We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Consider the following, there's a god of magic, casually created the universe with a big bang through magic. One day decides to punsih a city to their blasphemies and casually send a meteor through magic, and other day decide to punish a corrupt priest by casually using magic to summon a lightning. Can you prove that the lightning is as strong as the meteor, or the meteor as strong as the big bang created by the magic god?

A lot of this requires story contest to judge, since intentions of the God are also a factor, so is the power of his enemies.

Since his attacks maybe different than his full potential of attacks, solely depending on power of enemy.

His reasons can be bizzare, so without background your example is incomplete.

 

[KLOL506]

Consider the following, there's a god of magic, casually created the universe with a big bang through magic. One day decides to punish a city for their blasphemies and casually send a meteor through magic, destroying the city; and other day decide to punish a corrupt priest by casually using magic to summon a lightning. Can you prove that the lightning is as strong as the meteor, or the meteor as strong as the big bang created by the magic god?

Uhhhhhhhh, what?

Based off of what you have given me here, it just shows to me that the magician didn't bother to operate at full power to blow up the town via summoning a meteorite or sending down lightning bolts onto corrupt priests. Without additional context there really isn't a good way to say otherwise.

 

[KatBoi69]

Consider the following, there's a god of magic, casually created the universe with a big bang through magic. One day decides to punish a city for their blasphemies and casually send a meteor through magic, destroying the city; and other day decide to punish a corrupt priest by casually using magic to summon a lightning. Can you prove that the lightning is as strong as the meteor, or the meteor as strong as the big bang created by the magic god?

I don't think these guidelines are intended to be used as strictly, or in as cut-and-dry of a manner as you are suggesting here.

In this case, all of the attacks have specified AP based on what they do after being sent, but it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say "yeah, this god could also make lightning with the power to destroy a city" in the context of the UES....which I believe is what these UES guidelines would allow. And I don't see allowing that as wild at all.

 

[KLOL506]

A lot of this requires story contest to judge, since intentions of the God are also a factor, so is the power of his enemies.

His reasons can be bizzare, so without background your example is incomplete.

Thank you brother, I wasn't quite able to word it but this is what I wanted to say.

 

[Antoniofer]

"I would scale one spell/technique in AP to other one if one all them require a greater cost of energy supply than the other and they are exclusive harmful/destructive spells/techniques, as my example from above, one spell may require a greater cost due additional effects like hax, speed, range, or any other one, even if that spell also have a damaging purpose."

I don't see I contradicted myself, the snapping is a destructive effect, and the destructive blasts are destructive as well, both use magic and have basically the same effect.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There seems to be way too many hypotheticals here, a character holding back is a different story, but I'm sure the "God of magic" using lightning bolts and meteors to attack foes who are his equal would logically have similar potencies to the big bang if the big bang was also casual.

 

[KLOL506]

"I would scale one spell/technique in AP to other one if one all them require a greater cost of energy supply than the other and they are exclusive harmful/destructive spells/techniques, as my example from above, one spell may require a greater cost due additional effects like hax, speed, range, or any other one, even if that spell also have a damaging purpose."

Already tackled this point in previous comments about this being too hyper-specific so I'm not even gonna bother responding to this one anymore.

 

[Antoniofer]

Based off of what you have given me here, it just shows to me that the magician didn't bother to operate at full power to blow up the town via summoning a meteorite or sending down lightning bolts onto corrupt priests. Without additional context there really isn't a good way to say otherwise.

I mean, yes? that what casually means, not opperating at full power.

There seems to be way too many hypotheticals here, a character holding back is a different story, but I'm sure the "God of magic" using lightning bolts and meteors to attack foes who are his equal would logically have similar potencies to the big bang if the big bang was also casual.

Ah, I see, you have the impression I'm talking about a character fighting aginst his equal, but as I said, I'm talking about UES, not about scaling, as this thread is not about scaling.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, yes? that what casually means, not opperating at full power.

Okay and? The story still lacks basic background for the most part and on that reason alone it really isn't a good-enough example to deny him scaling to the big bang feat for his other attacks.

 

[KatBoi69]

"I would scale one spell/technique in AP to other one if one all them require a greater cost of energy supply than the other and they are exclusive harmful/destructive spells/techniques, as my example from above, one spell may require a greater cost due additional effects like hax, speed, range, or any other one, even if that spell also have a damaging purpose."

