

 

[KatBoi69]

From what I've heard it sounds like the game shows zero context and it just happens off screen.

Why the hell is that enough to assume the feat is casual?


It's fine to scale because he has an island-level storm feat and every other feat he performs is tier 8? And because he never replicates that creation feat physically (which would be impossible)? THAT is meant to prove that magic massively empowers him?

If this is how the standards are being applied they're gonna change nothing.

The issue is that all of these scaling comments are KLOL'S opinions and not actual applications of the guidelines with full community input.

I don't entirely agree with these scalings entirely either, but you can't use these as arguments against the current proposal.

 

[Agnaa]

Having the person writing the rules saying that those reasons are justification for scaling without pushback from other people writing the rules sets those claims as precedent.

By giving your views here and having people agree with them you're not just some random person out of hundreds on the site, you're deciding how the standards will be implemented until they're next changed.

 

[KatBoi69]

Having the person writing the rules saying that those reasons are justification for scaling without pushback from other people writing the rules sets those claims as precedent.

By giving your views here and having people agree with them you're not just some random person out of hundreds on the site, you're deciding how the standards will be implemented until they're next changed.

You're misrepresenting the situation.

First, KLOL is the most active poster on this thread, but not the soul arbiter of its outcome.

Second, multiple people already agreed with the guidelines put forward in this thread, however, they did not agree with this random, one off Zelda scaling. It's just an opinion of the one person willing to continue discussion on a 5 page thread (the length of a novella, at this point). Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not a Zelda expert.

Third, if these were hard and fast rules, I might be more understanding of your concern, but they're just guidelines that can still be discredited with other contextual evidence. If these rules are ratified, they are inherently disputable.

TL/DR: the man who invented college didn't go to college

 

[Agnaa]

I know he's not the sole arbiter, but I don't think it should take me saying "Whoa looks like these standards won't do anything" for other people writing the guidelines to say "No, KLOL's just applying them wrong", I'd hope that other people would challenge these extremely generous applications before more.

And even if they're just guidelines and not hard and fast rules able to be discredited with other contextual evidence, sometimes there isn't other contextual evidence, and we have to go off of information as scarce as that; a character created a storm off-screen once, and the magic system of the verse is never explained. It doesn't comfort me to know other information could disqualify it, if I don't think that information should be enough to qualify it in the first place.

But hey, it does reassure me that you seem to think that doesn't justify scaling.

 

[Urshani]

i still disagree with Agnaa

 

[KatBoi69]

I know he's not the sole arbiter, but I don't think it should take me saying "Whoa looks like these standards won't do anything" for other people writing the guidelines to say "No, KLOL's just applying them wrong", I'd hope that other people would challenge these extremely generous applications before more.

And even if they're just guidelines and not hard and fast rules able to be discredited with other contextual evidence, sometimes there isn't other contextual evidence, and we have to go off of information as scarce as that; a character created a storm off-screen once, and the magic system of the verse is never explained. It doesn't comfort me to know other information could disqualify it, if I don't think that information should be enough to qualify it in the first place.

But hey, it does reassure me that you seem to think that doesn't justify scaling.

I mean I explicitly challenged it.

The issue is that neither KLOL (I think) nor I (I know) are Zelda scaling experts and this entire proposal shouldn't rest on your agreement with the conclusion of our (admittedly ignorant) argument.

I think you're right that a lack of explicit explanation and further evidence (based on my limited knowledge) means this probably shouldn't scale, but that doesn't decide the fate of the proposal (I actually think that the guidelines throwing this into some amount of question is good).

 

[KLOL506]

From what I've heard it sounds like the game shows zero context and it just happens off screen.

Why the hell is that enough to assume the feat is casual?


It's fine to scale because he has an island-level storm feat and every other feat he performs is tier 8? And because he never replicates that creation feat physically (which would be impossible)? THAT is meant to prove that magic massively empowers him?

You're forgetting that the 6-C feat is done with magic and the Tier 8 feats are done when he's weakened (At least, according to what Dust Collector indicates), kinda like how Goku slacking out gets scraped by a bullet but at peak condition he can wipe out an entire universe. Also this would only really work if we're given enough context or indication that Ganon could replicate the feat easily without any sign of exhaustion, we don't assume he just scales without context and if it just happens off-screen, did you forget that I explicitly said that there would need to be context regarding "indications that he did the feat casually"? Also, Ganon being unable to use his higher-tier feats without magic already fullfills one criteria (Loss of energy results in a dramatic loss of power of the character, which usually shows the character in pain/exhaustion). We also need to look at if the magic in Zelda is the singular source of energy everyone uses in the verse to empower themselves and if it is a common source of power, the latter two being other criteria through which you could qualify to scale.

If this is how the standards are being applied they're gonna change nothing. Creation feats are already used in scaling because they're the highest feat, if that's all that's required for them to scale then these standards kinda suck.

Perhaps you'd like to read the guidelines first then? I've already made a reply to Hellbeast's draft in Page 2 which I then had several staff members take a look at who then accepted it.

-snip-

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The storm feats were also casual and Link also survives hits from Ganondorf's strongest magic bolt attack and trades blows with him accordingly. There's also a hypothetical about Ganondorf with Triforce of Power upscaling from Majora's base form who scales to Young Link with the Triforce of Courage.

