Lifting Strength from Destruction

[Agnaa]

Apparently some verses get Lifting Strength from destruction (i.e. throwing a character into a building, creating a crater while jumping). For clarity, I mean when we use AP-specific methods, and then divide by the distance it was applied over to get a force, not for situations like bending/crushing where we directly derive LS and there happens to be some colloquial form of "destruction" involved.

I think this shouldn't be allowed as an extension of our Kinetic Energy Feats standards:

Do not calculate speed from kinetic energy: The kinetic energy an object was calculated to possess, in any way whatsoever, should not be considered as related through its speed. While the formula technically can be used to relate those values in both direction this is disregarded in practice. One reason for this is that fiction in general differentiates between the attack potency and the speed of a character. Another reason is that it returns unrealistic values, as even a Small City level+ punch would already have Relativistic+ speed. Out of similar reasons mass should also not be calculated from it.

If we don't let people get speed from destruction using KE, and we don't let people get mass from destruction using KE, we shouldn't let people get mass * acceleration from destruction using similar physical equivalences.

I also think this extends from our standards on Lifting Strength in general:

While Striking Strength measures the energy of a character's physical attacks, Lifting Strength measures the amount of mass they can lift, which is determined by the amount of force a character can produce. This means that they measure two different physical quantities. Furthermore it can't be assumed that a character that can physically produce the amount of energy used in lifting an object by a certain height can also lift it, if it didn't demonstrate the ability to produce that level of Lifting Strength. It is a common feature within fiction to feature characters capable of vastly greater physical striking strength energy outputs than what would be required to lift weights that they are repeatedly shown to struggle with.

Hence Lifting Strength and Striking Strength are in general not comparable and should be evaluated separately.

We don't consider them interchangeable even though, in reality, one could divide energy by the distance it was applied over to get the force involved. As high SS characters often fail to achieve LS which would match their SS.

People have argued that we should do this because it's already accepted and LS doesn't run into the same issues with getting speed from destruction.

@Chariot190 @Dalesean027 @DontTalkDT @TheRustyOne @Mr. Bambu @DMUA @Armorchompy @Flashlight237 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @Damage3245 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @DemiiPowa @SeijiSetto @Vzearr

 

[Dalesean027]

I'll take what I said from the last thread and put it here

How else do telekinetics get a LS rating for when they crush or compress material via TK, how does superman crushing rock not translate to LS, if I'm via LS snapping a solid metal bar in half after bending it that's LS. If I from like a squatting position with no prior momentum jump with enough force to crater the ground thats always been LS, Crushing a skull is LS.

All of said feats involve destruction so the definition of destruction in this case needs more specification or else I'll have to disagree because

 

[Agnaa]

I'll move my post here, too. The quotes won't go to the right post any more, but who cares?

How else do telekinetics get a LS rating for when they crush or compress material via TK

Through the mass of the object, or the pressure required to change its state or cause failure, calculated directly through force rather than laundered through destruction values.

how does superman crushing rock not translate to LS

Some instances wouldn't, but others would.

if I'm via LS snapping a solid metal bar in half after bending it that's LS

Bending can be directly calculated as LS.

If I from like a squatting position with no prior momentum jump with enough force to crater the ground thats always been LS?

The LS would be derived from the height reached.

All of said feats involve destruction so how is this a false claim

The issue I have isn't that destruction happens somewhere. It's that these are AP calculations simply dividing by length at the end to get LS.

In the same way, you can't get speed from KE destruction, but if a character threw a 1000 kg ball such that it crossed a country 2,000 km long in one minute, you could calculate both KE and speed from that. That does not run afoul of "speed from KE" standards, it's just an instance where speed and KE can be derived from the same feat.

 

[Dalesean027]

The issue I have isn't that destruction happens somewhere. It's that these are AP calculations simply dividing by length at the end to get LS

Yeah all of those to say were to say many feats do involve some kind of destruction so to specify which specifc ones you meant but this even could be case by case, most cases I'd say won't work thought so I'm fine with that if that's the specification of what you're meaning exactly

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree using destruction to get LS ratings sounds whacky. We also do not get LS for merely blocking another character's strike or taking a hit and not even budging, so I do not think they should for throwing something so hard it causes destruction and what not.

