We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

[Agnaa]

Guess I'll leave that to someone else then.

Or I'll drop you a message if I find some game breaking verse get accepted after this revision is implemented.

 

[KLOL506]

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

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

Muscle-fiber twitching, spreading your arms out, thinking, breathing or existing are what I'd call "effortless" for creation-based feats at least, but I'm sure there are other methods that could qualify as such. This is what I am primarily talking about. If you know of any type of body movement used in a creation-based feat more strenuous than punching, kicking, tackling, shooting massive energy blasts etc. then I guess you could apply it to those cases. Point is, the former methods would serve as a default baseline, if the body movement for the creation feat is shown to be strenuous, don't scale it to physicals and only scale it as separate AP. Quite simple.

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

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

If the value is this negligible there's no question to bring it up in the first place.

Also you do realize that the "uber-casualness" and "turbo-uber-casualness" methods I spoke of included "via existing" and "thinking, breathing, flexing or spreading your arms out if you wanted to be flashy", right?

Right before this you said:

Maybe not for the specific situations you proposed of "A muscle fiber twitching creates a universe and they punched" and their ilk

So why the change now?

 

[Agnaa]

Everything in your post besides the sentence I quoted below.

Yeah but casual feats don't have to be body movements.Thought-based feats can vary in how much they exhaust you, so it's not necessarily true to say that thinking is always less than punching. Thought-based feats can be effortless, or they can end up being high effort.

And even if body movements are involved to some extent, the actual exhaustion level could come from the channeling of magic, not that you have to make some funny hand signals to do such.

If the value is this negligible there's no question to bring it up in the first place.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

 

[KLOL506]

Everything in your post besides the sentence I quoted below.

Yeah but casual feats don't have to be body movements.

Casual feats via merely existing is one such example which I mentioned.

Thought-based feats can vary in how much they exhaust you, so it's not necessarily true to say that thinking is always less than punching. Thought-based feats can be effortless, or they can end up being high effort.

If they're effortless, scale 'em. If not, and the creation feat via thought massively exhausts them, don't scale 'em. Simple.

If the value is this negligible there's no question to bring it up in the first place.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

A difference between moving from 5mm to 7mm really isn't noteworthy to bring up to begin with.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah but I have to bring it up on human scales because we're not effortlessly creating continents and then effortlessly destroying villages.

I brought up a real-world example of how two different energy values can both be effortless. To create a comparison to fictional characters being able to effortlessly perform feats orders of magnitude apart. That there can be a distinction here with different levels of energy output that aren't addressed by looking at them both being effortless.

 

[KLOL506]

I brought up a real-world example of how two different energy values can both be effortless. To create a comparison to fictional characters being able to effortlessly perform feats orders of magnitude apart. That there can be a distinction here with different levels of energy output that aren't addressed by looking at them both being effortless.

I believe with things like this we need to also consider and take into factor the character's place in the scaling chain, the context behind the feat, the character's importance in the plot and other similar factors, which I believe would generally be resolved in verse-specific CRT threads.

 

[Agnaa]

idk how that'd play out so I can't say whether I'd agree or disagree.

 

[KLOL506]

idk how that'd play out so I can't say whether I'd agree or disagree.

Depends on the verse.

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, for a practical example, how would Mario be affected by these changes? Mario (and other comparable characters) scale to 4-A/3-C because an object both creates 4-A/3-C constructs and empowers bosses that wield it. But we don't know that the Power Stars expend more energy empowering characters than they do creating those constructs, and empowered characters tend to not perform very notable feats.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I feel like Agnaa is overcomplicating things... A casual Town level feat should be less powerful than a serious punch or kick if someone uses a UES

 

[Agnaa]

I feel like Agnaa is overcomplicating things... A casual Town level feat should be less powerful than a serious punch or kick if someone uses a UES

That's not what I'm saying.

I am just saying, that if they are both equally casual, we don't know whether they're the same energy or if one is higher or lower than the other, so scaling should be done under a possibly.

And then people are going "BUT WHAT IF THEY'RE SERIOUS!"

