• 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.

Multiple stars-moving feats tiering controversy

Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Head Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Messages
168,565
Reaction score
77,370
Hello.

It seems like several staff members disagree with our current practice of rating feats involving the movement of multiple stars or solar systems at once as 4-A, and would rather see that we rate them as 4-B, with Multi-Solar System level range.

Among other things, this disagreement has affected our past tiering of Kingdom Hearts, and a current My Little Pony revision thread.

We seem to need to properly straighten out this issue amongst the staff, and retired staff.
 
To be fair on the KH thing we had.........the thread we originally had a talk of it about died completely to the point I had to close it and say to have it redone if we were to talk about it again...
 
I am in the High 4-C/4-B camp, myself. We've never treated range as synonymous with AP, and doing so here is incredibly confusing.

If I pick up one rock in each hand and move them, this does not mean I move everything around and between the rocks. If a character moves two stars, they are doing simply that; moving two stars. The manipulation of everything in the surrounding area is not a requirement. If it was, we'd have Multiversal Odin and Multi-Solar System level trash-tier 40k lesser daemons. 4-B is more accurate and justifiable, and conforms well to everything else.
 
Okay. The issue is that the power would have to be dispersed over an extremely large area, much like for destruction feats.
 
Logically, yes. But the same is true for the examples I gave above, and many, many more. However, the vast majority of fiction does not treat it as such, and thus I believe only the objects being affected should be taken into account. Of course, if all the space between the stars is affected, that is an entirely different matter.
 
I mean, if a character used telekinesis to lift two cities on opposite ends of the world we wouldn't rank that as anything near planetary.

I'm leaning towards High 4-C/4-B here. It'd depend on the specifics.
 
My thoughts after reading this page is that:

  • Since we are dealing with the movement of just stars only, we would need to follow this rule
If one planet, Star or multiple planets and/or stars, that are reasonably nearby to each other, are moved, the equivalent Attack Potency is the sum of their GBE. Usually Stars can be considered to be like our sun and planets to be like earth, as long as no better guess is possible.
As for what this means, since only the stars themselves were moved around in most star-moving/constellation feats, we would have to find the number of stars that were moved around [that are visible to us], and find the Gravitational Binding Energy of the total number of stars that were moved.

Example: If a character forms a constellation by moving 15 stars around so that they align a formation, you would have to find the GBE of each star, and multiply their GBE by 15, which would net you Star level values for that feat.

The problem that arises from this is that even moving a star at Relativistic speeds would yield values much higher than just Star level.

Thus, what I would do here is:

  • Find the max relativistic kinetic energy value derived from moving a single star, where Velocity = 93% speed of light
  • Multiply the number of stars moved in that specific feat, by the relativistic kinetic energy derived from moving a single star.
Since moving objects at FTL speeds would theoretically require more energy in comparison to moving objects at relativistic speeds, just add the "At least" before said character's Attack Potency [the one that performed the star-moving feat]

If the above does not work, I would just do:

  • Find GBE of said star.
  • Find the number of stars moved around in the feat.
  • Multiply the number of stars moved by the GBE of said star.
So, as for the Princess Luna example, since Nightmare Moon brings in 4 stars at once towards the Moon, using the first method, we get...

  • Mass of the Sun = 2e30 kg
  • Relativistic kinetic energy allowed = 3.097e47 Joules [Used 93% SoL to derive KE]
  • Number of stars moved = 4
  • [3.097e47 Joules] x [4 stars moved] = 1.2388e48 Joules; Solar System level
  • Since the stars are obviously moving faster than relativistic speeds, the feat itself is written as "At least Solar System level".
Using the second method, we get...

  • GBE of Sun = 6.276e41 Joules
  • Number of stars moved = 4
  • Energy required to move stars = [GBE of Sun] x [number of stars moved = 4] = 2.5104e42 Joules. Star level
Personally, I would prefer the first option as the first option would set all star-moving/constellation feats as Solar System level, with Multi-Solar System level range [Interstellar range in this case].
 
@Lina

The feat isn't actually Luna's. Tia did make a constellation, though.

That said, yes, I too am on the side of Solar System level AP with MSS range for feats like this.
 
Looking at this calculation agai, it seems that the vast majority of the Kingdom Hearts characters are rated 4-B, based on a feat that was rated to be High 4-C [as casual as it is].

However, using my first suggestion of using the relativistic kinetic energy for each star, and multiply the value by the number of stars moved gives us a value of...

  • Energy = [Max relativistic KE = 3.097e47 Joules] x [614 stars moved] = 1.9016e50 Joules. Solar System level
  • Sora and the vast majority of the Kingdom Hearts characters would stay as 4-B in this case.
Otherwise, they may have to be downgraded to High 4-C, considering that you would need over 5.31 times the energy from Zeus' constellation feat to reach bare minimum 4-B...
 
