• 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.

The Real World Discussion Thread

Meh. The idea boils down to "if we allow exceptions, people will ruin it and make it a headache", which in my experience is true but I suppose I wish it weren't. I'd like to say that there is an easy distinction between the moon and having eighty different planets but you're right that we would probably get to the point of annoyance very quickly.

Oh well. S'pose I agree with Agnaa, the page for the Moon should probably go.
 
It's relevant as its one of the strongest structures in the real world
There's stronger real world phenomena (i.e. the big bang, black hole mergers, this).

Your profile only reaches a higher tier because it uses a calculation method we don't actually accept.

A black hole's "attack potency" (as if it has one) is not the energy-equivalent of its mass.
 
I'm not sure what this has to do with the moon being boring/normal, or what that would have to do with this discussion as a whole.
The issue is I don't think there is a good one. And that attempting to find one will have it continually being kicked back month after month to allow more and more profiles.
The rules specifically say and are meant to safeguard against mundane location profiles that's why I brought up if Moon is boring or unique to most people. If it's said that there is no baseline for nonmundane profiles for even locations most would know and find to be unique, then so be it. No Moon profiles
 
The rules specifically say and are meant to safeguard against mundane location profiles that's why I brought up if Moon is boring or unique to most people. If it's said that there is no baseline for nonmundane profiles for even locations most would know and find to be unique, then so be it. No Moon profiles
What rules are you talking about? The closest I can find is this from our Editing Rules:
The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, armors, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse.
  • Please do not make profiles for real life vehicles, unless the vehicle in question is combat-oriented, such as a tank. Ordinary civilian vehicles are not notable or distinct enough for pages.
Which still says nothing like that.
 
What rules are you talking about? The closest I can find is this from our Editing Rules:

Which still says nothing like that.
These rules on the location profiles page.
("Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis."

"
  • Please refrain from creating profiles for real world locations, as most of them are very mundane and unremarkable.
")
 
I think we may have to propose a new "wiki standard" page for location (This should be a staff thread), the goal of it, should be discussing first if it's a good idea or not, then the exact description.

(I do think more or less the entire "Power and abilities" section should go, and instead be replaced with "Climate", this will allow them to have much more fun and unique fight setups.

We could list such things as gravity, light, atmosphere, weather etc.

My first proposal is also to limit it to celestial bodies, more specifically, physical planets and moons.
 
I think we may have to propose a new "wiki standard" page for location (This should be a staff thread), the goal of it, should be discussing first if it's a good idea or not, then the exact description.

(I do think more or less the entire "Power and abilities" section should go, and instead be replaced with "Climate", this will allow them to have much more fun and unique fight setups.

We could list such things as gravity, light, atmosphere, weather etc.

My first proposal is also to limit it to celestial bodies, more specifically, physical planets and moons.
Agnaa is probably going to question how this tackles the problem of most locations being mundane, and the arugment on its own seems redundant with the existance of the passive effects section
 
aw man. And what do u think about the lion mane jellyfish profile?
Mood, I wish we could tag, but to be fair it'd also open up chances for trolls and other malicious users to wreak havoc on the notifs of many, many people.


As a black hole fanboy, I have a couple of things to say about this:

  • Black holes are not non-existent. Nonexistence on this wiki means that they quite literally do not have any physical or spatial-temporal existence. Black holes explicitly do. If they were really non-existent voids, we wouldn't be able to observe them whatsoever.
  • Black holes don't manipulate the void nor can they convert things into void. The law of conservation of mass physically limits information from being created or destroyed.
  • Intangibility should be used in place of incorporeality. Since black holes aren't abstract things. They're just intangible, spatial constructs.
  • The durability should be unknown, as black holes can't be physically interacted with. And they'd just passively absorb any energy source near them anyway. It's also not really possible to destroy the singularity from what we know, given it is a zero-dimensional point in space.
  • The matter manipulation/deconstruction should be down to the informational level. Information in physics being things like entropy and quantum states defining the most elementary components of reality. Would be either quantum or macro-quantum level matter manipulation and deconstruction.
  • You could add heat manipulation given that the accretion disks around large black holes can be millions of degrees.
  • Could add Longevity since the largest black holes are predicted to survive for over a googol years.
  • Could add a weakness to Hawking Radiation, since that's the only known thing capable of naturally dissolving them.
1: Hello, interesting seeing you here (I thought you'd be more concentrated on FCOC, particularly given your "strongest on FCOC" thread).
2: You could probably help out with other real-world cosmic phenomena like gamma ray bursts, magnetars, nuclear pasta, etc etc perhaps if there's work needed to be done on them (also, with the marine biology knowledge, I'd probably also expect you to know enough to help out with marine life in general)... of course, if you have enough time to spare.

Also, Tugia:


Honestly would rather shift the contents of this thread^ to here (due to here/the current thread being broader in scope and having more people partaking in it) so more people can talk about it, but that video barely even considered THERMONUCLEAR/HYDROGEN bombs with nuclear fusion, instead mostly focusing on ATOMIC/REGULAR NUCLEAR bombs with nuclear fission. Granted, the theoretical last pile did far exceed the strength of any single nuclear explosion, even theoretical huge bombs and quite a few nuclear phenomena, but it was all reliant on fissile material alone, while they could have gone MUCH, MUCH bigger with both fissile radioactive heavy elements and fusion-powering hydrogen isotopes (and that's not even going into validity and reliability/accuracy and precision).


(^Particularly the "Arbitrarily large multi-staged devices" section.)








Sending this (again) to compare man-made and natural events to cosmic events, since cosmic events far outdo natural events, let alone man-made events:


And a final warning about these sorts of weapons and what they could cause:





Quoting from the last link, the second highest post (after the auto-moderator):
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
- Eisenhower

In essence, every weapon made could have been many, MANY lives saved if the effort was redirected towards actually solving global issues, whereas said weapons would create far more issues on top of taking away and/or permanently negatively affecting many lives.




I'm not sure what you're referring to.

It is the point.
We were talking about the distinction between locations and objects. Whether the example I use has the extraordinary abilities needed to be an actual profile is irrelevant, since we're not talking about that.

I don't want to be peppered with people looking for exceptions every couple of months....
  • We have to include the other planets within our solar system, right? They're mostly quite different, and are quite notable for us.
  • We should include a few of the more prominent moons in our solar system, they actually have some quite stunning properties.
  • We should include this exoplanet, it's the most Earthlike one we've found to date!
  • Shouldn't we include the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way? That's the one most relevant to us.
  • Why don't we include the Milky Way as a whole for matches between ginormous beings?
  • This black hole's quite interesting, it spins more quickly than any others we've detected!
  • This exoplanet has a different composition than any in our solar system, it should deserve a spot, right?
  • Ooh here's an interesting exoplanet; it's not part of any star system! We should surely have at least one page for one of those.
Especially since I worry that, at one point, we would stop applying proper scrutiny to this. Particularly with our prior attempts at providing Editing Rules for The Real World not strictly being followed....

Yet we have the Bloodhound LSR, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Prosthesis, Robosaurus, and Megasaurus. They're not ordinary civilian vehicles (although the Ford Crown Victoria is very close), but they're also not combat-oriented. And if we are ditching the combat requirement, then we'd be open to profiles for shit like this.
And then there's condensing Real World categories/sections with a frickton of individual entries like Firearms (look at the messages/posts that the linked message/post replies to so that you could understand what the thread more or less came down to, though it's probably advised to also read all messages/posts that came after that linked message/post):


And then there's this regarding where we could find more potential stuff to make pages/profiles for as entries in the Real World verse page:

 
Everyone should let me know how consistent this is.