 

[Flashlight237]

While it is a little off to calculate LS from destruction, this is more of an "there's a time and a place" case than anything that should outright have an embargo on. Crushing and tearing are the two exact forms of destruction that would necessitate lifting strength to do, both involving applied force.

 

[Agnaa]

While it is a little off to calculate LS from destruction, this is more of an "there's a time and a place" case than anything that should outright have an embargo on. Crushing and tearing are the two exact forms of destruction that would necessitate lifting strength to do, both involving applied force.

For clarity, I mean when we use AP-specific methods, and then divide by the distance it was applied over to get a force, not for situations like bending/crushing where we directly derive LS and there happens to be some colloquial form of "destruction" involved.

 

[KLOL506]

Does OP intend to prevent legitimate throwing/crushing/pulling/tearing/swinging feats from counting as both AP and LS? If so, I disagree. If not, please state some specific examples where you don't want LS from AP.

EDIT: Edited my comment to include some more examples.

 

[Chariot190]

As with everything ever, case by case. Common sense is a virtue.

The problem being proposed here, and what people actually do aren't the same. It's just basic Work 80% of the time, though it could probably be extended further to torque and stuff if people want to go the extra mile for precision. And more often than not, has nothing to do with the actual KE of anything to begin with. Though tbf I feel speed, ap and even mass could be obtained from destruction in highly specific cases if the verse acknowledged them in regard to that thing or has some sort of caveat like gravity fluctuations with a previous known values and more. Catchall rules kind of suck if there's rare examples of when it should actually be used but shrug.

People don't look for KE, they're looking for the end result, skipping that step entirely, and getting LS from that.

Say for example Character A throws object, it hits wall, makes a crater.
Get impact, divide by work, newtons, LS obtained without ever having need to go over mass, speed, etc, because those ultimately dont effect the method in question and skips the steps entirely. You could argue that "well you COULD work backwards to figure those out", yep, you probably could with some details, so?
That isn't what people do, those steps get skipped over entirely and dont effect the end result.

Or some feats dont even involve that that at all, take that JJK feat, dude leaps and levels a building. In the exact same way normal jumping feats get calced via work, but the energy used isnt PE, but the direct result from the "push", ie, the destruction. Take that energy divide by motion, you get true leap energy derived from the destruction. Mass, speed, etc, not relevant here either, we dont need to know them. Hell it may as well be a pushing feat in disguise.

The issue presented in the OP, is by all accounts a nonfactor to these types of feats actually being possible to quantify.

There's many ways LS can be derived from destruction, limiting such feats based solely on the premise of destruction is faulty and I'd argue even self defeating of our purpose to index things properly, why ignore viable feats if they're quantifiable?

If the argument is simply "people could do this thing, and that bad", i'd argue this is the solution in and of itself as those contradictory or variable or hell maybe even completely consistent values at times, dont matter for this formula. It takes the very issue presented out of the equation. And if the problem is that it's possible AT ALL, well, may as well not even calc stuff to begin with as you could do that with any feat ever, at that point why calc anything?
It simply doesnt make sense, why gut perfectly viable feats because people can calc them in a way that might be suspect? While the usual method is fine, doesnt tread that ground, and technically has nothing to do with KE at all (hell, it's even part of the actual rule. KE=/=Destruction, if they get different values, just use the actual destruction shown instead which is what people have been doing by default).

I disagree, evidently, at least in general. Of course there will be times it shouldn't be used or times a different method is more precise, but that goes for anything, case by case and all that.

 

[DMUA]

Another day, another method of lifting strength acquisition I wholly disagree with, verily

 

[Agnaa]

Does OP intend to prevent legitimate throwing/crushing/pulling/tearing/swinging feats from counting as both AP and LS? If so, I disagree. If not, please state some specific examples where you don't want LS from AP.

• Character A threw Character B laterally into a building. The building suffered destruction which was pixel calculated to 1e12 Joules. The throw involved Character A's arms moving 1.5 meters, so Character A has 6.67e11 Newtons of LS.
• Character C jumped. This left a bare crater, which based on pulv, would require 2e17 Joules of AP to create. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character C has 3.33e17 Newtons of LS.
• Character D jumped. This was said to "nearly destroy" the continent of Antarctica, so using near-total fatalities over the radius of Antarctica gives an energy output of 3.2e22 Joules. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character D has 5.3e22 Newtons of LS.

