- 35,060
- 41,650
This is all that was agreed I think.Have we reached a sufficient staff consensus here for revisions to be applied?
Everything else was rejected.
-
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
Everything else was rejected.
- 35,060
- 41,650
DT also said this.
- 177,323
- 90,194
Thank you. Which staff members have accepted that suggestion already?
Okay. Thank you for the information.
- 177,323
- 90,194
@DontTalkDT
What do you think about this suggestion? Other staff members here seem to approve of it.
- 35,060
- 41,650
Me, Clover (Before his retirement), Bambu, Damage, Planck (I think? He disagreed with the rest of OP but I don't recall him giving input on Ugarik's proposal), DDM (Same as Planck)
- 35,060
- 41,650
- 34,635
- 41,955
Looks good
- 11,880
- 14,543
I like the idea in spirit. That is, collisions not being considered for lifting strength.@DontTalkDT
What do you think about this suggestion? Other staff members here seem to approve of it.
One change needed in practice is to relativise the timeframe somewhat. You can't expect characters fighting at 10x the speed of light to do anything for several seconds.
I'm also not sure if, for example, a feat where a character juggles with mountains shouldn't count towards lifting strength.
I guess if one gets really technical, a good criterion might be that the force that matters should be the one applied form rest, rather than being the result of KE being converted into force... or something like that. Not sure if that works out with the principle of relativity...
Hmmm... I guess just saying "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds or the equivalent of that for the speed of perception of superhumanly fast characters." should work well enough.
- 177,323
- 90,194
Thank you for helping out. That seems good to me as well.
What do other staff members here think, and which ones have contributed in this thread previously, so we can ping them?
- 21,510
- 36,029
Im gonna have to disagree with this as a whole, requiring a timeframe isn't going to solve the issue at hand here and neglects many other forms of actual valid LS feats that characters have been able to perform in an without it taking them straining for several seconds to do any any timeframe you choose is going to be arbitrary as there's no real basis to say whether like 2 seconds is better than 4 or maybe 5 or even up to 10 seconds, like anyone can just throw out a number for this suggestion but I don't think thats valid because all this really is doing is screwing over a large number or valid LS feats by adding a timeframe requirement for the work involved
Throwing something around the work quickly like this wouldn't work as LS since the throw was casually and didn't require a ton of work in regards to movements needed to perform the feat
Same here, the dude swings a weapon larger than mountains at a guy in like a second
This blouder toss here (17s mark) was pretty instant but its obviously presented as being a LS feat
Or this didn't require several seconds worth of straining but are clearly LS feats
Same here, the dude swings a weapon larger than mountains at a guy in like a second
This blouder toss here (17s mark) was pretty instant but its obviously presented as being a LS feat
Or this didn't require several seconds worth of straining but are clearly LS feats
Point is though we've got most if not a vasf amount more of our LS feats not being something constrained to being a over time thing because you can have characters who are strong enough to casually so the thing they are performing in no time at all which that doesn't make it not a feat all of a sudden. I think we're creating more trouble than its worth doing something like that
Last edited:
- 35,060
- 41,650
I don't think anyone is proposing to apply this to throwing feats or swinging feats, since those still require the character to start from rest, build up potential energy in their arms and then impart it on the rock over several seconds. Those feats are obviously fine for LS.
- 21,510
- 36,029
I get that but then this definition of what is a valid LS feat should be adjusted and expanded then because otherwise it's not going to include the things I brought up if that alone is used for the changes
Edit: Well also they did directly mention something like throwing feats falling under what shouldn't be a valid feat above so that is concerning too
Last edited:
- 34,635
- 41,955
I know they can be difficult to notice, but I agree with some parts DontTalkDT might say where repelling a large object that was launched with a punch or kick, it would just be ss rather than ls, but stopping a falling or launched large object dead in its tracks before tossing it back would still be ls like Dalesean pointed out.
- 177,323
- 90,194
Yes. That is true,
- 17,876
- 15,347
I feel like there's a lot of logical issues that are gonna arise with the timeframe issue that the rule as written doesn't address. Hell Dale brought up a few random examples that outline the issues pretty well, a lot of clear cut feats of strength are going to happen quickly but still obviously be LS. In fact just about any kind of lifting strength that isn't outright carrying something will not uncommonly stop working for this. Ripping or crushing an object, jumping or throwing something are all usually pretty sudden. If "A valid lifting strength feat should be performed for a duration of at least several seconds." then is something like this not a LS feat anymore just because it happens quickly?
You can't chalk something up to common sense ("should be easy to differentiate") when you're setting down a specific standard, and besides you're contradicting yourself. "Tossing stuff with your hand" very rarely takes several seconds of steady application of force unless it's something like Olympic-style shot put.
- 21,510
- 36,029
Well yeah but we already don't include punching and kicking it any kind of striking feats for matter as LS feats already we even revised jumping feats to require specifc motions and work to be valid so what are we actually adding by including the usage of a arbitrary timeframe requirement
- 17,876
- 15,347
I think the rule as proposed is going to do a lot of harm. I disagree with it barring drastic changes.
- 17,876
- 15,347
I think that's a question for the other side of the discussion right now.
- 21,510
- 36,029
I don't have a particular solution but if the problem is simply just not treating striking feats as LS feats we already make sure to not do that and as CGMs we also already evaluate the feats in question so nothing falling under striking feats as LS should be getting approved to begin with for this to be a problem. So I don't think there is any particular fix here other than just saying CGMs be more weary of what we're evaluating or to provide more detailed and varied methods for different situations in calcs to avoid having these problems or prompt people to really just research the stuff they are trying to calc like yeah obviously denting the hood of a car or its door isn't Class M since that shit is made to crumple to protect drivers and this would be a problem with people not doing proper research imoSo what do you two think that we should do here then?
- 21,510
- 36,029
No problem but I do wanna wait as well to see how others feelOkay. Thank you for helping out to you as well.
- 6,238
- 5,724
Unless the feat is explicitly striking strength with no bearing on lifting, such as a character charging into an object and knocking it away with kinetic energy, the timeframe probably shouldn't matter that much. If someone lifts something off the ground very quickly, that's still clearly lifting strength. Alex Mercer in Prototype has a feat of lifting a tank up one handed and flinging it into the air all in a quick movement. That wouldn't be possible if he didn't have the lifting strength for it, short timeframe or not. Dalesean already named some other examples of such characters and feats.
- 35,060
- 41,650
I hereby change my vote to "not caring" for the particular "for a few seconds" proposal.
If that proposal gets rejected then this thread in turn is just folly and should be closed (As all of OP has basically been tossed into the trash heap).
If that proposal gets rejected then this thread in turn is just folly and should be closed (As all of OP has basically been tossed into the trash heap).
- 177,323
- 90,194
Given that we already have another newer lifting strength revision thread active now, and nothing seems to happen based on this one, I will close this thread then. I hope that isn't a problem, and thank you to everybody who helped out here.
- Status
Similar threads