Well, DontTalk was the one who wrote our current regulation page concerning this issue, so I have invited him to respond here.
 
Lina Shields said:
Looking at this calculation agai, it seems that the vast majority of the Kingdom Hearts characters are rated 4-B, based on a feat that was rated to be High 4-C [as casual as it is].
However, using my first suggestion of using the relativistic kinetic energy for each star, and multiply the value by the number of stars moved gives us a value of...

  • Energy = [Max relativistic KE = 3.097e47 Joules] x [614 stars moved] = 1.9016e50 Joules. Solar System level
  • Sora and the vast majority of the Kingdom Hearts characters would stay as 4-B in this case.
Otherwise, they may have to be downgraded to High 4-C, considering that you would need over 5.31 times the energy from Zeus' constellation feat to reach bare minimum 4-B...
Click to expand...
Hooray for nothing changing!
 
Perhaps somebody could invite the rest of the calculation group members to respond here as well, to see if Lina's suggestion is acceptable?
 
Also, this might cause problems with Galaxy-moving feats, which we currently rate as 3-C.
 
Moving one galaxy, yes. Similar to how moving one star, unless specific sub-FTL values were specified and acquired, would be 4-C. I don't believe there are many multi-galaxy moving feats from characters who aren't already shown to be at that level.
 
I am okay with the Kingdom Hearts profiles remaining the way it is, although the reasoning solely depends on the fact that moving stars at FTL speeds > moving stars at speeds approaching lightspeed.

The only concern that comes to mind is that moving an entire galaxy/multiple galaxies at the max allowable relativistic speed would only yield Multi-Solar System level values, which would throw a wrench to the rules made regarding Celestial Body feats.

A third idea would be to assume that when a star, such as the Sun is moved, the planets that are orbiting around the star in question would be moved around with it, considering that all of the planets in the solar system are gravitationally bound towards the sun, assuming no changes to the planet's orbit around the star were stated during/after the feat has been performed.

  • This means that when a star is shown to be moved around, it also means that all the planets that are orbiting said star would be moved around along with the star.
  • Moving around a star at FTL speeds = moving an entire solar system at FTL speeds since all the planets that are orbiting the star itself will be moved along with it.
 
I feel as if, considering how drastic pulling a star out of its native area at MFTL+ speeds is, that everything retaining a normal orbit would need to be stated/implied (as in, a planet is moved along with its sun, and there are no adverse effects after the movement).
 
Basically...

  • Stars moved at FTL speeds = [Minimum energy required to reach Solar System level] x [number of stars moved] = Solar System level.
  • Most constellation feats would be directly set to Solar System level in this case.
The above rule would not affect any of the other rules regarding celestial body feats, as moving entire Solar Systems at FTL would still be classified as Solar System level, as well as moving entire Galaxies around at FTL speeds would still be considered Galaxy level.

Main Point: By moving around a star, you move around the planets orbiting around it, therefore moving around an entire solar system [unless it was specified that something else happened to the planets previously orbiting around the star that was moved].
 
Well, in any case, we should probably wait for DontTalk before deciding anything. He is one of our most intelligent members.
 
So essentially:

  • Moving 1 Solar System = Solar System level
  • Moving multiple Solar Systems/most constellation feats = higher Solar System level
  • Moving a Galaxy = Galaxy level
Yes? Because I have no problem with that.
 
@Azzy: That is the crux of my proposal, yes.

The term "Solar System" would refer to the star and the planets that orbit around the star in a gravitationally bound system for the most part.
 
Well, it still seems strange that moving 100 billion stars (the number in the Milky Way) would count as galaxy level, whereas moving a million or so would only be solar system level.
 
In this case, the galaxy is being treated as a unit. As in, the character moving the galaxy and everything in it, as opposed to specifically moving all the stars in the galaxy and only the things in their orbit. The former suggests power holding the galaxy's form together and moving it all simultaneously, and is, to my knowledge, how the majority of galaxy moving feats are portrayed.
 
Okay. It will be hard to justify this in a logical manner in the Celestial Body Feats page though.
 
Not really. A specification just needs to be made between a galaxy and all the stars in a galaxy. The stars and planets in our galaxy only make up a portion of it. There is also enough gas and dust to form billions and billions more stars, and more than ten times the amount of all those combined in dark matter. The entire thing is held together by gravity, and in cases such a our own spiral galaxy, the spiral shape comes from stars illuminating interstellar gases and space dust. If there is some kind of drastic distortion in the shape of a galaxy when it supposedly moved, we can assume it wasn't all moved, or at the very least not all moved simultaneously. If the galaxy retains its shape during the movement, the force moving it is clearly moving the galaxy as a whole.