 

[KLOL506]

The storm feats were also casual and Link also survives hits from Ganondorf's strongest magic bolt attack and trades blows with him accordingly. There's also a hypothetical about Ganondorf with Triforce of Power upscaling from Majora's base form who scales to Young Link with the Triforce of Courage.

Good to know.

 

[KLOL506]

Basically, for off-screen stuff:

Off-screen, no importance to the story, no context to whether it could be done easily or via huge strain on body: No scaling, at best, maybe a "possibly" rating. JUST MAYBE.

Off-screen, massive importance to the story, context given that the feat was done with some effort and is higher than all attacks: Feat scales above the character's base characteristics as either an Ultimate Attack or ED

Off-screen, massive importance to the story, context given that the feat was done casually with no loss in power, stamina, etc. : Scale

 

[Agnaa]

You're forgetting that the 6-C feat is done with magic and the Tier 8 feats are done when he's weakened (At least, according to what Dust Collector indicates)

Dust Collector did not state the Tier 8 feats were done when he's weakened. Dust Collector even stated that Ganon has never lost his magic, he just didn't seem to be using magic for those feats.

kinda like how Goku slacking out gets scraped by a bullet but at peak condition he can wipe out an entire universe

That's an outlier, we don't take that as an actual representation of how easy Goku is to kill when he's "slacking".

did you forget that I explicitly said that there would need to be context regarding "indications that he did the feat casually"?

You said that, then Dust Collector said "We have no idea, it happens off-screen, but the game doesn't say that it was especially exhausting", which you responded to by saying "sure, go for it".

That should not be taken as evidence of a feat being casual. If you say you need context but all the context you need is assuming that it's casual because there's zero information, that's not good enough.

Also, Ganon being unable to use his higher-tier feats without magic already fullfills one criteria (Loss of energy results in a dramatic loss of power of the character, which usually shows the character in pain/exhaustion).

Again, I don't think a creation feat being a character's highest feat is equivalent to fulfilling the criteria that "losing the energy results in a dramatic loss of power, usually showing the character in pain/exhaustion". If it wasn't their highest feat no-one would be scaling to it. You are giving every single worthwhile creation feat a free pass to scale by treating ti like that.

Perhaps you'd like to read the guidelines first then? I've already made a reply to Hellbeast's draft in Page 2 which I then had several staff members take a look at who then accepted it.

Why do you keep telling me to read the guidelines? I've already told you multiple times that I have, and I am explicitly taking issue with the standards of evidence you're saying fulfills the guidelines.

The storm feats were also casual

That's not true, there's nothing indicating, suggesting, or demonstrating that.

Off-screen, no importance to the story, no context to whether it could be done easily or via huge strain on body: No scaling, at best, maybe a "possibly" rating. JUST MAYBE.

I'd like to believe this, but your words when talking about what the standards are in theory, and your words when provided with those exact same events in practice keep contradicting.

 

[KLOL506]

You're forgetting that the 6-C feat is done with magic and the Tier 8 feats are done when he's weakened (At least, according to what Dust Collector indicates)

Dust Collector did not state the Tier 8 feats were done when he's weakened. Dust Collector even stated that Ganon has never lost his magic, he just didn't seem to be using magic for those feats.

This is what Dust Collector said

Yyyeeahh.

Without magic his best feats are not even reaching tier 8.

Which is already a pretty clear indication that Ganon without his magic is much weaker than his magic-amped self in terms of feats.

kinda like how Goku slacking out gets scraped by a bullet but at peak condition he can wipe out an entire universe

That's an outlier, we don't take that as an actual representation of how easy Goku is to kill when he's "slacking".

My point still stands, he wasn't using ki efficiently and let his guard down which drops ki results significantly. And by tandem his powers and abilities in their potency, which includes his physical strength and durability. Also, Goku dropping his guard down and taking a massive hit in strength and durability is a real thing and a weakness explicitly stated on his profile with hard evidence.

did you forget that I explicitly said that there would need to be context regarding "indications that he did the feat casually"?

You said that, then Dust Collector said "We have no idea, it happens off-screen, but the game doesn't say that it was especially exhausting", which you responded to by saying "sure, go for it".

This is the full line I said, I said to go for it IF THE GAME SHOWS ENOUGH CONTEXT THAT THE STORM FEAT WAS QUITE CASUAL FOR HIM.

If the game shows enough context that the storm feat was quite casual for him, yeah, sure, go for it.

Also note that I said this by taking into account IN ADVANCE that you'd also have to qualify for a few of the guidelines on the draft.

That should not be taken as evidence of a feat being casual. If you say you need context but all the context you need is assuming that it's casual because there's zero information, that's not good enough.

Being casual alone wouldn't scale you to the feat, you'd need the other guidelines, to see if he's using one singular power source, if said power source is a common source of energy used by everyone for magic, if said power source is a core underpinning of the verse and its lore, etc. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Also, Ganon being unable to use his higher-tier feats without magic already fullfills one criteria (Loss of energy results in a dramatic loss of power of the character, which usually shows the character in pain/exhaustion).

