• 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.

delete

I'll get right to the point with this, there is no author in the world that actually thinks about how much energy would go into moving a bunch of clouds.

The average person doesn't get it from seeing those feats, nor does the average author, but they can still understand basic concepts of most other types of feats nonetheless.

It's time to accept it even a little, analyzing the power of fictional universes should not be just about doing the hard math on the feats, but also about understanding the context in which the author presents his characters.

Now, I understand what some might think, "Your arguing from incredibility because you personally don't believe it, saying there is no way an author thinks they're a certain level isn't an argument against the ratings. But moving clouds is no different from destroying something large, they both require lots of energy to perform, Those feats exist in universe and the wiki doesn't underestimate them"

But, there are feats that still "should need power and energy" which the wiki doesn't blindly accept, due to the clear intention of the verse.

Find AP based only on a character's speed while he is fighting.
"-For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case"
"-Quicksilver's calculated speed cannot be used to derive kinetic energy as it heavily contradicts his established power levels"

Huh, another form of KE based attack is the one to watch out for.

I'm not saying that KE for clouds calculations should be demonized or useless, but that they should be just supporting feats.

If a character is on a level only thanks to feats or scaling from KE for clouds, and has no other feats, or scaling with someone with other kind of feats of the same level, one should start to doubt such cloud feats.
If the character has scaling or other feats that are around the same level as the KE for clouds calculation, then that feat should serve as support.
 
So with this logic.

A verse that has multiple feat like this, is considered not usable because they lack destruction feats on this level? If a verse has several feats via blowing away a large amount of clouds, you're saying we shouldn't use them because they don't have feats of destroying objects on that level?

Am I correct in this line of thinking? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before making an opinion.
 
Last edited:
I find very unlikely the idea of a verse that only has cloud-based feats, so I assume you mean a verse that has some feats but the highest ones are from KE for clouds

Well, as I mentioned, I think that feats based on KE for clouds serves as a support feats, if for example, a character has a feat of withstanding an explosion that gives small city values, and has a feat of KE for clouds that gives values a couple of times or even dozens of times stronger, I don't see why it couldn't be applicable

But if the feats you have with KE for clouds are all hundreds or even millions of times higher than the level shown by the characters in other types of feats, it would be better to focus on the other types of more direct feats.

Especially if those feats with clouds are the result of, For example, an explosion moving a huge amount of clouds that gives city level energy values, but the explosion itself, which was on the surface, barely destroyed a couple of buildings
 
there is no author in the world that actually thinks
Stopped reading immediately when I saw this. Author’s intention has zero to do with how the audience interprets the text. I guarantee that over 99% of authors don’t even know how impressive their feats are. Otherwise calculating feats would be meaningless. This thesis statement is so hilariously bad that it not only makes your entire premise fall apart, but goes against the basic fundamentals of power scaling.

And FYI, that KG ball analogy is awful. In this scenario the calculated KE is contradicted by the area of effect. However, in the case of clouds, there is no form of contraction because the whole point of cloud KE is that it relies on the area of effect on the clouds.
 
Yeah no… As much as I hate them, Cloud Calcs are still valid feats and can be used as the main scaling

Like if you don’t wanna use them, that’s fine, but it’s also fine if you do use them

If a cloud feat is massively above every other feat in the verse and the feat makes sus sense, then it would be deemed an outlier anyways, but it’s not like a rule needs to be put in place about cloud calcs
 
I am unfortunately inclined to agree with Demon and Zamasu. This is honestly so nitpicky it literally just becomes an "outlier" determining game.

Author intent is only allowable if it does not contradict the verse's showings itself and is consistent with it. If it contradicts, we discard it. Plain and simple. No more, no less.
 
Agreeing with Mitch here, the whole argument here just really falls flat. If a cloud feat is contradicted by other feats in a given verse, the cloud feat will get deemed an outlier anyway.

“There is no author in the world that actually thinks…” yeah you could say that for a ton of different kinds of feats. That logic is flimsy at best when it’s all you’ve got.
 
Actually, I'm pretty sure most authors know that when they have a character do cool super punch or energy beam and it parts a **** ton of clouds, or whatever, they know, generally what they're doing.
Otherwise why even couple large cloud feats together with something that is intended to come off as a display of power and be impressive? They at the very least know cloud feats look impressive and if they know it looks good, they obviously know it takes power, otherwise it wouldn't be impressive and indication of such, aka the whole reason they do it in the first place.

Obviously they don't know the exact number, but that goes for any feat, point is they have a general indication otherwise they wouldn't even do it in most cases.

Ngl, saying not even a single author in the world or even normal person would realize it takes a lot of energy is kind of undermining basic comprehension skills for anyone who knows basic science.
 
Yeah, we already had two threads in a row discussing this and ultimately results in the same conclusion. It's still a strong shockwave pushing the giant body of air with very mathematical accuracy in these types of calculations.
 
finee

but similar to the KG ball analogy, shouldn't cloud feats be doubted when they are the collateral result of destructive feats on the earth's surface, whose damage does not coincide with the KE of the clouds?

For example, I saw cloud KE calculations with country level results that were only the result of surface explosions that give city-island results at best.
 
finee

but similar to the KG ball analogy, shouldn't cloud feats be doubted when they are the collateral result of destructive feats on the earth's surface, whose damage does not coincide with the KE of the clouds?

For example, I saw cloud KE calculations with country level results that were only the result of surface explosions that give city-island results at best.
That depends on the explosion.

Please post the calcs in question so people can judge it for themselves.
 
You didn't explain the problem with the calc.

That explosion happened in the middle of the ocean, over hundreds of kilometers away from any land.

The first one uses an outdated information that downplayed the results. We didn't have the correct information at the time. They are not 50 km away from Japan, that is wrong. However do not discuss this here, we can discuss this in the general discussion thread.

The second High 6-A results was already rejected. The px scaling was wrong which inflated the results by a lot.

The third one is the most accurate one and as explained above, there is nothing to contradict it.

The explosion power without the cloud split is 8.70282105e20 Joules or 208 Gigatons or High 6-C destruction. So I see no contradiction here.

While the cloud split was 3623 Gigatons. (However possible cloud revisions could lower this number by a large amount)

Your version is too messy for me to understand, my apologies but I cannot give an opinion on it.
 
Last edited:
You didn't explain the problem with the calc.

That explosion happened in the middle of the ocean, over hundreds of kilometers away from any land.

The first one uses an outdated information that downplayed the results. We didn't have the correct information at the time. They are not 50 km away from Japan, that is wrong. However do not discuss this here, we can discuss this in the general discussion thread.

The second High 6-A results was already rejected. The px scaling was wrong which inflated the results by a lot.

The third one is the most accurate one and as explained above, there is nothing to contradict it.

The explosion power without the cloud split is 8.70282105e20 Joules or 208 Gigatons or High 6-C destruction. So I see no contradiction here.

While the cloud split was 3623 Gigatons. (However possible cloud revisions could lower this number by a large amount)

Your version is too messy for me to understand, my apologies but I cannot give an opinion on it.
208 Gigatons up to 3623 Gigatons is a big change
 
Yeah an 18x increase for a separate effect of the same feat doesn't seem to be different enough to be a contradiction, imo.

With the examples of characters/objects with high KE not destroying walls much, the KE and the wall destruction should be exactly the same.

If an explosion occurs, which destroys some land and moves some clouds, those are separate effects that shouldn't be exactly the same.

ofc, if the results are wildly discordant (like, 1000x or above, imo), or if the cloud feat is an outlier, it shouldn't be used.
 
Back
Top