• 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.

Changing the Versus Thread One-Shot Gap

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I suppose that there are good arguments for 5x above, so I am willing to accept that now. I am just concerned about that our members will have a very hard time finding comparative versus matchup participants that way.
 
Okay. Never mind then. Would it be fine with the rest of you if we use 5x after all then, as we do need to reach a conclusion for this discussion?
 
I remain staunchly opposed to 5x. At this rate I don't foresee a satisfactory conclusion being reached.

I will offer the following, votes with those who are fine with either 5x or 14x removed:

5x: DarkDragonMedeus, Crabwhale, Emirp_Sumitpo, Lonkitt, King_Tempest, Armorchompy, TheRustyOne, KLOL, SeijiSetto, CloverDragon, Therefir (11)

14x: Mr. Bambu, Qawsedf234, DarkGrath, Elizhaa, Maverick Zero X, Damage3245, Colonel Krukov, FinePoint, DMUA, Jasonsith (10)

If it matters: Substantially more administrators favor 14x (8-3 over 5x) whereas slightly more CGMs favor 5x (10-8 over 14x)- I had stated previously that I would not consider this a calc group concern, but as people wish to consider it one, I would then consider their votes to be more important than thread moderators as it is their direct area of expertise (and more crucial to their position, acknowledging that they are given voting rights on only severe matters).

A possibly unconsidered solution would be to find a calculation that mimics the 14x value (that is, a wound everyone can amicably agree is instantly lethal) that meets the desired lower multiplier pushed for the 5x camp. I have no specific proposals for this that can take into consideration the criteria discussed earlier in the thread, but at this rate I think this may be the sole avenue of progress- otherwise, I believe our standards will remain as they are due to a deadlock.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I remain staunchly opposed to 5x. At this rate I don't foresee a satisfactory conclusion being reached.

I will offer the following, votes with those who are fine with either 5x or 14x removed:

5x: DarkDragonMedeus, Crabwhale, Emirp_Sumitpo, Lonkitt, King_Tempest, Armorchompy, TheRustyOne, KLOL, SeijiSetto, CloverDragon, Therefir (11)

14x: Mr. Bambu, Qawsedf234, DarkGrath, Elizhaa, Maverick Zero X, Damage3245, Colonel Krukov, FinePoint, DMUA, Jasonsith (10)

If it matters: Substantially more administrators favor 14x (8-3 over 5x) whereas slightly more CGMs favor 5x (10-8 over 14x)- I had stated previously that I would not consider this a calc group concern, but as people wish to consider it one, I would then consider their votes to be more important than thread moderators as it is their direct area of expertise (and more crucial to their position, acknowledging that they are given voting rights on only severe matters).

A possibly unconsidered solution would be to find a calculation that mimics the 14x value (that is, a wound everyone can amicably agree is instantly lethal) that meets the desired lower multiplier pushed for the 5x camp. I have no specific proposals for this that can take into consideration the criteria discussed earlier in the thread, but at this rate I think this may be the sole avenue of progress- otherwise, I believe our standards will remain as they are due to a deadlock.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima
 
This is not an issue that can be decided by just me alone making a decision.

Would it be possible for us to find a compromise solution between 5x and 14x based on an accepted real world calculation with a result in-between each extreme?

For example, would calc group members here be willing to calculate the required comparative strength it would take to punch straight through somebody's jaw, throat, or stomach?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
We can at least try to calculate a few real world-based overwhelming power feats, so we have something to potentially build a staff consensus based on, because at the moment it seems unlikely that we will find one based on the current options.

Suggestions for other instant knock-out feats that can be calculated would be very appreciated. 🙏
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
I think we're long beyond recourse for a compromise. There's still a lot more staff left to vote methinks that haven't seen this thread so far.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Dereck03 @Sir_Ovens @GyroNutz @Everything12 @ByAsura @Wokistan @Andytrenom @DemonGodMitchAubin @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Migue79 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Dark-Carioca @Chariot190 @SunDaGamer @Psychomaster35 Your votes to conclude this topic would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I have already commented in here
 
Antvasima said:
We can at least try to calculate a few real world-based overwhelming power feats, so we have something to potentially build a staff consensus based on, because at the moment it seems unlikely that we will find one based on the current options.

Suggestions for other instant knock-out feats that can be calculated would be very appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
I would like to state that I would be quite willing to change away from my 14x vote to a more moderate suggestion if any such good suggestions are produced and calculated. I'm not one for calculations, so I don't have much of an idea of what would work or how to calculate it.

But if a coherent justification can be put forward that a particular feat should realistically always be a one-shot, and the calculation for that feat is checked by the calc group and determined to be accurate, I would be willing to support it regardless of the exact multiplication it entails.
 
DarkGrath said:
I would like to state that I would be quite willing to change away from my 14x vote to a more moderate suggestion if any such good suggestions are produced and calculated. I'm not one for calculations, so I don't have much of an idea of what would work or how to calculate it.

But if a coherent justification can be put forward that a particular feat should realistically always be a one-shot, and the calculation for that feat is checked by the calc group and determined to be accurate, I would be willing to support it regardless of the exact multiplication it entails.
Click to expand...
The thing is, almost all of those suggestions tend to rely on external factors, like the location of the impact, whether the target impacts anything else after being punched, and some feats being considered too overkill for a one-shot.
 
Well, can't we at least try to come up with and calculate such a solution instead of being defeatist before we even begin? Because we are currently going around in circles here.
 
Realistically speaking a one-shot gap shouldn't exist at all but that's just too much of an extreme. And any compromise solution aside from the options we have laid out here (14x or 5x) would just hover around the previous values of 7.5x which is already invalid due to the gap between 10-B and 10-A now being roughly 5x.