Again, I don't think a creation feat being a character's highest feat is equivalent to fulfilling the criteria that "losing the energy results in a dramatic loss of power, usually showing the character in pain/exhaustion". If it wasn't their highest feat no-one would be scaling to it. You are giving every single worthwhile creation feat a free pass to scale by treating ti like that.

We've already had long-ass discussions on this topic regarding levels of exhaustion, context behind the feat, importance and the lore and the like, so let's just say I agree to disagree.

Perhaps you'd like to read the guidelines first then? I've already made a reply to Hellbeast's draft in Page 2 which I then had several staff members take a look at who then accepted it.

Why do you keep telling me to read the guidelines? I've already told you multiple times that I have, and I am explicitly taking issue with the standards of evidence you're saying fulfills the guidelines.

Because in case you haven't forgotten we aren't just gonna scale them based off of one criteria alone, why do you think we're making a UES guidelines page in the first place? I've been trying to show you for as long as this thread has been going. Are you just gonna keep ignoring why this thread exists to begin with?

The storm feats were also casual

That's not true, there's nothing demonstrating that.

This one I'll leave up to DDM, he brought up this specific claim, not me.

 

[Agnaa]

This is what Dust Collector said

Which is already a pretty clear indication that Ganon without his magic is much weaker than his magic-amped self in terms of feats.

And in his next post Dust Collector said:

Well there's no instance of Ganon ever losing any of his magic, but it's nice to hear it should be fine to scale.

There is no "Ganon without his magic". There's just "Ganon clearly using magic for feats" and "Ganon not clearly using his magic for feats". His physical feats being tier 8 while his magic-based creation feat is island-level should not be taken as proof that he's much weaker when not magic-amped. Otherwise you would automatically give every character who has a notable creation feat the ability to scale it. That is such a reckless way to use these standards.

This is the full line I said, I said to go for it IF THE GAME SHOWS ENOUGH CONTEXT THAT THE STORM FEAT WAS QUITE CASUAL FOR HIM.

My bad. I still think that's a very reckless way to communicate. Someone says "There is literally no evidence" and you say "Well if there is evidence then sure" and they say "I'm glad you say it's okay to scale".

You are clearly giving off the wrong impression by phrasing things like that.

Being casual alone wouldn't scale you to the feat, you'd need the other guidelines, to see if he's using one singular power source, if said power source is a common source of energy used by everyone for magic, if said power source is a core underpinning of the verse and its lore, etc.

So you were responding to me saying "You should really require more evidence for saying that a creation feat is casual", to which you respond with "You don't just need the creation feat to be casual, you need these other things..."

That doesn't exonerate you of having a laughably low standard of evidence for a feat being casual.

We've already had long-ass discussions on this topic regarding levels of exhaustion, context behind the feat, importance and the lore and the like, so let's just say I agree to disagree.

Again, it's like you're not responding to me. There I was talking about how you took a character's highest feat being a creation feat as all the evidence necessary to prove that they're weaker without magic. And you responded to that saying "We've already talked about exhaustion, context behind the feat, and plot importance, and I just agree to disagree."

You just "agree to disagree" that the creation feat being notable is enough to fulfill a criteria? Come on man, your standards should not be that low.

Because in case you haven't forgotten we aren't just gonna scale them based off of one criteria alone, why do you think we're making a UES guidelines page in the first place? I've been trying to show you for as long as this thread has been going.

Because these criteria are the ones that strike me as the most important to demonstrate (in terms of justifying scaling), and the most difficult to demonstrate. If you're putting all the scrutiny on "You have to prove that multiple people have magic and that it's a part of the series' lore" then the standards are gonna do **** all.

 

[KLOL506]

This is what Dust Collector said

Which is already a pretty clear indication that Ganon without his magic is much weaker than his magic-amped self in terms of feats.

And in his next post Dust Collector said:

This was after I said the "context" thing.

There is no "Ganon without his magic". There's just "Ganon clearly using magic for feats" and "Ganon not clearly using his magic for feats". His physical feats being tier 8 while his magic-based creation feat is island-level should not be taken as proof that he's much weaker when not magic-amped. Otherwise you would automatically give every character who has a notable creation feat the ability to scale it. That is such a reckless way to use these standards.

Good God man, are you just gonna ignore everything I said about levels of exhaustion, plot-importance, usage of a singular, common energy source and the like? You're better than that.

This is the full line I said, I said to go for it IF THE GAME SHOWS ENOUGH CONTEXT THAT THE STORM FEAT WAS QUITE CASUAL FOR HIM.

My bad. I still think that's a very reckless way to communicate. Someone says "There is literally no evidence" and you say "Well if there is evidence then sure" and they say "I'm glad you say it's okay to scale".

You are clearly giving off the wrong impression by phrasing things like that.

Is showing indications that being casual not evidence? If you think that it's not evidence, then I'm sorry but I could not disagree further here.

Being casual alone wouldn't scale you to the feat, you'd need the other guidelines, to see if he's using one singular power source, if said power source is a common source of energy used by everyone for magic, if said power source is a core underpinning of the verse and its lore, etc.

