• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

We need to talk about Universal Energy Systems

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agnaa said:
Seems that way.

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

Do you retract your earlier evaluation that simply having a creation feat as your highest feat meets the requirement:
  • A removal of said power source needs to be represented as a dramatic loss in power for the user (even to the point of being no stronger than a normal human)
    • The loss of power being portrayed as traumatic or harmful would also support this claim.
Click to expand...
EDIT: Wait, gimme a moment to fully understand this.

EDIT 2: Okay, I've seen it, and, assuming the creation feat is the highest feat, if it is done casually while being amped by magic, and then the character is shown to be performing considerably worse without said magic amps, then no. I do not retract the said statement. Considering the fact that a character being siphoned off and showing weaker feats as a result is just as common in fiction as creation feats generally being shown to be the strongest feats which is also as common as the feat being done by absolute god-tiers to show off their power. It being the strongest feat doesn't mean we can't necessarily scale it, if there is enough context and it matches with the intent of the game lore and events, then I see that as pretty strong evidence to qualify for scaling.

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

I'd prefer not having personalized systems like Quirks scale, but I'd really lean to being neutral on the topic.
Click to expand...
Then do tell how else you want the non-UES systems to be determined as.

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

Why would that need a new thread... You're creating new rules, if you're going to have something else be able to qualify under the exact same guidelines, you may as well tackle that in the same thread.
Click to expand...
Because while they may share the same guidelines, their operating mechanics and weaknesses (Something that we can't uniformly compare with other separate non-UES systems) can vary wildly and so can the powerscaling that follows right after. So to deal with that, like Gilver said, we'd need separate CRTs to determine if the characters qualify for the guidelines.
 
Last edited:
I meant, the character in question should have his own thread to see if his stamina-creation shenanigans qualify for scaling to physicals.

Oh okay, but from the response below, KLOL seems to want the rules for them decided in their own thread.

If the given context behind the feat shows that it was utterly-casual and didn't exhaust the character at all, then it's an astounding no. Is that adequate? Or do you still have more issues with that answer as well, upon which we're also not likely to budge at all?

My issue with that answer is that it's not answering the question I asked.

I did not ask about the casual-ness of the feat. I did not ask about how much it exhausted the character. I did not ask about the requirement where the feat has to be casual. I asked about a completely separate requirement.

Whether a character did a feat casually or not should have absolutely zero effect on determining whether them losing that energy system causes a dramatic loss in power. Maybe if you could explain how these things were related I could understand, but you could also just answer the question without jumping to things I wasn't talking about.

Then do tell how else you want the non-UES systems to be determined as.

Not scaling, because there isn't a pool of supernatural energy fueling the feat. It makes things far more dodgy, imo.

Because while they may share the same guidelines, their operating mechanics and weaknesses (Something that we can't uniformly compare with other separate non-UES systems) can vary wildly and so can the powerscaling that follows right after.

This answer doesn't really make sense to me. UES' already have their own variations in operating mechanics and weaknesses, that don't seem particularly distinct from comparisons to non-UES systems like Quirks. Ditto with the powerscaling that follows.
 
Agnaa said:
I meant, the character in question should have his own thread to see if his stamina-creation shenanigans qualify for scaling to physicals.

Oh okay, but from the response below, KLOL seems to want the rules for them decided in their own thread.
Click to expand...
But what Gilver said is exactly what I was talking about, not that I wanted the rules for them decided in their thread, just that a thread would need to be made if they qualify for said guidelines (Some guidelines requiring to be determined on a case-by-case basis). Powerscaling and operating mechanics/weaknesses of the power also matter, but they're different from this topic at hand.

Agnaa said:
If the given context behind the feat shows that it was utterly-casual and didn't exhaust the character at all, then it's an astounding no. Is that adequate? Or do you still have more issues with that answer as well, upon which we're also not likely to budge at all?

My issue with that answer is that it's not answering the question I asked.
Click to expand...
I edited the reply before you posted yours.

Agnaa said:
I did not ask about the casual-ness of the feat. I did not ask about how much it exhausted the character. I did not ask about the requirement where the feat has to be casual. I asked about a completely separate requirement.

Whether a character did a feat casually or not should have absolutely zero effect on determining whether them losing that energy system causes a dramatic loss in power.
Click to expand...
No, it should have an effect if the character with the energy system loses the said power source and then is shown to perform worse feats on that level. Common sense in this dictates that in that case you're weaker without your magic.

