Should These Calcs Be Accepted?

[IDK3465]

Hello everyone,
Recently, Flashlight237 had accepted these two calcs for Epithet Erased that I made, but later, during this CRT, Agnaa said that both calcs were invalid for reasons they gave in the comments. While me and Flashlight had agreed that the latter one was invalid due to not accounting for momentum, we disagreed with Agnaa's assessment of the falling feat, and I’m currently in the process of revising the ramming feat.

The point of this thread is to gauge whether or not the falling feat and my revision of the ramming feat are valid and can be used.

 

[Vzearr]

The calc is valid, I do think you should hold back on using it until Agnaa has replied to flashlight though, since it's 1 calc group member against another.

The ramming feat would be valid if they accepted a recalced version.

 

[IDK3465]

Bump

 

[IDK3465]

I just revised the ramming calc

 

[IDK3465]

Apparently, Agnaa’s still being pretty stubborn about this, so nvm

 

[IDK3465]

Bump I guess?

 

[IDK3465]

Bump

 

[IDK3465]

bump

 

[IDK3465]

bump?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Have you brought up my points to Bambu or Agnaa yet? Like... if a child at their normal size less than an adult, does a 10-B feat, do we just... disgard the feat?

 

[Agnaa]

Have you brought up my points to Bambu or Agnaa yet? Like... if a child at their normal size less than an adult, does a 10-B feat, do we just... disgard the feat?

If it was a 10-B punch, we wouldn't disregard it.

If it was 10-B full-body PE/KE, we would.

The issue is PE/KE ratings that could be applied to normal humans to also get superhuman ratings, due to involving the entire body, while our AP ratings at those levels are based off of punches and the ability to tank them.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

If it was a 10-B punch, we wouldn't disregard it.

If it was 10-B full-body PE/KE, we would.

The issue is PE/KE ratings that could be applied to normal humans to also get superhuman ratings, due to involving the entire body, while our AP ratings at those levels are based off of punches and the ability to tank them.

Though how do you address these points I mentioned in another thread by the OP?

"
1: If we're going to use IRL logic for humans, why are we applying these standards to a 12 year old? They're not going to be within the range of an average adult's weight and would proportionally have a less average durability threshold to bypass, albeit vague. If a child does human level feats, do we just... disgard them?

• 1.1: If she's like, 12 years old, shouldn't we lower the bar to bypassing what a normal, average, 12 year old could withstand?

2: Agnaa's argument of surviving 2 story falls depends on the context. Can reg. people still walk like nothing happened after falling onto a hard surface? If they even no-selled landing on a hard surface at all? I'm speaking from the heart of what durability really means here. If these reg. people are along the lines of having their legs shattered or have pain too unbearable to shrug off, what's the point in his argument?"

I would also like to mention that regular people withstanding falls isn't a too defined boundary, as we would also factor what body part you're landing on.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not so much "using IRL logic", we apply it to non-human things as well. We don't accept whole-body PE for characters unless they have Large Size, even if they're non-human.

That's all I can really say, since I otherwise don't understand your disregarding point at all. I already outlined which situations I would accept, why, and why a 12-year-old defeating an adult at arm wrestling would give them stats beyond Below Average Human.

I get where you're coming from with the second point, but I find it a prickly thing to actually apply for a few reasons:

• Other things affect whether characters walk around fine after injuries, such as pain tolerance. So equating a superhuman response here to superhuman durability isn't necessarily appropriate.
• The judgement on where exactly those things land is very difficult to nail down, given the variety of materials one can land on, and places of the body one can land on. This is exacerbated by experimental data for this being rare and not often communicated.
• The underlying values are still ultimately non-representative. This is a flaw in our system, but it's meant to go away at superhuman tiers by things being so far from the norm that these inaccuracies wash out. But if we start assigning values right at this border, we'd end up saying that characters who can take a fall without complaining that involves 5% more than an ordinary human could, would be able to one-shot and be invulnerable to punches from ordinary humans, which is itself completely discordant. Essentially, I want the buffer zone to be wider so that flaw in our system is less visible.

Obviously, my preferred solution would be to excise this flaw from our system, by adjusting AP borders based on full-body values, separating the joule values for AP from the joule values for durability, or by incorporating surface-area in our ratings, but all of those have proven too unpopular among other staff.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

It's not so much "using IRL logic", we apply it to non-human things as well. We don't accept whole-body PE for characters unless they have Large Size, even if they're non-human.

