I don't know how much of this I should go over again, how much of the thread have you read?
This is incorrect; that goes father than what people agreed with in the thread.
Having a slightly inaccurate title isn't that bad, since we got to that point really quickly. If you want the title changed, sure, that can be done. But we shouldn't recreate the thread because of that. If you think someone looked over this thread because of the title, we can leave it open for longer with the new one, no need to remake it.
This should be incorporated into Bob's draft, but that isn't a reason to reject the entire thread, it's a reason to rewrite the draft.
I don't think it was particularly mismanaged, and don't mind waiting for more input.
I don't know what part of Bob's post you're referring to here, I don't seem him saying that in the post you're responding to.
If the character is ontologically superior, then sure, that's what DT, myself, and others said earlier on in this thread.
Currently that's what we accept it as, but it isn't necessarily true, and so we should probably change that.
It definitely is, you can read posts where people explained exactly what their position was, and then count people who agreed with those.
That's not what the OP did. I just reread it, and that doesn't occur there.
I think it's incredibly disingenuous to only count people that agreed with you.
To be fair if a 1-A realm is still operating on common, three-dimension, calculable levels of temperature, that's an entirely different problem lol.
There's nothing actually barring something like that from working for most verses.
Yeah; the requirement is that they can concentrate that energy into a smaller volume. That's something we have for environmental destruction feats, and even comparing different levels of hax within the same tier (as can be seen in the Hax page's second note).
Yeah, no, I get what you mean. If an ability can and is shown in a way such as the theoretical 1-A temperature example, then sure, but I feel like that's a pretty case-by-case scenario that can be argued. Same with the range/targeting issue. The issue I have with this thread is that it insists that every single example is null and void, simply because people like Jimbob the Temperature Changer probably can't one-shot 10-Bs.
This is accurate.
This is true. Range often, but not always, correlates to potency.
This seems largely resolved nowadays, but may still merit a conclusive answer. And tackles the "immunity" of higher-tiered characters, something which is kind of the flip side of smurf hax questions (higher-tier character against lower-tier hax, instead of lower-tier character against higher-tier hax).
This also seems reasonable.
Hence why I suggested another thread, though if we are willing to stop juggling debates on re-defining things and also deleting said thing at the same time, a single large writeup could let us progress from here.
@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale
It's not that he's wrong, at least I don't think so. It's just these changes would leave very large gaping holes in our current system and I don't think it grants much in terms of actual benefit.
I agree that they would be harder to affect given the nature of ontology in general, but that would likely come down to the nature of the transcendence and how it compares between verses rather than an attempt at a one size fits all standard.
Agnaa's suggestions do just cover transcendence and reality fiction differences, however, it speaks about it using the term ontology instead, as that is the term that covers not just those but other similar transcendences such as those found in Platonism.
I do address that tho? As I said, I'm not confident in my answer for it; I feel like it should be harder to affect than higher-D stuff but I'm not sure about what practical changes that should entail, so rn my suggestion is just to treat it the same as higher-D stuff for this.
The second and fourth main points I made were entirely about smurf stuff. With the first and third being "how to affect someone larger than you".
What parts of it have I not covered? The first two points are about high-tier but not through physical existence. The next two points are about high-tier through sheer mathematical size. The next point is about having sheer size but not being high-tier through it. The next point is about high-tier through ontology (being more real). The next point is about high-tier through realms with qualitative superiorities that don't fall into any other categories. What am I forgetting about here? I also covered what I believe to be every category of ability on the wiki.
I'm saying that I have seen more that fit into one category than the other, and the current proposal is based on the minority rather than the majority.
It would also be a NLF, to assume, that a lower D character would be able to resist an ability way beyond his dimensionality, an ability Infinitely more complex in infinite magnitudes than said lower D individual.
The notion simply referred to a fancy (or known) term for a situation where one character possesses advantageous skills while their opponent lacks such abilities, resulting in an imbalanced match.
While it may be true that in practical terms, both scenarios result in no direct impact on the character, conceptually, there is a distinction. Abilities that do not reach an infinitesimally small slice of a character imply that there is a boundary beyond which the manipulation does not occur. On the other hand, abilities that affect an infinitesimally small slice suggest a more precise and localized impact within the character's physical substance.
The requirement for range alone does not necessarily negate the need for scale in abilities that manipulate physical substances. Scale could still play a role in determining the magnitude or intensity of the manipulation.
...That was meant regarding stuff like hax layers and Resistance Negation, the early draft even went on describing what a layer is (which most that have been active in versus threads nowadays know), and separating such idea from Resistance Negation.
Only on stats in the sense of, well, look at most tier 2 characters, barely any of them are of the size of a universe or above yet can withstand tier 2 attacks and whatever.
I recall it also explains it's a sort of exception as a being without such cosmological structure can't do much to begin with without one without feats.
This post is currently a bit malformed.
Oh, thanks for explanation. I did not see the early draft. Do you mind quoting it?
Hax and attacks are two different shoes.
This exception makes sense because without a cosmological structure, a being would lack the necessary foundation or platform to manifest its existential traits and exert its power.
I think you misunderstand my post.
And if you'll look at the reason I gave, I mentioned that it would only affect the infinitesimal part of them which extrudes into that reality
Which can kind of work, in that it may stop such an opponent from directly punching a user of such an ability. But it wouldn't stop them from nuking the reality as a whole.
I stated different things for different kinds of abilities.
This isn't inconsistent. They're not immune to such abilities, but they affect a tiny fraction of them, sometimes so tiny that it's practically irrelevant. Sometimes a tiny part that's irrelevant for the greater being's life, but could still be considered incapacitation for a match.
That's what I did.
Obviously. If you can only erase one hair off a 3-D being, simply having the range to hit a being that sees a timeline as fiction would not let you erase more than a single hair.
This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with R>F differences who can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.
This isn't necessarily true. There are characters with ontological transcendences that can't manipulate the laws of the lower reality.
I guess I could not tell the usage of your wording which caused equivocation when you were using “immune to abilities" in multiple meanings, leading to a flawed communication.
I am talking generally speaking, obviously within the feats that have been shown, but those are some feats they may present through these two forms of transcendence.
I missed this, assuming that when I edited my post is roughly when you posted and so it marked it as read? Either way, apologies.
Here
There were mixed responses on the site's history (as the OP somewhat mentions) on if characters that are on these conditions (4-D or above in stuff like AP and the like but still on a 3D body and similar) were immune to hax of the same dimensionality as their bodies and if not what semantics would be at play, which that tried to address.
Yep.
