- 11,099
- 4,323
I suggest using Mauna Kea for High 7-A
-
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)
- Thread starter Andytrenom
- Start date
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #162
@Spino I think he just took the 100 megaton yield and worked out the mountain size from that.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Exactly. I think we should use 2000 m for baseline, though I am uncertain whether fragmentation, violent fragmentation, pulverization or vaporization would be best.
- 5,510
- 718
I'd say violent's good (I'm no calc boi tho)
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #165
What tiers exactly have been calculated through pulverisation?Elizhaa said:
- 9,978
- 2,015
The minimal height to be considered is 610 m yes, but its more easy for user to eyeball mountain level from that, also, don't think there's a standarized global average mountain height.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #167
@Spino If a character is known to have "destroyed mountains" would we assume it was through fragmentation or violent fragmentation?
- 11,099
- 4,323
I am uncertain.
- 11,099
- 4,323
9-B is based on bullets that can shoot through walls.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #173
@Ant The methods should give values that follow the same order as the current chart. 7-C <7-B <7-A. 6-C <6-B <6-A etc
But apart from that, I think it's counterintuitive to pick new values based on their closeness to the current values. After all the fact that we are revising them in the first place means that there was something wrong with how they were decided and shouldn't influence how we decide the new values.
We should go by the most overall logical method of destruction that would apply to a feat of destroying the corresponding object of a tier.
But apart from that, I think it's counterintuitive to pick new values based on their closeness to the current values. After all the fact that we are revising them in the first place means that there was something wrong with how they were decided and shouldn't influence how we decide the new values.
We should go by the most overall logical method of destruction that would apply to a feat of destroying the corresponding object of a tier.
- 5,510
- 718
Andy's right
- 11,099
- 4,323
What would be most reasonable though?
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #176
@Spino Entirely depends on what tier we're talking about. 7-A for example should be based around fragmenting an average mountain in my opinion. If there's no value for average mountain I guess we would have to select one ourselves.
- 6,014
- 2,122
^If it's fragmenting an average mountain, the result will drastically Change.
- 10,903
- 12,340
^I'm with that btw. I don't think we should recalc the tier baselines.Matthew Schroeder said:
For example what a mountain is, is globally debatable. The 600m thing is basically only an UK thing.
And what a small city or large city is, is likewise completely arbitrary. Hence there is no reason to recalculate this values. Likewise towns have no inherent definition whatsoever.
In my opinion having real life baselines has no particular use here, but if we want some we should just find approximations and leave it at that.
So, let's calculate baselines:
From the formula for nuclear explosions we get 0.28*(Y/1000)^0.33 = radius, where radius is in km and Y is in tons of TNT.
The area of the explosion is then radius^2*pi, which gives us the area formula. (0.28*(Y/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = area of explosion in km^2.
With that let's go into the values without baseline (I know Skalt and others have started this already). Unless otherwise stated the following destruction will be via nuclear explosion as is standard:
- Large Country level: (0.28*(10^14/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 4 481 938.93 km^2
- Destroying a country larger than india and smaller than australia.
- Small Country level: (0.28*(10^12/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 214 519.08 km^2
- Approximately destroying Guyana
- Large Island: (0.28*(10^11/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 46 931.66 km^2
- Approximately destroying Severny Island
- Island level: (0.28*(4.3*10^9/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 5 882.40 km^2
- Approximately destroying Mount Everst (as high end of large mountain level) or approximately destroying Melville Island
- Large Mountain level: (0.28*(10^9/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 2 246.29 km^2
- Approximately destroying Princess Royal Island. As by this busting an idealized mountain that is 7 934m high, which is about as high as Annapurna II (Note: but is not necessarily fragmenting Annapurna II. Volume of mountains is kinda tricky to calculate)
- Mountain level: (0.28*(10^8/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 491.43 km^2
- Approximately destroying Albuquerque, New Mexico. As by this busting an idealized mountain that is 3 682.55m high, which is about as high as North Twin Peak (Note: but is not necessarily fragmenting north twin peak. Volume of mountains is kinda tricky to calculate)
- City level: (0.28*(6.3*10^6/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 79.25 km^2
- Approximately destroying Leverkusen, Germany.
- Small City level: (0.28*(10^6/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 23.52 km^2
- Approximately destroying Visé, Belgium.
- Large Town level: (0.28*(10^5/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 5.15 km^2
- Town level: (0.28*(5.8*10^3/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 0.78 km^2
- Small Town level: (0.28*(10^3/1000)^0.33)^2*pi = 0.246 km^2
- 11,099
- 4,323
We should place borders of tiers based on calculations, instead of getting calculations based on tier borders.
Tier names are supposed to give as an idea of how powerful is an attack. If a "City Block level" attack can destroy a town, or a "Town level" attack can destroy a small city, it's misleading and makes no sense whatsoever.
Tier names are supposed to give as an idea of how powerful is an attack. If a "City Block level" attack can destroy a town, or a "Town level" attack can destroy a small city, it's misleading and makes no sense whatsoever.
- 10,903
- 12,340
These tier names don't indicate any clear border.
There is no real baseline island or mountain or city or town. They come in all kinds of sizes.
Instead of revising the entire tiering system to have aesthetically pleasing, but other arbitrary, baselines, we can just as well choose reasonable baselines that fit the system. As what I wrote above shows one finds countries, islands and citires that do the job.