That's all I can really say, since I otherwise don't understand your disregarding point at all. I already outlined which situations I would accept, why, and why a 12-year-old defeating an adult at arm wrestling would give them stats beyond Below Average Human.

I get where you're coming from with the second point, but I find it a prickly thing to actually apply for a few reasons:

• Other things affect whether characters walk around fine after injuries, such as pain tolerance. So equating a superhuman response here to superhuman durability isn't necessarily appropriate.
• The judgement on where exactly those things land is very difficult to nail down, given the variety of materials one can land on, and places of the body one can land on. This is exacerbated by experimental data for this being rare and not often communicated.
• The underlying values are still ultimately non-representative. This is a flaw in our system, but it's meant to go away at superhuman tiers by things being so far from the norm that these inaccuracies wash out. But if we start assigning values right at this border, we'd end up saying that characters who can take a fall without complaining that involves 5% more than an ordinary human could, would be able to one-shot and be invulnerable to punches from ordinary humans, which is itself completely discordant. Essentially, I want the buffer zone to be wider so that flaw in our system is less visible.

Obviously, my preferred solution would be to excise this flaw from our system, by adjusting AP borders based on full-body values, separating the joule values for AP from the joule values for durability, or by incorporating surface-area in our ratings, but all of those have proven too unpopular among other staff.

And where's Molly's 10- B raw strength feats? I'm asking you and the OP this. If a 12 year old IRL or Molly hasn't physically proven to have 10-B strength, then shouldn't she be 10-C instead?

If my second point is prickly to apply, then how do we know anyone could no-sell falling Molly's fall?

 

[Agnaa]

And where's Molly's 10- B raw strength feats? I'm asking you and the OP this. If a 12 year old IRL or Molly hasn't physically proven to have 10-B strength, then shouldn't she be 10-C instead?

Oh that's what you mean? Yeah sure. I think I gave her 10-B since I wasn't exactly sure where the border between 10-C and 10-B was for featless characters, 10-C says "small children or infirm people" (which seems a little low), and 10-B says "teenagers or unathletic adults" (which seems a little high).

If my second point is prickly to apply, then how do we know anyone could no-sell falling Molly's fall?

You're asking something I already answered in my last post. If there's a part of that you don't understand, or take issue with, please point it out more explicitly.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Oh that's what you mean? Yeah sure. I think I gave her 10-B since I wasn't exactly sure where the border between 10-C and 10-B was for featless characters, 10-C says "small children or infirm people" (which seems a little low), and 10-B says "teenagers or unathletic adults" (which seems a little high).

You're asking something I already answered in my last post. If there's a part of that you don't understand, or take issue with, please point it out more explicitly.

For your info, if an unathletic human fits in this height range and weight range here [54 to 83 kg for the latter], then a human is 10-B

If she is 10-C, then what do we do with the calc? Do we accept her into a higher tier than 10-C, disgard it? I have no idea in this case since your argument relied on average people withstanding falls when a kid is below average in strength.

 

[IDK3465]

Btw Agnaa, here’s the other thread I made discussing this in case you’re curious.

 

[Agnaa]

For your info, if an unathletic human fits in this height range and weight range here [54 to 83 kg for the latter], then a human is 10-B

If she is 10-C, then what do we do with the calc? Do we accept her into a higher tier than 10-C, disgard it? I have no idea in this case since your argument relied on average people withstanding falls when a kid is below average in strength.

I already addressed that in this post.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I already addressed that in this post.

So you're saying that even though she's 10-C, the logic of preventing reg. people from being 9-C would still apple since she's still in a sense a regular person. Even though we usually define reg. People as 10-B, she would still be a regular person in a different way so she wouldn't be 9-C.

Fair.

 

[IDK3465]

So Agnaa, I actually have a quick question:

What exactly would convince you the feat is valid?
Or alternatively, what kind of compromise could we make if we never get to a solid agreement?

I say this because we’ve been arguing for nearly a month and it feels like we aren’t really getting any common ground here. I think directly stating what we need to agree on something would be incredibly helpful in finally ending this discussion.

 

[IDK3465]

Bump?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So Agnaa, I actually have a quick question:

What exactly would convince you the feat is valid?
Or alternatively, what kind of compromise could we make if we never get to a solid agreement?

I say this because we’ve been arguing for nearly a month and it feels like we aren’t really getting any common ground here. I think directly stating what we need to agree on something would be incredibly helpful in finally ending this discussion.

