- 6,130
- 4,213
That too.Especially with regards to performing said attacks uber-casually.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That too.Especially with regards to performing said attacks uber-casually.
And the man tells me he's doing it based on accuracySo yeah, I am pretty biased when it comes to this. Anyways, now to the main points.
My comment is based on statistics, not on personal preference.Lovely seeing so many people admit their bias, making their opinions literally worthless.
what is his scaling ideology?Or maybe we've never agreed with your scaling ideology as we all believe it is extremely flawed and is a detriment to Vs Battles Wiki as a whole
Completely rejecting most UES, Heat Calcs, Cooling Calcs, and Cloud Calcswhat is his scaling ideology?
Couldn't say, since it seems to not operate on basic common sense or context behind video game events and so on.what is his scaling ideology?
OUCH.I'm so sorry for this but I can't help myself
Biased requires UNFAIR prejudice, as per the "google" definition.
I disagree with himCompletely rejecting most UES, Heat Calcs, Cooling Calcs, and Cloud Calcs
Well then that's just a case of the verse being like that. Exceptions do exist, and we're not gonna deny them at face value. The guidelines are just for a generalization overall.The requirements in that doc don't really work for some cases, like the common physically weak mage trope. Say, Ainz Ooal Gown's physical strikes and durability without shields are far lower than his spells, but he passes all the criteria to qualify. He could use spells to amp him physically, but not really to the point of matching his magical power, unless he uses a specific spell that stops him from casting altogether.
Ainz isn't bog standard and he exists within a game that has additional restrictions.Well, saying your bog-standard fantasy wizard physically scales to their fireballs is a pretty hard sell, I don't think this kind of thing is the exception.
Prolly has to do something with magic-based energy systems from what DDM's examples show.Well, saying your bog-standard fantasy wizard physically scales to their fireballs is a pretty hard sell, I don't think this kind of thing is the exception.
Yes, it does need refinement, though the refinements I stated would be a good place to start.That being said, the criteria could use some refinement.
Also Ether from Xeno and Psynergy from Golden SunProlly has to do something with magic-based energy systems from what DDM's examples show.
every other major universal energy system on the site however, like DMC's Demonic Energy, GoW's Magic-based amping, Naruto's Chakra, Dragon Ball's Ki, One Piece's Haki and prolly several more most likely do not adhere to this restriction.
This. You may disagree with what they've wrote, but there's no need to over the top.Guys behave
Well, those are all high-powered verses with more over the top stuff, might have something to do with it. The more grounded ones usually go the other way from what I can tell.Prolly has to do something with magic-based energy systems from what DDM's examples show.
every other major universal energy system on the site however, like DMC's Demonic Energy, GoW's Magic-based amping, Naruto's Chakra, Dragon Ball's Ki, One Piece's Haki and prolly several more most likely do not adhere to this restriction.
I mean they’re more broad guidelines rather then hard rules; you can not fill one criteria but then fit others. Him not being as strong as his magic without not casting could just be a similar case to our ultimate attacks thing but I’m unsureThe requirements in that doc don't really work for some cases, like the common physically weak mage trope. Say, Ainz Ooal Gown's physical strikes and durability without shields are far lower than his spells, but he passes all the criteria to qualify. He could use spells to amp him physically, but not really to the point of matching his magical power, unless he uses a specific spell that stops him from casting altogether.
Could you dm me the wording on my page?Yes, it does need refinement, though the refinements I stated would be a good place to start.
This; kinda like our light pageRemember, these criteria are not meant to be mandatory rules, only to be highly-recommended guidelines.
Yeah I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I just think that, as presented, it's not entirely clear what this set of suggestions is trying to get at, and it may be better split into two separate (but totally fine) sets of guidelines.Yes, it does need refinement, though the refinements I stated would be a good place to start.
Remember, these criteria are not meant to be mandatory rules, only to be highly-recommended guidelines.
Yeah, definitely, this was a given that it shouldn't just be limited to physical strength and must also include other aspects like speed, stamina etc., preferably add more to the fact that in a verse deeply ingrained with a universal energy source where the inhabitants have the innate ability to tap into it to use for offensive and defensive purposes, the said inhabitants should not be barred from scaling to the UES just because they didn't amplify their physical attacks with it.Lads behave and take the heating cooling stuff off this thread
I mean they’re more broad guidelines rather then hard rules; you can not fill one criteria but then fit others. Him not being as strong as his magic without not casting could just be a similar case to our ultimate attacks thing but I’m unsure
Also should the empowerment point he broadened to include General Amps? Like speed and stamina??