There is no real baseline island or mountain or city or town. They come in all kinds of sizes.
Instead of revising the entire tiering system to have aesthetically pleasing, but other arbitrary, baselines, we can just as well choose reasonable baselines that fit the system. As what I wrote above shows one finds countries, islands and citires that do the job.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #181
I do not think saying "Mountain level shoul be based on destroying mountains instead of being a random value" is being too rigid with tier names.
If the justification for mountain level and other tiers like that was simply disagreeable that would be one thing, It's the fact that they do not have a justification at all is why it's such a problem.
If the justification for mountain level and other tiers like that was simply disagreeable that would be one thing, It's the fact that they do not have a justification at all is why it's such a problem.
- 11,099
- 4,323
But tier names indicate that a character's AP is comparable to destroying something. Having them inaccurate would just be misleading.
Our current City Block level rating would give us massive city blocks that make no sense at all.
Our current City Block level rating would give us massive city blocks that make no sense at all.
- 10,903
- 12,340
Yeah, but mountain level can be based on busting any mountain in existence. There is no reason that this mountain can't be North Twin Peak. With that you also have a justification to call this tier so.Andytrenom said:
Yes, you have no justification for choosing that mountain in particular, but what does it matter?
Revising the entire system just to pick a more popular mountain is maximum effort for minimum payoff.
- 10,903
- 12,340
Our current city block rating is approximately destroying a 63m radius city block with a nuclear explosion. I don't think that is too large?Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Given, if it's just that I don't mind revising it.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Most explosions aren't nuclear, moreover 10 psi is enough to destroy concrete as opposed to 20 psi assumed in the formula.
City blocks range from 80 to over 200 m, so assuming a non-nuclear, 10 psi explosion with 80 m, it would just be Large Building level on our current tiering system.
City blocks range from 80 to over 200 m, so assuming a non-nuclear, 10 psi explosion with 80 m, it would just be Large Building level on our current tiering system.
- 10,903
- 12,340
Nuclear explosions are what we use as baseline for our tiers, though.
That they aren't baseline for every possible destruction method in existence is obvious. That's why calcs are always needed.
That they aren't baseline for every possible destruction method in existence is obvious. That's why calcs are always needed.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #188
@Dont If it's legitimately not possible to have a standard calculation that describes the tiers with arbitrary values then I will accept finding baselines this way.
Otherwise I think the revisions should need to happen because it's just a ridiculously backward policy to come up with a result first and then find out what it means later, more accurately, what you can make it mean.
Otherwise I think the revisions should need to happen because it's just a ridiculously backward policy to come up with a result first and then find out what it means later, more accurately, what you can make it mean.
- 167,862
- 76,484
I strongly agree with DontTalkDT about that a massive revision would be absolute maximum effort for a minimum payoff of new arbitrary borders.
I would greatly appreciate if he would be willing to create an explanation page for the tier borders based on what he wrote above.
I would greatly appreciate if he would be willing to create an explanation page for the tier borders based on what he wrote above.
- 31,462
- 34,326
I agree we shouldn't change the Tier names or baselines at all, but simply give a trivia for how to reach the approximate level. And the way DonTalk has it layed out looks great to me.
- 8,438
- 3,294
Totally against name changes.
It would be great to actually have calculations that represent an the tier baselines, but the amount of work that would drop into it would be colossal.
A calculation-based threshold would be arbitrary, true, but there are levels of how arbitrary something is. Our current "hey 100 megatons sounds big so that's our baseline for Mountain" is just about as arbitrary as you can possibly get and is based in no shape or form on reality. While the mountain you pick as the base would indeed be arbitrary, it's nowhere near as bad as "big even numbers sound nice."
It would be great to actually have calculations that represent an the tier baselines, but the amount of work that would drop into it would be colossal.
A calculation-based threshold would be arbitrary, true, but there are levels of how arbitrary something is. Our current "hey 100 megatons sounds big so that's our baseline for Mountain" is just about as arbitrary as you can possibly get and is based in no shape or form on reality. While the mountain you pick as the base would indeed be arbitrary, it's nowhere near as bad as "big even numbers sound nice."
- 6,014
- 2,122
Honestly, I agree to, if needed, change the ends, for exemple, the mountain level end is too arbitrary, picking the average mountain size, calculate the volume and use the pulverization value look good to me IMO
If other Tier are in the same situation then they should be changed.
If other Tier are in the same situation then they should be changed.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,568
- 13,855
The thing is, this would have been useful years ago when the tiering system was first getting implemented, but now that we have it recalculting the borders for tiers to be slightly less arbitrary takes enormous effort only for something to be slightly less arbitrary. Basically, it'd be great if we could do it but there's too much work involved, imo.The Causality said:
- 6,014
- 2,122
Yeah, that's true, but if our current system show errors, it's our Job to settle this, even if this would requiere a lot of Job but such big work need to be organisated with Competent Members but yeah, i agree with You
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #197
@Agnaa Not necessarily Recalculating tiers. The tiers I actually want to see get changed are the ones that never had a calculation in the first place.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I agree with Andytrenom. I don't understand why we should take random, arbitrary values over calculated, accurate ones.
- 5,510
- 718
I'm thinking Tier 5- 3are good but some need calcs
