|
>>
|
977456.jpg
Baby High Circles
977456
>Well, my claim is supported by relevant evidence...
The claim goes back to "trap a slime in ice" versus "Stopping their mana is cheaper". Ice generation is supported by evidence, and ice, in sufficient quantities, is capable of preventing motion. Ice manipulation has not been tested, but the hypothesis is sound. More to the point, the difficulty of such an operation has no demonstrated evidence, so relative judgements are not supported by such.
Mana manipulation has thus far been demonstrated to be performed using intruding tendrils. A global stop effect, while plausible, is not (to my knowledge) demonstrated. A swift one at range is likewise not demonstrated.
The opportunity cost of acquiring the ability is somewhat obscured, due to the lack of information about the options. The efficiency of using the abilities is not known. Even the mere possibility of using the abilities on those specific ways is not guaranteed. All of this is so far into speculation that the amount of evidence for any of the claims is barely relevant. Much as I would have preferred Sentry, Ice Shield is good, and mana stoppage sounds like an excellent technique, but I would not rely upon it until it is demonstrated. Perhaps we should go out alone(or with Red Eyes) hunting to test our abilities?
>You don't need to control your blood to be able to function. You only need to create a flow.
Creating a flow is control. Not total control, but I doubt that we can cause mana to spontaneously explode, or transmute into bratwurst, so total control is probably not an option. Emils has more control, but flows can be powerful and the ability to completely overpower them should not be assumed without testing.
>When they're small, the ambient mana is enough to sustain them, which implies mana flow even weaker than a rabbold child's.
Assuming identical biology, yes. Assuming otherwise identical biology but lacking external food? Very much yes. I hypothesise that slimes have a much more efficient mana-intake to mana-expenditure ratio. As an experiment to test this, I would propose that mana beasts maintain populations in regions in which rabbolds cannot due to mana shortage. If this is the case(I do not know) then a mana beast could maintain a greater mana density on a lower mana diet, when compared with a rabbold. Do we have data on mana beast population shifts relative to rabbold population shifts in mana-deprived regions?
>It turns out that slime on slime action can be quite a sticky mess.
It depends upon whether it only requires maintained contact, or specific points of contact. If a full rotation, or withdrawing the point of intrusion into their body and severing contact, would reset our progress, it would be problematic. It would be reduced if we could perform multiple simultaneous intrusions, and reconnect to a recently-severed intrusion, and create an aura of mana-intrusion over an entire surface, which are all plausible, but if a single flex of slime can reset our efforts to zero, then it would be problematic. The same would apply to solid opponents rolling or jumping into fires or poisons or bucking us into a different position or such.
>Only one. That all other things were equal hehe.
Do we really know enough about mana manipulation's use in the midst of a pitched battle to be sure that it would convert an exactly equal opponent into an easy one. Is it still an easy victory if you have both scoured off two-thirds of the other's slime before compromising their core? I don't know enough about mana manipulation to say that such would be unlikely.
Is a Sarous ambushed while weak and in unfavourable terrain by a skilled opponent using non-mana attacks relevant to this discussion? Sarous seem to be considered "easy if approached competently" and "mana beast" without specification seems to make people nervous. But I agree that combat seems to be a small aspect of our current existence, and social interactions seem to be quite challenging enough that augments would be invaluable.
|