Arbitrary and Unsourced Tier Ranges (Staff Only)

[Sera_EX]

We really need to finish this guys.

 

[Antvasima]

Agreed.

 

[Andytrenom]

So I tried using the explosion formula in this page to review the parameters given for different objects in the article

Already I found that the radius given for small building level destruction doesn't line up with our attack potency chart, since 8m diameter or 4m radius gives 0.0029 tons as opposed to 0.005. Is it possible that the calc was done through a different equation? whatever the case, it is something to keep in mind but I have another thing to talk about as well

Instead of just one note, all brief descriptions of the tiers between 9 and 3 in the Tiering System should be modified to include the hypothetical situation assumed for calculating their baseline

To give an example of what I mean, Building level's description would become something like this

"Characters/Weapons who can destroy a building, or those who can easily harm characters with building level durability.

The method of destruction is assumed to be an explosion and the minimum size for the building must be ___"

I feel this would communicate our intentions a lot better than the note I gave. I'm not quite certain what to write in case of the arbitrary tiers so suggestions are welcome.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with improving our attack potency borders at some point in the future, but now is probably not the right time to do so, given Ultima's upcoming revision of our higher tiering system.

DontTalkDT might be willing to help though.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

The two are fairly disconnected, so I don't see why it would be a problem.

 

[Antvasima]

There is another issue as well, but I will talk about that soon.

 

[KLOL506]

So I tried using the explosion formula in this page to review the parameters given for different objects in the articleAlready I found that the radius given for small building level destruction doesn't line up with our attack potency chart, since 8m diameter or 4m radius gives 0.0029 tons as opposed to 0.005. Is it possible that the calc was done through a different equation? whatever the case, it is something to keep in mind but I have another thing to talk about as well

I think you used the airburst formula instead of the ground-based one.

Strangely enough, the formula for ground-based explosions is missing from that page.

 

[Andytrenom]

That might explain it

We may also need to fix that about the explosion calculation page, not quite sure if it deserves its own thread tho

 

[Elizhaa]

That might explain it
We may also need to fix that about the explosion calculation page, not quite sure if it deserves its own thread tho

If the formula is needed, then here it is:

• W = R^3*((27136*P+8649)^(1/2)/13568-93/13568)^2/1000000
  • W is yield in megatons of TNT
  • R is radius in meters
  • P is pressure of the shockwave in bars, the standard overpressure is 20 psi or 1.37895 bars.

 

[Andytrenom]

I do know the formula but am not confident if I will implement it correctly

The given diameters (radius will be half of the value) if anyone is willing to calculate them in my place are:

9-A: 8m

8-C: 23m

High 8-C: 56m

8-B: 167m

 

[KLOL506]

Pretty sure we don't need to use the 1000000 in that formula. The actual formula is just this- W = R^3*((27136*P+8649)^(1/2)/13568-93/13568)^2 and swap megatons with tons of TNT. Unless of course you're using the 1000000 to get it down to tons of TNT and using megatons anyways. In that case it's fine.

 

[KLOL506]

All right. Here goes nothing.

So here goes:

9-A: 8m diameter means 4m radius, so 4^3*((27136*1.37895 + 8649)^(1/2)/13568 - 93/13568)^2 / 1000000= 0.00514358 tons of TNT (Just a bit above our baseline)

8-C: 23m diameter so that's 11.5m radius, so 11.5^3*((27136*1.37895 + 8649)^(1/2)/13568 - 93/13568)^2 / 1000000= 0.1222 tons of TNT (Though our page tells us to use 17.7 meters, which makes me think that we got our 0.25 tons value by figuring out the average of the two radiuses 11.5m and 17.7m, which would be 14.6 meters and this value gives us exactly aroud 0.25 tons)

High 8-C: 56m diameter so 28m radius, so 28^3*((27136*1.37895 + 8649)^(1/2)/13568-93/13568)^2 / 1000000= 1.7642479004554651543694742736512 tons of TNT (Pretty damn close to the one we have now)

8-B: 167m diameter so 83.5 meters. 83.5^3*((27136*1.37895+8649)^(1/2)/13568-93/13568)^2 / 1000000= 46.78912695425822307913353429632 tons of TNT (Which is actually decently into City Block level)

 

[Andytrenom]

Not sure what happened there at the end..

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, I'm confused myself.

Using the radius for Hagia Sophia tho (62.3 m according to our page), we get 19.46 tons of TNT.

 

[Andytrenom]

So after my conversatio with Donttalk, it seems the other formula might not be valid either.

The source of the equation is a document from the 2013 while the blog was made in 2012

 

[KLOL506]

So after my conversatio with Donttalk, it seems the other formula might not be valid either.
The source of the equation is a document from the 2013 while the blog was made in 2012

Yeah, you used the airburst formula, while I used the ground-based formula which DT recommended you use in your coversation's 5th comment.

 

[Andytrenom]

That ground based formula is what we were talking about since I linked to your comment using it. He doesn't think it's what was used in the original blog

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah I know, it's the one DT started to apply after 2017 according to his comment. So the old blog in NarutoForums is prolly inaccurate in and out of itself by now.

It's what we use for most of our ground-based explosions on this site.

EDIT: By "It's" I mean the new ground-based formula that we use. Not the blog itself. We have our own radius blog to follow and use.