Agnaa said:
Maybe if you could explain how these things were related I could understand, but you could also just answer the question without jumping to things I wasn't talking about.
Click to expand...
Consider the energy source to be a life-force, without which one would eventually grow weak and die (Which is generally the case). Take Kakashi's chakra for example. He used it up to dodge an attack for his comrades via his Mangekyo Sharingan (Which already has a bigger energy expenditure on Kakashi than it would on a member of the Uchiha clan) and expended too much, and then died.

Agnaa said:
Then do tell how else you want the non-UES systems to be determined as.

Not scaling, because there isn't a pool of supernatural energy fueling the feat. It makes things far more dodgy, imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah no, for that to not be scaled to the individual user of the power by drawing from their own stamina (As is what usually happens with stamina-based non-UES) makes absolutely no sense, PERIOD. Not unless their powers are stated or shown to be of a higher potency than their physicals, like Endeavor.

Agnaa said:
Because while they may share the same guidelines, their operating mechanics and weaknesses (Something that we can't uniformly compare with other separate non-UES systems) can vary wildly and so can the powerscaling that follows right after.

This answer doesn't really make sense to me. UES' already have their own variations in operating mechanics and weaknesses, that don't seem particularly distinct from comparisons to non-UES systems like Quirks. Ditto with the powerscaling that follows.
Click to expand...
I mean, there really isn't any other way to make the non-UES be any more distinct than UES.
 
Last edited:
I edited the reply before you posted yours.

Alright, let me get to it then.

if it is done casually while being amped by magic

I never mentioned this.

and then the character is shown to be performing considerably worse without said magic amps

I never mentioned this.

It being the strongest feat doesn't mean we can't necessarily scale it

I never said this.

Your response is meaningless since you added stuff that I left out on purpose, and assumed I was making a point I wasn't.

No, it should have an effect if the character with the energy system loses the said power source and then is shown to perform worse feats on that level. Common sense in this dictates that in that case you're weaker without your magic.

Except that didn't happen in the case I was talking about.

The character didn't lose the power source and then perform worse feats. The character just has their best feat as a creation feat, without ever losing their power source throughout the course of the story.

Consider the energy source to be a life-force, without which one would eventually grow weak and die (Which is generally the case). Take Kakashi's chakra for example. He used it up to dodge an attack for his comrades via his Mangekyo Sharingan (Which already has a bigger energy expenditure on Kakashi than it would on a member of the Uchiha clan) and expended too much, and then died.

That does not explain how "I did this creation feat casually" means "I become vastly weaker when I lose the power source" without the series indicating that that is the case. You're just giving random examples of characters becoming weaker when they lose their power sources.

I mean, there really isn't any other way to make the non-UES be any more distinct than UES.

Whatever.

I just don't think non-UES scaling of creation feats is so incredibly vastly different that we need a new thread to re-draft a new version of the page.

The way I see it there'd be a few minor-at-best differences, and so it should just be handled here.
 
Agnaa said:
No, it should have an effect if the character with the energy system loses the said power source and then is shown to perform worse feats on that level. Common sense in this dictates that in that case you're weaker without your magic.

Except that didn't happen in the case I was talking about.

The character didn't lose the power source and then perform worse feats. The character just has their best feat as a creation feat, without ever losing their power source throughout the course of the story.
Click to expand...
Except Dust_Collector outright stated that Ganon WITHOUT magic has feats no better than Tier 8? Which on its own indicates that Ganon is indeed weaker without magic and that he lost his magic powers, unless Dust_Collector left something out in that regard.

Agnaa said:
Consider the energy source to be a life-force, without which one would eventually grow weak and die (Which is generally the case). Take Kakashi's chakra for example. He used it up to dodge an attack for his comrades via his Mangekyo Sharingan (Which already has a bigger energy expenditure on Kakashi than it would on a member of the Uchiha clan) and expended too much, and then died.

That does not explain how "I did this creation feat casually" means "I become vastly weaker when I lose the power source" without the series indicating that that is the case. You're just giving random examples of characters becoming weaker when they lose their power sources.
Click to expand...
I mean, we don't automatically assume by default that "I did this creation feat casually" means "I become vastly weaker when I lose the power source" without evidence, in which case Dust_Collector provided it. Ganon w/ magic is Tier 6, without it he shows Tier 8 feats. Get it now?

