- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #201
@Hellbeast They are good. They have had a solid basis for a long time.
-
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
- 11,095
- 4,317
The Tier 4 and Tier 3 ratings were already revised by Assaltwaffle's revision. Tier 5 ratings have solid basis too. It's mostly Tier 8 to 6.
- 14,915
- 12,434
My position on it doesn't change even if they never had a calculation in the first place. It's requiring enormous effort and a site-wide revision to make something slightly less arbitrary.Andytrenom said:
But of course, I'm not the one who eventually decides whether a site-wide revision is worthwhile or not. But keep in mind that this isn't just changing the numbers on the Attack Potency page, every single page that lies in that tier has to have its calc examined to see if it's still in that tier.
- 11,095
- 4,317
I still don't think we should take random and arbitrary values over accurate ones merely to save effort.
- 995
- 228
And yet there's more about tier 3-C I wonder if anyone seen this
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2804008
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2804008
- 14,915
- 12,434
If everyone that agrees with that puts in their own effort to see the revisions implemented, then everything should be fine.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
I just think it might be a bigger task than you realize, and you'll end up enlisting other staff members' time for a relatively minor change.
- 165,220
- 72,249
I agree with DontTalkDT and Agnaa. The tier borders are just guidelines. Clarifying what those guidelines mean in practice should be our first priority. The staff members have mostly not been very active lately, due to real life commitments, and I strongly doubt that they would have the time available to revise several thousand character profile pages in an organised manner.
I would still greatly appreciate if DontTalkDT would be willing to write an instruction page based on his earlier post.
I would still greatly appreciate if DontTalkDT would be willing to write an instruction page based on his earlier post.
- 165,220
- 72,249
That said, I would obviously have preferred better defined borders from the start, but I just don't think that it is realistic to revise them at the time being.
However, I would greatly appreciate help from the entire calc group to calculate and define more accurate borders for our lower tiers. We might be able to start a revision project at a later point, when most of the staff have time available.
However, I would greatly appreciate help from the entire calc group to calculate and define more accurate borders for our lower tiers. We might be able to start a revision project at a later point, when most of the staff have time available.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #209
@Ant I mean, that's what I wanted from the start. This thread was always about simply discussing more accurate borders.
The revisions don't need to happen anytime soon, but it's never too early to plan things out and determine what exactly we have to do when we do have the time and resources to make changes.
The revisions don't need to happen anytime soon, but it's never too early to plan things out and determine what exactly we have to do when we do have the time and resources to make changes.
- 11,095
- 4,317
I am usually unavailable during the summer though.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #212
I'm fine with certain tier borders remaining as they are.
Most of tier 8 with the possible exception of 8-A due to being based on actual calculations if the OBD chart is indeed our source.
Low 7-C and Low 7-B because "Megaton" and "Kiloton" explosions imply the detonation of nuclear weapons, which are commonly associated with this general level of destruction.
7-C and 7-B because of once again likely being based on actual calculations.
6-C for seemingly being the result of an actual calculation from the Mountain and Islands level page.
Anything above high 6-B because that's where the scope of this discussion ends.
Of the remaining borders I could see some being left out still, but I myself don't have any opposition to revising them .
Most of tier 8 with the possible exception of 8-A due to being based on actual calculations if the OBD chart is indeed our source.
Low 7-C and Low 7-B because "Megaton" and "Kiloton" explosions imply the detonation of nuclear weapons, which are commonly associated with this general level of destruction.
7-C and 7-B because of once again likely being based on actual calculations.
6-C for seemingly being the result of an actual calculation from the Mountain and Islands level page.
Anything above high 6-B because that's where the scope of this discussion ends.
Of the remaining borders I could see some being left out still, but I myself don't have any opposition to revising them .
- 11,095
- 4,317
Yeah, it's mostly Tier 8, 7 and 6 that has issues.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #214
Anyway I think we should put a pause on the border revisions for a moment. Let's try to resolve the other part of the thread.
I would greatly appreciate if the calc group members inspect the naruto forum destruction chart and confirm if the values match up with our chart or not.
The revisions of the actual values may have to wait before they have a chance at being implemented, but there's no reason we can't begin at least sourcing some of the values with calculations behind them.
This is also an important thing to get done after all.
I would greatly appreciate if the calc group members inspect the naruto forum destruction chart and confirm if the values match up with our chart or not.
The revisions of the actual values may have to wait before they have a chance at being implemented, but there's no reason we can't begin at least sourcing some of the values with calculations behind them.
This is also an important thing to get done after all.
- 165,220
- 72,249
I agree with Andytrenom.
As I mentioned earlier, let's first define examples for what our current borders mean, as DontTalkDT outlined earlier, and then we can create a more accurate chart that we might (or might not) be able to use for a revision at a later point.
As I mentioned earlier, let's first define examples for what our current borders mean, as DontTalkDT outlined earlier, and then we can create a more accurate chart that we might (or might not) be able to use for a revision at a later point.
- 11,095
- 4,317
For that it's basically just the Town level stuff that has issues.
- 5,501
- 714
Hmm the trouble is what constitutes a town or small town?
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #218
@Ant I don't think Donttalks examples should be used. They are what you get when you put the arbitrary AP values in an equation and try to work backwards. They aren't the actual sources of the borders.
For borders that don't have a source I think it would be better if we don't try to invent one. We should just be upfront that they are arbitrarily selected values and can't be assigned to feats without a known energy output.