 

[Andytrenom]

So the old blog in NarutoForums is prolly inaccurate in and out of itself by now.

It's what we use for most of our ground-based explosions on this site.

This isn't good to hear, especially given how bad of a position we are in to fix this

 

[KLOL506]

Oh shit, I forgot to clarify that we use the ground-based formula for our ground-based explosions, not that we use the blog itself.

We have our own radius blogs to follow from, which is prolly more accurate.

 

[Andytrenom]

Those are general calculations for helping users, they aren't the original source of information presented in our profiles

They won't solve the problem of citations the currenr page is dealing with

 

[KLOL506]

Oh, I see. So the problem of finding citations still remains.

NVM then.

 

[KLOL506]

I have a question. How did the guys at NarutoForums derive the diameter from the area of the objects they found?

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm assuming the same way a person normally calculates diameter from the area of a circle

 

[KLOL506]

I see. Oh well.

Also, I think our Explosion Radius page takes citations from wikipedia.

 

[Andytrenom]

Bump

 

[Andytrenom]

Till the dimensional tiering stuff is settled, I don't think any recalculation of borders is going to be happening. For the timebeing it would be better to just clarify on our tiering system page what tiers cannot be given without a calc

A little modification of my previous suggestion, we just follow the brief explanations of tiers with a note that either specifies the conditions required for a feat to be that tier, or informs that the tiers can only be given when there's a calculation

To give an illustration:

""Characters/Weapons who can destroy a building, or those who can easily harm characters with building level durability.

Note: It is assumed that the character is destroying a 20x20 building via means of an explosion"

Or

""Characters/Weapons who can destroy a building, or those who can easily harm characters with building level durability.

Note: This tier cannot be assigned unless the character's energy output is known through a calculation

I believe the tiers from 9-A to 8-B would have to receive treatment, since when judged via our official calculation method, the original sources don't line up with our actual attack potency borders. It is also a possibility that the OBD explanations for other tiers are similarly outdated if the calculation methods are different now

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I would prefer a collected note for all the affected tiers at the bottom of the Attack Potency page, as the layout would look very awkward otherwise.

 

[Andytrenom]

Contrary to the individual descriptions, certain tiers don't correspond to the destruction of their namesake in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirement for these tiers are either arbitrary values or ones without a source

It should be taken care of that no character is allotted to one of these tiers, unless their calculated attack potency lines up with the specified threshold for the given tier

9-A/0.005 tons-0.25 tons 8-C/0.25 tons-2 tons High 8-C/2 tons-11 tons 8-B/11 tons-100 tons 8-A/100 tons-1 kiloto Low 7-C/1 kiloton-5.8 kiloto High 7-C/100 kilotons-1 megatons Low 7-B/1 megatons-6.3 megatons 7-A/100 megatons-1 gigato High 7-A/1 gigaton-4.3 gigatons High 6-C/100 gigatons-1 terato Low 6-B/1 teraton-7 teratons High 6-B/100 teratons-760 teratons

What I could come up with right now

 

[Antvasima]

Something like this perhaps?

"Contrary to the individual descriptions, certain tiers don't correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are either arbitrary values or ones without a source.

These tiers should preferably not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations that coincide with the respective specified thresholds for them."

 

[Andytrenom]

That seems good

 

[Andytrenom]

Although I will have to check if 7-C, 7-B and 6-B also falls into this this now, since they may have been calculated through outdated formulas

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Although I will have to check if 7-C, 7-B and 6-B also falls into this this now, since they may have been calculated through outdated formulas

Where does the 5.8 Kiloton result for 7-C come from anyway?

I used surface destruction formula for destroying a town with diameter of 1 km and overpressure of 1.37895 bar (standard value). I got 10.04 Kilotons (which can be rounded down to just 10 Kilotons).

 

[Captain_Torch]

Where does the 5.8 Kiloton result for 7-C come from anyway?

I used surface destruction formula for destroying a town with diameter of 1 km and overpressure of 1.37895 bar (standard value). I got 10.04 Kilotons (which can be rounded down to just 10 Kilotons).

It comes from using this website:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

Before the formula with using overpressure, this was the standard for calculating explosion yields.

If you enter 5.8 kilotons (0.0058 megatons), then you'll get exactly 500 meter radius(1 km diameter) for near total fatalities

 

[Andytrenom]

@Soldier it apparently comes from this article

And I had a feeling the value wouldn't match up with our current explosion standards, you calc just substantiates my fears

 

[Mr. Bambu]

See uh

Soldier is using the calc for a detonation right on the ground that destroys all structures

the actual 7-C value comes from a typical nuke detonated mid-air

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

"Contrary to the individual descriptions, certain tiers don't correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are either arbitrary values or ones without a source.

These tiers should preferably not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations that coincide with the respective specified thresholds for them."

Is it fine if we apply this text as a footnote?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

See uh

Soldier is using the calc for a detonation right on the ground that destroys all structures

the actual 7-C value comes from a typical nuke detonated mid-air

How high?

 

[Elizhaa]

"Contrary to the individual descriptions, certain tiers don't correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are either arbitrary values or ones without a source.

These tiers should preferably not be assigned unless there are accpted calculations that coincide with the respective specified thresholds for them."

Is it fine if we apply this text as a footnote?

I think applying this text as a footnote could work as a good solution right now so I think it is fine to apply