• 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.

Attack Potency, Problems and Clarifications (Staff only)

@Ant - Those values for each tier (in terms of volume, not the destructive value) seem a little random, or rounded to a specific number. We should try to look for specific sizes and volumes if we're looking to determine the minimum of each tier.

Like I said in my last response for what could be "8-C" and "High 8-C" using a 2-story house for 8-C and the minimum height for a skyscraper for High 8-C. Using 8j/cc values since that's enough to "destroy" such structures.
 
Okay. I suppose that makes sense.
 
Are we sure that we want to recalculate the borders of these tiers to new values, requiring site-wide revisions looking at every character in each of these tiers.

Or do we just want to find out what structures need to be destroyed to achieve those levels of energy output?

We should lay out our goal beforehand so we don't end up doing frivolous work.
 
However, their use for City Block tier is actually sensible as they do use the area of a Manhattan city block.

They use Town level (minimum) as a 1km diameter blast radius, but that seems pretty random and their citation link doesn't exist anymore (Even if there are towns smaller or larger than this. Town level is gonna be the most tedious out of the tier list).
 
@Agnaa - there's actually a number of characters who are specifically put at a tier because of "they destroyed a building" or "wiped out an entire island", and are thrown at the base-line of each tiers. In regards to calculations, there's not nearly as many that would be affected as you'd think.

We already do have calculations for "Mountain level and Island level", as well, so those are out of the way for the most part.
 
@CinCameron20 The problem is, if we move the baseline of a tier up or down, we'd have to look at every character in those tiers to see if they'd be upgraded or downgraded.

Characters which are lowballed to baseline wouldn't be changed at all, it's just characters with specific calculations that may fall under different tiers after we move the borders.
 
@Agnaa The goal is finding the source of the values and linking it to the page.

I personally didn't mean for this thread to be about recalculating the borders of tiers which had a calc in the first place but at the same time i'm not opposed to it. Since you would like the most common idea of what Building destruction is, to be the basis of building level.
 
Agnaa said:
Are we sure that we want to recalculate the borders of these tiers to new values, requiring site-wide revisions looking at every character in each of these tiers.

Or do we just want to find out what structures need to be destroyed to achieve those levels of energy output?

We should lay out our goal beforehand so we don't end up doing frivolous work.
Click to expand...
I think that it is best if we start with the second option, and then see if anything seems to completely off that it might need to be adjusted.
 
Yes, but there are not that many, and those within mountain/island range have already been taken care of.

All that needs to happen is change the values of 9-A (Top-end only), 8-C up to 7-B and possibly the minimum of 7-A.

It is not like we're going to "need" to do all of these changes immediately. In fact, some if not most of these values (like 8-B and possibly 8-A) are already justified, as I believe we use values relating to destroying actual city blocks.
 
If anyone knows this, please answer me. Is there a value for the average height/volume of a mountain?
 
So from what I get, the standard of Town level is a 1km blast diameter, City level is a 10km blast diameter, and so on. We are using the results as our base-line. But why though? Do we actually use the size of an average or small sized town and city?

Low 7-C's base-line seems random as a result (1 Kiloton of Tnt). Pretty sure the tier was thrown in there to fill in the gap between 8-A and 7-C. "Small Town" is redundant to me considering towns are generally small.
 
@Votron5 - The calculation went into more detail and used 28j/cc (Reinforced Concrete). I was just using 8j/cc (just stone) assuming the majority of the structure was made with stone or something similar.

And I was doing basic estimations and the minimum height of a skyscrapper. That calc used a statement from Quora which doesn't mention how tall the sky-scrapper mentioned is, nor its square-footage. For all I know, it could be a 70 or 90 floor skyscrapper with over 3000 square footage, and they took into account the under-ground levels. I was using a narrow 40-floor skyscrapper in comparison, even if my values were wrong.
 
So to reverse-engineer the current border of 8-C.

It's at 1,046,000,000 joules, divided by 8 j/cc gives 130,750,000 cubic centimeters destroyed.

Assuming 80% hollowness the actual building volume would need to be 5x higher, 653,750,000 cubic centimeters, or 653.75 cubic meters.

As Cin did, assuming a two-story house where each story is 18 feet, would require each floor to be around 60 square meters (precisely 59.579141149 m^2), or roughly 641 square feet (precisely 641.30453803234).

So working backwards, it's based off a two-story building, with each story being 18 feet tall, with a square footage of 641.30453803234

Oddly, this seems to give a smaller result than Cin's calculation despite having larger values for the size of the floors, so I've tried to redo Cin's calculation and it seems off.

8-C, let's use a standard 2-story house with 625 square feet on each floor, about 16 to 18 feet tall as well. converted to meters, the volume would be 929.0304m^3
This is wrong. 625 square feet is 58.0644m^2, 18 feet tall is 5.4864m. Multiplied together it gives a volume of 318.5645 m^3. Since this is just one story, for two stories it gives 637.129 M^3, still a fair bit off from your value. What happened here?
 