So you were responding to me saying "You should really require more evidence for saying that a creation feat is casual", to which you respond with "You don't just need the creation feat to be casual, you need these other things..."

That doesn't exonerate you of having a laughably low standard of evidence for a feat being casual.

And you still think that the other evidence you need to qualify still isn't enough for him to scale. How else am I supposed to convince you?

We've already had long-ass discussions on this topic regarding levels of exhaustion, context behind the feat, importance and the lore and the like, so let's just say I agree to disagree.

Again, it's like you're not responding to me. There I was talking about how you took a character's highest feat being a creation feat as all the evidence necessary to prove that they're weaker without magic. And you responded to that saying "We've already talked about exhaustion, context behind the feat, and plot importance, and I just agree to disagree."

You just "agree to disagree" that the creation feat being notable is enough to fulfill a criteria? Come on man, your standards should not be that low.

I have been responding to you, you just refuse to see the other criteria as proper evidence to justify scaling, which is clearly not how this works.

Because in case you haven't forgotten we aren't just gonna scale them based off of one criteria alone, why do you think we're making a UES guidelines page in the first place? I've been trying to show you for as long as this thread has been going.

Because these criteria are the ones that strike me as the most important to demonstrate (in terms of justifying scaling), and the most difficult to demonstrate. If you're putting all the scrutiny on "You have to prove that multiple people have magic and that it's a part of the series' lore" then the standards are gonna do **** all.

Determining whether they use a single energy source for all their abilities is difficult to demonstrate!? Determining whether the energy source is a common source of energy in the verse for all to use for their abilities is difficult to demonstrate? Finding evidence for whether the energy source plays a massive pivotal role in the verse and its lore is difficult to demonstrate? Jesus Christ Agnaa, I thought you'd understand better than this. I thought you were the one advocating for qualification of more than one criteria, and now that there is more than one criteria to fulfill, you still disagree with it? I just don't get you on this.

 

[Agnaa]

Good God man, are you just gonna ignore everything I said about levels of exhaustion, plot-importance, usage of a singular, common energy source and the like? You're better than that.

"I think you're giving away this one qualifier too easily"

"Oh, so you're just ignoring how I have OTHER requirements too?"

I'm not. I am challenging how easily you give away one of those requirements.

Is showing indications that being casual not evidence? If you think that it's not evidence, then I'm sorry but I could not disagree further here.

Dust Collector literally says there's no indications that it's casual:

Although the level of effort he puts into the storm is unknown, he's off screen when he does it, although the game doesn't treat it as something super difficult for him to do so there's that I guess.

"It's completely unknown, it happens off-screen, but there's no evidence that it WASN'T casual"

Yes, I do not think that that is evidence. And I cannot believe that you would take zero information on it as evidence that it is casual.

And you still think that the other evidence you need to qualify still isn't enough for him to scale. How else am I supposed to convince you?

Again, please stop taking this shard of argument in another direction. We can agree to disagree on what requirements are necessary and what are supporting. I don't want to just agree to disagree on the evidence needed to meet those requirements being barebones.

I have been responding to you, you just refuse to see the other criteria as proper evidence to justify scaling, which is clearly not how this works.

Sure, we can't have a proper argument on whether those other criteria alone can justify scaling. Which is why I'm not trying to have that argument. You're the one who keeps bringing up that other shit when there's no discussion to be had there.

Determining whether they use a single energy source for all their abilities is difficult to demonstrate!? Determining whether the energy source is a common source of energy in the verse for all to use for their abilities is difficult to demonstrate? Finding evidence for whether the energy source plays a massive pivotal role in the verse and its lore is difficult to demonstrate? Jesus Christ Agnaa, I thought you'd understand better than this.

Those are not the things I was saying were difficult to demonstrate.

I was saying that showing that a creation feat was casual is relatively difficult to demonstrate. And showing that a character is weaker without magic is relatively difficult to demonstrate.

In fact, I was saying that those things you listed are easier to demonstrate.

I thought you were the one advocating for qualification of more than one criteria, and now that there is more than one criteria to fulfill, you still disagree with it? I just don't get you on this.

I don't remember advocating for that. The only qualification I really find necessary is "Did they put more energy from the same source into destructive applications than creation applications?" Everything else is ephemeral to me. I don't need there to be 5 other characters in the series who also have that energy source. I don't need it to be a fundamental part of the lore and not just a throwaway explanation in one episode.

But it seems like we just disagree there, which is why I want to talk about other things. You're the one bringing these other standards into our back-and-forth, not me.

 

[KLOL506]

Good God man, are you just gonna ignore everything I said about levels of exhaustion, plot-importance, usage of a singular, common energy source and the like? You're better than that.

"I think you're giving away this one qualifier too easily"

"Oh, so you're just ignoring how I have OTHER requirements too?"

I'm not. I am challenging how easily you give away one of those requirements.

And? If the evidence matches the requirements, I don't see any issue with applying the scaling. If it doesn't match them, no scaling.

Is showing indications that being casual not evidence? If you think that it's not evidence, then I'm sorry but I could not disagree further here.

Dust Collector literally says there's no indications that it's casual:

"It's completely unknown, it happens off-screen, but there's no evidence that it WASN'T casual"

Yes, I do not think that that is evidence. And I cannot believe that you would take zero information on it as evidence that it is casual.

