We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

[KLOL506]

I completely agree with KLOL as well. Great job, mate.

Thanks. We're still working on making the standards more flexible and open-ended so as to not leave everyone out. Of course, there will be exceptions, which we will obviously not ignore.

 

[Lightning_XXI]

I have updated my example, please re-check if you have the time.

I agree with ur points overall, specially the 3rd eligible criteria counter point, after taking a second look it does sound too restricting

 

[LordGriffin1000]

OK, so I re-read the document again and these are my thoughts:


I believe in a setting where everyone has innate access to the universal energy source and can enhance it via training should automatically qualify for getting Empowerment like that, not the other way around where you need to prove the existence of Empowerment to confirm a Universal Energy Source. Naruto and Dragon Ball are very obvious examples (Since both those verses repeatedly hammer down the fact that everyone can use ki/chakra, just that they'll have to train harder if they wanna grow stronger and have their ki/chakra reserves grow more controlled and potent). If anything, it should be a default assumption that in a verse with a tightly-integrated universal energy system people should be readily able to access and harness the UES's energy for their own means, especially for something as simple as enhancing their physical strength.

Them being able to empower their weapons with it is a plus honestly. But it shouldn't be used to leave out people that have innate access to the UES but don't use it to amplify the strength of their bodies because reasons. It should be fine as supporting evidence, however.



Looks fine at a glance.



Now that I look at it, it's kinna restricting. You just need to prove that they can tap into the universal energy source to use for all their attacks, physical, elemental, whatever. That's it. But it should work nicely as supporting evidence if mentioned.



No problems here. You should also add that removal of said power source could also be represented as being able to cause excruciating pain/trauma or cause excess fatigue from which the character could potentially end up dying. So I'm perfectly fine with this.



Seems okay, no problems here, though at some point you can expect these characters to eventually duke out against each other where the commonality of the energy source may become irrelevant and simple powerscaling should more or less even out the odds. Also I agree with the "core underpinning part", that should certainly help out as supporting evidence, that point should take more precedence than the system itself serving as a power source for the characters I believe.



I share the same concerns as DDM and Axx regarding this. If the Totem serves as a universal energy source for the entire verse, then it is fine for it to fall under the normal universal energy source guidelines



Not sure if I agree with this, just because it is a storm or creation feat or somesuch doesn't mean it suddenly falls out of favor of use, especially if they can then harness said power and focus it onto their bodies. Basically proves Axx's point. Without any direct statements or confirmations from the story itself, the only other surefire way you can scale Environmental Destruction Feats to yourself is via a universal energy system. Of course, if it's greatly above the character's usual showings, just leave it as its ultimate attack if it is offensive, or as a separate ED feat assuming it isn't used in an offensive manner.



I'm fine with this, as long as you don't use it to downgrade a god-tier's feat just because the fodders have lower showings. Context matters immensely when dealing with stuff like this, a god-tier might have only one Universal feat but if the plot makes it to be an incredibly important event (Usually in the very end of a story where it surpasses everything else and there's no chance for fodder level enemies to even compare, just to show how OP the final god-tier boss is), then it's enough to suggest that the feat isn't an outlier. Otherwise, you might as well axe the universe-busting feat Goku has right now because he did it only once despite using God Ki and Super Saiyan God to amplify himself to levels that far surpass his DBZ self. And we both know that that's not gonna work in any scenario. But then again, I believe this specific Criteria is already rendered redundant with our Outlier policy page so...


Seems fine at a glance.


Yeah sure, why the hell not. MHA's Quirks are a great example. Endeavour serves to be one.

Honestly, given what I see, they should really serve as guidelines and not as absolute mandatory rules, but still highly recommended. This is how they should really work to be honest. If it fulfills one condition, everything else becomes supportive evidence in the long run.

This seems alright to me, I agree with KLOL506.

 

[azontr]

I currently agree with KLOL506, and will try and address any opposition cause whose gonna stop me? You? I think not.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

But if you do this for the sake of derailing ever again, that's gonna be another RVR for you.

Can you prove it was for the sake of derailing?

As neutral commenter on this thread, it looks like you lot are ganging up on him for disagreeing and having different views. Way to go, site. Way to go.

 

[azontr]

Can you prove it was for the sake of derailing?

As neutral commenter on this thread, it looks like you lot are ganging up on him for disagreeing and having different views. Way to go, site. Way to go.

His views have been thoroughly discussed various times, and they aren't really even what the thread is dealing with. It is derailing.

 

[KLOL506]

Can you prove it was for the sake of derailing?