Not to mention most people tend to avoid anything with a 2-3x AP gap and nowadays the battle is more so focused on skill and hax.
 
My intended point is to find an alternative that we can mostly all agree about, as it is crucial that we reach a solution here, and the only other option is to only let bureaucrats and administrators have a vote in this case, so I would greatly appreciate if you stop trying to counteract a potentially perfectly sensible solution for no good reason.
 
Antvasima said:
My intended point is to find an alternative that we can mostly all agree about, as it is crucial that we reach a solution here, and the only other option is to only let bureaucrats and administrators have a vote in this case, so I would greatly appreciate if you stop trying to counteract a potentially perfectly sensible solution for no good reason.
Click to expand...
That is not the only other option, that is something that you are bringing up to try to pressure us towards a solution that you find preferable, even though we have explained that it is not feasible, but by no means should that be the way this is resolved.
 
It's not really about preferability, I think. Ant has shown a willingness to flip if it would bring a resolution to this, and his first step aside was to look for some alternative calculation that fits the vibe of a one-shot more (that is, closer to your 5x value). I wouldn't want to restrict this to just administrators and up but I don't like implying that this is some form of grand manipulation or something on Ant's behalf.
 
Last edited:
I think our "punching through a skull" calc is something like 8x the baseline 10-B value, maybe that?
 
This. The gap would be 8.385x, which we can probably round up to 8.5 (Or, I'd prefer, down to 8x, given a smaller hole in the skull would still be very very lethal).
 
Last edited:
Armorchompy said:
This. The gap would be 8.385x, which we can probably round up to 8.5 (Or, I'd prefer, down to 8x, given a smaller hole in the skull would still be very very lethal).
Click to expand...
That was actually the calc we used to derive the 14x gap, by using the lower bound value of 10-B which is 60J.
838.5J / 60J = 13.975
Ofc, if we use the upper-bound of 10-B, which is 106J, then we would get something like 8x.
 
What I'd like to see is "Energy required to punch someone in the chest so hard it forces their heart to stop beating" sounds like a good bench mark for a one-shot IMO.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I don't doubt, but I think it may take considerably less energy.
Click to expand...
Something like this?
Impact energies of at least 50 joules (37 foot-pounds force) may cause cardiac arrest when applied at the right time and location of the precordium of an adult.[11] The 50-joule threshold, however, can be considerably lower when the victim's heart is under ischemic conditions, such as in coronary artery insufficiency.
Click to expand...
Well it can go a bit too low because of human physiology to be viable for our requirements, imo.
 
Armorchompy said:
That is not the only other option, that is something that you are bringing up to try to pressure us towards a solution that you find preferable, even though we have explained that it is not feasible, but by no means should that be the way this is resolved.
Click to expand...
Mr._Bambu said:
It's not really about preferability, I think. Ant has shown a willingness to flip if it would bring a resolution to this, and his first step aside was to look for some alternative calculation that fits the vibe of a one-shot more (that is, closer to your 5x value). I wouldn't want to restrict this to just administrators and up but I don't like implying that this is some form of grand manipulation or something on Ant's behalf.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is no intended manipulative conspiracy here. It is just very important that we reach a conclusion here, and we are currently stuck in a deadlock.
Armorchompy said:
I think our "punching through a skull" calc is something like 8x the baseline 10-B value, maybe that?
Click to expand...
Armorchompy said:
This. The gap would be 8.385x, which we can probably round up to 8.5 (Or, I'd prefer, down to 8x, given a smaller hole in the skull would still be very very lethal).
Click to expand...
Tanin_iver said:
That was actually the calc we used to derive the 14x gap, by using the lower bound value of 10-B which is 60J.
838.5J / 60J = 13.975
Ofc, if we use the upper-bound of 10-B, which is 106J, then we would get something like 8x.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the information. 🙏

Would this be an acceptable compromise solution for the rest of you?
DarkDragonMedeus said:
What I'd like to see is "Energy required to punch someone in the chest so hard it forces their heart to stop beating" sounds like a good bench mark for a one-shot IMO.
Click to expand...
Mr._Bambu said:
relocate the above calc to the area above the heart and I figure that'd do it
Click to expand...
Tanin_iver said:
Something like this?

Well it can go a bit too low because of human physiology to be viable for our requirements, imo.
Click to expand...
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Tanin already posted it, but to underwhelming results.
Click to expand...
It seems like that option is unfeasible then, but thank you for your help. 🙏
 
It's the same calc I've been agreeing with, now we just want to switch the scale from below average people to above average people- no complaints.
 
Thank you for being reasonable. 🙏🙂❤️

We likely need considerably more staff agreements though.
 
While I do prefer the traditional 5x gap, If the 8x has a proper calculation. I am fine with that even if it seems based on the same study that got the 14x gap.
 
I prefer not to be called to staff threads for votes or opinions since my vote isn't weighed. Apologies
 
Very counterproductive but acknowledged, I guess.
 
I guess 8x can work then if the 7.5x gap is seen as invalid at this point
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
415
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
GarrixianXD
The AP gap to vaporise an opponent in a single attack
Replies
11
Views
1K
SheevShezarrine
SheevShezarrine
Finiznot
  • Locked
Tier 10-B to 9-B Gap Revision
Replies
20
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The problem with Plot Manipulation.
2 3
Replies
99
Views
15K
Duedate8898
Duedate8898
FinePoint
  • Locked
Organizing The Site Rules, Part 3 - Discussion & Versus Thread Rules
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top