Well, you already know that his main problem is that any avg human could do Molly's feat. Find some way around this, and you'd be ok.

You could put the falling feat as supporting evidence for 10-C dura, so you could imply that she has good dura.

 

[IDK3465]

Well, you already know that his main problem is that any avg human could do Molly's feat. Find some way around this, and you'd be ok.

You could put the falling feat as supporting evidence for 10-C dura, so you could imply that she has good dura.

It’s just weird you know? If Molly was supposed to react to this in a realistic way, you’d expect her to have been harmed or injured at least somewhat, but there was nothing indicating such. There was also no indication that Molly had done anything to soften the impact, like most parkourists do when they fall from heights like this. I just don’t believe a regular 12 year old could’ve done what Molly did so casually.

The only ways to prove to me that Molly is 10-C and that the feat is 100% invalid are either:

1. Molly was significantly injured by the fall and we therefore cannot expect her to casually be capable of taking this kind of thing.
2. Molly knew how to soften the impact or focus on more durable areas to allow her to not suffer the full effects from it.
3. Prove to me that real world children are capable of not just surviving, but being fully unharmed by falls of greater than 10 ft. Also prove that it isn’t just an outlier or different from what Molly did by showing exactly the same thing, with the exact same results, and show that several times.

If I still don’t agree with anything you presented, let’s just agree to disagree on this and accept that this is a matter of personal opinion and interpretation rather then concrete fact.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

It’s just weird you know? If Molly was supposed to react to this in a realistic way, you’d expect her to have been harmed or injured at least somewhat, but there was nothing indicating such. There was also no indication that Molly had done anything to soften the impact, like most parkourists do when they fall from heights like this. I just don’t believe a regular 12 year old could’ve done what Molly did so casually.

The only ways to prove to me that Molly is 10-C and that the feat is 100% invalid are either:

1. Molly was significantly injured by the fall and we therefore cannot expect her to casually be capable of taking this kind of thing.
2. Molly knew how to soften the impact or focus on more durable areas to allow her to not suffer the full effects from it.
3. Prove to me that real world children are capable of not just surviving, but being fully unharmed by falls of greater than 10 ft. Also prove that it isn’t just an outlier or different from what Molly did by showing exactly the same thing, with the exact same results, and show that several times.

If I still don’t agree with anything you presented, let’s just agree to disagree on this and accept that this is a matter of personal opinion and interpretation rather then concrete fact.

But then we would have to accept that children could have peak human durability, which wouldn't make sense.

If you're upset at me, be upset at Agnaa and staff first. They're the ones that think that a child shouldn't have peak human durability.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So you're saying that even though she's 10-C, the logic of preventing reg. people from being 9-C would still apple since she's still in a sense a regular person. Even though we usually define reg. People as 10-B, she would still be a regular person in a different way so she wouldn't be 9-C.

I think he was trying to say this point though.

 

[IDK3465]

But then we would have to accept that children could have peak human durability, which wouldn't make sense.

If you're upset at me, be upset at Agnaa and staff first. They're the ones that think that a child shouldn't have peak human durability.

That’s not what I’m trying to say though.

What I’m trying to say is that if you can prove that regular 12 year olds can do exactly what Molly did, I’d then agree with you that this shouldn’t be considered a peak human feat. I’m not claiming real world children are all 9-C, I’m claiming that if anyone can do this kind of thing, then it shouldn’t count as anything more than 10-C.

The thing is, in my opinion, I don’t think regular 12 year olds (and people in general) can consistently handle falls of greater than 10 ft. Yeah, they’ll probably survive, but that doesn’t mean their bones won’t break, or their organs won’t internally bleed. I don’t think that would count as durability.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

That’s not what I’m trying to say though.

What I’m trying to say is that if you can prove that regular 12 year olds can do exactly what Molly did, I’d then agree with you that this shouldn’t be considered a peak human feat. I’m not claiming real world children are all 9-C, I’m claiming that if anyone can do this kind of thing, then it shouldn’t count as anything more than 10-C.

I think I miscommunicated Agnaa point.
this was what he was trying to say, but your point still stands. Vvv

So you're saying that even though she's 10-C, the logic of preventing reg. people from being 9-C would still apple since she's still in a sense a regular person. Even though we usually define reg. People as 10-B, she would still be a regular person in a different way so she wouldn't be 9-C.

Fair.