Well if they're serious (and if by that you mean "putting in more effort than when they're casual") then of course, that's definitionally not them being equally casual. But if it's technically a "fight to the death" but they're still trading blows with as little effort as before, then no.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually, for a practical example, how would Mario be affected by these changes? Mario (and other comparable characters) scale to 4-A/3-C because an object both creates 4-A/3-C constructs and empowers bosses that wield it. But we don't know that the Power Stars expend more energy empowering characters than they do creating those constructs, and empowered characters tend to not perform very notable feats.

If they can consistently hold their own against the empowered bosses in slug-fests and the like it should be fine for scaling.

As for empowering characters, didn't we literally have a Mario CRT addressing that? Pretty sure hell erupted when it happened.

 

[Agnaa]

If they can consistently hold their own against the empowered bosses in slug-fests and the like it should be fine for scaling.

So you don't actually require evidence that there's a shared energy source, or that more or equal effort is going into empowering than is going into creation. Just the same old standards that something created something and also empowered something. Great.

As for empowering characters, didn't we literally have a Mario CRT addressing that? Pretty sure hell erupted when it happened.

idk, I don't follow those.

 

[KLOL506]

If they can consistently hold their own against the empowered bosses in slug-fests and the like it should be fine for scaling.

So you don't actually require evidence that there's a shared energy source, or that more or equal effort is going into empowering than is going into creation. Just the same old standards that something created something and also empowered something. Great.

I thought item-based UES would be restricted to the wielders of the items themselves. As for the scaling, Mario would scale to Bowser's AP since they traded blows with each other so in that case it's mostly scaling and has got nothing to do with UES, and that means that Mario himself wouldn't scale to the star's other abilities unless he used one himself (Which he prolly did against Bowser mutliple times). That being said, I didn't keep much track of the CRT myself so I can't fully confirm nor deny, prolly should ask DDM on that.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I thought item-based UES would be restricted to the wielders of the items themselves.

DDM made a comment here iirc, explaining beautifully what os supposed to be done in Item/external sources case.

I'll find it.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-universal-energy-systems.125760/post-4210408

Here ya go..I think this was it.

 

[Agnaa]

item-based UES

Items aren't a universal energy source. They don't have chakra. They're just like artifacts, and 2 pages ago, you, DDM, and I agreed on how to treat artifacts. They don't scale to physicals by default, only if empowering characters drains the artifact more than creating things does. Which isn't established in Mario.

This sorta stuff is why I say the problem's with implementation. We seem to agree when we talk about theoretical situations like this, but when it comes to actual examples it looks like you're just chucking these standards out the window (with the only requirement being "consistently fights characters empowered by those artifacts", the requirement for empowering to take more energy than creating seems removed).

 

[KLOL506]

item-based UES

Items aren't a universal energy source. They don't have chakra. They're just like artifacts, and 2 pages ago, you, DDM, and I agreed on how to treat artifacts. They don't scale to physicals by default, only if empowering characters drains the artifact more than creating things does. Which isn't established in Mario.

Well, apparently Mario's profile shows him being able to contend with Power Star users on his lonesome and he gets stronger when he gets a Power Star. Like I said, not well-versed in the Mario CRTs or Marioverse itself so I'm just going with based on what I saw. So you'll have to ask DDM for additional context on that regard.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

item-based UES

Items aren't a universal energy source. They don't have chakra. They're just like artifacts, and 2 pages ago, you, DDM, and I agreed on how to treat artifacts. They don't scale to physicals by default, only if empowering characters drains the artifact more than creating things does. Which isn't established in Mario.

Well then it becomes even more solid if the said Item also runs of off energy, and said energy is usable by wielder freely.

Hell I know verses where a demon becomes more powerful due to mere presence of an extra demom arm in his arsenal, moreso with direct usage.
Same with demigod empowering himself off of a god weapon.

Mario seems like a similar case.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, apparently Mario's profile shows him being able to contend with Power Star users on his lonesome and he gets stronger when he gets a Power Star. Like I said, not well-versed in the Mario CRTs or Marioverse itself so I'm just going with based on what I saw.

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the standards we established.

