Cooling and Cloud Calculations

[Mr. Bambu]

Hey.

Still with DT. I've been mentioned a lot, I've said I don't really feel a strong urge to discuss this further since it's been discussed to death.

I agree with DT, have done so since before DT was the one making the arguments.

Cheers.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I think that we should close this thread and that DontTalk and Medeus should collaborate with writing a new thread that tackles this subject instead then.

 

[InfiniteSped]

Closing the thread for several months so that people could argue it during school break, then immediately closing it again so someone else can make another thread god knows when seems . . . odd?

 

[Antoniofer]

There's no need of creating another thread, Antvasima. The potential problems are exposed here, and any issue can be concluded right here.

 

[Zaratthustra]

Agree with them, it was first closed for months for the reason that its not summer and people are busy, now its already the second month of the summer and want to close it for another thread to be made while the time is unknown when it will be created/started again.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I’m not going to read stuff in here so I’ll just say that energy is energy. It involves joules, yes? If so, then y’all are being needlessly convoluted. Again.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that it would be better to let DontTalk and Medeus handle this issue in a more organised manner than an old revision thread that nobody has the energy to read through anymore.

 

[KatBoi69]

Well, I realize I'm not staff, but I think leaving this thread open and settling this here makes sense. Also, in about 30 minutes I'll have a statement, as someone with some amount of expertise in the topic.

 

[KatBoi69]

Well, I guess I'll type this quickly then....

Cooling feats are incalculable: I understand OP's logic, that if you consider the person performing the cooling a refrigerator, the actual power exertion to perform the feat is some nebulous amount of energy and not the energy associated with the temperature change of the feat. This would be similar to how your refrigerator's energy usage from a wall outlet isn't 1:1 with the energy change of cooling the food inside. My opinion on this is that it's a matter of taste, if you want to say that fictional powers function like irl appliances, or not. There may also be a very simple argument that we care about the outward effect of the ability, not the internal fictional mana-to-real-physics conversion happening inside the character.

Giving character's with cooling feats a line-item ability to justify what they are doing/make their work calculable: I think this is my biggest disagreement with OP. Simply making a category for "Limited Energy Manip: Heating or Cooling" would be a sensible bureaucratic move. Additionally, it's fairly normal for a fictional character to have an ability (like cooling, ice generation, etc) that implies a broader category of manipulation (energy manip) but never actually manifests that way. In that instance, it really isn't that absurd to say that character has limited form of a broader power.

Cooling does not scale to AP: I actually really agree with this idea, but it's because of how the opponent would have to "tank" the attack. Even if you're using the thermal change in the environment caused by the feat to calculate the energy change for the cooling, that will interact with the opponent's dura in a different way than if you were attacking them with heating. The cooling will induce different physical changes, opposite those that the target would have to resist from a heating or kinetic attack. This means that a cooling attack can't be compared directly to the opponent's durability because said durability is typically measured vs. attacks that would increase their overall energy, not decrease it. In fact, it would be more likely that you'd need to evidence the target can output energy equal to the energy taken by the cooling to endure the attack. Tldr: resisting energy drain attacks of any kind exists on a separate durability scale from resisting energy giving attacks (blasts, explosions, punches, fire, lazers....the list goes on).

 

[RatherClueless]

I just rembered this thread was a thing, which was accepted for similar reasons as to why I think freezing/cooling calculations make no sense.

 

[RatherClueless]

So what exactly is going to happen here? Is it going to be closed (which I am very much against), is it going to be postponed or is it simply going to be ghosted and ignored?

 

[DaReaperMan]

One... Two... Three...

I think this topic has been discussed to the ground, I will watch anyways however

 

[Naito-desu]

I mean late take but I think the "it's shit but we let other shit stuff slide" is a terrible way of summarizing the DT's side take it. I know people are fond of making it seem like their calcs and methods of extracting feats from fiction are academic and based on something we actually know but I feel like the premise has been flawed in the first place since fiction simply doesn't follow those rules in the first place and we're often faced with the challenge of trying to interpret them in a standardized way in order to make match-ups much easier to determine.