This is not even accounting for galaxies like our own Milky Way, which have a supermassive black hole in the center, as well.
 
Okay then. Somebody would still have to rewrite the regulations in a logically coherent and easily understood manner though.

Anyway, Kaltias messaged me with the following suggestion:

"My proposal to rate a feat regarding the movement of star systems is the following:

If they travelled all the distance between them (if they collided, for example) it should be rated as 4-A, because the character has affected not only the celestial bodies but all the space between them too.

Otherwise, use the method that Lina Shields proposed."
 
What does Kaltias mean by "distance between them"? Like if they moved towards each other? I don't see how that would affect the results. If you sent two planets on a collision course, be it from several light seconds or several light years away, you'd still just be sending those two planets at each other.
 
I think that he means that interstellar distances means immense dispersion of the required power, as I mentioned earlier.
 
Here is another message from Kaltias:

"Sorry if I bother you again but I wanted to point out other two things:

I did a quick calculation and found out that throwing the Milky Way at 93% c is worth "only" 1,2 x 10^59 J of energy. That's roughly 10^(-7) times less than baseline Galaxy level, so here is a problem that I think would emerge if we only used the KE (I know that Azathoth pointed out that most of the galactic mass is dark matter, but to the best of my knowledge it isn't 10000000 times more massive than the galaxy itself).

Also, we do consider creating a pocket dimension with a starry sky as 4-A, despite the fact that the energy involved is nowhere near baseline 4-A in almost every case, so I think we should do something similar here."
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
I am in the High 4-C/4-B camp, myself. We've never treated range as synonymous with AP, and doing so here is incredibly confusing.
If I pick up one rock in each hand and move them, this does not mean I move everything around and between the rocks. If a character moves two stars, they are doing simply that; moving two stars. The manipulation of everything in the surrounding area is not a requirement. If it was, we'd have Multiversal Odin and Multi-Solar System level trash-tier 40k lesser daemons. 4-B is more accurate and justifiable, and conforms well to everything else.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Range =/= AP. Never.
 
Also, Pocket Dimension feats are clearly different and should count. My issue comes with moving stars.
 
Well, what should we do about the galaxy-moving feats then?
 
I would consider moving a galaxy to be galaxy level, but then again, a lot of really strong people can push cars, but they can't destroy them in one-shot.

So moving constellations and moving galaxies not being galaxy level makes sense.
 
Isn't this the same discussion we had in the last thread about how to scale this?

So essentially my opinion is still: Treat FTL stuff like reality warping stuff.

Planet at FTL = planet level.

Multiple planets = Sum of their GBE

Star = Star level

Solar Systems = Solar system level

Galaxys = Galaxy level

Multiple Galaxies = Multi-Galaxy level


For multiple planets/stars ranking them as sum of the single stars seems fine.

Alternatively the current idea of treating them as MSS-level when far apart is also not inconsistent with the other ranking, which is important.


What I would personally disagree with is ranking moving one or multiple stars as default 4-B.


Of course nothing here will really add up in terms of math or amounts, but that is just the problem if one quantifies feats in a non-scientific manner (given that there is no scientific manner that works available).


In regards to KE suggestion I say the same I said to KE suggestions since ages:

"Since the KE of objects goes towards infinity in relativity, the argument that KE of a FTL object should be higher than that of a relativistic object just doesn't hold.

So for all purposes we have to end up with KE of FTL < KE of high relativistic objects, so personally I believe the feats should be treated closer to reality warping quantification, than to a KE feat. "
 
I think that DontTalk seems to make sense. I am also concerned about the issue of consistency.
 
Anyway, would the rest of you be okay with treating FTL star-moving feats the same way as we do reality warping of similar scale?
 
I suppose we can use the GBE sum value to determine the AP of moving clestial......as long as we are able to quantify it of course.
 
Well, DontTalk only stated that we should use the sum of the GBEs for planets that are close to each other. For interstellar distances with movements at MFTL+ speeds, we should treat it like we do reality warping at a similar scale.
 
Actually, galaxies have very low mass for their size. I think that moving a Galaxy should be just 4B to 4-A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Epyriel
  • Locked
Tier 5 Revision
5 6 7
Replies
243
Views
24K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
183K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
FinePoint
  • Locked
High 1-A Description Overhaul: The Inaccessible Cardinal Debacle
Replies
23
Views
6K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
TyranoDoom30
why aren't constellation feats considered 4-A
Replies
6
Views
1K
ShadowWarrior1999
ShadowWarrior1999
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Franchise-specific discussion rules revamp
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top