I am completely astonished that you ditched all pretense of requiring destruction/enhancement to require more energy than creation as soon as we moved to actual examples.

Well then it becomes even more solid if the said Item also runs of off energy, and said energy is usable by wielder freely. Hell I know verses where a demon becomes more powerful due to mere presence of an extra demom arm in his arsenal, moreso with direct usage. Same with demigod empowering himself off of a god weapon. Mario seems like a similar case.

If the character is established as being able to use the same or a greater amount of energy than was used for creation, than sure.

Everything else you mention about just needing characters to get empowered is ephemeral.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, apparently Mario's profile shows him being able to contend with Power Star users on his lonesome and he gets stronger when he gets a Power Star. Like I said, not well-versed in the Mario CRTs or Marioverse itself so I'm just going with based on what I saw.

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the standards we established.

I am completely astonished that you ditched all pretense of requiring destruction/enhancement to require more energy than creation as soon as we moved to actual examples.

What? I never said that. I just said I was giving my opinion on Mario based on what I saw. Don't put words into my mouth when I never said it. I've already admitted that I maybe wrong about Mario due to knowing little-to-nothing about it but I have never ditched the pretense of requiring destruction/enhancement to be ≥ creation.

As for that other part I was talking about Mario himself scaling to Bowser's AP, not about how Bowser's Power Star AP shenanigans work. Just about whether Mario would scale to Bowser, to which I said yes if they were shown to fight against each other. This was specifically about Mario himself.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Well then it becomes even more solid if the said Item also runs of off energy, and said energy is usable by wielder freely. Hell I know verses where a demon becomes more powerful due to mere presence of an extra demom arm in his arsenal, moreso with direct usage. Same with demigod empowering himself off of a god weapon. Mario seems like a similar case.

If the character is established as being able to use the same or a greater amount of energy than was used for creation, than sure.

Everything else you mention about just needing characters to get empowered is ephemeral

There's also the factor that verses establish that just having said artefact, or hell even just having energy in your body you become passively powerful proportional to how much you have it, atleast in neutral combat state.

Naruto has this with stamina, so does Bleach and DB, so does DMC...many more.
Even GoW has it with one weapon, but it has yet to be accepted

 

[Agnaa]

What? I never said that. Don't put words into my mouth when I never said it.

Oh come on.

• I asked how Mario would be treated, since we don't know that the Power Stars expend more energy empowering characters than they do creating things.
• You responded that Mario and co. would scale since they consistently hold their own against empowered bosses.

This really sounds like you're saying that you don't require destruction/enhancement to be GEQ creation, but I checked a few more times just to be sure.

• I then asked if you require evidence that greater or equal energy goes into empowerment than destruction.
• You responded that Mario would still scale because they traded blows.
• I pointed out that Mario's Power Stars go against the requirements you agreed on for treating artifacts.
• You responded that Mario getting empowered by a Power Star proves that he scales.

Forgive me if after THREE ******* TIMES of me explaining that Mario fails that requirement, and you saying that he scales anyway, that I think you've thrown out that idea.

Do you want to revise your opinion now?

There's also the factor that verses establish that just having said artefact, or hell even just having energy in your body you become passively powerful proportional to how much you have it, atleast in neutral combat state.

That doesn't mean you're empowered proportional to the energy the artifact uses in creation. It could expend 5 days worth of energy creating something, while only expending 1 second's worth of energy every second to empower you.

 

[KLOL506]

What? I never said that. Don't put words into my mouth when I never said it.

Oh come on.

• I asked how Mario would be treated, since we don't know that the Power Stars expend more energy empowering characters than they do creating things.
• You responded that Mario and co. would scale since they consistently hold their own against empowered bosses.

This really sounds like you're saying that you don't require destruction/enhancement to be GEQ creation, but I checked a few more times just to be sure.

• I then asked if you require evidence that greater or equal energy goes into empowerment than destruction.
• You responded that Mario would still scale because they traded blows.
• I pointed out that Mario's Power Stars go against the requirements you agreed on for treating artifacts.
• You responded that Mario getting empowered by a Power Star proves that he scales.