I don't see I contradicted myself, the snapping is a destructive effect, and the destructive blasts are destructive as well, both use magic and have basically the same effect.

I think any of the wank you're worried about happening is going to seem absurd in context of the series/other, more fundamental wiki rules, if anyone tried to pull it.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Ah, I see, you have the impression I'm talking about a character fighting aginst his equal, but as I said, I'm talking about UES, not about scaling, as this thread is not about scaling.

I mean so does your points rely on scaling in a fundamental way.
Just because the target was made equal to our god doesn't change the deal. It only makes the intentions/reasons of God to attacks target prolly much more clearer....

Besides fight between two equal opponents brings out best examples, since the characters are actually applying everything from their power, so cases become easier to judge for UES.

So DDM is right to make that example. Its more logically sound.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

UES is one of the many aspects of scaling, but they use a universal energy system to amp the potency of their meteors and lightning bolts as much as the big bang. Similar to how Ki Control works. So actually what I was saying was very on topic.

 

[KatBoi69]

Also, in context of a death-battle, where these feats will be "used" against an opponent, there's no reason to assume the character involved in the UES isn't operating at max AP

 

[Urshani]

argh, this is long

if i understand this right:

as long as it's casual then you can scale every attack to a universe busting feat

if it's not then you can't

if the guy uses other stuff like lighning blasts and meteors against a guy comparable to him then those attacks are big bang level

if a thing costs a certain amount of Magic Juice or whatever for a certain power then you could cross scale other damaging spells that have the same cost and damage. so if a spell called Supernova with the effects of its name had 100 mp and 200 damage, then a spell called Stick with 100 MP and 200 damage would scale to High 4-C

(last one works only in rpgs)

 

[KatBoi69]

argh, this is long

if i understand this right:

as long as it's casual then you can scale every attack to a universe busting feat

if it's not then you can't

if the guy uses other stuff like lighning blasts and meteors against a guy comparable to him then those attacks are big bang level

if a thing costs a certain amount of Magic Juice or whatever for a certain power then you could cross scale other damaging spells that have the same cost and damage. so if a spell called Supernova with the effects of its name had 100 mp and 200 damage, then a spell called Stick with 100 MP and 200 damage would scale to High 4-C

(last one works only in rpgs)

That is what I'm reading as well....all based on the idea that a UES means the caster can amp anything to their max casual AP output because of UE amplification/manipulation.

The attacks being casual is there as a basis for comparability, because by the standards of what constitutes a UES, giving your all in an attack should be physically draining as well.

 

[KLOL506]

argh, this is long

if i understand this right:

as long as it's casual then you can scale every attack to a universe busting feat

if it's not then you can't

if the guy uses other stuff like lighning blasts and meteors against a guy comparable to him then those attacks are big bang level

if a thing costs a certain amount of Magic Juice or whatever for a certain power then you could cross scale other damaging spells that have the same cost and damage. so if a spell called Supernova with the effects of its name had 100 mp and 200 damage, then a spell called Stick with 100 MP and 200 damage would scale to High 4-C

(last one works only in rpgs)

Yeah, seems like it.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Holy shit, 4 pages already?

 

[KatBoi69]

if a thing costs a certain amount of Magic Juice or whatever for a certain power then you could cross scale other damaging spells that have the same cost and damage. so if a spell called Supernova with the effects of its name had 100 mp and 200 damage, then a spell called Stick with 100 MP and 200 damage would scale to High 4-C

(last one works only in rpgs)

Can this also work with series that have published databooks and ability hierarchies? (Hado number and Jutsu class come to mind).

 

[Antoniofer]

Once again, people is talking as if the thread were about two guys fighting with magic/ki and then conventionally scaling from each other, and I do not recall OP mentioning that. But in case I'm mistaken and make my example clearer, this magical god did not destroy the city nor the priest because they were a life thread to the god, but for any other reason (like being unfair and committing a sin, you known the drill), and such. Listen, being casual is not a set value/key, being casual is not 1/10 of max AP, is not 1/100 or even 1/1000000, a character can perform two casual feats and yet the AP difference between these feat can be of hundreds, as such, just because a charatcer uses magic casually to cast two different spells in two different circunstances it does not means the attack scale to each other, not without proof.

Guy casually destruyed the universe with magic and then decide to stop holding back and launch destructive magical spheres everywhere even if they do not have a universal aoe? Sure, you may scale one attack to the other. A character casually blow a city with x ki technique and then use another technique to casually destroy a tree? Not enough to proof to scale x technique to the other one.