As with everything ever, case by case. Common sense is a virtue.

The problem being proposed here, and what people actually do aren't the same. It's just basic Work 80% of the time, though it could probably be extended further to torque and stuff if people want to go the extra mile for precision. And more often than not, has nothing to do with the actual KE of anything to begin with. Though tbf I feel speed, ap and even mass could be obtained from destruction in highly specific cases if the verse acknowledged them in regard to that thing or has some sort of caveat like gravity fluctuations with a previous known values and more. Catchall rules kind of suck if there's rare examples of when it should actually be used but shrug.

People don't look for KE, they're looking for the end result, skipping that step entirely, and getting LS from that.

Say for example Character A throws object, it hits wall, makes a crater.
Get impact, divide by work, newtons, LS obtained without ever having need to go over mass, speed, etc, because those ultimately dont effect the method in question and skips the steps entirely. You could argue that "well you COULD work backwards to figure those out", yep, you probably could with some details, so?
That isn't what people do, those steps get skipped over entirely and dont effect the end result.

Or some feats dont even involve that that at all, take that JJK feat, dude leaps and levels a building. In the exact same way normal jumping feats get calced via work, but the energy used isnt PE, but the direct result from the "push", ie, the destruction. Take that energy divide by motion, you get true leap energy derived from the destruction. Mass, speed, etc, not relevant here either, we dont need to know them. Hell it may as well be a pushing feat in disguise.

The issue presented in the OP, is by all accounts a nonfactor to these types of feats actually being possible to quantify.

There's many ways LS can be derived from destruction, limiting such feats based solely on the premise of destruction is faulty and I'd argue even self defeating of our purpose to index things properly, why ignore viable feats if they're quantifiable?

If the argument is simply "people could do this thing, and that bad", i'd argue this is the solution in and of itself as those contradictory or variable or hell maybe even completely consistent values at times, dont matter for this formula. It takes the very issue presented out of the equation. And if the problem is that it's possible AT ALL, well, may as well not even calc stuff to begin with as you could do that with any feat ever, at that point why calc anything?
It simply doesnt make sense, why gut perfectly viable feats because people can calc them in a way that might be suspect? While the usual method is fine, doesnt tread that ground, and technically has nothing to do with KE at all (hell, it's even part of the actual rule. KE=/=Destruction, if they get different values, just use the actual destruction shown instead which is what people have been doing by default).

I disagree, evidently, at least in general. Of course there will be times it shouldn't be used or times a different method is more precise, but that goes for anything, case by case and all that.

I bring those things up not because they're literally occurring (like KE is some necessary step in deriving LS in these sorts of feats), but because it's a very close comparison which shows the care we're meant to take with these sorts of things.

I'm not happy with us skipping explicitly deriving the mass and acceleration involved, when we're not allowed to derive them. Even if we skip that part, it's still a fundamental aspect of the conclusion; that something involved is really heavy and/or really fast.

In a situation kind of similar but with some key differences, it was noticed that GBE calcs for certain massive objects implicitly involve FTL KE, and because of that we rewrote the standards to not allow these to be done. Even though you never actually plug FTL velocity in, since it still implicitly means that, we don't allow it.

 

[Vzearr]

I disagree with the OP. Fundamentally, the difference between KE and Force = Work / distance, isn't different. However, we allow KE if there is an amount of destruction applied that seems relative to the KE that would be given to the character. The same kinda applies to Force = Work / distance when a character jumps and leaves a crater behind. Throwing a character into a building is when we get into the "eh" territory, but I still think it'd be valid as you're applying force over a certain distance which would inherently be LS.

We should likely just allow LS for feats where force is directly applied. Which is done in every statement you presented.

 

[KLOL506]

• Character A threw Character B laterally into a building. The building suffered destruction which was pixel calculated to 1e12 Joules. The throw involved Character A's arms moving 1.5 meters, so Character A has 6.67e11 Newtons of LS.