Forgive me if after THREE ******* TIMES of me explaining that Mario fails that requirement, and you saying that he scales anyway, that I think you've thrown out that idea.

Do you want to revise your opinion now?

I guess it was a mistake for me to tackle a verse I specifically know nothing about, I retract my statements about Mario and I will let the verse experts discuss this.

 

[Agnaa]

Welp, I can't discuss this without examples because that doesn't prove that verses would need the extra requirement I suggest.

And I can't discuss this with examples because you don't know the verses I know well enough.

What am I supposed to do here?

Couldn't you just believe me that some verses will need the sorts of requirements I'm talking about?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

There's also the factor that verses establish that just having said artefact, or hell even just having energy in your body you become passively powerful proportional to how much you have it, atleast in neutral combat state.

That doesn't mean you're empowered proportional to the energy the artifact uses in creation. It could expend 5 days worth of energy creating something, while only expending 1 second's

What I am saying is that this passive amplification already gives a "baseline" (from which/to which) any casual feats will be scaled to.
Ultimately unless you provide proof that apparently casual feats have worthwhile differences in energy consumption/result hidden in them, every casual feat will be scaled to nearest accurate rating/calc.

So Ultimately this difference is moot point for us here, and is verse/charactet specific problem.

 

[Agnaa]

What I am saying is that this passive amplification already gives a "baseline" (from which/to which) any casual feats will be scaled to.

I don't think "Casual in that it doesn't noticeably affect the artifact" and "Casual in that the artifact is passively doing this every single second" are the same thing, and the former shouldn't be scaled to the latter.

Ultimately unless you provide proof that apparently casual feats have worthwhile differences in energy consumption/result hidden in them, every casual feat will be scaled to nearest accurate rating/calc.

I don't agree that the burden of proof works this way. I've demonstrated that these alternate explanations plausibly exist. You don't just ignore all alternate explanations and go for the highest possible one in the absence of evidence.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I don't think "Casual in that it doesn't noticeably affect the artifact" and "Casual in that the artifact is passively doing this every single second" are the same thing, and the former shouldn't be scaled to the latter.

Oh....I see...so to give an analogy for your statements it would be like "handwave, gesture" vs "simply breathing".
Amarite?
If so....well I don't think we can concretely give a tangible difference in the first place...so in my eyes they would scale in same league even if not exactly same. Which is fine, since we have concept of downscaling and upscaling for tiers.
I just don't find it worthwhile to make efforts to individually rate two different types of casual attacks without info.

I don't agree that the burden of proof works this way. I've demonstrated that these alternate explanations plausibly exist. You don't just ignore all alternate explanations and go for the highest possible one in the absence of evidence.

I mean what choice do we have in that case?
We can't leave something in limbo, better to scale to nearest value, unless you have evidence of otherwise.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh....I see...so to give an analogy for your statements it would be like "handwave, gesture" vs "simply breathing".

Yeah.

If so....well I don't think we can concretely give a tangible difference in the first place...so in my eyes they would scale in same league even if not exactly same. Which is fine, since we have concept of downscaling and upscaling for tiers.

Agree to disagree.

I mean what choice do we have in that case? We can't leave something in limbo, better to scale to nearest value, unless you have evidence of otherwise.

We can leave something in limbo. See every single profile with an "Unknown" in any stat. But also, my proposal for those sorts of situations is to just rate them as "{Tier that doesn't come from creation}, possibly {Tier that comes from creation}"

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Agree to disagree

Yeah, find ourselves at odds.

We can leave something in limbo. See every single profile with an "Unknown" in any stat. But also, my proposal for those sorts of situations is to just rate them as "{Tier that doesn't come from creation}, possibly {Tier that comes from creation}"

I wouldn't agree to this without proof, but your 2nd option is something to consider as alternative.

But otherwise yeah, agree to disagree.
Let's see what the public says.

 

[Agnaa]

So my three-way rubrick would be

1. Creation > Destruction, whether through statements of energy use or demonstrations of fatigue. Do not scale.
2. Destruction >= Creation, whether through statements of energy use or demonstrations of fatigue. Fully scale.
3. Destruction ≈ Creation, through demonstrations of fatigue that don't make it clear which is more taxing. Scale under a "possibly".

