Battletoads Upgrades

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Starting from this thread two years ago using calcs from here, ProtoDude has found quite a few stuff for Battletoads upgrades.

Andy and I were also discussing it on my wall. We have done the two important calcs here and here. Both calcs were accepted and this puts the Battletoads cast at 5-A and Relativistic. First off, the Ratship does have 5-A ramming strength and durability since it was completely unscathed by the ram. The Rat Pods are able to Damage the guns and survive hits from the guns. And they do take massive damage from the Ratships ramming strength, but shouldn't be too much weaker. The Toads can also Wreck apart the same Rat Pods. I know backwards scaling small pods from Titanic Ships are inconsistent, but they still should be in the Tier 5 department.

But there's an even better feat. In the next level, the Rat Ship fires a Missile heavily implied to have more firepower than the Rat Ships ramming strength to destroy the Earth. The Battletoads upon defeating Robo-Manus; the Missile is then destroyed before reaching Earth and Robo-Manus is heavily implied to still be on the Missile when it explodes. He also survives as he's still in the next game. This puts his durability at Large Planet level which the Toads scale from since they can harm him.

The Battletoads are also missing a few abilities such as Weapon Mastery, Vehicular Mastery, Size Manipulation and Breaking the Fourth Wall.

I also listed back up speeds feats in my blog for why they scale from the Rat Ship's speed. Robo-Manus' lasers are even faster than it and the Toads can dodge those lasers at point blank range. So all in all, 5-A and Relativistic Battletoads is the conclusion.

Note: This only applies to the Battletoads cast, not the Double Dragon cast. Battletoads & Double Dragon qualifies as a One-Sided Crossover being the 4th game in the Battletoads series where as the Double Dragon cast are more so cameos. It was also made by Rare, the same company that made Battletoads when Tecmo had no involvement.

• Agree: 7 (Me, Andytrenom, Tonipelimies, Cropfist, The 2nd Existential Seed, Js250476, ProfessorKukui4Life)
• Disagree: 3 (Kepekley23, WindGodAchero, ParadocIndifferent)
• Neutral/Undecided: 2 (CrimsonStarFalle, SinsofMa)

 

[HammerStrikes219]

This does seems reasonable. However, is the Ratship is a spacecraft or some kind of vehicle?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's a Space Ship

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Ah... I see. The Battle Toads most definitely won't scale to the Ratship directly given how it was from the Ratship's weaponry to say the least. I do have concerns on whatever or not the result of the calc that ends up as 5A to be accurate or not. A 5B rating sounds more safe tbh.

Also perhaps you should put it as "At least 5B", likely "5A" as just in case there may have been a mistake in the calc or something the calc has unknowingly overlook like the Gravitational Binding Energy one.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know the Rat Pod one was flawed, I mentioned it in the OP and Andy and I discussed it. But the Missile Robo-Manus was still heavily implied to have more firepower than the ships ramming strength. And he also survives the explosion of the missile, which the Battletoads can harm Robo-Manus, reason they scale. The Rat Pod one was just a back up low end feat.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark

Maybe. I myself have doubts about the Robo-Manus Missile's AP though. Like what is the size of the planet it intends to destroys, how much energy will be distribute to the planet itself, and the statements that implies this is the case though.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's going to destroy planet Earth, and the calc that puts the Ratship at 5-A is literally the Ratship physically ramming right through the Earth's Satellite Moon's core shattering it in the process. And the KE calculation even when lowballed was at 5-A.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Huh I did it odd how those calcs get those results for some reason. Has there been a confirmed size for this Earth's Satellite Moon and the core for Satellite Moon?

Again I do have concerns the calcs may have a few flaws being overlooked with the poster for these calcs being unaware of those flaws.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It literally takes place on Earth and the Moon is still the same as our Moon, we can't knit pick every detail and just assume random stuff. The Raship crashed through the moon, and Kinetic Energy is a thing. Blowing up a moon has often calculated to be 5-A if the Relativistic factor is such. And Same with lifting Continents at great speed, those are the same type of feats that got Kefka Palazzo and Queen Zeal to 5-A.

And actually, ProtoDude/ClassicGameGuys is a pretty famous debater around here; he's known for making great calcs. He also has an Account here. Though he's been inactive for a long time.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Huh I not sure about this as I will prefer a recalc to ensure the 5A result isn't out of the question because Toneri was rated as Low 5B as a result of cutting a moon in half. I am still unsure how exactly this works as was there any use of pixel scaling and the like? Like I say this isn't random stuff. Every calc should be accounted for accuracy and that they not used to be the absolute decider on the AP of a character and the consistency of those feats as well.