After which DDM came in to say otherwise and we're waiting for him to present more evidence on it.

And you still think that the other evidence you need to qualify still isn't enough for him to scale. How else am I supposed to convince you?

Again, please stop taking this shard of argument in another direction. We can agree to disagree on what requirements are necessary and what are supporting. I don't want to just agree to disagree on the evidence needed to meet those requirements being barebones.

I disagree with them being barebones, you're just making things overcomplicated for the sake of being overcomplicated.

I have been responding to you, you just refuse to see the other criteria as proper evidence to justify scaling, which is clearly not how this works.

Sure, we can't have a proper argument on whether those other criteria alone can justify scaling. Which is why I'm not trying to have that argument.

Good to know then.

Determining whether they use a single energy source for all their abilities is difficult to demonstrate!? Determining whether the energy source is a common source of energy in the verse for all to use for their abilities is difficult to demonstrate? Finding evidence for whether the energy source plays a massive pivotal role in the verse and its lore is difficult to demonstrate? Jesus Christ Agnaa, I thought you'd understand better than this.

Those are not the things I was saying were difficult to demonstrate.

I was saying that showing that a creation feat was casual is relatively difficult to demonstrate. And showing that a character is weaker without magic is relatively difficult to demonstrate.

In fact, I was saying that those things you listed are easier to demonstrate.

I think showings of them not being remotely exhausted after performing said feat and being brought to near-death after having their powers siphoned off is good-enough evidence to prove it. So yeah, it's not as "relatively difficult" as you make it out to be.

I thought you were the one advocating for qualification of more than one criteria, and now that there is more than one criteria to fulfill, you still disagree with it? I just don't get you on this.

I don't remember advocating for that. The only qualification I really find necessary is "Did they put more energy from the same source into destructive applications than creation applications?" Everything else is ephemeral to me. I don't need there to be 5 other characters in the series who also have that energy source. I don't need it to be a fundamental part of the lore and not just a throwaway explanation in one episode.


But it seems like we just disagree there, which is why I want to talk about other things. You're the one bringing these other standards into our back-and-forth, not me.

Like I already said, the casualness of the feat and the intent and background info of the attacks would already prove it for you. It would be asinine to assume that an endgame boss character casually creating a universe to show the might of his power would just suddenly start using attacks with less energy than the creation feat to get at the player especially when the endgame boss is going hard-on for the shoot-to-kill approach and will stop at nothing to kill you. If you still think that's not enough then I really don't know what to say to you anymore.

Also if it's not a fundamental part of the lore and a one-off feat then it's just giving them scaling the feat to them for no real reason at all.

 

[Antoniofer]

At all this, why would this apply to only to supernatural forms of energy? Like, what does spending magic or ki so different from simply spending physical energy? If there's a guy that can innately created houses in mid air using his own stamina as energy supply, and can create up to 20 before starting to feel tired, and then start to fight in melee and get tired in about 5 min, you don't get to the conclusion: "since this guy gets more tired by brawling that creating houses that's mean his physical power is above the [AP to create a house]", you just say he is not that good at melee; but if instead of using his own mundane reserves and uses magic/ki, it somehow scales to his physicals?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Guys...

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

At all this, why would this apply to only to supernatural forms of energy? Like, what does spending magic or ki so different from simply spending physical energy? If there's a guy that can innately created houses in mid air using his own stamina as energy supply, and can create up to 20 before starting to feel tired, and then start to fight in melee and get tired in about 5 min, you don't get to the conclusion: "since this guy gets more tired by brawling that creating houses that's mean his physical power is above the [AP to create a house]", you just say he is not that good at melee; but if instead of using his own mundane reserves and uses magic/ki, it somehow scales to his physicals?

Uhhh.

That means he spent more efforts in fighting, by even law of averages any attacks he did would be superior to any singular effort during building. If those are done in full stamina in both case.
Or maybe if done consecutively then the guy was just fatigued.

But most important factor is, a normal guy can't create houses out of void with his stamina.
Assembling something is not same as creating something from scratch

So the equivalence fails on most basic ground.

 

[KLOL506]

Uhhh.

That means he spent more efforts in fighting, by even law of averages any attacks he did would be superior to any singular effort during building.

But most important factor is, a normal guy can't create houses out of void with his stamina.
Assembling something is not same as creating something from scratch

So the equivalence fails on most basic ground.

This, and Antoniofer, you forgot that the dude just expended all his reserves on 20 houses and then just jumped into melee battle without recovering his stamina, without his stamina to tap into, how do you expect he can put his physical energy into his punches and kicks to begin with? He's obviously not yet recovered from his fatigue. Not only that, you're forgetting that in most verses with UES stamina usage is tied to it as well.

Also if a physical energy source like one's stamina is shown and elaborated to operate similarly to a UES, then I fail to see why we can't apply the standard UES guidelines to that.

 

[Agnaa]

And? If the evidence matches the requirements, I don't see any issue with applying the scaling. If it doesn't match them, no scaling.

Cool, so we can actually go back to talking about whether the evidence matches the requirements again.