 

[KLOL506]

So my three-way rubrick would be

1. Creation > Destruction, whether through statements of energy use or demonstrations of fatigue. Do not scale.
2. Destruction >= Creation, whether through statements of energy use or demonstrations of fatigue. Fully scale.
3. Destruction ≈ Creation, through demonstrations of fatigue that don't make it clear which is more taxing. Scale under a "possibly".

Agree with 1 and 2.

But 3 I take issue with using a "Possibly" rating. If a creation feat is casually done and another casual attack is made on a smaller level, we cannot use this alone to dissuade scaling as a whole to the Creation feat, as the character could either be holding back on their true power or focusing their power to affect a smaller area for precision and so on. Plus, where they are on the scaling chain, how they affect the story and the like would also be needed to be taken into factor here.

 

[Agnaa]

The character could be holding back, but if there's never a scene where they aren't "holding back" we don't know whether they'd scale when not holding back. In that case, I'd do "Unknown, at least {Non-scaled tier}, possibly {tier scaling to creation".

I can't imagine a situation where I'd consider position on the scaling chain or effect on the story to be relevant. Well, those would be relevant for outliers and the like, but I think that those sorts of situations are distinct from the point of this rubrick.

 

[KLOL506]

The character could be holding back, but if there's never a scene where they aren't "holding back" we don't know whether they'd scale when not holding back. In that case, I'd do "Unknown, at least {Non-scaled tier}, possibly {tier scaling to creation".

Why would you give an "Unknown" if you have a usable non-scaled tier in the first place?

There's also the fact to consider that the character could be focusing their attacks onto smaller areas for precision, I'd say this is a reasonable assumption to make since most universal energy sources at one point or another will definitely involve focusing your power onto parts of your body (Or certain areas on the parts of your body, like the center of your palm or whatever) for efficiency or reducing AoE damage to avoid casualties and so on.

 

[Agnaa]

Why would you give an "Unknown" if you have a usable non-scaled tier in the first place?

We usually give "Unknown, at least X" to characters who are constantly holding back and only show casual feats. To point out that we're tiering them based on feats that we know are a low-end. Najimi Ajimu, for instance.

There's also the fact to consider that the character could be focusing their attacks onto smaller areas for precision

I don't understand the point of bringing this up, the level of destruction shown was never talked about, so this just seems like an irrelevant point.

 

[KLOL506]

There's also the fact to consider that the character could be focusing their attacks onto smaller areas for precision

I don't understand the point of bringing this up, the level of destruction shown was never talked about, so this just seems like an irrelevant point.

Point is, they could just as easily be using the same amount of energy for their creation-based feats into their other attacks with low AoE for precision and/or for avoiding collateral damage. Nothing stops them from doing this with an UES, whose main selling point is to allow usage of the same amount of energy through various attacks in controlled states, whether physical, elemental, whatever, all from one energy source.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Point is, they could just as easily be using the same amount of energy for their creation-based feats into their other attacks with low AoE for precision and/or for avoiding collateral damage.

This, this exactly.
Unless you have info that character is holding significantly compared to their creation feat, we don't dismiss attacks of similar casualness as creation feat.

Perception of feats is not end all and be all to dismiss scaling, we need background info for that.

 

[Agnaa]

Point is, they could just as easily be using the same amount of energy for their creation-based feats into their other attacks with low AoE for precision and/or for avoiding collateral damage.

My point was never about AoE, it was about known energy use. This does not rebuke an argument I made.

 

[KLOL506]

Point is, they could just as easily be using the same amount of energy for their creation-based feats into their other attacks with low AoE for precision and/or for avoiding collateral damage.

My point was never about AoE, it was about known energy use. This does not rebuke an argument I made.

Known energy use can definitely fall under the "controlled/focused attacks" category.

Also what Gilver said. We also need background info if we're to prove anything against it.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

My point was never about AoE, it was about known energy use. This does not rebuke an argument I made.

If you know energy used, you already have info to tier the weaker attack.