Even though you wern't trying to say children are 9-C, Agnaa is implying you're still going to bump into the problem of children being 9-C in durability (which wouldn't make any sense, since we both know they shouldn't be 9-C). That's even if I find proof of 12 year olds being 9-C and even if the calc is accepted. Which I'll get into looking up if I have the time.

 

[IDK3465]

How about this,

We’ve been arguing on this topic for quite awhile with little progress on coming to a consensus on this. It seems, from what I know, there’s as much evidence for the feat being valid as it is invalid.

So, as a way to split the difference and stop this from becoming a year-long debate, let’s simply agree to disagree and have Molly’s tier be “10-C, possibly 9-C”.
This way, you and Agnaa can be satisfied as there’s still ambiguity in whether it’s something regular children can do or not. And, I and Flashlight (and all my friends who I asked personally off-site about this who ended up agreeing) can be happy as we aren’t completely ignoring the feat, and we can have the ability to use a 9-C Molly in vs threads and the like should we wish.

How do you feel about this?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

How about this,

We’ve been arguing on this topic for quite awhile with little progress on coming to a consensus on this. It seems, from what I know, there’s as much evidence for the feat being valid as it is invalid.

So, as a way to split the difference and stop this from becoming a year-long debate, let’s simply agree to disagree and have Molly’s tier be “10-C, possibly 9-C”.
This way, you and Agnaa can be satisfied as there’s still ambiguity in whether it’s something regular children can do or not. And, I and Flashlight (and all my friends who I asked personally off-site about this who ended up agreeing) can be happy as we aren’t completely ignoring the feat, and we can have the ability to use a 9-C Molly in vs threads and the like should we wish.

How do you feel about this?

Got the source. 12 year olds can survive 3 story falls.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6620098/#:~:text=Falls%20from%20a%20height%20are,%2C%20all%20survived%20(100%25).

The problem of 9-C children proportionally applies at a smaller scale.

Regarding your compromise.

1: The wiki's purpose is to index fiction. Making matches are secondary in priority.

2: While Molly is flat on her stomach, her high surface area, lower mass, youth and her falling from one story rather than 3 makes it very likely a person of her stature would no sell the fall IRL.

 

[IDK3465]

Got the source. 12 year olds can survive 3 story falls.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6620098/#:~:text=Falls%20from%20a%20height%20are,%2C%20all%20survived%20(100%25).

The problem of 9-C children proportionally applies at a smaller scale.

Regarding your compromise.

1: The wiki's purpose is to index fiction. Making matches are secondary in priority.

2: While Molly is flat on her stomach, her high surface area, lower mass, youth and her falling from one story rather than 3 makes it very likely a person of her stature would no sell the fall IRL.

Ok, H3, if you'll indulge me, I'm going to go full-on Ace Attorney on you (please give me this)

Before we continue arguing and giving each other headaches, I think we should ask ourselves and each other a question:

What exactly do we mean when we say things like "Street level," "durability," or "no sell"?
I say this because if we want to come to a solid conclusion, we need to understand where we're approaching this from. If we end up having conflicting views of what these terms at their core mean, we could actually agree with each other and simply use these terms differently, causing immense confusion.

I've always interpreted "durability" on our site to mean what a character can take without significant injury that would make it physically difficult to function normally. For example, let's say a character got hit by an attack and only suffered minor bruising, a bloody nose, some scars at worst, etc. Stuff like that is what I feel should count towards a character's durability. Yeah, it'd suck for them, but it's not like it's gonna impair their ability to continue on that much. Now, let's say another character got hit by an attack that resulted in stuff like broken bones, ruptured organs, concussions, stuff that you'd generally want to spend a while at a hospital for. In my opinion, that shouldn't count for durability. I know Agnaa said this is more of a stamina thing, but I don't think that's right. If you have your arm snapped in half, whether you feel the pain of it or not, it's going to make your life a hell of a lot harder being incapable of using one of your arms. What I'm trying to get at here is that I believe the line between what constitutes a character's durability and what doesn't is whether they can or cannot function normally after getting hit. This also means that just because a character can survive something doesn't necessarily mean they're that durable.