Agnaa said:
I mean, there really isn't any other way to make the non-UES be any more distinct than UES.

Whatever.

I just don't think non-UES scaling of creation feats is so incredibly vastly different that we need a new thread to re-draft a new version of the page.

The way I see it there'd be a few minor-at-best differences, and so it should just be handled here.
Click to expand...
This, I can agree with, it is just a few minor-at-best-differences which can be put as footnotes under the appropriate criteria.
 
Except Dust_Collector outright stated that Ganon WITHOUT magic has feats no better than Tier 8? Which on its own indicates that Ganon is indeed weaker without magic and that he lost his magic powers, unless Dust_Collector left something out in that regard.

I mean, we don't automatically assume by default that "I did this creation feat casually" means "I become vastly weaker when I lose the power source" without evidence, in which case Dust_Collector provided it. Ganon w/ magic is Tier 6, without it he shows Tier 8 feats. Get it now?

As I've explained multiple times, Dust_Collector said that Ganon has never lost his magic. He was saying that Ganon, when not noticeably using magic to enhance physicals, has feats no better than tier 8. (And hell, from what I remember, a fair few of his magic-enhanced physical feats lie in the tier 9/low tier 8 range.)

This does not indicate that Ganon is weaker without magic, because he has never been without magic. And it does not indicate that he lost his magic powers, because he has never lost his magic powers.

Now that this is clear, do you retract your evaluation that a character (such as Ganon) having their best feat (island level) be a creation feat, is not PROOF that they become vastly weaker without their power source?
 
Some characters don't display full power without actively amping with energy. I.e like for example Goku.

Okay? But "They performed a tier 6 creation feat with magic" and "These 3 times they performed a tier 8 destruction feat and it didn't look like they were using magic" is not sufficient evidence to conclude "Losing magic makes them vastly weaker".
 
Agnaa said:
Except Dust_Collector outright stated that Ganon WITHOUT magic has feats no better than Tier 8? Which on its own indicates that Ganon is indeed weaker without magic and that he lost his magic powers, unless Dust_Collector left something out in that regard.

I mean, we don't automatically assume by default that "I did this creation feat casually" means "I become vastly weaker when I lose the power source" without evidence, in which case Dust_Collector provided it. Ganon w/ magic is Tier 6, without it he shows Tier 8 feats. Get it now?

As I've explained multiple times, Dust_Collector said that Ganon has never lost his magic. He was saying that Ganon, when not noticeably using magic to enhance physicals, has feats no better than tier 8.
Click to expand...
If he has never lost his magic powers then how come did Dust_Collector manage to bring up the existence of non-Magic Ganon and that he has Tier 8 feats?

Agnaa said:
(And hell, from what I remember, a fair few of his magic-enhanced physical feats lie in the tier 9/low tier 8 range.)
Click to expand...
Put that in its own CRT, not here.

Agnaa said:
This does not indicate that Ganon is weaker without magic, because he has never been without magic. And it does not indicate that he lost his magic powers, because he has never lost his magic powers.
Click to expand...
Again, if this is the case, why did Dust_Collector say that without magic Ganon is Tier 8?

Agnaa said:
Now that this is clear, do you retract your evaluation that a character (such as Ganon) having their best feat (island level) be a creation feat, is not PROOF that they become vastly weaker without their power source?
Click to expand...
I need more context as to how we got non-magic Ganon to even have Tier 8 feats if Ganon has never lost his magic in the first place to begin with. With a situation like this I can't proceed further without more info. I'd need opinion from the Zelda experts to confirm this.
 
Agnaa said:
Some characters don't display full power without actively amping with energy. I.e like for example Goku.

Okay? But "They performed a tier 6 creation feat with magic" and "These 3 times they performed a tier 8 destruction feat and it didn't look like they were using magic" is not sufficient evidence to conclude "Losing magic makes them vastly weaker".
Click to expand...
It would actually.

If they have feats without using magic, that means they are using their biological/physiological strength.

Not every magic pool passively amps the user, some verses require active amplification.
Example DB.
So in this case it could be that Ganon is only using physiological strength, which means presence/absence of magic pool doesn't affect Ganon, only active use does.

Some verses do have passive amplification even without active use.
Example Naruto(stamina i.e circulating chakra) or DMC.
 