I personally stand neutral on this issue but I don't really understand making a big deal out of "unscientific-ness" of an AP calc. It's really just a matter of personal opinion on how "scientific" this system should be. I'd argue that "correct" isn't even a right term for this, it's simply a matter of interpretation given how many rules are already broken to even make this system work.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

That's, ironically, also a terrible way to summerize the arguments. The problem is that what is being calculated isn't actual energy produced/released/controlled by a character.

 

[KatBoi69]

That's, ironically, also a terrible way to summerize the arguments. The problem is that what is being calculated isn't actual energy produced/released/controlled by a character.

I'm going to push back against the idea that we should even care about the internal power conversion required for the cooling.

I think it's actually sophistry to present all of these very true facts about how cooling works for powered heat exchange systems (refrigerators) and then say "so we can't scale cooling to AP" based on some analogy to an appliance.

Imagine if we held punching to this standard. The equivalent would be "we need to know the exact energy released by ATP hydrolysis in the character's body to know the actual amount of energy harnessed by the character." While this is chemically true, it isn't really fair or realistic. Some of that energy is lost to heat. Some of it is lost to the inefficiencies of muscles. A minimal amount is lost to air friction. Suddenly punching becomes impossible to calc.

BUT we don't care about that. We just care about what happens when fist meets face/building/moon/star. We care about the output. We care about the outer effect on the environment. We should hold cooling to that same standard. We aren't examining physiology in calcs. We are examining what the character can do to their surroundings.

There are certainly other arguments for why cooling doesn't scale to the wiki notion of AP.

 

[Antvasima]

So what exactly is going to happen here? Is it going to be closed (which I am very much against), is it going to be postponed or is it simply going to be ghosted and ignored?

I would prefer if @DontTalkDT and @DarkDragonMedeus cooperate with writing a nes staff forum thread after this one is closed, so we get a more organised discussion and possible realistic solutions to the problem.

 

[KatBoi69]

I would prefer if @DontTalkDT and @DarkDragonMedeus cooperate with writing a nes staff forum thread after this one is closed, so we get a more organised discussion and possible realistic solutions to the problem.

For what it's worth, I'm comfortable withdrawing my request to keep this open. It seems like nothing new is coming up.

 

[Naito-desu]

I just want to chime in agreement with KatBoi since it does demonstrate the awkward nature behind the attempt to revise AP scaling given that if we treated any sort of attack with this kind of scrutiny, we'd essentially never get anything done for the sake of being more "correct". Correct in quotation terms, given that the premise of wanting to revise AP scaling based on how freezing appliances work is a bit of a reach.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

BUT we don't care about that. We just care about what happens when fist meets face/building/moon/star. We care about the output. We care about the outer effect on the environment. We should hold cooling to that same standard. We aren't examining physiology in calcs. We are examining what the character can do to their surroundings.

So here's the problem with the false analogy. While a character punching has a set of side effects, we have observable proof of the amount of combat applicable energy their muscles create.

In the case of freezing, such a thing is absent. Even ignoring the fact that the energy lost to friction and such are simply non-factors as we are exclusively taking the kinetic energy in calcs for punches, it does not at all compare to an ability that nobody can agree on the mechanics of (because duh, there isn't a blanket explaination for a supernatural power) and uses a calculation unrelated to the energy used for the ability for. Because freezing isn't "the kinetic energy isn't 100% of the energy produced by the muscles when tensing". It's "through unknown means, we decided to assume that these molecules were made to condensate/slow down, thus we will take the energy that has now disappeared to the eather and assume that's the amount of energy used to perform the feat."

The two are not remotely comparable.

There are certainly other arguments for why cooling doesn't scale to the wiki notion of AP.

Man, many were given. But this wasn't a proper disagreement with this one.

Because you aren't looking at the energy exerted to cause freezing, then assuming the character can apply that energy to their other attacks.

 

[RatherClueless]

I'm going to push back against the idea that we should even care about the internal power conversion required for the cooling.

I think it's actually sophistry to present all of these very true facts about how cooling works for powered heat exchange systems (refrigerators) and then say "so we can't scale cooling to AP" based on some analogy to an appliance.

It's not about an appliance. All cooling works like this (with the exception of laser cooling).

Imagine if we held punching to this standard. The equivalent would be "we need to know the exact energy released by ATP hydrolysis in the character's body to know the actual amount of energy harnessed by the character." While this is chemically true, it isn't really fair or realistic. Some of that energy is lost to heat. Some of it is lost to the inefficiencies of muscles. A minimal amount is lost to air friction. Suddenly punching becomes impossible to calc.

