A Call Beyond Calc Conflict

[Epyriel]

Multiple calculations have been done for the AP of the Bloodborne item A Call Beyond. I have opened this thread to host discussion on which one should be used as per the editing rules.

Old Calculation: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ThePerpetual/Bloodborne:_A_Call_Beyond

Currently Used Calculation: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:WeeklyBattles/Bloodborne:_Recalc_of_A_Call_Beyond

New Calculation: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Epyriel/Bloodborne_-_New_Recalc_of_A_Call_Beyond

I believed a new recalculation was needed due to 3 major flaws in the currently accepted calculation:

1) Inaccurate Volume Assumption:

The current calculation assumes the item summons a star literally in between the hands of the user. This is likely inaccurate as the source of the star is from another plane of reality, and the Japanese translation (as pointed out in the old calc’s comments) seems to specify it is the explosion of a small star, not a small star itself, summoned by the item. The star itself is likely to rest within the ‘lofty plane of darkness’ and not between the user’s hands, with only its explosion being pulled through the item. This is reinforced by the fact a star so small to fit within the user’s hands would instantly collapse into a black hole as determined in the new calc.

2) Dubious Temperature Assumption:

The current calculation assumes the star’s temperature as being uniformly equivalent to the core temperature of the Sun. This is exceedingly implausible, as star temperatures can vary massively, and (ignoring black hole physics) one compressed to fit within the user’s hands would be far hotter than the Sun’s core, and a small star located in the other plane would likely be a red dwarf (by the ‘small’ designation of the item’s description) which would have a temperature far lesser than Sun’s core and distributed extremely unevenly between the core and the surface.

3) Dubious Explosion Modelling:

The current calculation uses the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate the star’s energy release by assuming the explosion can be modelled as a 1 second long emission of blackbody radiation. This seems questionable as the visual depiction of the star’s explosion seems to show a scattering explosion rather than a sudden flash of radiative emission. Nor does it last a second.

The new calculation fixes the above issues by using Gravitational Binding Energy to determine the minimum edge and likely case of what constitutes a ‘small star’ located in a different plane only whose explosion is brought forth by A Call Beyond. Therefore I propose the new recalculation should be used in place of the current one.

 

[Chritin]

As I said before, I agree with points #2 and #3, but I'll stay on the fence about point #1 for now until some calc group members can give more input.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

While argument 1 is technically accurate, I don't understand why that would lead to an inaccurate volume: indeed, it's not as though Weekly's calculation incorrectly used the radius of a star for the volume. The issue is, then, simply misphrased: it is the volume of the star itself at fault, not the calculated volume of the effect on-screen. You even use that yourself.

I have considered this since you asked me to speak here, and I would say that I find the literal interpretation of it being simply a very small star exploding to be likely (thus lending credence to, dare I say it, Weekly's interpretation and calc, in the void of some better option). I think there is also something to be said that if the phrase star is not entirely literal, I think the more likely explanation is that they did simply create an explosion in the void (which they can now manifest here by repeating the art).

This is not to say that I think yours is, overall, wrong or impossible. Quite frankly, I don't think any of the calcs in the OP properly tackle the star's explosion. It is my view that Weekly's is simply the closest. Given the vagueness surrounding the feat (after all, consider the game it hails from), I would be satisfied with the end result of "At least High 6-C, possibly Low 4-C", to account for the genuinely strong possibility that your interpretation is the more accurate one.

This would, however, lead to some annoying tiers: the Yharnam Sunrise and Honoring Wishes endings would fall to "At least High 6-C, likely 5-A, possibly Low 4-C", whereas the Childhood's Beginning key would become "At least 5-A, possibly Low 4-C".

 

[Epyriel]

While argument 1 is technically accurate, I don't understand why that would lead to an inaccurate volume: indeed, it's not as though Weekly's calculation incorrectly used the radius of a star for the volume. The issue is, then, simply misphrased: it is the volume of the star itself at fault, not the calculated volume of the effect on-screen. You even use that yourself.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase it clearly, but I meant the base assumption his volume calculation is predicated upon is innacurate, not that he made an arithmetic error. It is this assumption of what ’volume’ should actually be calculated (be it the space that encloses only the area between the hands of the user or the greater volume potentially laying in the lofty plane of shadows) that leads to a potentially innacurate number.

I have considered this since you asked me to speak here, and I would say that I find the literal interpretation of it being simply a very small star exploding to be likely (thus lending credence to, dare I say it, Weekly's interpretation and calc, in the void of some better option). I think there is also something to be said that if the phrase star is not entirely literal, I think the more likely explanation is that they did simply create an explosion in the void (which they can now manifest here by repeating the art).

This is not to say that I think yours is, overall, wrong or impossible. Quite frankly, I don't think any of the calcs in the OP properly tackle the star's explosion. It is my view that Weekly's is simply the closest.

If we keep the lower estimate using the assumption it is a literal tiny star, I would recommend we switch to using the GBE method in Perpetual’s old calc to account for the errors present highlighted in 2) and 3) within Weekly’s calc. The joule values would get roughly halved but everything stays in the same tier.

Given the vagueness surrounding the feat (after all, consider the game it hails from), I would be satisfied with the end result of "At least High 6-C, possibly Low 4-C", to account for the genuinely strong possibility that your interpretation is the more accurate one.

This would, however, lead to some annoying tiers: the Yharnam Sunrise and Honoring Wishes endings would fall to "At least High 6-C, likely 5-A, possibly Low 4-C", whereas the Childhood's Beginning key would become "At least 5-A, possibly Low 4-C".

Honestly? I would be perfectly ok with that. FromSoftware’s presentation is extremely ambiguous throughout their games, so while these massive tier ranges are a bit messy, they also accurately represent the full spectrum of possible interpretations of the mindbending depictions we are given.

Something like that already exists for Elden Ring with the Elden Beast’s tier being listed as “At least 7-A, possibly 4-A” to account for the ambiguity of whether or not it is appropriate to interpret the cosmic graphics as literal or not.

 

[Chritin]

Was this ever settled? I was going through some old calcs I wanted to do and remembered that I planned to calc Ebrietas's version of this feat, but was waiting to see what came of this.

 

[Epyriel]

Was this ever settled? I was going through some old calcs I wanted to do and remembered that I planned to calc Ebrietas's version of this feat, but was waiting to see what came of this.

Nope, Armorchompy disagreed on the calc blog while I’m still fine with Mr. Bambu’s suggestion of a possibly rating, but that just leaves it tied.

 

[Chritin]

Fair enough. I might go ahead and do my other calc then, just for the time being. Bloodborne is still on my to do list, but it's at best #5 right now on my "shit that's gotta get done" list sadly. Almost every other souls game comes first considering that, despite Weekly as a person, he left the verse in pretty good shape.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Fair enough. I might go ahead and do my other calc then, just for the time being. Bloodborne is still on my to do list, but it's at best #5 right now on my "shit that's gotta get done" list sadly. Almost every other souls game comes first considering that, despite Weekly as a person, he left the verse in pretty good shape.

Thank you, I tried ^_^