GilverTheProtoAngelo said:
It would actually.

If they have feats without using magic, that means they are using their biological/physiological strength.

Not every magic pool passively amps the user, some verses require active amplification.
Example DB.
So in this case it could be that Ganon is only using physiological strength, which means presence/absence of magic pool doesn't affect Ganon, only active use does.

Some verses do have passive amplification even without active use.
Example Naruto(stamina i.e circulating chakra) or DMC.
Click to expand...
Good point.

But boy that means I gotta be adding more requirements in this regard too
 
Last edited:
If he has never lost his magic powers then how come did Dust_Collector manage to bring up the existence of non-Magic Ganon and that he has Tier 8 feats?

I explained that in the second sentence of the two you quoted here:
He was saying that Ganon, when not noticeably using magic to enhance physicals, has feats no better than tier 8.
Click to expand...

If they have feats without using magic, that means they are using their biological/physiological strength.

Not every magic pool passively amps the user, some verses require active amplification.

We don't know whether the magic pool passively amps the user or not. Why would we assume it does and grant something definitive from that?

If he could summarize them concisely I can give my takes

I've provided summaries before, both here, and in the first part here. I find that weird interpretation important, because if we're considering "Their highest feat is a creation feat" to be a way of meeting one of the criteria, that's going to be something that every series with a relevant creation feat will meet, getting every relevant creation feat one step of the way there for free.

Let me know if there's anything more I should explain.
 
Agnaa said:
We don't know whether the magic pool passively amps the user or not. Why would we assume it does and grant something definitive from that?
Click to expand...

GilverTheProtoAngelo said:
So in this case it could be that Ganon is only using physiological strength, which means presence/absence of magic pool doesn't affect Ganon, only active use does.
Click to expand...
It was strong hunch I bet on.
I myself have no knowledge on LoZ. So all I did was present a likelier alternative based on evidence provided.

Even I am waiting for arrival of LoZ expert for clarification.
 
Agnaa said:
If he has never lost his magic powers then how come did Dust_Collector manage to bring up the existence of non-Magic Ganon and that he has Tier 8 feats?

I explained that in the second sentence of the two you quoted here: He was saying that Ganon, when not noticeably using magic to enhance physicals, has feats no better than tier 8.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't deny that non-magic Ganon is still weaker than magic Ganon

At the same time, Dust_Collector says Ganon's never lost his magic before, which certainly sounds contradicting.

Agnaa said:
If they have feats without using magic, that means they are using their biological/physiological strength.

Not every magic pool passively amps the user, some verses require active amplification.

We don't know whether the magic pool passively amps the user or not. Why would we assume it does and grant something definitive from that?
Click to expand...
Amping yourself is one of the core components of a UES, both actively and passively, this is not something we necessarily need to know when that is literally the primary function of a UES, this much is undeniable.

Agnaa said:
If he could summarize them concisely I can give my takes

I've provided summaries before, both here, and in the first part here. I find that weird interpretation important, because if we're considering "Their highest feat is a creation feat" to be a way of meeting one of the criteria, that's going to be something that every series with a relevant creation feat will meet, getting every relevant creation feat one step of the way there for free.
Click to expand...
Before I tackle this I need to know what exactly this weird interpretation is you're talking about. Because the thread is already 6+ pages long and we've long since strayed from the original purpose to discuss the potential criteria to be added.
 
Before I tackle this I need to know what exactly this weird interpretation is you're talking about.

Scaling creation feats is only relevant if they're the character's strongest feat. Otherwise, you'd just use the destructive feats that are already established; the creation feat is unneeded supporting evidence.

You say that one of the requirements for scaling creation feats is that the character is weaker without their UES.

However, you also say that the creation feat being their strongest feat proves that the character is weaker without their UES.

That makes that requirement completely pointless; it would always be fulfilled for all cases that matter. That requirement would only be lacking in cases where the character has destructive feats better than their creation feat, which would already make scaling creation feats pointless.
 
So for the Ganon stuff. He is 6-C because the Triforce of Power actively amplify his magical might, which he uses to perform feats that someone like Link then tanks. Even without the Triforce of Power, Ganon can then go on and fight Link physically 1 on 1.

He scales to his magical power through Link.

The question becomes if his overall magic scale to the magic he uses when creating storms or whatever we are using to scale him these days.
 