The heck kind of false equivalency is this!? I don't see how those two are even remotely comparable. It'd be more punching a boulder off of a cliff and scaling the potential energy of said boulder to the punch. Actually, it's arguably even worse, since in the case of cooling calcs we assume it didn't even require any energy to move the rock, but was done so via some ability. Not to mention that a punch actually damages something, while cooling calcs, well, don't.

BUT we don't care about that. We just care about what happens when fist meets face/building/moon/star. We care about the output. We care about the outer effect on the environment. We should hold cooling to that same standard. We aren't examining physiology in calcs. We are examining what the character can do to their surroundings.

There are certainly other arguments for why cooling doesn't scale to the wiki notion of AP.

Yes, we should hold cooling to that same standard. Not sure what your point here is.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I just want to chime in agreement with KatBoi since it does demonstrate the awkward nature behind the attempt to revise AP scaling given that if we treated any sort of attack with this kind of scrutiny, we'd essentially never get anything done for the sake of being more "correct". Correct in quotation terms, given that the premise of wanting to revise AP scaling based on how freezing appliances work is a bit of a reach.

I do wonder why it wasn't such when claiming "no, magically conjuring water isn't equal in AP to the amount of heat you'd generate if you were to take airborne water molecules and condense them."

How come that's not an unreasonable level of scrutiny? Could it be that assuming that simply powers like water creation or freezing aren't erasing energy or manipulating atoms?

 

[RatherClueless]

I would prefer if @DontTalkDT and @DarkDragonMedeus cooperate with writing a nes staff forum thread after this one is closed, so we get a more organised discussion and possible realistic solutions to the problem.

I don't mind closing this once the thread is made and it turns out to tackle every point in this thread in a reasonable fashion and then some, however, until then, I see no reason to close this or stop discussing it. Escpecially when the two people tasked with making the thread couldn't even agree on why cooling calculations are valid and continuously contradicted one another. Not to mention that neither one of them stated when this thread will be finished. For all I know it'll be next summer.

Another thing is, what exactly is so bad about this thread? I put many many hours of writing and several days of research into this and structured it in a what I'd like to belive is understandable fashion. So I'd like to ask, what is so wrong with my thread? What would be so much better about DT's/DDM's thread? If nobody can tell me that, then I don't see a reason to close this at all. Quite the opposite, it'll just seem like an underhanded way of closing this while lacking any valid reason to do so.

 

[KatBoi69]

1). You don't need to agree in mechanics of an operation to understand its environmental outcomes. You can stick an endothermic reaction in a water bath, without knowing the mechanism of that reaction, and calculate the change in energy for the water bath based on the cooling the reaction causes. Regardless of how the reaction happened, we know the reaction has that "feat" under those conditions.

2). The two things are totally comparable, you just don't want to interact with the analogy. Cooling is combat applicable. People can freeze to death. I can calc the amount of cooling caused by a move and say "reasonably, that could lower x person y degrees which translates to z kcal of cooling" and figure out if the cooling would be lethal.

 

[RatherClueless]

1). You don't need to agree in mechanics of an operation to understand its environmental outcomes. You can stick an endothermic reaction in a water bath, without knowing the mechanism of that reaction, and calculate the change in energy for the water bath based on the cooling the reaction causes. Regardless of how the reaction happened, we know the reaction has that "feat" under those conditions.

I am assuming this is about what Ricsi said? Not sure if you have read the entire thread, but people debating in favor of cooling calcs can't even decide on why they are alright to use, let alone the mechanics. DT for example says it's fine because energy just disappears (which kinda goes against your example), while DDM says it's fine because energy is neither created nor destroyed. When it comes to the mechanics, well, sorry to this this, but yes, it does matter, since depending on the explanation it will have quite the consequences, which people like to ignore for, uuuuh, reasons. Not to mention that "only the result matters, not the method" opens up doors for things like chain reactions which cooling feats, to a certain degree, are.

2). The two things are totally comparable, you just don't want to interact with the analogy. Cooling is combat applicable. People can freeze to death. I can calc the amount of cooling caused by a move and say "reasonably, that could lower x person y degrees which translates to z kcal of cooling" and figure out if the cooling would be lethal.

