- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #121
That are you think about AP part?
-
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.
Significance of history and destructive potential in a certain level of forces
- Thread starter NikHelton
- Start date
- Status
- 34,542
- 34,965
A separate thread focused specifically on that would probably be best.
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #127
What are you think about AP part?
- 177,340
- 90,210
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,604
- 4,333
Bump.
- 177,340
- 90,210
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,604
- 4,333
Bump.
- 177,340
- 90,210
Are there other members than @Ugarik here who are willing and able to handle this please?
Also, can somebody provide an overview summary of what we currently need to do here please?
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,604
- 4,333
Bump.
- 177,340
- 90,210
- 34,635
- 41,955
"Agreed with Bambu regarding lifting strength, but agree with Clover on everything else" appears to still be my unchanged stance.
- 177,340
- 90,210
One of our members sent me the following message. What do the rest of you think that we should currently do in this thread? Helpful input would be very appreciated.
@IdiosyncraticLawyer @DarkDragonMedeus @Damage3245 @CloverDragon03 @Planck69 @Mr. Bambu @Deagonx @Qawsedf234 @LordGriffin1000 @DontTalkDT @NikHelton @Ugarik
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #138
We definitely need to rethink the LS calculations. I'm seeing more and more people agreeing with this.
Defining LS by crushing concrete/rock/steel leads to inflated results. Characters often break asphalt during a jump, but that doesn't mean they can lift a hundred or a thousand tons.
Characters who can break concrete with their grip strength can't always lift even a car, let alone a hundred tons.
Calculations like these are good as a support, but not as a main one.
My opinion is that this also applies to earthquake feats and some KE feats. The situation is similar to the one with LS.
Defining LS by crushing concrete/rock/steel leads to inflated results. Characters often break asphalt during a jump, but that doesn't mean they can lift a hundred or a thousand tons.
Characters who can break concrete with their grip strength can't always lift even a car, let alone a hundred tons.
Calculations like these are good as a support, but not as a main one.
My opinion is that this also applies to earthquake feats and some KE feats. The situation is similar to the one with LS.
- 34,635
- 41,955
Do not think my views have changed, but I do think revising various who got LS ratings via similar feats mentioned above could be looked at.
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #140
Wouldn't it be better to use the option I suggested?
For example, the 5000 ton compression feat works if the character lifted and threw 500-1000 tons without difficulty.
I would also still insist on more careful use of earthquakes.
Concrete compression and earthquakes are very simple ways to increase any verse without real feats.
- 13,880
- 22,736
My opinion remains unchanged. "The results are too high" is never a valid excuse to ignore a feat on its own. There should be an actual flaw in the calc's math, methodology, or anything similar. Otherwise it's just one big argument from incredulity.
Shit man, the argument is literally "we can't let characters scale this high when they don't have feats... except for the feats they actually perform, let's just ignore them because I said so." I don't even want to give this suggestion the light of day, that's how bad I think it is
Shit man, the argument is literally "we can't let characters scale this high when they don't have feats... except for the feats they actually perform, let's just ignore them because I said so." I don't even want to give this suggestion the light of day, that's how bad I think it is
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #142
Sure, let's give characters who've never lifted anything bigger than a ton a Class K/M because they broke concrete and let's give characters who get hurt by bullets and explosions a 7-C/7-B because they caused an earthquake even though they never broke anything bigger than a building.
This is absurd
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
Not every feat needs to be done how you want it to show the strength of a character. Your gripe is with physics and fiction. nothing is absurd here.
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #144
Character strength is literally measured through feats. If a character consistently produces 8-C results at their peak and isn't positioned by history as someone who can destroy a town, then 7-C via earthquakes is like pulling an owl onto a globe.
I never said to completely abandon it, but we shouldn't rely on these feats if everyone else is hundreds or thousands of times weaker.
- 5,387
- 4,827
From what I read, it seems you want to divide LS between Grip and Lifting Strength.
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
Consistent feats do not mean that is their tier. Already said this before but the author isn't gonna have a character keep performing 5-C feats to satisfy your criteria for scaling. A lot of verses aren't always focused on presenting their characters as a certain level of strength, it doesn't mean we limit them to their most consistent feats when they've shown us higher feats.
Same idea as before; the author isn't going to show us 10+ characters performing massive destruction feats to satisfy you. This not only is an absurd demand for scaling, but it would be a blatant ignoring of the major feats performed in a series. I agree we shouldn't rely on these feats if there are very few of them like two meanwhile there are things to contradict them.
- 13,880
- 22,736
We already have standards in place involving outliers, anti-feats, etc.
You are proposing nothing new. Either stuff that's handled by existing standards, or stuff that's just your personal disbelief coming out.
- 35,062
- 41,651
I really don't see the point of this thread, let alone why it's still open even as of now. Majority of OP's concerns were already addressed by Clover, or by our standards on Outliers and similar, and majority of the other staff have rejected most of OP's proposals.
I couldn't care less about how LS feats are tackled from here on out, as that seems to be the only thing accepted, we should focus on applying that, and then closing this thread.
These were the proposals to tweak LS last I checked.
I couldn't care less about how LS feats are tackled from here on out, as that seems to be the only thing accepted, we should focus on applying that, and then closing this thread.
These were the proposals to tweak LS last I checked.
Last edited:
- 7,780
- 11,571
This is what Ugarik suggested.
Personally, I think that adding a definite time would be problematic. For example, lifting something in exactly one second should still take the same strength as lifting it in three.
I much prefer Bambu's solution:
Striking an object shouldn't count, and we should simply use that language so there's enough nuance to argue case-by-case if needed.
- 5,996
- 2,776
- Thread starter
- #152
In addition to punches, we have - throws at high speed, long jumps and feats of pressure.
All this also inflates the results
- 7,780
- 11,571
To me (in fictional contexts), jumping is usually more of a speed feat.
Throwing something has to do with accelerating your arm first, so it's basically the same as a punch.
As for feats of pressure, I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.
- 13,880
- 22,736
I think he means feats where someone crushes the ground. Personally, I think there are exceptions where this can be applied, like if someone has gravity powers that crush the ground and someone's able to withstand said gravity
- 7,780
- 11,571
Well gravity affects an object everywhere (practically) equally, so I think that makes sense.
I'm just wary of saying it has to be 'sustained' because quickly picking up a car and throwing it in one fluid motion still involves picking it up, which is surely a lifting strength feat.
The way I explained it in a Q&A thread was that Lifting Strength doesn't require any prior acceleration before contact, whereas Striking Strength does.
- 177,340
- 90,210
I also think that Bambu's solution makes considerably better sense.
Significance of history and destructive potential in a certain level of forces
Just on the topic of LS and KE feats, an author can't keep destroying cities and the landscape just to show us "See this character? They've got Class P jumps". This is asking for an absurd degree of consistency in visualization. And also authors do know these feats require force to be done, it...
@Mr. Bambu @FinePoint @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Damage3245 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69 @Qawsedf234 @LordGriffin1000 @Ugarik @DontTalkDT
Should we apply it?
- 22,683
- 23,259
I'm fine with the suggestion.Should we apply it?
- 34,635
- 41,955
- Status
Similar threads