Again I fail it hard to believe that destroying a moon at certain speed like that to being 5A out of nowhere. Perhaps Kep and some other calc members should take a look at this to ensure the method of the calcs is used correctly and to ensure there ain't any flaws.

Famous debating and making great calcs sound like a opinion though.

 

[Tonygameman]

Seems reasonable from what I saw.

 

[Kepekley23]

9-A to 5-A is an enormous, enormous jump. Is there any other feat that remotely comes close? If not, obvious outlier - and, from what I'm seeing in the link provided just from a glance, the next best stuff is tier 7

 

[Cropfist]

I agree with this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Kepekley, it's a retro video game that's full of superhuman feats like this. Look at Bill Rizer, Castlevania, Ryu Hayabusa, ToeJam & Earl, White Bomberma ect. Plenty of the verses are much stronger than one would expect. There's also plenty of Relativistic, and all those low end feats are extremely casual; so the Outlier argument doesn't work here. This is also a verse full of planet busting technology where almost no one ever dies making it very consistent.

@HammerStrike Also, Xiaolin Showdow has a High 5-A calc for splitting the moon; and the calc is legit. Plus the calcs were already evaluated and accepted.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark Really? I will prefer to see this calc regarding Xiaolin Showdown to ensure my doubts has been lessened or not in that case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Soldier Blue mentioned something about it, but I can't find it. Wuya has a Solar Eclipse feat calc'd at 5-B, Ninja Turtles has a solar eclipse feat calc'd at 5-A, and actually this was a real good calc for Xiaolin Showdown. High 4-C via walking through Jupiter at great speeds.

Edit: it was splitting the Earth not the moon, but here was the High 5-A calc for Xiaolin Showdown.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark Okay now I am curious as to why there is a 5A rating for these calcs that involved busting a moon though as it is a bit confusing to say the least.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well if you read the blog, what's happening is someone's laughing 7.3 x 10^22 kg of mass at speeds 973165.26 m/s. Mathematically using the 0.5*mass*velocity^2 multiplies to 3.45e+34 Joules or 8.24569789675 Yottatons. It's how KE works; busting a moon isn't exclusively 5-C and it can range from Low 5-B to 5-B to 5-A or even High 5-A. Same with Planet busting feats reaching Tier 4.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark Yeah, but this doesn't take into account the GBE and it look like the calc use the original method from that other blog though?

I kinda doubt this is always the case as calcs ain't the ultimate decider on how we determine AP tbh.

Edit: I mean calcs can be revised and other things as well.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

All GBE is used for is to determine the baseline for a planet or moon busting feat, if the parts are all launched at great speeds to the point where the busting feat well exceeds the GBE, then it is usable.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@DarkDragon


Like that busting moons whose GBE is 5C though right? I seriously doubt that it doesn't take a 5A attack to bust a moon when a 5B attack busting a moon can have the same effect fragmenting the moon into a couple of space debris I think.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It doesn't take 5-A to bust a moon yes, but a moon busting feat can still be 5-A if calc'd as such. The speed calculated by the in game cinematic time frame gives it a 5-A result; that is what matters. That calculation is legit and the whole, "How can a moon busting feat be 5-A?" doesn't hold any weight. It doesn't matter if the GBE of the moon is only 5-C the legit demonstrated feat has been calculated at 5-A.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark

Wait is it from a video game? Is there any ruling for cinematic timing and if so, does it violate any of those rulings?

Also it is possible we may need to revise the calc to reflect which ends will be acceptable in this case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yes, it is from the game. You see the Ratship shatter the moon here. It doesn't violate anything, and yes we have a Cinematic Time; there is case by case but cinematic timeframe is usable if there's no options. We don't need to do a mass revision for other calcs; we already discuss these type of scenarios every single day regarding a whole bunch of verses. There's no need for a giant double standard just to nit pick this verse.

And out of curiosity, you do seem to ask a lot of random questions.

 

[Andytrenom]

5-A for busting the moon is no different than 9-B for punching a human into the sky. This is how much energy it takes to move a mass this big at this high of a speed, so we use it. Just slapping baseline value would be inaccurate.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark

Hmmm maybe, but I will prefer to see if there is a need to revise the calc to ensure this is correct and in case, anyone had a problem with the methods being used l. After all, I still kinda unsure how things works around here.