Sources:

TL;DR: In short, softer materials halt and absorb energy. Harder materials do the opposite; they're unable to halt and absorb a significant amount of kinetic energy from a receiving object (thus, causing an effect where the force/energy since it has nowhere to go, a lot or most of it comes back to the receiving object if it can't damage the target object greatly). Linear momentum could be used in cases where the target object isn't at least near-immovable.

Long answer:
After reading Armorchompy's CRT on the bottlenose dolphin, he agreed with Keeweed to downgrade the animal on the basis that the dolphin hitting the shark isn't equal to running head-first into an immovable wall. That got me thinking on where this logic and this reply came from. So I decided to look into the mechanics of where kinetic energy if it hits an object.

Kinetic energy generally is absorbed in especially soft objects due to the concept of damping; the halting of vibrating motion (energy indirectly included). In reference to solid objects, hysteresis damping is when some of the energy involved in restoring or deforming an object dissipates in a solid as vibrations or transfers as kinetic energy within the liquid.
  • This means if you were to punch a pillow-based wall, the energy would be absorbed into the wall as heat or vibrations due to it's high damping potential.
  • I thought then, what about hard objects? The opposite would be true; the energy wouldn't be absorbed too much and there would be 2 possibilities. With enough force, the target object could break or deform, or since energy has nowhere else to go, it goes back to the receiving object
But what if you're hitting an object that regardless of hard or softness isn't a near-immovable object (like a ball)?
  • If the targeted area is soft, I suspect you should calculate the velocity of the target object within the system of both objects' linear momentum, then the kinetic energy of the target object should be used unless if the Tiering System can't handle stuff around 10-B to baseline 9-C.
  • If the targeted area is hard, then I suspect you extract the velocity of the receiving object within the system using the velocity from the system's linear momentum
What do you guys think?
 
What do you guys think?
I don't really understand where you are going with this relative to scaling durability, since soft and more bendable "materials/organisms" can take blunt forces extremely well while they are weak to sharp attacks, while hard and non-bendable materials/organisms have the opposite properties.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of them are mixed, such as humans. Our skin is Soft and therefore resistant towards blunt attacks, but is weak against sharp things, such as Swords or the old' classic papercuts. While our bones are resistant to sharp stuff, while weak against blunt force.

So while I agree with the points you are making, I don't really know what you are trying to say you want the new scaling to be, or even how we are supposed to do it?
 
I don't really understand where you are going with this relative to scaling durability, since soft and more bendable "materials/organisms" can take blunt forces extremely well while they are weak to sharp attacks, while hard and non-bendable materials/organisms have the opposite properties.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of them are mixed, such as humans. Our skin is Soft and therefore resistant towards blunt attacks, but is weak against sharp things, such as Swords or the old' classic papercuts. While our bones are resistant to sharp stuff, while weak against blunt force.

So while I agree with the points you are making, I don't really know what you are trying to say you want the new scaling to be, or even how we are supposed to do it?
Then what is the composition in the immediate targeted area a composition of more? That's why we factor in the skull with hitting or crushing the head.

Unless if it's an intermediate, more vague case in the immediate area of damage, we can go off of this precedent.
 
Everyone should let me know how consistent this is.

Sources:

TL;DR: In short, softer materials halt and absorb energy. Harder materials do the opposite; they're unable to halt and absorb a significant amount of kinetic energy from a receiving object (thus, causing an effect where the force/energy since it has nowhere to go, a lot or most of it comes back to the receiving object if it can't damage the target object greatly). Linear momentum could be used in cases where the target object isn't at least near-immovable.

Long answer:
After reading Armorchompy's CRT on the bottlenose dolphin, he agreed with Keeweed to downgrade the animal on the basis that the dolphin hitting the shark isn't equal to running head-first into an immovable wall. That got me thinking on where this logic and this reply came from. So I decided to look into the mechanics of where kinetic energy if it hits an object.