I didn't mention it, you did.Why even mention it to begin with then? That's exactly what I was telling you.
Clearly showing you didnt actually read it. That is a topic I tackled several times in the op. Just type ctrl+F end then "Shared Energy System"Also no, you only have a thread for Cooling and Clouds.
I am not? You brought it up. I dont necessarily like it, but idc. Never said I have better solutions either. Dont strawman me.Well then you should have posted your so-called "better solutions" when those threads were active, why are you complaining now?
Bruh. I mean . . . did you even read what I said? In case you didn't, let me summarize it again:Prove it then, like the man said.
For what? Seriously, please tell, no, show me what I have done that is report worthy.You keep this up, we're gonna have to report you.
What? If I have a gas tank that is 100% full and I use 10% to power an engine that generates energy worth 10 light bulbs, why would that be better than using 50% to power one? Because thats basically the current logic I am seeing from this.If the character has already shown greater consumption of power in his attacks compared to creation, then Attack>Creation.
If such a proof already exist, why would you assume otherwise??
I'd call it slander if it wouldnt imply that you have committed a crime. But glad to see you dont know any of my stances. The only accurate thing in here is me rejecting UES. I dont mind heat in the slightest and I dont mind the calculations either. I mind how they are applied and what they are applied for, as that goes completely against the thing that was actually calculated to begin with. Anyways, this isn't the place for this.Completely rejecting most UES, Heat Calcs, Cooling Calcs, and Cloud Calcs
I agree. A mage physically scaling to their magic attacks is the outlier, not the rule.Well, saying your bog-standard fantasy wizard physically scales to their fireballs is a pretty hard sell, I don't think this kind of thing is the exception.
"BRUH" is all I can muster when it comes to this one.If you can't prove that it's wrong well... you can't prove it wrong. Plain and simple.
Ah yes, because the mere concept of taking a picture or security cameras recording anything that happened in said backyard doesn't exist to prove elephants weren't there. Enough with the false equivalency, if you think the feat does not work whatsoever, you need to prove that it does not scale whatsoever or that it's an outlier. Plain and simple, if not you're pulling a fallacy argument which doesn't help your case whatsoever.
You know antagonizing the opposite is not helping your case by claiming they don't have common sense whatsoever. If you keep that up that will lead you to the RVR,
Therein lies the problem, your assumption that attack is weak result in the first place.What? If I have a gas tank that is 100% full and I use 10% to power an engine that generates energy worth 10 light bulbs, why would that be better than using 50% to power one? Because thats basically the current logic I am seeing from this.
"The attack consumed more power but had a worse result, thus it is better"
Makes 0 sense to me. Which is why I asked, am I understanding this correctly?
I bet a glass canon mage is quite a different situation compared to ki/chakra based fighter or a demonic energy based demon.I agree. A mage physically scaling to their magic attacks is the outlier, not the rule.
Because why would you scale the attack to the creation otherwise? If you have attacks way above the creation, then whats the point of all of this to begin with?Therein lies the problem, your assumption that attack is weak result in the first place.
Why would you assume that?
That wasnt argued thoI bet a glass canon mage is quite a different situation compared to ki/chakra based fighter or a demonic energy based demon.
You know guys who primarily use energy for throwing hands and firing big ass laserbeams.
Now I'm gonna mention bruh on this because you brought up the "edge of the weapon"I didn't mention it, you did.
Which is bullshit, because I actually did and I still don't agree with it.Clearly showing you didnt actually read it. That is a topic I tackled several times in the op. Just type ctrl+F end then "Shared Energy System"
Strawman you? You were the one complaining about the damn standard rules.I am not? You brought it up. I dont necessarily like it, but idc. Never said I have better solutions either. Dont strawman me.
Bruh. I mean . . . did you even read what I said? In case you didn't, let me summarize it again:
"It forces you to prove a false negative, which in most cases is impossible due to an absence of evidence, which is why the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim."
absence of evidence
literally ignores plot-context
Oh, I don't know, stonewalling arguments, antagonizing people and calling them biased, that sound good for you?For what? Seriously, please tell, no, show me what I have done that is report worthy.
Horrible, horrible analogy to make. We're talking about fashioning continents, planets and universes out of thin air by just flexing and then using the same power in an offensive manner.What? If I have a gas tank that is 100% full and I use 10% to power an engine that generates energy worth 10 light bulbs, why would that be better than using 50% to power one? Because thats basically the current logic I am seeing from this.
