Common Feat Removal - Digging up from the Underground

[Armorchompy]

Fairly sure I've argued this in the expanding common feats page but as anything I've tried to do there, there was barely any response so I'm making a separate thread. It's a bit late and I'm just sort of typing this RQ so please excuse the inevitable roughness.

Digging up from the Underground

This calc blows. It's so misleading. The math (as in, the numbers used) is fair (sort of, i'll get to it), the problem is the usage. By absolutely no means should this calculation be for "digging". As the calculation is phrased right now, the entirety of the ground affected by the "digging" is destroyed with a single attack. Digging is not that, it's moving through a solid by pushing aside parts of it as you make your way through. Even when done quickly and extremely efficiently, it's inherently defined by making a bunch of movements. Now to be fair, there is a note that "this is only for a quick bursting out, not slow digging", but that's extremely vague, and like, what's the point, then? How often do you see a zombie leap through dirt like he's Superman? Let alone stone and solid steel?

One might argue that even if very specific, this is harmless, and should not be removed. But nay, I say, for harmless it is not. Lo, the lowly Resident Evil Zombie, rated at 9-B+ for... clawing his way out of a grave across a few seconds. This is obviously not what the above calculation is doing the math for, but it could absolutely be described as "a quick bursting out", and I can't blame whoever put that feat there, because it is just poorly named and poorly explained. I don't want to point more fingers, but not only have I seen this misused elsewhere on the wiki, but there's even calculations done in its style, and those are similarly not very fitting. Even if that wording were to be fixed, we'd be left with "character who can burst through materials quickly", a very vague feat that this only has one potential depth for. I mean, even for its intended purpose it's bad, given that despite the term "six feet under", most graves are shallower than that, so it doesn't even describe the thing it's trying to do very thoroughly.

 

[Flashlight237]

I believe the feat is more for characters like Monty Mole or boss battles that involve burrowing than it is for zombies, in which case, yeah, I can personally see why people wanna keep the feat. Burrowing bosses and Monty Mole do burst out of the ground thinking they're Superman. I can see the flaw in the logic with stuff like zombies and such. Zombies dig more like real-life moles, who displace dirt rather than fragment it. I picked moles because earthworms dig by EATING the dirt. I highly doubt a zombie would think dirt is palatable, if they even think at all.

I personally calculated the soil end for the feat primarily because I felt that was important to note, I mean, come on. Soil is usually the first five or ten feet into the Earth's crust or something like that. That's probably the only move made to make the feat more accurate, and even that's far from the real picture. A more realistic approach would be considering displacement instead of fragmentation as burrowing through soil typically involves displacement rather than destruction. If we're talking rock and such, yeah, I can see why fragmentation and such is used, as pickaxes dig by fragmenting rock.

I will point out that your response to the depth of a grave isn't entirely true. The saying "six feet under" originates from the Black Death, in which back then, burying people six feet underground in the literal sense of the term is a common practice. Nowadays, six feet is more like the maximum depth in a range where the shallowest a grave would be is four feet, which I've noted here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/References_for_Common_Feats?so=search#Rising_From_the_Grave

What I did here is more true to zombies, as the feat describes the initial force needed to open the lid of a coffin while underground. Emphasis on initial as once said amount of force is exerted, the rest is easy. Even with the force values I've calculated, the work needed is far less than the energy values given for the burrowing feat. At most the work needed is like this:

5188.508956*9.80665=50881.89135 newtons

Assuming the length of the arm (let's say 70 cm) is the maximum distance, the work is as follows...

50881.89135*0.7=35617.32395 joules.

It's Wall level, but certainly not anywhere near what fragmenting soil would've gotten the borrowing feat (47 kilojoules).

Really, regardless of whether the feat should be removed or not, I certainly feel the feat should be recontextualized. Something like "Bursting From Underground" in the title alone would make way more sense than what we already have.

 

[Armorchompy]

I believe the feat is more for characters like Monty Mole or boss battles that involve burrowing than it is for zombies, in which case, yeah, I can personally see why people wanna keep the feat. Burrowing bosses and Monty Mole do burst out of the ground thinking they're Superman.

Sure, but then how many of those creatures are human-sized and shaped? And the depth assumed is pretty random, when it'd be better to calculate how much volume they go through in one second case by case.

[...] A more realistic approach would be considering displacement instead of fragmentation as burrowing through soil typically involves displacement rather than destruction.