As neutral commenter on this thread, it looks like you lot are ganging up on him for disagreeing and having different views. Way to go, site. Way to go.

Look no further than how he literally showed to disagree with said rule that a certain-tier-destruction feat is not necessary for the same-tiered creation feat to scale to physicals which we had approved for our Creation Page. This all started with him nitpicking the "cloud creation" section.

 

[KLOL506]

This is what I had to say initially when I was trying to be nice

How about we keep the cold stuff for another thread? This thread isn't about that.

Then he replied to Gilver's comment

This thread, or cold thread?

with this

Well, my cold thread is currently on hiatus, so this thread.

So I decided to be blunt for this specific section and strictly told him that derailing wasn't gonna get us anywhere in this thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Our current standards are good in theory but not in practice.

It supposedly requires proof that, say, a mage is using an equivalent or greater amount of mana on destruction spells than they do for creation spells, but people don't ever seem to provide evidence for that. They just show evidence that they also use the magic for a destruction feat or for physical amps, which going by the text of the page, should not count (as we don't know they use the same amount of energy for those things as they do in creation).

I'd like Universal Energy Systems to be cleaned up in practice, but I'm not convinced that our theoretical standards need changing.

 

[azontr]

Our current standards are good in theory but not in practice.

It supposedly requires proof that, say, a mage is using an equivalent or greater amount of mana on destruction spells than they do for creation spells, but people don't ever seem to provide evidence for that. They just show evidence that they also use the magic for a destruction feat or for physical amps, which going by the text of the page, should not count (as we don't know they use the same amount of energy for those things as they do in creation).

I'd like Universal Energy Systems to be cleaned up in practice, but I'm not convinced that our theoretical standards need changing.

I do agree with this point, don't understand why we would somehow assume this.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

We already had a song and dance over this bois.

Lets not discuss extra sensitive topics here.

 

[KLOL506]

It supposedly requires proof that, say, a mage is using an equivalent or greater amount of mana on destruction spells than they do for creation spells, but people don't ever seem to provide evidence for that. They just show evidence that they also use the magic for a destruction feat or for physical amps, which going by the text of the page, should not count (as we don't know they use the same amount of energy for those things as they do in creation).

This is the first time I'm hearing of something like this. Pretty sure our Creation Feats page states this:

• Even though there is concrete evidence for pocket reality creations to qualify as an Attack Potency feat; it should not be assumed to scale to physical statistics without some notable scaling reasons. Examples include on screen demonstrations, examples of destruction, or information that the same pool of energy used to create said dimension can translate to the same amount of energy being used for other abilities including but not limited to physical strikes.

Which directly stem from DontTalkDT himself saying this:

"Yeah, as far as we agreed in the thread you don't need a normal city level feat to prove that a city level creation feat scales (that would be completely pointless tbh).
It's sufficient to proof that your creation spells don't use more of your power than your attack spells. Of course it's a different issue should it be a complete outlier, but that is outlier business as usual."

Nothing about "evidence required to show that greater amount of mana is being put into the attack feat than what was put in the creation feat".

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So I decided to be blunt for this specific section and strictly told him that derailing wasn't gonna get us anywhere in this thread.

Or maybe, he meant he was gonna participate on this thread, and you jumped on him, when it was you who brought cold bullshit in the first place. Funny how that works, eh? You brought something up, he replied to it, but somehow he's the one in the wrong.

 

[Loyd]

This is what I had to say initially when I was trying to be nice



Then he replied to Gilver's comment



with this


So I decided to be blunt for this specific section and strictly told him that derailing wasn't gonna get us anywhere in this thread.

so this was the point He derailed?
is this in order?

 

[azontr]

Guys, talking about somebody derailing is derailing. Focus, people.

This is the first time I'm hearing of something like this. Pretty sure our Creation Feats page states this:

• Even though there is concrete evidence for pocket reality creations to qualify as an Attack Potency feat; it should not be assumed to scale to physical statistics without some notable scaling reasons. Examples include on screen demonstrations, examples of destruction, or information that the same pool of energy used to create said dimension can translate to the same amount of energy being used for other abilities including but not limited to physical strikes.

Which directly stem from DontTalkDT himself saying this:

"Yeah, as far as we agreed in the thread you don't need a normal city level feat to prove that a city level creation feat scales (that would be completely pointless tbh).
It's sufficient to proof that your creation spells don't use more of your power than your attack spells. Of course it's a different issue should it be a complete outlier, but that is outlier business as usual."