Yeah this wouldn't count as AP LS, at least, deriving LS from the destruction of the concrete in joules.

LS from the dude being thrown after you derive his speed through other methods is okay tho.

EDIT: I MEANT LS, PLEASE DON'T CRUCIFY ME

• Character C jumped. This left a bare crater, which based on pulv, would require 2e17 Joules of AP to create. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character C has 3.33e17 Newtons of LS.

TBF, this would depend on how the jump was made. Neutral on this one.

• Character D jumped. This was said to "nearly destroy" the continent of Antarctica, so using near-total fatalities over the radius of Antarctica gives an energy output of 3.2e22 Joules. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character D has 5.3e22 Newtons of LS.

Same as above. Depends on how the jump was performed. Neutral.

I bring those things up not because they're literally occurring (like KE is some necessary step in deriving LS in these sorts of feats), but because it's a very close comparison which shows the care we're meant to take with these sorts of things.

I'm not happy with us skipping explicitly deriving the mass and acceleration involved, when we're not allowed to derive them. Even if we skip that part, it's still a fundamental aspect of the conclusion; that something involved is really heavy and/or really fast.

In a situation kind of similar but with some key differences, it was noticed that GBE calcs for certain massive objects implicitly involve FTL KE, and because of that we rewrote the standards to not allow these to be done. Even though you never actually plug FTL velocity in, since it still implicitly means that, we don't allow it.

I think in these cases it's more a matter of how exactly the character performed the feat.

 

[DMUA]

Some instances wouldn't, but others would.

I will say, this is also something directly calculated. We do use the same values because it's compressive strength, but compressing a rock to dust is something you can get a result in newtons for while doing something less weird than how we calculate AP with the same ideas in mind

 

[Chariot190]

• Character A threw Character B laterally into a building. The building suffered destruction which was pixel calculated to 1e12 Joules. The throw involved Character A's arms moving 1.5 meters, so Character A has 6.67e11 Newtons of LS.

Yep sure. That's basic work.

• Character C jumped. This left a bare crater, which based on pulv, would require 2e17 Joules of AP to create. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character C has 3.33e17 Newtons of LS.

Yep sure. That's basic work.

• Character D jumped. This was said to "nearly destroy" the continent of Antarctica, so using near-total fatalities over the radius of Antarctica gives an energy output of 3.2e22 Joules. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character D has 5.3e22 Newtons of LS.

Just say Kisshot.
This one is a bit weird but like, sure ok, would obviously prefer less hypotheticals and more "yeah this DID happen".

I bring those things up not because they're literally occurring (like KE is some necessary step in deriving LS in these sorts of feats), but because it's a very close comparison which shows the care we're meant to take with these sorts of things.

Close is not "is".
They aren't the same, they don't involve KE, mass isn't involved anywhere. Speed is not involved anywhere.
It takes the undeniable, objective, end result, a fact that wouldn't change whether it's a 10000kg object or a 10kg object, or anything of the sort, and just does a basic work formula. Skipping past entirely all potential issues or opinionated or subjective vitriol and just going "yep this 100% happened, it was done in a way applicable to LS, here's the very easy formula".

The only real issue, is if it's consistent or checks out in context, not the fact it's being calced to begin with. Your issue is based solely on a "this COULD happen", when really it's as easy as simply not doing that specific thing, like we already do for every formula ever because this could be extrapolated to anything ever.

I'm not happy with us skipping explicitly deriving the mass and acceleration involved, when we're not allowed to derive them. Even if we skip that part, it's still a fundamental aspect of the conclusion; that something involved is really heavy and/or really fast.

What? Nobody said that was why, it just literally isn't relevant.
By this same logic we can't use KE at all no matter what because we COULD derive shit from it, or any type of calc really, this ain't just a KE thing.

No, instead, we have a perfectly viable formula, a formula that doesn't hinge on these specific things, completely not relevant, and then going "well it's possible to do that so bad", all while the end result wouldn't change regardless of even if the mass changed or speed or whatever, because at that point you're no longer calculating LS from the damage, but calculating LS from speed and mass, like no matter what you do the end destruction won't change.