I will point out that your response to the depth of a grave isn't entirely true. The saying "six feet under" originates from the Black Death, in which back then, burying people six feet underground in the literal sense of the term is a common practice. Nowadays, six feet is more like the maximum depth in a range where the shallowest a grave would be is four feet, which I've noted here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/References_for_Common_Feats?so=search#Rising_From_the_Grave

I never saw that calculation but that's also something I disagree with, it's a high ball to assume a zombie's pushing the lid upwards rather than just breaking through it over time (a much easier feat, albeit still a superhuman one) and then clawing through the dirt above. It's not really calculating the digging part anyways, and the math would definitely not be accurate for that sort of thing.

Really, regardless of whether the feat should be removed or not, I certainly feel the feat should be recontextualized. Something like "Bursting From Underground" in the title alone would make way more sense than what we already have.

But that isn't really common enough to be a standard feat.

 

[Flashlight237]

I never saw that calculation but that's also something I disagree with, it's a high ball to assume a zombie's pushing the lid upwards rather than just breaking through it over time (a much easier feat, albeit still a superhuman one) and then clawing through the dirt above. It's not really calculating the digging part anyways, and the math would definitely not be accurate for that sort of thing.

That's the thing, though. Usually there is no pounding involved in the feat (otherwise there'd be noise and dirt would kick up like a bootleg geyser). Everything done (the initial coffin lid movement and the follow-up digging) is most likely done by pushing the dirt around. Heck, for modern coffin lids, there's no direction they could go BUT up since they're on hinges. It's best to assume it's a push-then-crawl job like I had done there. Besides, shear strength calculations are more likely to high-ball any feat than just using real-world references like I had done in the calc.

But that isn't really common enough to be a standard feat.

BRUH!







(Machoke can use this move and it's pretty damn humanoid)

Sure, but then how many of those creatures are human-sized and shaped?

I counted four from Pokemon up to Gen V alone (Machoke, Machamp, Hariyama, and Gurdurr) and still working on counting.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's the thing, though. Usually there is no pounding involved in the feat (otherwise there'd be noise and dirt would kick up like a bootleg geyser). Everything done (the initial coffin lid movement and the follow-up digging) is most likely done by pushing the dirt around. Heck, for modern coffin lids, there's no direction they could go BUT up since they're on hinges. It's best to assume it's a push-then-crawl job like I had done there.

There'd be noise? There's over a meter of ground through it, and the release wouldn't be so explosive (in fact you could just, make holes and let the dirt flow through), this is just a random assumption. This isn't even relevant to the current discussion

(Machoke can use this move and it's pretty damn humanoid)






I counted four from Pokemon up to Gen V alone (Machoke, Machamp, Hariyama, and Gurdurr) and still working on counting.

Alright I've like, explained why this isn't common enough, posting a few examples, most of which don't qualify and that all happen through lengths different from those that the calc uses, doesn't really change anything.

So I'm going to like, tag a few other CGMs and we can see what they think @Chariot190 @Dalesean027 @DMUA @Agnaa @Dark-Carioca

 

[Chariot190]

I agree with Armor.

It isn't that the feat itself is bad, it's the way it's being used.

The calc in question only works if it's a fast single action, otherwise it needs to be divided by actions taken, timeframe, and hell depending on the material and depiction, the actions could result in lower integrity of the material as it just crumbles apart naturally, etc, as is the case of the RE zombies, that shit ain't it.
So "digging", as that action is defined, is misleading, the calc in question is actually for bursting out from the ground in a single action instant. At the absolute minimum it should be renamed to "bursting out from the underground".

Additionally, the way the calc is done, doesn't actually apply to 99% of cases, with the examples shown in this thread, not one would have the calc be usable, as none happen to be that specific average height, and ffs the examples that came to mind first was a weird tentacle thing, a ******* car, diglett, and gible, so yeah.
That isn't to say the feats aren't valid, but they need to be calced with the actual context and specifics in mind with proper dimensions, material, and taking in account if it's a true burst action, and in some cases depth also matters, honestly speaking, average height doesn't make sense in any case, I can't think of a single instance where the depth of ground just so happened to be the perfect amount, usually it's way more or way less.

I would say as a common calc, it is kinda useless, probably better off being a guideline in the calc guide or something explaining how and when such a feat can be calced and explaining how to do so, so I agree with Op more or less.