 

[Urshani]

Can this also work with series that have published databooks and ability hierarchies? (Hado number and Jutsu class come to mind).

unless it uses semi consistent values then no

with nardo and blooch than yeah because it uses semi consistent values

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Once again, people is talking as if the thread were about two guys fighting with magic/ki and then conventionally scaling from each other, and I do not recall OP mentioning that. But in case I'm mistaken and make my example clearer, this magical god did not destroy the city nor the priest because they were a life thread to the god, but for any other reason (like being unfair and committing a sin, you known the drill), and such. Listen, being casual is not a set value/key, being casual is not 1/10 of max AP, is not 1/100 or even 1/1000000, a character can perform two casual feats and yet the AP difference between these feat can be of hundreds, as such, just because a charatcer uses magic casually to cast two different spells in two different circunstances it does not means the attack scale to each other, not without proof.

Guy casually destruyed the universe with magic and then decide to stop holding back and launch destructive magical spheres everywhere even if they do not have a universal aoe? Sure, you may scale one attack to the other. A character casually blow a city with x ki technique and then use another technique to casually destroy a tree? Not enough to proof to scale x technique to the other one.

But that is the point of UES.

A character may make choice of holding back or various lvl of casual attacks.

Thats the key word CHOICE. Which is not a end all be all factor.

What we concern ourselves with is if the god goes all out can he consistently perform universal attacks of various variety? Can he amp his attacks to 3A AP?

We are concerned with potential capability, not the modus operandi of God and how he attacks under different mindsets.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Introduction​

congrats, you grabbed the entire wiki's attention

 

[KatBoi69]

Guy casually destruyed the universe with magic and then decide to stop holding back and launch destructive magical spheres everywhere even if they do not have a universal aoe? Sure, you may scale one attack to the other. A character casually blow a city with x ki technique and then use another technique to casually destroy a tree? Not enough to proof to scale x technique to the other one.

The point isn't "casual=same AP" the point is "in a UES, any attack can be amped to the max casual AP without effort" because of how a UES functions.

Also, the example above is something we see and are ok with in dbz all the time. Raditz fires blasts that take out mountains, but they simply hit goku without any serious AOE. It's actually a very common thing in a UES series for an attack to seem weaker when focused on an individual rather than landscape. This is an assumption on the wiki already that is used all the time.

The tree vs. city thing is just a clear difference in AP that is handled by basic wiki rules. The only thing this UES addition would change is that it would explicitly allow the tree destroying blast to be hypothetically amped to the scale of the city destroying blast.

 

[Antoniofer]

If character can upgrade a spell/technique to cause more damage then cool, but if it does not have the feats of amping spells/techniques to a certain level then no, one would need to show such powers for this to be possible. Try to not grant powers to a verse due our standards, we're here to adapt our wiki to fictional worlds, not the other way around.

 

[KLOL506]

If character can upgrade a spell/technique to cause more damage then cool, but if it does not have the feats of amping spells/techniques to a certain level then no, one would need to show such powers for this to be possible. Try to not grant powers to a verse due our standards, we're here to adapt our wiki to fictional worlds, not the other way around.

But that's... exactly what the UES does. It allows one to amp their abilities to said levels to begin with.

You said you wanna adapt the wiki to fictional worlds and not the other way around? This is the way to do it.

 

[KatBoi69]

If character can upgrade a spell/technique to cause more damage then cool, but if it does not have the feats of amping spells/techniques to a certain level then no, one would need to show such powers for this to be possible. Try to not grant powers to a verse due our standards, we're here to adapt our wiki to fictional worlds, not the other way around.

This would be true if the world under consideration didn't have a UES in place. That's the whole point of the thread here.

Verses with a UES automatically allow certain assumptions. These guidelines for what we consider a UES and how having a UES changes scaling are important to codify, as similar arguments and scaling are already being done on and accepted by the wiki.

Essentially all these guidelines allow is for a user to not have to spend pages of text proving UES in their scaling and CRT's if certain criteria are met within the verse.

 

[Antoniofer]

That is something that needs to be proven, some character may have different spells independent from each other, and some ki techniques have different amount of damage, one that is weak, other that is pretty strong, and another that although weak can be amped by accumulating energy (in which, you may consider this one to scale to the most destrictive technique, as long is not stated to be weaker than that one).