Agnaa said:
Before I tackle this I need to know what exactly this weird interpretation is you're talking about.

Scaling creation feats is only relevant if they're the character's strongest feat. Otherwise, you'd just use the destructive feats that are already established; the creation feat is unneeded supporting evidence.

You say that one of the requirements for scaling creation feats is that the character is weaker without their UES.
Click to expand...
And to prove that you'd also need to show that the character's non-UES feats are explicitly weaker than their UES feats.
Agnaa said:
However, you also say that the creation feat being their strongest feat proves that the character is weaker without their UES.
Click to expand...
Only if it is explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are considerably weaker than their UES feats.

Agnaa said:
That makes that requirement completely pointless; it would always be fulfilled for all cases that matter. That requirement would only be lacking in cases where the character has destructive feats better than their creation feat, which would already make scaling creation feats pointless.
Click to expand...
Again, look above, you'd also need to show evidence that they perform low-tiered feats without UES.
 
Hellbeast said:
I'd definitely take the Ganon talk elsewhere but I kinda agree with Agnaa on the Casual Creation = powerless without magic thing. You'd need to prove it more meaningfully
Click to expand...
Again, I explicitly said you need to show hard evidence that the characters have weaker feats of strength without magic.
 
And to prove that you'd also need to show that the character's non-UES feats are explicitly weaker than their UES feats.

Only if it is explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are considerably weaker than their UES feats.

Again, look above, you'd also need to show evidence that they perform low-tiered feats without UES.

You're masking the information by saying "UES" instead of "creation".

If I make that substitution, your comments reveal themselves to be exactly what I was arguing again; "Only if it is explicitly shown that their non-creation feats are considerably weaker than their creation feats", which would be the case every single time we bother to scale.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
So for the Ganon stuff. He is 6-C because the Triforce of Power actively amplify his magical might, which he uses to perform feats that someone like Link then tanks. Even without the Triforce of Power, Ganon can then go on and fight Link physically 1 on 1.

He scales to his magical power through Link.

The question becomes if his overall magic scale to the magic he uses when creating storms or whatever we are using to scale him these days.
Click to expand...
If Link on his lonesome tanks Ganon's magical-enhanced-to-Island-level punches and then Ganon without magic can then physically hold his own against Link, then I don't even think there is a point of keeping UES here, this ends up being classic A>B>C powerscaling shenanigans.
 
Agnaa said:
And to prove that you'd also need to show that the character's non-UES feats are explicitly weaker than their UES feats.

Only if it is explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are considerably weaker than their UES feats.

Again, look above, you'd also need to show evidence that they perform low-tiered feats without UES.

You're masking the information by saying "UES" instead of "creation".
Click to expand...
I was still referring to Creation for the most part.

Agnaa said:
If I make that substitution, your comments reveal themselves to be exactly what I was arguing again; "Only if it is explicitly shown that their non-creation feats are considerably weaker than their creation feats", which would be the case every single time we bother to scale.
Click to expand...
And I fail to see the issue with scaling in that regard if we are explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are weaker than their UES-based creation feat. Is that not evidence enough?
 
KLOL506 said:
If Link on his lonesome tanks Ganon's magical-enhanced-to-Island-level punches and then Ganon without magic can then physically hold his own against Link, then I don't even think there is a point of keeping UES here, this ends up being classic A>B>C powerscaling shenanigans.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. Ganon doesn't even need to enhance his punches through magic. Link tanks his magical blasts, then he punches him even without enhancement.

Edit: Wind Waker is a prime example of Ganon not needing any magical enhancement whatsoever to completely dominate Link physically.
 
And I fail to see the issue with scaling in that regard if we are explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are weaker than their UES-based creation feat. Is that not evidence enough?

The issue is that the requirement is pointless, since it is met 100% of the time. If their non-UES feats were stronger, they wouldn't need the UES scaling.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
That's the thing. Ganon doesn't even need to enhance his punches through magic. Link tanks his magical blasts, then he punches him even without enhancement.

Edit: Wind Waker is a prime example of Ganon not needing any magical enhancement whatsoever to completely dominate Link physically.
Click to expand...
Just a question.
Isn't Ganon also a master sorcerer?
So doesn't he have his own personal magical powers?
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
That's the thing. Ganon doesn't even need to enhance his punches through magic. Link tanks his magical blasts, then he punches him even without enhancement.