It isn't a fundamental aspect of the conclusion, you're just saying it is when it effects nothing in regards to the feat in question. This isn't even up for debate.
We do not need speed, mass, any of that. In fact, even if we knew the EXACT speed, mass and so forth, not even by calcing it like you're suggesting, but flatout told, it wouldn't matter, because the end result, by our very own rules you're quoting, say to use the destruction over KE if the KE and destruction values conflate.

What you have a problem with, isn't getting LS from destruction, but getting LS from KE, and then arguing you can work backwards to get KE and then like, idk, calcing LS off that new other calc? I think? Look it doesn't really matter here because that isn't what's happening and you can argue that same line of logic with anything, I know I sure as hell could.

In a situation kind of similar but with some key differences, it was noticed that GBE calcs for certain massive objects implicitly involve FTL KE, and because of that we rewrote the standards to not allow these to be done. Even though you never actually plug FTL velocity in, since it still implicitly means that, we don't allow it.

Yeah that ain't relevant, I'm sure you could find numerous examples both for and against your thought process through the history of the wiki. We're discussing this, not that.

I vehemently disagree still, the arguments presented don't actually matter to the premise of the feats/calcs in question and take issue with what is essentially a slippery slope that our rules, conveniently, already shoot down due to the destruction>KE line.

No rules are being broken.
KE is a complete nonfactor.
By our very own rules destruction takes precedence over KE and such values anyway so even if you were to calc the and get varying results, we wouldn't use them because the actual objective facet of the feat takes precedence.
Our goal is to properly index things, gutting a viable method simply because you COULD do something weird and only sometimes at that, as if that doesn't apply to literally every formula ever or every type of feat ever, is counterintuitive to our goals, sometimes this works best and checks out, and sometimes it doesn't but sometimes isn't always and as with every feat ever we should simply use common sense before going through with it.

I said my part, I want to see what others have to say for now.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah this wouldn't count as AP, at least, deriving LS from the destruction of the concrete in joules.

LS from the dude being thrown after you derive his speed through other methods is okay tho.

Why wouldn't it count as AP? As long as gravity didn't play a significant role, and the destruction didn't come from a chain reaction (i.e. destroying pillars) it should be fine.

And I do agree that getting LS from throwing someone, if we can deduce/assume their speed and mass, is fine.

TBF, this would depend on how the jump was made. Neutral on this one.

Same as above. Depends on how the jump was performed. Neutral.

If you believe that some forms of jumping count for LS in general, that discussion would more belong in this thread.

In here, I'd prefer to assume that we're kinda working independently from that. If that thread somehow concludes that jumping isn't LS, ofc those feats would be dismissed. But if it accepts jumping in some cases, I think we should discuss whether we can calculate that from destruction, or whether we need to stick to jump height/speed.

Yep sure. That's basic work.

Yep sure. That's basic work.

Just say Kisshot.
This one is a bit weird but like, sure ok, would obviously prefer less hypotheticals and more "yeah this DID happen".

I mean, you clearly know one of the examples I'm drawing from, and I'm sure you have good ideas on the other two.

I'd still rather abstract it to its essence, rather than getting bungled in verse-specifics.

What? Nobody said that was why, it just literally isn't relevant.
By this same logic we can't use KE at all no matter what because we COULD derive shit from it, or any type of calc really, this ain't just a KE thing.

If we use the KE formula to get a result, that requires us having the speed and mass of the relevant object, and we are allowed to use those aspects on profiles. We only use KE when we can use the components of that result on profiles. I think that's true for most calcs, really.

No, instead, we have a perfectly viable formula, a formula that doesn't hinge on these specific things, completely not relevant, and then going "well it's possible to do that so bad", all while the end result wouldn't change regardless of even if the mass changed or speed or whatever, because at that point you're no longer calculating LS from the damage, but calculating LS from speed and mass, like no matter what you do the end destruction won't change.

If you're constraining the force to one specific value, then changing the mass or acceleration wouldn't change the force, as the force is being made constant. It would instead result in the other variable changing to compensate. But if we were to instead pin one of the values (say, if we knew the mass of a character involved), then deriving a force would necessarily imply a certain acceleration, which would necessarily imply a certain velocity, which would necessarily imply a certain speed rating for the profile. Yet that explicitly violates our rules. Similar issues arise if we know the acceleration but not the mass.