I can repeat what I said earlier in this shard of conversation which you haven't addressed; that you seem to think a character's highest feat being a creation feat proves that they're weakened without magic. I find this a laughably low standard to meet that requirement, as it would automatically apply to every character with a creation feat that matters.

I disagree with them being barebones, you're just making things overcomplicated for the sake of being overcomplicated.

I do not think "You need more proof that they're weak without magic than their creation feat being their strongest feat" is overcomplicating things.

I think showings of them not being remotely exhausted after performing said feat and being brought to near-death after having their powers siphoned off is good-enough evidence to prove it. So yeah, it's not as "relatively difficult" as you make it out to be.

Relatively difficult, compared to "Do other characters have magic?" and "Is magic a part of the series' lore".

I think those showings you describe are more difficult because not all creation feats happen on-screen. And because not all series involve characters having their powers siphoned off. While almost all series with a magic system give that system to other characters, and have it be a thing talked about in the series' lore.

Also if it's not a fundamental part of the lore and a one-off feat then it's just giving them scaling the feat to them for no real reason at all.

It's scaling the feat to them because they performed it, and exerted more energy on destructive feats.

But most important factor is, a normal guy can't create houses out of void with his stamina. Assembling something is not same as creating something from scratch So the equivalence fails on most basic ground.

Series exist where creation feats are performed without a universal energy system being described. Where characters just have inexplicable superpowers that drain their stamina to use. I know Monogatari, Epithet Erased, and Medaka Box are like this.

Antoniofer would be talking about something like that, not an IRL human.

This, and Antoniofer, you forgot that the dude just expended all his reserves on 20 houses and then just jumped into melee battle without recovering his stamina, without his stamina to tap into, how do you expect he can put his physical energy into his punches and kicks to begin with? He's obviously not yet recovered from his fatigue.

What if the character had time to recover from creating the 20 houses, and went from full stamina to tired after 5 minutes of fighting?

(I'm pretty sure that's what Antoniofer meant, but if it needs to be clarified, then lets clarify it)

 

[Antoniofer]

Sorry, wrong wording, what I meant is that: in one instance, creating 20 houses before starting to get tired, in another, fighting for 5 min and then starts to feel tired.

Plus, why is an impossiblity to create stuff from nothing using nothing but his own energy, without the need of magic/ki? Is not uncommon for character to have innate abilities with no relationship to other forms of energy.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Sorry, wrong wording, what I meant is that: in one instance, creating 20 houses before starting to get tired, in another, fighting for 5 min and then starts to feel tired.

That means he spent more efforts in fighting, by even law of averages any attacks he did would be superior to any singular effort during building. If those are done in full stamina in both case

Plus, why is an impossiblity to create stuff from nothing using nothing but his own energy, without the need of magic/ki? Is not uncommon for character to have innate abilities with no relationship to other forms of energy.

You didn't clarify that first time.

If its reality warping like thingy ability, with no connection to users energy in conventional way.

Then we would already rate it separately....

Dunno why this would be relevant in UES cases,

 

[Agnaa]

No shit it isn't a UES. Antoniofer was asking why it's only rated separately for UES', and not other cases like that.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

No shit it isn't a UES. Antoniofer was asking why it's only rated separately for UES', and not other cases like that.

How would you even connect such creation feats to physicals without some form of "energy manip"?

The question that needs to be asked first and foremost is if we can even scale such feats in the first place rather than "why we do or don't".

 

[KLOL506]

And? If the evidence matches the requirements, I don't see any issue with applying the scaling. If it doesn't match them, no scaling.

Cool, so we can actually go back to talking about whether the evidence matches the requirements again.

I can repeat what I said earlier in this shard of conversation which you haven't addressed; that you seem to think a character's highest feat being a creation feat proves that they're weakened without magic. I find this a laughably low standard to meet that requirement, as it would automatically apply to every character with a creation feat that matters.

Assuming the creation feat was utterly-casual, and without the magic they're explicitly shown to be turned into weaklings, yes.

I disagree with them being barebones, you're just making things overcomplicated for the sake of being overcomplicated.

I do not think "You need more proof that they're weak without magic than their creation feat being their strongest feat" is overcomplicating things.

It's definitely overcomplicating things when you refuse "strongest feat shown to be utterly-casual and the endgame boss character is using the same energy for his attacks and going all out with them against the protag in the final boss fight" as another proper argument, which is also just as common as creation feats being the strongest.

I think showings of them not being remotely exhausted after performing said feat and being brought to near-death after having their powers siphoned off is good-enough evidence to prove it. So yeah, it's not as "relatively difficult" as you make it out to be.

Relatively difficult, compared to "Do other characters have magic?" and "Is magic a part of the series' lore".

Not as relatively difficult as you think. If the evidence says thoroughly indicates it or it is confirmed, who are we to argue?

I think those showings you describe are more difficult because not all creation feats happen on-screen. And because not all series involve characters having their powers siphoned off. While almost all series with a magic system give that system to other characters, and have it be a thing talked about in the series' lore.

Also if it's not a fundamental part of the lore and a one-off feat then it's just giving them scaling the feat to them for no real reason at all.

It's scaling the feat to them because they performed it, and exerted more energy on destructive feats.