Edit: Wind Waker is a prime example of Ganon not needing any magical enhancement whatsoever to completely dominate Link physically.
Click to expand...
Well that's just a case of blatant power-scaling and not UES anymore.
 
Yeah Ganon would just be scaling at that point
Like at most you could argue stuff like weather and creation feats are separate
 
Ganon can very much amp his physical might via magic, and Link tanks and then A>B>C, basic stuff.
Not withstanding Link has tanked magical attacks from Ganon full stop before and thus, shit still goes A>B>C.

But even then, it's not like there isn't some pretty wild physical exclusive feats, like Demise's fissure or Guardian shit that's at least like 7-A, that (an extremely weak, half baked, fodder iteration of) Ganon physically scales to, there's also Ganon literally busting an island around the same time he does his 6-C feat.

Or ****, the Giant's literally halting some tier 6 shit with their bare hands, or Malladus' country bust (if not 6-A bust) statement being from what we can tell either physical, fire, or meteor based, and Link scales to all said methods.

If the issue is "no non magic feat comes close", it's not entirely true.
Just because some magic shit is the crux of the scaling doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

And the worst part of this is, Link scales durability wise to literally all of this. So either way.

And if the issue is something about magical power being used for everything or whatever, Link proves that pretty decisively imo, given all his stuff, including even his spin attack in some games, all draw from the same power source. Link's Elemental Arrows and Mastered Spin Attack (a physical attack obviously) both draw from the same magic, some takes more, some take less, the stronger ones take more magic, the weaker ones take less, it's about as straightforward as you can get.

Edit: Oh yeah, even in regards to sustainability feats in Zelda, they're done via the user's magical strength. Which of course, scales to their actual magical attacks like magic blasts and shit, that Link tanks. And it's not even vague, for example, Vaati. Stated outright.
 
Last edited:
Chariot190 said:
Ganon can very amp his physical might via magic, and Link tanks and then A>B>C, basic stuff.
Not withstanding Link has tanked magical attacks from Ganon full stop before and thus, shit still goes A>B>C.

But even then, it's not like there isn't some pretty wild physical exclusive feats, like Demise's fissure or Guardian shit that's at least like 7-A, that Ganon physically scales to.

Or ****, the Giant's literally halting some tier 6 shit with their bare hands, or Malladus' country bust (if not 6-A bust) statement being from what we can tell either physical, fire, or meteor based, and Link scales to all said methods.

If the issue is "no non magic feat comes close", it's not entirely true.
Just because some magic shit is the crux of the scaling doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

And the worst part of this is, Link scales durability wise to literally all of this. So either way.

And if the issue is something about magical power being used for everything or whatever, Link proves that pretty decisively imo, given all his stuff, including even his spin attack in some games, all draw from the same power source. Link's Elemental Arrows and Mastered Spin Attack (a physical attack obviously) both draw from the same magic, some takes more, some take less, the stronger ones take more magic, the weaker ones take less, it's about as straightforward as you can get.
Click to expand...
Good to know.

Now if only a Mario expert here could visibly say something similar about Power Stars in its own CRT
 
Agnaa said:
And I fail to see the issue with scaling in that regard if we are explicitly shown that their non-UES feats are weaker than their UES-based creation feat. Is that not evidence enough?

The issue is that the requirement is pointless, since it is met 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
I mean, that's how UES's generally operate? It's why the whole "loss of power" criteria is there. It's one of the core components of a UES.

Of course, there are always exceptions, like non-UES feats being outright stronger and superseding their creation feats or their Creation feats shown to be explicitly stronger than their normal base attacks consistently. Like Endeavor's flaming attacks being stronger than his physical strikes or Android 17's self-destruct being Low 2-C and well above his base capabilities.

Agnaa said:
If their non-UES feats were stronger, they wouldn't need the UES scaling.
Click to expand...
This I see no issues with, like I already mentioned above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Expanding the Genshin Energy Systems
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Lloydblitzed
Ninjago UES Additions
Replies
22
Views
1K
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Universal Energy System for Elemental Powers (Ninjago)
Replies
11
Views
2K
Propellus
Propellus
Digital_Franz
Misconceptions about UES and Multipliers
Replies
29
Views
3K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Hypertornado099
Minor change to Incorporeality
Replies
6
Views
1K
TheShape03
TheShape03
Back
Top