CinCameron20 said:
@Votron5 - The calculation went into more detail and used 28j/cc (Reinforced Concrete). I was just using 8j/cc (just stone) assuming the majority of the structure was made with stone or something similar.
And I was doing basic estimations and the minimum height of a skyscrapper. That calc used a statement from Quora which doesn't mention how tall the sky-scrapper mentioned is, nor its square-footage. For all I know, it could be a 70 or 90 floor skyscrapper with over 3000 square footage, and they took into account the under-ground levels. I was using a narrow 40-floor skyscrapper in comparison, even if my values were wrong.
Click to expand...
Was this calc to find the lower bound of Building level?
 
16 feet would have given an even lower volume.

Precisely, it would have given a volume for both floors of 566.3369 M^3.
 
I think that it is best if DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle, and our calc group members handle this in the manner that I specified above.
 
This is important, so it would be good if you ask all of the calc group members, as well as DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle, and Kaltias, to help out here via their message walls.
 
Assalt and DontTalk have already been summoned, but I will contact Kal and the calc group (that sounds like the name of a music group)
 
Okay. Thank you.
 
So basically, what we have to do is calculating how big the destroyed object needs to be in order to qualify for the current baseline of the various tiers, then check if it makes sense (and if it doesn't we should discuss a new baseline) right?
 
About 8-C and High 8-C borders

8-C baseline: 1.046E9 J

1.046E9/6 = 174333333... cm^3 (frag. of concrete)

174333333*5 = 871666665 cm^3 (building are 80% hollow)

871666665**(1/3) = 955.24 cm or 9.55 meters tall building (cube shaped)

High 8-C baseline is 8 time greater, therefore so is the volume:

871666665*8 = 6973333320 cm^3

6973333320**(1/3) = 1910.50 or 19.11 meters tall building (cube shaped)

However i'm not sure if this method can be used here
 
Kaltias said:
So basically, what we have to do is calculating how big the destroyed object needs to be in order to qualify for the current baseline of the various tiers, then check if it makes sense (and if it doesn't we should discuss a new baseline) right?
Click to expand...
That is correct, yes.
 
Okay. Is somebody else here able to help Ugarik with this?
 
Couldn't some research be of help? Think about it. If we found something that gives us a direct answer, we could use that to calc the other tiers (IE we found the exact amount of energy to blow this up. We start from there, going up or down on the chart to find out the other "needed energies"). Couldnt we use a real world bomb of sorts to start off?
 
@Ugarik According to Andytrenom the current tiers for 8-C/High 8-C were calced through an explosion method, not energy to fragment a 80% hollow building.
 
@Kal

Not really. There is a page which our attack Potency values were apparently based on. We are supposed to be cross checking the values listed in that page and the ones listed in our chart, and then linking it if they are found to line up. You can find it in the OP.

That's only part of it though. Borders like 7-A were arbitrarily picked to be 100 megatons without actually using a basis for what standard mountain destruction would yield. Other tiers also suffer from this problem. In this case we would have to devise a fresh calculation using an appropriate size of the object and method of destruction. Working backwards from the current value to figure out the required size of object won't do.
 
Well, as I mentioned Kavpeny no longer remembers what he based our current values on, so I think that Kaltias' approach is useful to go by.

We can check the values for the Narutoforums page that DontTalkDT provided as well of course.
 
I think we should discuss some of the baselines and change them, as a few feel like they were thrown in as a way to accommodate massive gaps, or sizes of objects destroyed.

The only issue I see are the values that start at either "1" or "100". Namely:

  • 8-A (100 Tons out of nowhere. Just find the value to destroy two city blocks that are a reasonable distance from each-other.)
  • Low 7-C, High 7-C and Low 7-B (All 3 of these tiers seem to be "thrown in" to fill in the gaps for their surrounding tiers)
  • 7-A (I think the value should actually be lower. a 3000+ meter tall mountain with similar radius or diameter is far above the average. The low end should possibly start from beyond the largest value of city destruction for our planet, or using an acceptable average for mountain sizes)
  • 6-C into High 6-C (100 Gigatons is baseless. We should use an actual large island that is either a small country, or one of the largest islands on the planet)
  • Low 6-B (Again, feels like filler. Probably fuse it with high 6-C in all honesty)
Everything else is actually okay, just need an actual explanation why they are that specific value.
 
For information's sake, this sort of revision was already started but ended up not being finished, in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Analyzing Baseline GBEs for Tier 5 Stuffs
Replies
9
Views
1K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Furina003
Question about Attack Potency
Replies
3
Views
733
Randomuser3412
Randomuser3412
Vzearr
  • Locked
Jujutsu Kaisen Calculations - Attack Potency...
2
Replies
79
Views
5K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Alonik
Question about Attack Pottency
Replies
5
Views
770
Arkenis
Arkenis
ArachDusa
The Attack Potency Chart+
Replies
9
Views
4K
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
Back
Top