"The attack consumed more power but had a worse result, thus it is better"
Makes 0 sense to me. Which is why I asked, am I understanding this correctly?
Then don't debate them here and keep them for other threads. Also we've already seen what your concerns are regarding UES and they're bunk, honestly.I'd call it slander if it wouldnt imply that you have committed a crime. But glad to see you dont know any of my stances. The only accurate thing in here is me rejecting UES. I dont mind heat in the slightest and I dont mind the calculations either. I mind how they are applied and what they are applied for, as that goes completely against the thing that was actually calculated to begin with. Anyways, this isn't the place for this.
Two words: GLASS CANNONI agree. A mage physically scaling to their magic attacks is the outlier, not the rule.
RIGHT BACK AT YOU."BRUH" is all I can muster when it comes to this one.
To prove that the creation feat is uber-casual and that the attacks are leagues superior? Are we seriously discussing this now in a UES thread? Didn't we tell you to drop it and keep it for the other thread? Assuming it can even make past the rules we made after several months worth of CRTs?Because why would you scale the attack to the creation otherwise? If you have attacks way above the creation, then whats the point of all of this to begin with?
Bruh momento, talk about reversing burden of proof.Because why would you scale the attack to the creation otherwise? If you have attacks way above the creation, then whats the point of all of this to begin with?
I agree. A mage physically scaling to their magic attacks is the outlier, not the rule.
This whole "wizards are frail" trope should be addressed in a case-by-case manner. I think in any case, the lack of scaling will be obvious. The only verse I really worry about this with is dnd and I've been told, off-site, that my worries are unfounded.I bet a glass canon mage is quite a different situation compared to ki/chakra based fighter or a demonic energy based demon.
You know guys who primarily use energy for throwing hands and firing big ass laserbeams.
Well my response was moreso based on the example of verse already given, that mad skeleton guy or whatever his name is.This whole "wizards are frail" trope should be addressed in a case-by-case manner. I think in any case, the lack of scaling will be obvious. The only verse I really worry about this with is dnd and I've been told, off-site, that my worries are unfounded.
No worries. I'm speaking generally.Well my response was moreso based on the example of verse already given, that mad skeleton guy or whatever his name is.
yes and? How does a sword being sharp relate to an energy type (piercing energy) made up by this wiki?Now I'm gonna mention bruh on this because you brought up the "edge of the weapon"
You just said it's not on there, now you say it is but you dont agree. Well, whatever, really.Which is bullshit, because I actually did and I still don't agree with it.
I said show, dont tell, for a reason.Oh, I don't know, stonewalling arguments, antagonizing people and calling them biased, that sound good for you?
If people keep bringing them up, I'll reply. I dont just ignore ppl. If yall wanna take it to my wall or another thread instead, go for it.Then don't debate them here and keep them for other threads. Also we've already seen what your concerns are regarding UES and they're bunk, honestly.
My last reply on this here. If u wanna continue, bring it to my wall. The more casual the creation feat, the worse it actually is for your argument, since that is the literal backbone of my argument.To prove that the creation feat is uber-casual? Are we seriously discussing this now in a UES thread? Didn't we tell you to drop it and keep it for the other thread? Assuming it can even make past the rules we made after several months worth of CRTs?
I completely agree with KLOL as well. Great job, mate.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.
Personally, this doesn't make me uncomfortable.Glass wizards aside, there's the issue of combat magic scaling to physicals, which is one thing, and non-combat magic scaling to combat, then physicals, which is a whole 'nother can of worms, like creation feats and such.
You were the one who brought it up first, you should have automatically known that this would have been referred that way.yes and? How does a sword being sharp relate to an energy type (piercing energy) made up by this wiki?
The thread might have the term UES, but it's primarily about Cooling feats and their legitimacy, nothing else.You just said it's not on there, now you say it is but you dont agree. Well, whatever, really.
What part of "end-game uber-OP boss" do you not understand here? What part of "Said OP boss's feat serves as a major plot-point in the game" did you not get?I said show, dont tell, for a reason.
You might reply, but stop thinking that you'll be able to achieve ground-breaking changes just like that with no approval and plenty of bias to show for.If people keep bringing them up, I'll reply. I dont just ignore ppl. If yall wanna take it to my wall or another thread instead, go for it.
Wrong once again, but at this point we both know you won't yield. So carry on I suppose.My last reply on this here. If u wanna continue, bring it to my wall. The more casual the creation feat, the worse it actually is for your argument, since that is the literal backbone of my argument.