Kinetic energy generally is absorbed in especially soft objects due to the concept of damping; the halting of vibrating motion (energy indirectly included). In reference to solid objects, hysteresis damping is when some of the energy involved in restoring or deforming an object dissipates in a solid as vibrations or transfers as kinetic energy within the liquid.
  • This means if you were to punch a pillow-based wall, the energy would be absorbed into the wall as heat or vibrations due to it's high damping potential.
  • I thought then, what about hard objects? The opposite would be true; the energy wouldn't be absorbed too much and there would be 2 possibilities. With enough force, the target object could break or deform, or since energy has nowhere else to go, it goes back to the receiving object
But what if you're hitting an object that regardless of hard or softness isn't a near-immovable object (like a ball)?
  • If the targeted area is soft, I suspect you should calculate the velocity of the target object within the system of both objects' linear momentum, then the kinetic energy of the target object should be used unless if the Tiering System can't handle stuff around 10-B to baseline 9-C.
  • If the targeted area is hard, then I suspect you extract the velocity of the receiving object within the system using the velocity from the system's linear momentum
What do you guys think?
I don't really understand where you are going with this relative to scaling durability, since soft and more bendable "materials/organisms" can take blunt forces extremely well while they are weak to sharp attacks, while hard and non-bendable materials/organisms have the opposite properties.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of them are mixed, such as humans. Our skin is Soft and therefore resistant towards blunt attacks, but is weak against sharp things, such as Swords or the old' classic papercuts. While our bones are resistant to sharp stuff, while weak against blunt force.

So while I agree with the points you are making, I don't really know what you are trying to say you want the new scaling to be, or even how we are supposed to do it?
In addition to what Dark and you mentioned, H3:
We should also probably consider that there's stuff that combine/mix both sharpness and blunt force as an attack by virtue of both design and amount of momentum, kinetic energy due to speed and/or velocity, acceleration, etc in order to overcome both soft and hard materials (consider polearms such as the bec de corbin and lucerne hammer, clubs and maces, spiked flails, etc, and projectiles like arrows, bullets, etc depending on design of said projectiles as well as ballistics).

I'm digressing extremely here but now I'm thinking of such a design of a projectile being sorta like this welp: APMPHEFIP PGRAFSVLDJHPBTBT (armour-piercing multi-purpose high-explosive fragmentation incendiary poisonous precision-guided rocket-assisted fin-stabilised very-low-drag jacketed-hollow-point ballistic-tip boat-tail) (see this) finely hollowed tungsten-carbide/steel bullet containing either OAC and thermite (see this and this) and trace amounts of botulinum, tetanus, dimethylcadmium, chlorine trifluoride and/or strains of plague and leishmaniasis (see this, this and this, I prefer keeping the cognitive functions intact for those affected, hence why I am not using stuff like TSEs, rabies, SSPE, Nipah, trypanosomiasis, etc, while keeping the fatality rate 99-100% with pneumonic plague and leishmaniasis) or a mendelevium/uranium/plutonium bullet (see this, unsure if it's possible to use heavier radioactive elements in place of it), in small arms possibly within a straight-walled/straight-sided composite/alloy (see this) cartridge case, with the ideal gun being multi-barreled, magnum-action and either electrically driven or gas-operated because belt-fed single-barrel/mono-barrel gas-operated mixed-mode bolt guns are not enough oof.