But idk if this is a fruitful discussion path, I think we might just be latching onto different parts of this idea.

 

[KLOL506]

Why wouldn't it count as AP? As long as gravity didn't play a significant role, and the destruction didn't come from a chain reaction (i.e. destroying pillars) it should be fine.

Oh shit I meant LS.

 

[Chariot190]

I mean, you clearly know one of the examples I'm drawing from, and I'm sure you have good ideas on the other two.

I actually don't, but based on what you wrote, beyond Kisshot, that or it was an Angel Notes feat? I think there's something like that in there too. But yeah that should be by all accounts fine. they don't break any rules, is simple, straightforward, and doesn't hinge on variables and only the direct consequences of what happened, the will stay the same no matter the speed, mass, KE, whatever. To ignore it would be to act like it never happened even though it objectively did.

I'd still rather abstract it to its essence, rather than getting bungled in verse-specifics.

Well, unfortunate as it might be, context matters, there's no such thing as "abstracting it to its essence" without oversimplifying things to an actual fault.

If we use the KE formula to get a result, that requires us having the speed and mass of the relevant object, and we are allowed to use those aspects on profiles. We only use KE when we can use the components of that result on profiles. I think that's true for most calcs, really.

What?
Can you calc KE? Yep.
Is KE relevant to what this thread is about though? Nope.

They're two different types of calcs.

snip

I actually don't know why you're making this complicated or even how you're getting KE from this. This literally has nothing to do with the topic.

You don't like using KE to derive mass and speed and stuff, got it, loud and clear.

That has zero to do with getting LS from the undeniable, objective, not up for debate, static value of the destruction caused. The mass could be anything, the speed could be anything, they won't change the destruction as the destruction is found completely separate from those values and furthermore takes precedence. This almost comes off as calc stacking is bad, which we already don't do.

Like, is the argument you could derive speed and mass from the destruction too? So it's bad? I'm sure you could but that isn't what's being calced, and thankfully this method skips variables entirely, it uses solid facts we know to be true, the end result, KE isn't a factor, and even if you figured out the KE, the actual destruction would take precedence regardless.

But idk if this is a fruitful discussion path, I think we might just be latching onto different parts of this idea.

Evidently i'd have to agree, it feels like we're not even discussing the same topic.

 

[Agnaa]

What?
Can you calc KE? Yep.
Is KE relevant to what this thread is about though? Nope.

They're two different types of calcs.

You said "By this same logic we can't use KE at all no matter what because we COULD derive shit from it". I was pointing out how the same logic wouldn't apply.

 

[Chariot190]

You said "By this same logic we can't use KE at all no matter what because we COULD derive shit from it". I was pointing out how the same logic wouldn't apply.

I moreso meant if the problem is people doing weird extrapolative bullshit, the problem will always exist for any formula ever. KE is no exception, you can, could and very much probably would at times, be able to figure out all this other stuff and creating some circular loop with it, but like, does that make it inherently bad? Not really.

As said, common sense, thankfully this is such a case that no matter what you do with it, the end result wouldn't actually change anyhow.

 

[Armorchompy]

Would throwing an object and destroying that object also be invalid under these standards?

 

[Agnaa]

Would throwing an object and destroying that object also be invalid under these standards?

What, like, they throw an object and air resistance tears it apart?

If you were getting LS from applying a destruction value to that object, I would consider it invalid.

If you were getting LS from a measurable/assumable mass and acceleration for that object, I would consider it valid.

 

[Armorchompy]

Nah, just, throw a brick at a wall and smash the brick. Feels a bit weird to discount that.

 

[Agnaa]

Nah, just, throw a brick at a wall and smash the brick. Feels a bit weird to discount that.

Understandable.

But I think it's risky to use a method devised for striking feats (destruction values of materials), and use it for lifting feats by dividing the joule value by the distance the force was initially exerted over by the relevant character.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah, I've felt that for a while too, even for some of my own verses. I'm not gonna vote, I feel like this is an arbitrary line and whether it must be drawn or not is more up to opinion than anything.