 

[DMUA]

I think I've had this take when I looked at it initially, but I might be hallucinating that. Either way, I do agree, though I'll note on the side that I think RE's Zombies 9-B+ is more along the lines of them one facetanking a speeding truck in RE2 Remake (along with a feat in code veronica where they bust out of a solid block of ice, but I don't remember if that's been calculated or very high end)

 

[Dark-Carioca]

I concur with Armor and Chariot.

I didn't think this calc was being misused/misinterpreted this way tbh

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah all those issues make sense, and the counterarguments are insufficient.

 

[Armorchompy]

Should we go ahead and remove it, then?

 

[Armorchompy]

@Agnaa can you remove the feat from the page

 

[Agnaa]

I'm kinda concerned about doing that, because profiles may still link to it.

That's one thing I don't like about our references for common feats page; every time there's a revision to one of them, it's a massive hassle because there's no easy way to find which pages refer to which calc.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's a good point, but there isn't really an alternative, if the calc is bad leaving it there just lets the problem exist further through time, and changing it causes the same issue as removing it.

 

[Agnaa]

In this case, I think we'd need someone to check the links for pages which use that calc, so they can be revised.

 

[Armorchompy]

I suppose that would fall on to me? Because I don't really have the time to do that these days.

 

[Agnaa]

Damn, guess we might have to wait for someone willing to apply to come around then.

Or we could edit a disclaimer to that calc saying that it shouldn't be used any more.

Or we could try to rally people around fixing it, like I did last time.

Or we can try to push the change to the References for Common Feats page to make these sorts of revisions easier.

I've just made a quick little thread about that. I've come up with quite an easy fix imo.

 

[Flashlight237]

Or we could edit a disclaimer to that calc saying that it shouldn't be used any more.

Or we could try to rally people around fixing it, like I did last time.

Imo, first one is the easiest to me as it fits with Chariot's suggestion to have it serve as a guideline, something like this:

This feat only serves as a guideline feat and should not be directly used. Use the methods used here to calculate individual burrowing/bursting cases.

I can also vouch for a fix, and I literally put out the way to do that too: use displacement instead of fragmentation/v-frag/pulverization.

 

[Armorchompy]

Displacement is also bad, and it doesn't solve the fact that the feat is hard to apply universally.

I disagree with adding in a disclaimer, it feels really unprofessional for an explicitly wrong calc to be in the page.

 

[Flashlight237]

Displacement is also bad

How exactly is it bad? Displacement acknowledges that the soil is pushed aside, not outright destroyed, when digging. If anything, unless if you're some college-level+ physics buff who can work out the mechanics of burrowing, displacement is the best option we realistically have.

 

[Armorchompy]

It doesn't acknowledge that it's pushed aside, it assumes it's all uniformly pushed upwards, which is not how actual digging works.

 

[Metalballrun]

Will this affect the other similar calc (I think), the rising from the grave?

 

[Armorchompy]

I think that's also incorrect but it's using a different method so prob not.

 

[Gewsbumpz_dude]

Wouldn't a rephrasing of the calc be better than total deletion?

Going off what I read from the OP, the problem is one of miscommunication, so it would be best to fix that miscommunication so people will stop using it improperly. Just rephrase the calc to what it is really about, bursting up from beneath floors.

 

[Armorchompy]

There are several problems, miscommunication is one, the other is that the feat is high-balled to a massive degree and that even if it wasn't it'd apply to only a very specific situation (even within the category of busting through floors, most feats wouldn't qualify). So it just shouldn't be there.

 

[Armorchompy]

I entirely forgot about this, but it is still an issue that should be addressed. Therefore

bump

 

[Dalesean027]

Agreed with OP...working on resident evil myself rn lol

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah that's part of what reminded me of it.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, everyone agreed, it's just that no-one's gotten around to applying the fix.

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean, everyone agreed, it's just that no-one's gotten around to applying the fix.

Are you fine with just removing it? I don't think it's really feasible to go through all the links.

 

[Agnaa]

If it's removed, I think it should be removed and replaced entirely with a disclaimer, along the lines of:

This calculation was found invalid in this thread. If you came here due to it being linked from a profile, please make a Content Revision Thread to get it removed.

So that casual visitors and users alike aren't confused by the link just not working.

 

[Armorchompy]

If it's removed, I think it should be removed and replaced entirely with a disclaimer, along the lines of:


So that casual visitors and users alike aren't confused by the link just not working.

That sounds good to me. Since the page is locked, could I ask you to do that?

 

[Agnaa]

Done.

If people think that's a bad approach and voice their dissent, it can be reverted, but otherwise, it can stand.