Further editing and refining of the idea:
Either multi-barreled, magnum-action and electrically driven or gas-operated or belt-fed (with a box container for the belt that attaches to the magazine feed space) and fully-automatic/semi-automatic long-stroke/short-stroke gas-operated mixed-mode-bolt

APMPHEFIP PGRAFSVLDJSPBTBT (armour-piercing multi-purpose high-explosive fragmentation incendiary poisonous precision-guided rocket-assisted fin-stabilised very-low-drag jacketed-soft-point ballistic-tip boat-tail) tungsten-carbide/steel cartridge and/or bullet containing either OAC and thermite and trace amounts of botulinum, tetanus, dimethylcadmium, chlorine trifluoride and/or strains of plague and leishmaniasis or mendelevium/uranium/plutonium, in small arms possibly within a straight-walled/straight-sided composite/alloy cartridge case (or a PGFSVLDBT (precision-guided fin-stabilised very-low-drag boat tail) rubber bullet for non-lethal ammo) with appropriate grain size and burn speed or air pressure to maximise muzzle velocity and energy

We should also consider stuff that can also potentially and often do protect against both sharpness and blunt force (consider modern armour that are at times developed to handle both ballistic and melee attacks, often using both soft and hard means to absorb and halt said attacks, usually through a combination of fabrics that are specifically woven in ways to absorb and prevent penetration of sharp weapons and ceramic and steel plates that are made to absorb and dampen the energy carried by blunt force weapons, so stuff like ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant vests).

We also should probably consider that even when the impacted stuff/materials are not overcome directly, the energy imparted into them can still pass through and damage what is beyond the impacted stuff/materials via other means such as aforementioned heat and vibrations (thus bypassing or just overwhelming damping through the sheer energy transferred), hence why there's also stuff that attempts to maximise damping to absorb said energy in order to prevent or minimise/mitigate potential damage from it (consider stuff like EOD/blast/bomb suits having a frickton of padding to prevent stuff like blast lung from the shockwave of explosions).
 
Last edited:
What do you guys think?
If the objects are able to move freely then you need to consider whether it's an inelastic or elastic collision.
Once you determine that, there's established formulas for calculating the resulting velocity (momentum) of both objects, which of course can be used in reverse as well.

I'm guessing that is what you're ultimately getting at with "soft" versus "hard" here.
 
Wait, that got me thinking, if a big piece of metal only be dented by a katana and the katana itself only has a dent, and that counts as durability, then where do we draw the line in the sand when it comes to material durability against damage/force if only getting a minor cut from a blunt attack counts, a big animal would shrug off knife wounds like a guy only getting a cut from a punch to the face, and enough piercing damage taking off significant amounts of material from the animal, and the animal functioning perfectly fine for hours to days at a time?

Like nothing but a dent would count, but how large of a cut until it's no longer durability really? This is a relevant topic for damage durability
 
Wait, that got me thinking, if a big piece of metal only be dented by a katana and the katana itself only has a dent, and that counts as durability, then where do we draw the line in the sand when it comes to material durability against damage/force if only getting a minor cut from a blunt attack counts, a big animal would shrug off knife wounds like a guy only getting a cut from a punch to the face, and enough piercing damage taking off significant amounts of material from the animal, and the animal functioning perfectly fine for hours to days at a time?

Like nothing but a dent would count, but how large of a cut until it's no longer durability really? This is a relevant topic for damage durability
From the perspective of the Wiki, durability is just a measure of whether or not they can do damage to something.
So even if the wounds are superficial, it's still evidence the blade can pierce their skin, I would think.

Obviously in real life whether or not you do meaningful damage depends entirely on if you can sever something important and/or if you can inflict enough pain and blood loss.
 
Obviously in real life whether or not you do meaningful damage depends entirely on if you can sever something important and/or if you can inflict enough pain and blood loss.
Or generally worsen the structural stability/integrity of whatever you're trying to damage to the point where it measurably is less functional/capable of functioning properly (if we're trying to extrapolate/apply said idea of "meaningful damage" to various different types of entities that are being damaged/that other entities are trying to damage). (I'm not sure what term I can use for both inanimate non-living stuff and animate living stuff (or anything that exists in general) other than, well, stuff, things, entities or beings... welp.)
 