For borders that don't have a source I think it would be better if we don't try to invent one. We should just be upfront that they are arbitrarily selected values and can't be assigned to feats without a known energy output.
- 165,220
- 72,249
@Andy
We can do both. I think that examples would be useful to give our visitors approximations of what each border means, similarly to the Mountain and Island level requirements page. This does not prevent us from admitting that several of the borders were likely arbitrarily selected.
We can do both. I think that examples would be useful to give our visitors approximations of what each border means, similarly to the Mountain and Island level requirements page. This does not prevent us from admitting that several of the borders were likely arbitrarily selected.
- 5,501
- 714
ID also note Tier 6 has a blog done by an OG user named Basilisk
- 11,095
- 4,317
Tier 6 is probably ok, though some stuff is weird.
- 5,501
- 714
Agreed
- 30,089
- 31,396
DonTalk said nuking all of Russia was the baseline for 6-A and with High 6-A is a nuke that covers all of Europe and Asia; both of which I think were roughly calc'd at what the chart got.
- 5,107
- 1,786
Yeah, but those city blocks are also around 80-90 meters in width, so the value should already be significantly lower. We're probably looking at 20 or so tons of tnt for 8-B.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Pretty sure the average city block in America is around 80 to 110 meters in a square area, so 12100m^2 at the most for an average block. The current 11Tons for the base-line seems likely.
- 5,501
- 714
Hmm it'd make sense to calf it tho
My question is where the heck does Town's numbers come from?
My question is where the heck does Town's numbers come from?
- 5,107
- 1,786
@Hell - I have no idea. Town level is the most arbitrary tier from what I can see.
@Ant - In regards of 7-C and 7-B values, here is what I propose for more accurate size scalings. and these do not go too far off from what we currently use (energy-wise).
For 7-C, we could use something like a more modern town like Telluride in Colorado, which I know for a fact to have a square mileage of around 2 miles (Google claims 2.18mi^2, so we might as well use that), so use 5.646174km^2. Finding radius (divide by pi and then square root) gave me 1.3406097573km (1.34km for simplicity). This would work.
For 7-B, if we're going to stay in Colorado (just because I'm already looking at the map anyways), Aurora has a Square Mileage of 154.1, blast radius would turn up to be 11.2713374657km (11.27km for simplicity). This would be the base-line for City level.
Sitka Alaska would yield a radius of 62.9784277369km, though. This could be a good base-line for 7-A, as this is one of the largest cities in the US. Pretty sure this would be 303.5 Megatons for Widespread Destruction (after dividing the value by 2), but I forgot the formula we use for calculating explosions.
@Ant - In regards of 7-C and 7-B values, here is what I propose for more accurate size scalings. and these do not go too far off from what we currently use (energy-wise).
For 7-C, we could use something like a more modern town like Telluride in Colorado, which I know for a fact to have a square mileage of around 2 miles (Google claims 2.18mi^2, so we might as well use that), so use 5.646174km^2. Finding radius (divide by pi and then square root) gave me 1.3406097573km (1.34km for simplicity). This would work.
For 7-B, if we're going to stay in Colorado (just because I'm already looking at the map anyways), Aurora has a Square Mileage of 154.1, blast radius would turn up to be 11.2713374657km (11.27km for simplicity). This would be the base-line for City level.
- Low 7-B, if we're using this as a break-away from Town and City, we can use a small city such as Castle Rock, CO. This has a radius of 5.31146268251km (5.3km for simplicity).
Sitka Alaska would yield a radius of 62.9784277369km, though. This could be a good base-line for 7-A, as this is one of the largest cities in the US. Pretty sure this would be 303.5 Megatons for Widespread Destruction (after dividing the value by 2), but I forgot the formula we use for calculating explosions.
- 11,095
- 4,317
Seems ok. Though we get our values for the AP chart using nuclear explosions? @DontTalkDT
- 10,674
- 6,326
I'm fine with Con's examples. Always thought our borders were arbitrary in most regards. Out of curiosity I looked for the radius of my town of Thomasville and got a size of 5.5 km but our town verges on city status so it make sense it's pretty big in comparison to Cin's example. Dunno if that can be used for anything (small city border maybe).
- 11,095
- 4,317
I'm not sure why our AP values should be based on nuclear explosions instead of normal ones.
- 5,107
- 1,786
@Dark - Yeah, anything above 5km is very large for a town (assuming you are referring to radius). Could be the top-cap for Large Town, since Castlerock (my Low 7-B example, a small city) is roughly the same size.
But the thing is that, if we used Aurora for City level base-line, the value for City level jumps up to ~72 Megatons for Near-Total fatalities. Basically >11x higher than current.
But the thing is that, if we used Aurora for City level base-line, the value for City level jumps up to ~72 Megatons for Near-Total fatalities. Basically >11x higher than current.
- 165,220
- 72,249
Well, as I keep mentioning over and over, we should start with writing a page that gives examples for the scale of the current tier energy borders, as that will help our members and visitors, and after that we can start to work of redefining them for a blog that we might be able to apply at a later date when most of the staff are able to help out with a revision.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #237
Because explosions made by characters will not often be nuclear ones so it using non nuclear method makes more sense.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
- 6,011
- 2,117
^If it's true, then we need to use appropriate Destructive Value (Pulverization, Fragmentation...) for each Tier below 5. Or can we just divide the Nuclear Value obtained by 2?
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #239
...I'm only now realizing that Spino said the opposite of what I read. My bad.
- 5,501
- 714
I think Pulverization is best to gow tih but alas