Also I not sure if it counts as double standards as this isn't something one will considered to how accurate a calc is without considering other alternatives. It is just one end being listed there. Just a end without a low, middle, or even a high end in the calc itself.

Granted I am unsure if that is how all calcs are work here, but perhaps some other calc members who are used to calc feats like these to determine if the results are good or not. No offense to the one calc member who agreed to using the calc, but I will prefer other calc's member to see what they think of it. If there is disagreement, they should be explained why they disagree with the calc.

Granted though that is a suggestion that can be ignored as I am a dude who think openly and has some interpretations that different from other people and in this case, may be referring to tighter standards. Just a thought as I been used to exploring the Internet time to time a little too much I am afraid to the point I have a unhealthy habit when it comes to surfacing the Internet.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Kinetic Energy is the most reasonable method for shattering blowing up large celestial objects. And the one who calc'd it used the speed of the slowest object as some parts where actually faster than others which would make the calc slightly higher. Also, it's best not to overly complicate every detail, this calc is still a slight low ball; and the result would still be 5-A if we did factor every fragment. So the feat is still 5-A.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark

Hmmm maybe, but I still wonder how that KE method being applied as to why it end up in the 5A range in the first place.

Huh I guess I should assume there is no general standards on how we treat planet busting and moon busting simply because it may seem simple at first as well.

Perhaps a QA thread will help clarify those standards as I am certainly puzzled by how this site treats certain things.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There is a general standard, and we've been over this countless times. And I just told you the very basic mathematics that put it on such a level. Kinetic Energy Feats also have standards and this one does follow those guidelines as well.

You may ask on Q/A, but we're probably just going to repeat the same thing.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Dark

Oh really? Huh I suppose I don't really know much about this general standard I am afraid.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That's why I just told you, multiple times... And Andy also said it as well.

 

[Andytrenom]

Honestly it's not that confusing.

The moon is big, so if something moves a decent chunk of its radius in an instant it will have to have a very high speed

The moon is also very heavy so when it moves at these speeds it naturally gives monstrous kinetic energy results

A bullet isn't only 10-C for being a tiny piece of lead, and it should be realized that any celestial body moving a visible distance in a quick timeframe is way way faster than a bullet.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

To me, it is confusing since the moon itself rotated around Earth and Earth take about 365 days in total to completely orbit around the Sun in our Solar System.

Also the mass of our own Moon isn't the same as our Earth. In fact it is lesser than our Earth IIRC.

Still find it weird to me as chalking it up to just fictional logic doesn't work per se in my honest opinion. Granted we just using irl logic to use in calcs I think anyway.

 

[Andytrenom]

It's not fictional logic tho, it's literally the opposite.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

So we might actually get Batletoads vs TMNT on Vsbattles... Nice.


Joking aside I agree with the upgrades.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yes, but the calc took the mass of the moon; it never used the mass of the Earth. So those details are irrelevant. And yes, merging reality and fiction logic can be complicated, but Kinetic Energy is still something applicable.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Hmmm I do have another problem though.

Can we confirm that the Moon moves at nearly the speed of light?

I find hard to believe that is the case given how NASA mentioned the moon takes about 27 days for the moon to do a complete revolution around the Earth. Here is what I mean by that:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We know about that stuff, and the Moon rotating the Earth doesn't hold that much weight; The Moon is 384,400 km away from the Earth. And using that to find circumfrance and a timeframe of 27 days would be an average of 1037.37997257 m/s which is not even close to the speed of light.

But this is still completely irrelevant and not at all disproves that shattering a Moon at great speeds can reach 5-A levels of energy being achieved.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Yet we using the timeframe and I assume the speed being used as estimates right?

I still have doubts about the calc and the method being used as I not sure if it will be considered 5A if it gets proven otherwise.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Again, the moon explodes at speeds that are 973165.26 m/s at bare minimum; and the entire mass of the moon is launched at said speeds. The all parts of the moon were launched travels beyond 1839282.352 meters in less than 1.89 seconds. 0.5 * (7.3 * 10^22 kg) * (973165.26 m/s)^2 = 3.45 * 10^34 Joules or 8.26 Yottatons. This has been brought up to you countless times and it is mathematically correct.