 

[DontTalkDT]

• Character A threw Character B laterally into a building. The building suffered destruction which was pixel calculated to 1e12 Joules. The throw involved Character A's arms moving 1.5 meters, so Character A has 6.67e11 Newtons of LS.
• Character C jumped. This left a bare crater, which based on pulv, would require 2e17 Joules of AP to create. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character C has 3.33e17 Newtons of LS.
• Character D jumped. This was said to "nearly destroy" the continent of Antarctica, so using near-total fatalities over the radius of Antarctica gives an energy output of 3.2e22 Joules. This jump likely involved them being crouched to be 0.6 meters shorter, so Character D has 5.3e22 Newtons of LS.

Personally I think that's probably a decent spot to place the line. If we want to keep LS and SS separate things, then we can't do LS = SS / arm length for everything.

 

[Chariot190]

Why would we ever?
SS =/= LS. But that's because of what values they use, one uses force, newtons, etc, and one is energy like joules and whatnot. And then you also need to take account context in verse, and a whole slew of other details.

By this logic we shouldn't even including crushing, tearing, or anything of the sort because that's also AP and can be calculated as such with ease.

The fact some AP feats can be LS, and some LS feats can also be AP, shouldn't ever be an argument. That's just how it is, sometimes a feat can double for both, in much the same way someone lifting a billion tons can be PE or even KE if they lift it like Superman or something, or you could even do work to get AP from it or even a more precise LS value, or go even further and use torque and etc, a single feat having the means to be both LS and AP, doesn't mean anything. What matters is how it's done, whether it's done in a method that's applicable to LS, or is strictly AP, is what should matter when discussing if a destructive feat is LS or AP, not the fcat it involves destruction at all.

Arbitrarily "we should keep them seperate" makes no sense, that's just deliberately avoiding calcing perfectly viable material, for what? Just not to? The goal is to index, not be detrimentally strict based solely on personal opinion as opposed to it actually being a flawed premise.

 

[Vzearr]

Lol, looks like I don't have to make a thread. Bump.

 

[Deadguy999]

Arbitrarily "we should keep them seperate" makes no sense, that's just deliberately avoiding calcing perfectly viable material, for what? Just not to? The goal is to index, not be detrimentally strict based solely on personal opinion as opposed to it actually being a flawed premise

Yea it is impossible to fully separate these two. AP and LS should be proportional each other. In real life, a weightlifter probably pack a punch too. I’m not saying they are the “same” cuz heaviest weightlifter and the strongest puncher are not the same person in real life. But they should be much different from each other. The reason many fictional characters have high AP but low LS is since they don’t really follow physics in real life.

 

[Dalesean027]

Still share my same opinion here

 

[Deadguy999]

Wait now I think there is a way to separate LS from destruction without causing confusion of if something is LS or not.
That is to ban anything that has a speed before applying force to an object to be a LS feat. That means we ban punches or anything that impacted the object to be a LS feat. A feat can only be LS when the speed of the part of the character (e.g. hand) that apply force to the object is a low value (e.g. 1m/s) just before applying force to the object. The reason why the speed can’t be 0 is because if it is then we can’t even reach the object before applying force. Let’s say we push a door. But as we extend our arm to the door, it already has a velocity. So it Needs to has a velocity. But we can limit it to a low value to reduce the effects of impact on the object.
If it is separated this way, then crushing bending etc can still be LS feat and stuff like throwing a character into a building won’t be

 

[Chariot190]

Wait now I think there is a way to separate LS from destruction without causing confusion of if something is LS or not.
That is to ban anything that has a speed before applying force to an object to be a LS feat. That means we ban punches or anything that impacted the object to be a LS feat. A feat can only be LS when the speed of the part of the character (e.g. hand) that apply force to the object is a low value (e.g. 1m/s) just before applying force to the object. The reason why the speed can’t be 0 is because if it is then we can’t even reach the object before applying force. Let’s say we push a door. But as we extend our arm to the door, it already has a velocity. So it Needs to has a velocity. But we can limit it to a low value to reduce the effects of impact on the object.
If it is separated this way, then crushing bending etc can still be LS feat and stuff like throwing a character into a building won’t be

By this logic a 2ms bench press or a 2ms throw, or literally basic acceleration and decel get thrown out.