Now, street level... The way I've always interpreted 9-C in comparison to regular people (outside of direct calculations, of course) is generally significant and potentially lethal collateral damage. The reason why I put emphasis on "potentially" there is that while 9-C attacks can easily kill people, it isn't guaranteed. For example, if someone got shot in the heart or if Bruce Lee kicked them in the head at full force, they'd most definitely die. But that isn't just because the gun and Lee are strong, it's because they're actively targeting weak points. If this person had a less important area hit (a spot on their chest away from their organs, their arm, having the damage more spread out), then they could probably survive, but still not without significant injury or need to heal afterward. The reason why street levels tend to one-shot ordinary people is that they're also commonly highly skilled fighters/hunters/predators who know where to target, not simply pure strength. So, just because a 10-B survived something 9-C doesn't disqualify it from being 9-C, as long as it also doesn’t count towards the 10-B’s durability, which I touched on before.

As for “no-sell,” we explicitly have a definition for this on the durability page. Casually getting up after being hit or being completely unmoved by something? No-sell. Ultimately surviving but struggling to get up or expressly trying to tough through something? Not so much.

So, H3, what do you think these terms mean?

 

[Agnaa]

So you're saying that even though she's 10-C, the logic of preventing reg. people from being 9-C would still apple since she's still in a sense a regular person. Even though we usually define reg. People as 10-B, she would still be a regular person in a different way so she wouldn't be 9-C.

Fair.

Yeah it's not based on the idea that the person doing the feat is a regular person. It's based on the idea that a regular person could do that same feat, yet shouldn't be given 9-C for it. If we try to make it regular relative to their stature or whatever else, then we'd run into the issue where giant animals could never get big tiers based on their size, which seems bad.

I'd also be against, say, an empty, sentient fridge getting 9-C for falling over without injury, if their weight and height are within human ranges, despite them being non-human.

That’s not what I’m trying to say though.

What I’m trying to say is that if you can prove that regular 12 year olds can do exactly what Molly did, I’d then agree with you that this shouldn’t be considered a peak human feat. I’m not claiming real world children are all 9-C, I’m claiming that if anyone can do this kind of thing, then it shouldn’t count as anything more than 10-C.

The thing is, in my opinion, I don’t think regular 12 year olds (and people in general) can consistently handle falls of greater than 10 ft. Yeah, they’ll probably survive, but that doesn’t mean their bones won’t break, or their organs won’t internally bleed. I don’t think that would count as durability.

We do still count that as durability. As long as some part of your body that was impacted remains, it still counts. Although, admittedly, it might be a bit inconsistent. A practical example would be Koyomi Araragi's second key. I think the Durability page, particularly this section lines up with that, but it admittedly doesn't talk about exactly the same thing we are.

And yeah, it'd be beyond what a regular 12-year-old can do, but we can't quantify that without doing so in a way that would grant ordinary humans 9-C.

In Lifting Strength we get around similar issues (like casually lifting 90kg with your pinkie) with the "Superhuman" rating, but Tier/AP/SS/Dura don't have an equivalent. So we just have to disregard those sorts of things.

How about this,

We’ve been arguing on this topic for quite awhile with little progress on coming to a consensus on this. It seems, from what I know, there’s as much evidence for the feat being valid as it is invalid.

So, as a way to split the difference and stop this from becoming a year-long debate, let’s simply agree to disagree and have Molly’s tier be “10-C, possibly 9-C”.
This way, you and Agnaa can be satisfied as there’s still ambiguity in whether it’s something regular children can do or not. And, I and Flashlight (and all my friends who I asked personally off-site about this who ended up agreeing) can be happy as we aren’t completely ignoring the feat, and we can have the ability to use a 9-C Molly in vs threads and the like should we wish.

How do you feel about this?

I disagree.

So Agnaa, I actually have a quick question:

What exactly would convince you the feat is valid?
Or alternatively, what kind of compromise could we make if we never get to a solid agreement?

I say this because we’ve been arguing for nearly a month and it feels like we aren’t really getting any common ground here. I think directly stating what we need to agree on something would be incredibly helpful in finally ending this discussion.

It's a bit hard to say since my answer is just "if the feat was different":

• If it had a sufficiently lower result, such as being in 10-A, I'd take much less issue with it, as it represents being in the human range.
• If it had a sufficiently higher result, such as being far into 9-C or 9-B that a human wouldn't survive (when landing on similar materials), I'd take no issue with it.
• If we ended up with confirmation that she landed on a small surface area, about the size of a fist (this could be done in the upcoming book adaptation), that would make it applicable by having it no longer be a full-body feat. Although, due to how falls work, I think she'd need to land on her head/feet for that to actually scale to the full value.