 

[KatBoi69]

That is something that needs to be proven, some character may have different spells independent from each other, and some ki techniques have different amount of damage, one that is weak, other that is pretty strong, and another that although weak can be amped by accumulating energy (in which, you may consider this one to scale to the most destrictive technique, as long is not stated to be weaker than that one).

Yes, and we're are giving a short list for strong evidence.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, and we're are giving a short list for strong evidence.

This, we already have the core criteria, now all it seems like is that we're just arguing for whether being uber-casual with this stuff qualifies as a criteria, which I am certain it does.

 

[Antoniofer]

And now people will treat other verses with evidence whatsoever and treat like they were these verses, see the issue now? Rather than treating the entirely of fiction like they follow the same general rules about magic and ki (these two concepts does not exist in real life, writers can create a magic/ki system as they please), just stick of how the verse treat it.

 

[KatBoi69]

This, we already have the core criteria, now all it seems like is that we're just arguing for whether being uber-casual with this stuff qualifies as a criteria, which I am certain it does.

I think it speaks to if the user is actually adept enough to transfer the energy easily in ways that allow the UES assumption to come into play for that character.

For instance, part-1 naruto doesn't get the UES assumptions early in part 1 because he can't use the UES casually.

 

[KatBoi69]

And now people will treat other verses with evidence whatsoever and treat like they were these verses, see the issue now? Rather than treating the entirely of fiction like they follow the same general rules about magic and ki (these two concepts does not exist in real life, writers can create a magic/ki system as they please), just stick of how the verse treat it.

That's what we're doing. These guidelines and assumptions wouldn't apply to a verse clearly lacking a UES.

 

[Axxtentacle]

This thread is giving outlines for a power system a verse may or may not have to qualify for what we call a UES/Universal Energy System. Obviously if the verse does not meet the qualifications, they do not qualify and don't get the treatment a UES would get. We are not assuming a verse's power system works like this inherently.

 

[Axxtentacle]

And now people will treat other verses with evidence whatsoever and treat like they were these verses, see the issue now?

No, because that's simply them applying a UES incorrectly, and it would get shut down.

Rather than treating the entirely of fiction like they follow the same general rules about magic and ki (these two concepts does not exist in real life, writers can create a magic/ki system as they please), just stick of how the verse treat it.

That is exactly what we are not doing, we're giving general outlines to make an extremely controversial topic (universal energy systems) not as controversial. It's an often debated topic and has been argued in lots of upgrades and downgrades for verses.

 

[KLOL506]

No, because that's simply them applying a UES incorrectly, and it would get shut down.

That is exactly what we are not doing, we're giving general outlines to make an extremely controversial topic (universal energy systems) not as controversial. It's an often debated topic and has been argued in lots of upgrades and downgrades for verses.

This. So much this.

 

[Hellbeast]

Yeah the whole point of these guidelines is to place burden of proof solely on people arguing something is a UES

If they don’t fit enough criteria; no energy system

 

[KatBoi69]

Yeah the whole point of these guidelines is to place burden of proof solely on people arguing something is a UES

If they don’t fit enough criteria; no energy system

If anything this list will probably help stop UES-creep in all verses except the ones where the UES is very explicit.

It gives a clear "evidence hump" that needs to be climbed over to establish that a UES is in play and also explicitly lays out what assumptions are valid once the UES is established.

 

[Antoniofer]

From I understand, you're giving more a free pass rather than a burden. Don't think I have not much to say, but trying to "standardise" fiction based in a few dozen of verses when there's thousand of hundreds them is something I consider unappropiated. Just stick to case-by-case and stick with it.

 

[Hellbeast]

From I understand, you're giving more a free pass rather than a burden. Don't think I have not much to say, but trying to "standardise" fiction based in a few dozen of verses when there's thousand of hundreds them is something I consider unappropiated. Just stick to case-by-case and stick with it.

That’s not the intent at all from me then. The guidelines are so we can handle these cases consistently and force users to prove UES with more then one criteria

Kinda like the creation feats or LS guidelines

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Might as well give a proper opinion, lol.

I agree with some sentiments raised by Clueless, Agnaa and Antonio, but agree most of all that we should in fact have properly outlined guidelines in order to analyze the verses. And if they aren't able to meet the standards, then we simply don't apply it to them and analyze what we do can based on the series. There's literally no loses (outside from more work) by having these standards.

So yeah, I agree (with their existence ovo)