- 24,341
- 25,245
The 6-C meteor feat is wrong
-
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.
Mcu 6-a and speed rough draft
- 8,997
- 9,713
The 6-C feat is higher than the current one that the Gauntlet scales to
- 16,150
- 25,192
Yeah I misunderstood when I first read it and responded
- 12,085
- 2,094
It's really not, on the OG Tier 6 Thread back in 2020, we agreed it would translate to tier 6 but we thought it to be an outlier
- 24,341
- 25,245
It is as it didn't Iron Man's surface area into account. The correct result was 7-B
- 12,085
- 2,094
- 11,097
- 4,318
The best way to calculate it would be full KE of the meteor - destruction done to the ground according to DontTalkDT
- 8,997
- 9,713
I feel like the power surge should scale above Thanos’s 6-A Power Stone feat
- 179
- 277
Same here. It honestly makes no sense that Rocket has this thing that puts it a 6-C. Yet he's also calling it like, the most powerful energy surge he's ever seen. Despite he himself easily making moon busting weapons from scrap.
- 280
- 298
Even if we decided to do that, it would still be completely overshadowed by Surtur getting whacked by a 6-B explosion. It would also be an astronomical outlier.
- 179
- 277
Honestly that 6-B explosion is complete bs. We don't have any concrete confirmation on how big Asgard is. And Asgard itself is MASSIVELY inconsistent in size. Pretty much every calc gives a different size. Making any calc for it basically unusable. Not to mention Surtur mentioning the Ragnarok prophecy. Stating he can't die, not until Ragnarok is complete. To me, his death is simply P.I.S. at worst, and due to the prophecy at best. Especially considering weaker characters have better feats (which is the whole point of this thread).
- 19,729
- 16,118
Surtur gas such a small amount of showings that you can't call his death PIS. It's just him Killin himself to level Asgard
- 280
- 298
- 24,341
- 25,245
I don't quite get it? Are you saying he committed suicide and then Asgard died for did the Asgard explosion kill him?
- 19,729
- 16,118
When he stabbed the crystal structure under Asgard and it exploded Surtur died.
You can't call that showing PIS when that's all he has.
- 179
- 277
Yes you can. When there are several feats from canonical weaker characters that give higher results. And again, Asgard is INCREDIBLY inconsistent in size. Hell, for a while the explosion was High 7-A because of one calc. Then another size was used to get 6-C. Then finally the one you're bringing up now. All these calcs getting vastly different numbers, make this feat incalculable unless there's an official Canon statement regarding Asgards size.
Last edited:
- 19,729
- 16,118
What feats?
- 179
- 277
There's honestly a lot. So I'll just refer you to this thread. Since it's, you know, the whole point of it. Main examples would be the bifrost destroying Jotunheim.
But even if you think the feats of this thread can't be used. The size of Asgard is still a massive problem for me. If the size isn't portrayed consistently (which it isn't) than any calc using it's size becomes null and void.
Actually wait a minute. Why the hell is this 6-B calc being brought up? It's not even being used in his profile. In fact, the highest calc I found is this. And it's not even Country Level. Do you have a link to a 6-B calc?
- 19,729
- 16,118
If its this thread then I went over why the majority of the proposed 6-A ratings are either non-feats or not useable.
Something no one really scales to on a planet mostly composed of ice that's dying anyways.
- 4,371
- 6,938
- 179
- 277
The feat Pre-Ragnarok Thor performed casually, which scales to a whole bunch of people. Which shook the planet itself. On a planet of Ice that was still capable of holding up a massive frost beast. Not to mention the frost giants themselves. And is likely far stronger than regular ice.
Edit: I'm dumb, mixed up feats. See replies.
Last edited:
- 179
- 277
Ah okay, I remember that calc now. Still, don't know why it's being brought up when it's not even used in his profile. Also, that calc was a recalc, and used a different size to the original. Because yeah, Asgards very inconsistent.
- 24,341
- 25,245
I don't think any of you said shows itself to be higher than 6-B
- 12,085
- 2,094
Yeah, earthquakes on our much heavier planet are Low 6-B
- 179
- 277
Oh shit hold up. I had the wrong feat in my head. Although technically I think if you highballed Thor's feat then you would likely get into 6-B.
But the Bifrost feat. Yeah that one would still scale to the high tiers. Thor destroyed the Bifrost bridge as it was channeling the energy needed to destroy Jotunheim. Not to mention he specifically destroyed the bridge because it was channeling the energy being used. Add to that the bridge itself is meant to contain said energy. And Thor and Loki survive the release of energy from the Bifrost. Yeah, that would be above 6-B. Though yeah, I done ****** up with the last feat. I mixed up the Jotunheim and Bifrost feats for some reason.
Last edited:
- 179
- 277
Okay, how do you know Jotunheimen is lighter than Earth? Is it, probably, but there's no proof so we generally consider it to be earth sized.
- 12,085
- 2,094
It's made of Ice, while our planet is made of much harder materials
- 179
- 277
I just showed in the post that the ice is clearly stronger than normal Ice. So again, it's likely, but not provable without direct confirmation.
But more to the point. Earthquake calcs don't even rely on the weight of the planet, they rely on the radius of the earthquake. Again, since there's nothing to suggest otherwise. Jotunheimen is the size of Earth. Meaning the radius is the same. So, the yield would be Low 6-B regardless.
One final thing. Low 6-B is for a magnitude 4 earthquake. Which basically means that like, everyone felt it, but no lasting damage was done. And uh, yeah that's not the case with Thor.
- 24,341
- 25,245
Jotunheim is hollow.
- 179
- 277
Is there proof for that?
- 24,341
- 25,245
It was stated in one of the guidebooks iirc. I'll try find the scan.
That and I think there was an old calc that shaking Jotunheim would only be 7-A. I don't think even think we use Jotunheim as earth sized
- 179
- 277
I remember the conversation in the thread earlier. I remember the statement people kept clinging to was that Jotunheim was the size of Europa. But no one could find the scan. So it was agreed that with no further evidence to the contrary, we should just consider it the size of Earth.
- 19,729
- 16,118
Thr bridge wasn't what was channeling the energy, but the observatory. Destroying power capables to a nuclear reactor does not mean you scale to the nuclear reactors' output.
No, they rely on tectonic plate activity and seismic waves. Earthquakes cannot happen on objects without those features. If something lacks tectonic plates it can't produce a earthquake.
It's so vastly overestimated how much energy it's required to shake a planet. A 50 megaton explosion produced enough energy for an earthquake to be felt over the entire planet and a 6-B meteor strike also produced a magnitude 11 earthquake when it struck the Earth.
There's just a lack of everything to suggest that the cast are casually 6-A. Especially when virtually none of of have fears remotely close tk that.
- 4,371
- 6,938
Honestly the title of this thread is misleading at this point, if you could change it to like 6-B/High 6-B that would be better lol
- 16,150
- 25,192
So when they say someone's a walking nuke in the MCU or that they're for example "10x" a nuke
- 19,729
- 16,118
I thought we weren't allowed to use curvature calcs anymore unless we had a solid image of the Earth to go from.
- 16,150
- 25,192
That's probably something you've gotta ping a calc member about because that's the first I've heard of that
- 19,729
- 16,118
Similar threads