And that doesn't even get into larger characters, like Unicron crushing a planet in his grip is going to be on the order of several thousand mach, or even a standard throw or jump.

The solution is to do what we already do; LS is force, AP is joules. There can be overlap at times depending on the feat, but that's obviously dependent on the feat itself, it's case by case. The deciding factor is the operator and mechanisms and how they apply. It's nowhere near as complex as this thread is making it out to be.

 

[Agnaa]

The solution is to do what we already do; LS is force, AP is joules. There can be overlap at times depending on the feat, but that's obviously dependent on the feat itself, it's case by case. The deciding factor is the operator and mechanisms and how they apply. It's nowhere near as complex as this thread is making it out to be.

Do you think we should index the LS of characters' explosions? They output force.

 

[Chariot190]

Do you think we should index the LS of characters' explosions? They output force.

That's a pedantic disingenuous strawman, there's no way you rolled all that and more into one reply as if it wasn't an extremely obvious what I meant. I would like to think you're better than that, don't prove me wrong.

But ya know what, yeah, if it applies to their LS in some way, go ahead, I can't say without seeing the feat in question but ya never know so I can't say, the goal is to index things as they are after all, somethings can be unique. Though that begs the question, why are you treating something that isn't even physical as a contender for LS? That's a false equivalence, and you know it is.

 

[Agnaa]

That's a pedantic disingenuous strawman, there's no way you rolled all that and more into one reply as if it wasn't an extremely obvious what I meant. I would like to think you're better than that, don't prove me wrong.

But ya know what, yeah, if it applies to their LS in some way, go ahead, I can't say without seeing the feat in question but ya never know so I can't say, the goal is to index things as they are after all, somethings can be unique. Though that begs the question, why are you treating something that isn't even physical as a contender for LS? That's a false equivalence, and you know it is.

We treat non-physical things as LS; Telekinesis is mentioned directly on our Lifting Strength page.

If including that isn't what you mean, then I don't know what you mean. In response to someone trying to say that we should ban punches from counting, you didn't just point out issues with their method, you said that these things should just be determined by whether we can apply force/joules to them, which kinda seems like you're fine with punches counting. I don't have an example more extreme than that, other than things like explosions.

 

[ElJoaki5]

The reason we don't get speed from AP is because they're often dissasociated in fiction. Does this also apply to LS?
It depends, we can for sure say this about a character punching, but if a character throws something into a building and destroys it, that seems like a pretty clear LS feat too.

So basically we should only use it in cases where it makes sense.
The striking strength page already acknowledges this saying "It may or may not depend on Lifting Strength."

I would consider LS from punching, kicking and tackling unusable and LS from throwing, jumping and swinging usable.

 

[Dalesean027]

Basically my thoughts as well, we already do this depending on the context and those are valid LS feats even if they stem from the destruction they caused its just entirely case by case but the times where its not usable and clearly like a strike or something shouldn't dictate getting rid of it for someone like throwing a baseball hard enough to frag a mountain top when its 2 entirely different scenarios

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The reason we don't get speed from AP is because they're often dissasociated in fiction. Does this also apply to LS?
It depends, we can for sure say this about a character punching, but if a character throws something into a building and destroys it, that seems like a pretty clear LS feat too.

So basically we should only use it in cases where it makes sense.
The striking strength page already acknowledges this saying "It may or may not depend on Lifting Strength."

I would consider LS from punching, kicking and tackling unusable and LS from throwing, jumping and swinging usable.

There's also other reasons, not just strength and speed being different superpowers being a common thing in fiction. There's also the simple fact that KE = m *v^2 isn't actually 100% accurate but is almost accurate for speeds slower than 0.01c. But AP values go up exponentially once we approach levels close to c (With reaching c being a number divided by 0 mathematically that ends up translating to infinite KE by what physics allow. Or arguably, you already reach High 3-A slightly before reaching SOL, but the gap is infinisimal to the point where it goes unnoticed). So there have been exceptions for speedsters building speed to deliver powerful attacks or things like the velocity of explosions being used to calculate KE. But the opposite direction in using raw AP to get speed is basically taboo altogether.

 

[ByArrow]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

Bump