Nothing about "evidence required to show that greater amount of mana is being put into the attack feat than what was put in the creation feat".

Then where did Agnaa get his shit lol.

 

[Agnaa]

Under the Requirements section of the Creation Feats page, it says:

In order to apply to a character's capacity to harm other characters, that is their usual Attack Potency, their Creation has to be connected to their other abilities. Often that is due to a common power system, in which the same energy used for creation is used for attacks. For example, it can be reasoned that a mage which expends mana from its energy pool to make a city and then channels a similar or greater amount of mana into another attack can scale to its creation feat. However a character who can create objects without other ways of harming their opponents by using an equal amount of energy from their energy pool wouldn't be able to harness that power to hurt another character, and would fall under a light form of Environmental Destruction.

You'll also note that the part you quoted ends with "can translate to the same amount of energy being used for other abilities".

And DT's quote also said "It's sufficient to proof that your creation spells don't use more of your power than your attack spells", explicitly saying that destruction feats have to use more of their energy source than destruction feats.

The requirement I'm talking about is plastered all over our requirements pages and discussions about this.

 

[KLOL506]

Or maybe, he meant he was gonna participate on this thread, and you jumped on him, when it was you who brought cold bullshit in the first place. Funny how that works, eh? You brought something up, he replied to it, but somehow he's the one in the wrong.

I assumed by the comment that he was speaking about the ice-related thread just because I made a small mention to ice-and-cold. If it was merely the case that he was going to join the thread, then my apologies, but he should've worded it in a way that would be clearer to understand.

But he eventually did keep legitimately derailing regarding creation-based feats via cloud-creation and whatnot. So my other reasons still stand. But that's enough derailing.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

We already had a song and dance over this bois.

Lets not discuss extra sensitive topics here.

Can we like calm down now?

@LephyrTheRevanchist I suggest we not heat up this thread that is already a furnace.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Guys, talking about somebody derailing is derailing. Focus, people.

Agreed. Already said what I wanted to say anyway.

 

[azontr]

Under the Requirements section of the Creation Feats page, it says:

You'll also note that the part you quoted ends with "can translate to the same amount of energy being used for other abilities".

And DT's quote also said "It's sufficient to proof that your creation spells don't use more of your power than your attack spells", explicitly saying that destruction feats have to use more of their energy source than destruction feats.

Then I am confused- What exactly are the standards? There seem to be some contradictions.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I assumed by the comment that he was speaking about the ice-related thread just because I made a small mention to ice-and-cold.

Don't assume. Ask first. Last thing this time. ovo

 

[Agnaa]

Then I am confused- What exactly are the standards? There seem to be some contradictions.

They're saying the same thing in different ways. "Creation spells can't use more energy than destruction spells" is a different way of saying "Destruction spells need to use more energy than creation spells" and is comparable to "The same amount of energy needs to be used for creation and destruction". The standards do not contradict.

 

[azontr]

They're saying the same thing in different ways. "Creation spells can't use more energy than destruction spells" is a different way of saying "Destruction spells need to use more energy than creation spells". The standards do not contradict.

OK. Perhaps I am just confused then. That's not uncommon lol.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah it's just.

If creating a town is 40 mana, casting a fireball is 60 mana, and creating a country is 200 mana, the fireball is town-level.

 

[KLOL506]

They're saying the same thing in different ways. "Creation spells can't use more energy than destruction spells" is a different way of saying "Destruction spells need to use more energy than creation spells" and is comparable to "The same amount of energy needs to be used for creation and destruction". The standards do not contradict.

Well, now that you mention it, RatherClueless had an issue with that. This is what he said:

urgh . . . what? Assuming I am understanding this correctly, thats rly dumb. So your best feat (the creation feat) has to use less energy than your weaker feats to be valid for scaling? Am I understanding this right? Isn't that crazy counterintuitive? Wouldn't this be counterevidence if anything? If the highest energy consumption ever shown wasn't the creation feat, then why should we assume that the character in question can exert power far beyond that to match the creation? If anything this shows that the creation doesn't work like any of the other feats, even if it does use the same energy source.

 

[Agnaa]

One can take issue with that, but we don't have standards like that. We don't require a character tanking a punch to have the town explode behind them for the punch to scale to town level.

I also didn't come in here to agree with Rather (I haven't even read the thread), I just came in to give my two cents on universal energy sources; that we're not applying the standards properly.