Again, it has to hold importance to the lore, we need to know the intend and background info behind it. Or else you could just as easily argue for it to be inconsistent and entering the realm of outliers.

But most important factor is, a normal guy can't create houses out of void with his stamina. Assembling something is not same as creating something from scratch So the equivalence fails on most basic ground.

Series exist where creation feats are performed without a universal energy system being described. Where characters just have inexplicable superpowers that drain their stamina to use. I know Monogatari, Epithet Erased, and Medaka Box are like this.

Like I said, no UES, no scaling. End of story. If their own power source they use doesn't match up the requirements, it's not an UES. Simple.

This, and Antoniofer, you forgot that the dude just expended all his reserves on 20 houses and then just jumped into melee battle without recovering his stamina, without his stamina to tap into, how do you expect he can put his physical energy into his punches and kicks to begin with? He's obviously not yet recovered from his fatigue.

What if the character had time to recover from creating the 20 houses, and went from full stamina to tired after 5 minutes of fighting?

Then I think notifying some severe crippling weaknesses for this specific instance is in order and a separate "At peak" tiering keys would be needed, assuming the character was going all out during that 5 minutes of fighting. This can get really common in high-speed fights.

 

[KLOL506]

How would you even connect such creation feats to physicals without some form of "energy manip"?

The question that needs to be asked first and foremost is if we can even scale such feats in the first place rather than "why we do or don't".

This. Without an UES or the physical stamina-based energy qualifying the set rules of the UES guidelines, we can't scale. Simple as that. We aren't gonna limit it to just supernatural sources of energy.

 

[Antoniofer]

How is connected is not really relevant, a character can have an innate power which constant usage with consume his stamina, will start to sweat, start to feel dizzy, that kind of stuff, without the need of external supernatural energy.

If any, one even may consider mundane stamina like the real UES, as everyone short of tirelessness has it.

 

[KLOL506]

How is connected is not really relevant, a character can have an innate power which constant usage with consume his stamina, will start to sweat, start to feel dizzy, that kind of stuff, without the need of external supernatural energy.

If any, one even may consider mundane stamina like the real UES, as everyone short of tirelessness has it.

They'd have to qualify for the criteria first. And not every character's stamina operates in the same exact manner. So this would have to be determined separately.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

How is connected is not really relevant, a character can have an innate power which constant usage with consume his stamina, will start to sweat, start to feel dizzy, that kind of stuff, without the need of external supernatural energy.

If any, one even may consider mundane stamina like the real UES, as everyone short of tirelessness has it.

That will need its own thread

 

[Antoniofer]

What don't do the same with other forms of energy then? At the end, all of them are just different forms of energy stored in different ways.

 

[Agnaa]

Assuming the creation feat was utterly-casual, and without the magic they're explicitly shown to be turned into weaklings, yes.

That's not what I said. I only said "The character's highest feat is a creation feat". Not that they were explicitly shown to be turned into weaklings without it.

Why did I only say that?

• KatBoi said that Ganon may not qualify under loss of power, since we don't know what happens when Ganon loses power.
• You said if Ganon can create the storm without magic, that would disqualify him.
• Dust_Collector responded that Ganon's feats that aren't magically enhanced top out at tier 8, contrasting with his Island level creation feat done via magic.
• You said that would make it fine to scale.

Ever since then I've been trying to say "Hey! You shouldn't say that a character's highest feat being a creation feat supports them being weaker without magic!"

But instead of saying "I didn't mean to say that qualifies" or "I thought there was more supporting him losing power without magic" or anything else, instead you...

It's definitely overcomplicating things when you refuse "strongest feat shwon to be utterly-casual and the endgame boss character is using the same energy for his attacks and going all out with them against the protag in the final boss fight" as another proper argument, which is also just as common as creation feats being the strongest.

...Attack my opinions on other standards, that I haven't brought up or argued for in dozens of posts.

I feel no need to respond to this characterization since I've already responded to it half a dozen times earlier in the thread and it doesn't seem like either of us are budging on it.

Not as relatively difficult as you think. If the evidence says thoroughly indicates it or it is confirmed, who are we to argue?

I don't think you know how "relatively difficult" I think they are, and that's a meaningless argument to have anyway. And I don't understand what you're saying with your second sentence there so I can't really respond.

Again, it has to hold importance to the lore, we need to know the intend and background info behind it. Or else you could just as easily argue for it to be inconsistent and entering the realm of outliers.

You asked what my standards were. I told you. And now you're going "NO THOSE AREN'T MY STANDARDS", I thought we already knew we disagreed on this? Why are we talking about this?

Like I said, no UES, no scaling. End of story. If their own power source they use doesn't match up the requirements, it's not an UES. Simple.

I agree, but I was clarifying Antoniofer's argument since the point seemed to be missed.

They'd have to qualify for the criteria first. And not every character's stamina operates in the same exact manner. So this would have to be determined separately.

It still kinda feels like you're missing Antoniofer's point. He's not talking about the standards as they are, he wants to broaden them to allow non-UES things to scale to creation feats. Saying "That doesn't meet the currently drafted standards" is a non-response.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

It still kinda feels like you're missing Antoniofer's point. He's not talking about the standards as they are, he wants to broaden them to allow non-UES things to scale to creation feats. Saying "That doesn't meet the currently drafted standards" is a non-response.