Or generally worsen the structural stability/integrity of whatever you're trying to damage to the point where it measurably is less functional/capable of functioning properly (if we're trying to extrapolate/apply said idea of "meaningful damage" to various different types of entities that are being damaged/that other entities are trying to damage). (I'm not sure what term I can use for both inanimate non-living stuff and animate living stuff (or anything that exists in general) other than, well, stuff, things, entities or beings... welp.)
Yeah, the terminology will always be vague just due to the sheer difference of various things. Like, a rock doesn't really have a function to begin with which can be disrupted, but it does have a structure which can be disrupted. At what point that becomes "meaningful" will always be subjective.

That is to say, we just have to go off vibes. If we can look at the rock after being attacked and say "that seems meaningfully damaged" then it probably is. Or at least we can probably look at it and say the opposite if it's true (like if it's just a scratch).
 

^Maybe peeps can help answer this query from this person, I'm asking on their behalf here since no one's replied to them yet and the topic could be brought up here instead so more peeps can aid them

Speaking of which, perhaps these could be considered for addition as references for the Composite Human.

(the list of peeps with multiple degrees specifically)
 
guys quick question

So why did they ban the human stuff all together? Why not just change the composite human to average human?
 
guys quick question

So why did they ban the human stuff all together? Why not just change the composite human to average human?
They didn't ban ALL the human stuff, they just didn't have enough agreement on what the average human should be.
Also there's these:
 
They didn't ban ALL the human stuff, they just didn't have enough agreement on what the average human should be.
Also there's these:
We probably should also update the Human Race page to stay up to date with modern sources on stuff like how long Homo Sapiens has actually existed, the size of the human population and the quantity of weapons and whatnot.

The Homo genus has been around for at least 2+ million years (2.775±0.025 specifically going off of LD 350-1), the earliest pure/definite Homo sapiens specimen was 0.40-0.20 million years ago (if using the Sale cranium) or 315±32 thousand years ago (if using the Jebel Irhoud fossils) (though there were earlier fossils showing a mixture/admixture of features from both (and possible proof of interbreeding between) archaic previous Homo species and early modern Homo sapiens).

As for civilisations, debatable on what civilisations consist of but there's probably these we can use:

Should update this to 8+ billion with the current estimates.

We could use these (though these articles themselves may also need updating):

Not sure if we could consider adding the people from these lists:

Again, back to the post containing the list of posts with links to Wikipedia pages for sourcing and finding entries to the Real World verse page in them:
 
guys quick question

So why did they ban the human stuff all together? Why not just change the composite human to average human?
At work right now but I'll show you the relevant links later but basically there is a rule this allowing real world of people and there's a thread on why he composite human is practically booted out of the wiki since 2018 staff will elaborate more on this if they beat me to it.

Plus, there is a difference between composite human and average human
 
Plus, there is a difference between composite human and average human
Composites in this context take the high end of a specific group and combine it into one thing. The average person is your healthy city dweller and internet user (most people you met at this point)
 
Ok. Hopefully this is my last time getting close to spam, but here are the links if anyone wants to read the records:



Keep in mind I linked these threads on the Composite Human profile itself in-case anyone was curious.
 
So, apparently we gave orangutans less credit than they deserve:


Well, that's concerning.
In addition to the fact they're (in the case of the largest species, the Bornean orangutan) the third largest ape and (in general for orangutans) 4 or 5 to 7 times as strong as a human (chimps are only 1.35 times as strong as a human)...
Yeah, we'd better ensure our relations to other primates (and of course, other animals and other living beings in general) stay friendly and peaceful.


We'll need to update the page for sure.
 
For the record, I agree with Agnaa's points above about real world locations.

What do we currently need to evaluate here? 🙏
 
For the record, I agree with Agnaa's points above about real world locations.

What do we currently need to evaluate here? 🙏
Probably easier to discuss this later today when more peeps are active, but I'd assume a few matters at hand are adding new entries to the verse and ensuring that the page sections and categories aren't overcrowded.
(H3, Fine Point, etc will likely have better answers to this query.)
 
Back
Top