 

[KLOL506]

This being said however, DT did not explicitly say that the attack power must be higher than the Creation feat, only that you not needing a 7-B destruction feat to scale your 7-B creation feat to physicals is proof that your creation feat isn't necessarily higher than your attack power. He said nothing about there also being a need for a higher amount of energy needed to properly scale it to physicals.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Yeah it's just.

If creating a town is 40 mana, casting a fireball is 60 mana, and creating a country is 200 mana, the fireball is town-level.

I mean we do concern ourselves with maximum AP someone can physically produce.

 

[Agnaa]

You're wrong. DT did explicitly say that:

"Yeah, as far as we agreed in the thread you don't need a normal city level feat to prove that a city level creation feat scales (that would be completely pointless tbh).
It's sufficient to proof that your creation spells don't use more of your power than your attack spells. Of course it's a different issue should it be a complete outlier, but that is outlier business as usual."

He is saying that all the proof you need is that your creation spells don't use more energy than offensive spells.

 

[KLOL506]

You're wrong. DT did explicitly say that:

He is saying that all the proof you need is that your creation spells don't use more energy than offensive spells.

"Doesn't use more energy" necessarily doesn't mean that it should be weaker compared to offensive spells. It could even be equal.

 

[KLOL506]

That being said, wouldn't uber-casual creation feats already be a dead giveaway that their attacking prowess is higher? Or am I missing something?

 

[Agnaa]

Yes, offensive spells need to either have the same energy output, or a greater energy output, than the creation spells you're scaling to.

Greater than or equal. Which still means that less than and "we don't know lol" don't cut it.

That being said, wouldn't uber-casual creation feats already be a dead giveaway that their attacking prowess is higher? Or am I missing something?

Maybe that could be argued, but it gets weird when other characters are tapping into that power (who knows whether a character tapping into the sea of energy that created the multiverse could as casually use that to create the multiverse as God did), and in general I'd prefer something a bit more blatant.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, offensive spells need to either have the same energy output, or a greater energy output, than the creation spells you're scaling to.

Greater than or equal. Which still means that less than and "we don't know lol" don't cut it.

I was talking about characters being able to attack with the same exact potency as their creation feat.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's more so based on the advance level of magic spells rather than how much mana it depletes in gameplay.

 

[Agnaa]

I was talking about characters being able to attack with the same exact potency as their creation feat.

If you have evidence that creation feats require the exact same amount of energy as destructive attacks or physical enhancements, then sure. I just usually don't see that evidence presented in threads I've seen go down.

It's more so based on the advance level of magic spells rather than how much mana it depletes in gameplay.

I'd hesitate to make a statement so general myself.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

That being said, wouldn't uber-casual creation feats already be a dead giveaway that their attacking prowess is higher? Or am I missing something?

Maybe that could be argued, but it gets weird when other characters are tapping into that power (who knows whether a character tapping into the sea of energy that created the multiverse could as casually use that to create the multiverse as God did), and in general I'd prefer something a bit more blatant.

I mean uber casual creation vs effort needed to do simple yet strong attacks can already be dead giveaway for stronger AP/higher energy consuming attack.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean uber casual creation vs effort needed to do simple yet strong attacks can already be dead giveaway for stronger AP/higher energy consuming attack.

Probably yeah, but people would need to be very careful about the scaling, and any other mitigating factors that could have made the character exhausted.

 

[KLOL506]

Probably yeah, but people would need to be very careful about the scaling, and any other mitigating factors that could have made the character exhausted.

Obviously.

I suppose we could tackle that with the universal energy system standards thread, but even assuming that attacks would require more energy than creation-based feats for said creation feat to scale to AP, that still doesn't satisfy RatherClueless's approach. Which already gets debunked hard with regards to uber-casual creation feats where characters flex a universe into existence or create or tear apart universes just by their raw power emanating.

 

[Agnaa]

Like I said, I have read literally nothing Rather posted in this thread and aren't intending to agree with him. I saw the OP saying "our universal energy systems really suck", and responded to it, saying that our written standards don't but our applications of them do. That we do in fact have solid rules and guidelines on how to determine when it can scale.

Please stop bringing up your issues with Rather's ideas when talking to me about mine.

 

[KLOL506]

Like I said, I have read literally nothing Rather posted in this thread and aren't intending to agree with him. I saw the OP saying "our universal energy systems really suck", and responded to it, saying that our written standards don't but our applications of them do. That we do in fact have solid rules and guidelines on how to determine when it can scale.

Please stop bringing up your issues with Rather's ideas when talking to me about mine.

Very well then. I shall cease regarding this topic. I shall focus on getting an answer from DT then.