But how will we do that? Do we have any solutions for that??

 

[KLOL506]

Assuming the creation feat was utterly-casual, and without the magic they're explicitly shown to be turned into weaklings, yes.

That's not what I said. I only said "The character's highest feat is a creation feat". Not that they were explicitly shown to be turned into weaklings without it.

Why did I only say that?

• KatBoi said that Ganon may not qualify under loss of power, since we don't know what happens when Ganon loses power.
• You said if Ganon can create the storm without magic, that would disqualify him.
• Dust_Collector responded that Ganon's feats that aren't magically enhanced top out at tier 8, contrasting with his Island level creation feat done via magic.
• You said that would make it fine to scale.

Ever since then I've been trying to say "Hey! You shouldn't say that a character's highest feat being a creation feat supports them being weaker without magic!"

But instead of saying "I didn't mean to say that qualifies" or "I thought there was more supporting him losing power without magic" or anything else, instead you...

It's definitely overcomplicating things when you refuse "strongest feat shwon to be utterly-casual and the endgame boss character is using the same energy for his attacks and going all out with them against the protag in the final boss fight" as another proper argument, which is also just as common as creation feats being the strongest.

...Attack my opinions on other standards, that I haven't brought up or argued for in dozens of posts.

I feel no need to respond to this characterization since I've already responded to it half a dozen times earlier in the thread and it doesn't seem like either of us are budging on it.

Seems that way.

Not as relatively difficult as you think. If the evidence says thoroughly indicates it or it is confirmed, who are we to argue?

I don't think you know how "relatively difficult" I think they are, and that's a meaningless argument to have anyway. And I don't understand what you're saying with your second sentence there so I can't really respond.

Then it seems our definitions of "relatively difficult" vary.

Again, it has to hold importance to the lore, we need to know the intend and background info behind it. Or else you could just as easily argue for it to be inconsistent and entering the realm of outliers.

You asked what my standards were. I told you. And now you're going "NO THOSE AREN'T MY STANDARDS", I thought we already knew we disagreed on this? Why are we talking about this?

Fine. Let's agree to disagree here.

Like I said, no UES, no scaling. End of story. If their own power source they use doesn't match up the requirements, it's not an UES. Simple.

I agree, but I was clarifying Antoniofer's argument since the point seemed to be missed.

Okay then.

They'd have to qualify for the criteria first. And not every character's stamina operates in the same exact manner. So this would have to be determined separately.

It still kinda feels like you're missing Antoniofer's point. He's not talking about the standards as they are, he wants to broaden them to allow non-UES things to scale to creation feats. Saying "That doesn't meet the currently drafted standards" is a non-response.

Just call them non-UES things with UES-like properties then? The guidelines are just there to determine what allows and what forbids UES-based feats to scale to physicals, not that they'd have to be referred to as a UES. Personalized and unique energy systems also exist, just look at some Quirks from MHA like Bakugou's Explosion Quirk. It's from his own power, his own power is his common source, it's his own energy he uses for himself to turn his attacks into literal explosions which his durability scales to, and overusage leads to exhaustion.

 

[KLOL506]

But how will we do that? Do we have any solutions for that??

Call the non-UES things as "non-UES things with UES-like properties"? They'd scale only to the individual that possesses said unique non-UES power. Once again, look no further than to MHA Quirks. Unique, personalized for other users and one ability does not scale to every other quirk out there by default because they are using their own separate stamina to power their abilities. Of course, you'll have guys like Endeavour whose abilities have higher stats than their physicals but that's an entirely different topic.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Call the non-UES things as "non-UES things with UES-like properties"? They'd scale only to the individual that possesses said unique non-UES power. Once again, look no further than to MHA Quirks. Unique, personalized for other users and one ability does not scale to every other quirk out there by default because they are using their own separate stamina to power their abilities. Of course, you'll have guys like Endeavour whose abilities have higher stats than their physicals but that's an entirely different topic.

So once again, we are back to the solution of "it needs its own thread to determine that, case by case".

 

[KLOL506]

So once again, we are back to the solution of "it needs its own thread to determine that, case by case".

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Agnaa]

Seems that way.

Eugh ffs why can't you just answer the question.

Do you retract your earlier evaluation that simply having a creation feat as your highest feat meets the requirement:

• 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.

Just call them non-UES things with UES-like properties then? The guidelines are just there to determine what allows and what forbids UES-based feats to scale to physicals, not that they'd have to be referred to as a UES. Personalized and unique energy systems also exist, just look at some Quirks from MHA like Bakugou's Explosion Quirk. It's from his own power, his own power is his common source, it's his own energy he uses for himself to turn his attacks into literal explosions which his durability scales to, and overusage leads to exhaustion.

I'd prefer not having personalized systems like Quirks scale, but I'd really lean to being neutral on the topic.

So once again, we are back to the solution of "it needs its own thread to determine that, case by case".

Why would that need a new thread... You're creating new rules, if you're going to have something else be able to qualify under the exact same guidelines, you may as well tackle that in the same thread.