What do you even mean I don't want to interact witth the analogy? I literally went even further. The analogy simply doesn't make any sense. Cooling is combat applicable in several ways, yes. What we currently do isn't.

Last time I checked we don't assume that a character that can cool down Xm^3 to temperature Y would be able to cool down (X/2)m^3 to Y/2 (If we were to to that it would mean that characters that can make large amounts of flames could compress them into miniture suns or something stupid like that). So this is more of a cold resistance/range issue and not a Dura/AP issue. But even then, this would still fall under all the previous issues listed in this thread. Also, if this would be an AP feat, then so would be any other energy draining feat, which, as far as I know, we don't treat as such. Oh and one more thing, did u seriously just measure cooling in calories?

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to cooperate with each other to write a new thread that might actually reach a productive conclusion?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

1). You don't need to agree in mechanics of an operation to understand its environmental outcomes. You can stick an endothermic reaction in a water bath, without knowing the mechanism of that reaction, and calculate the change in energy for the water bath based on the cooling the reaction causes. Regardless of how the reaction happened, we know the reaction has that "feat" under those conditions.

I mean, no, you cannot. If the freezing is simply erasing the heat from existence (an actually argued interpretation), then it is not applicable to AP for the same reason EE-ing a 7-A individual isn't 7-A AP for "erasing an individual with this amount of energy", and you cannot apply any reactions.

If you take it to be someone telekinetically squeezing atoms/molecules... it still isn't calculable, as this is an impossible process that would keep adding more energy.

If you take it to be absorbing the heat into yourself, then moving heat isn't a feat, and being resistant to heat isn't applicable to AP by default either. (and of course, where does the heat go when you have the kind of feats that would vaporize everything in the nearest hundred meters if taken at face fault?)


The fact that you can believe the method used to achieve an effect isn't relevant to deciding the tier... the previous "pushing a boulder off a cliff" applies wonderfully. If I lift a ten kilo weight, throw it off a building, and dent a car with it... am I allowed to scale to tier 9 based off of lifting ten kilos?

2). The two things are totally comparable, you just don't want to interact with the analogy. Cooling is combat applicable. People can freeze to death. I can calc the amount of cooling caused by a move and say "reasonably, that could lower x person y degrees which translates to z kcal of cooling" and figure out if the cooling would be lethal.

,,,I cannot believe you are saying that unironically.

[Death Hax] is combat applicable. People can die to [death inducement]. Characters with [death hax] should scale in AP to whatever they can kill with their [death hax]. Replace death hax with any ability able to harm people in combat (spatial manipulation, mind manipulation, you name it).

You cannot calculate the amount of energy moved and scale it to AP, because you don't know it was moved. You are assuming the specifics of the process there, which is supposedly unimportant. Where was it moved? How was it moved? Does the movement of the energy require an equal amount of energy to perform? Is me moving a heavy object up a building and throwing it off equal to my tier now?

Also, freezing people to death, has nothing to do with AP. Like, being able to lift a boulder will not make your blood's freezing point lower.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm still working on my draft, I do not wish to post it until I'm finished, but we do not need to close the thread over this. DontTalkDT basically says he has no intention of discussing the topic in great lengths anymore and basically just wants it to be permanently dropped. But he did say he's willing to wait for me to post and is willing to give it some upvotes.

Also, I actually have multiple grounds from multiple sources that conflict, not just one. Also, people do not have to agree with the methods or reasons to agree with the outcome, especially if my outcome is actually going to come from a multitude of interpretations. Also, to clarify misconceptions on what KLOL said on previous staff agreement, actually Wokistan never fully agreed with my take on the matter, his thoughts are more or less the same as Dargoo's end result iirc. Dargoo has conceded permanently that heat and cold are the same thing but in the opposite direction based on points brought up by Kaltias and TriforcePower1. And openly concedes that a character's Heat Manipulation should be parallel if they are capable of heating or freezing objects, but he still has a stricter mindset that neither one of them should scale to blunt force trauma by default. Which I agreed if universal energy systems are absent, but he also has a stricter mindset even if verses had universal energy systems. Though, I will say in addition to AKM Sama and Bambu, Elizhaa, DMUA, Spinosaurus, Migue iirc, Executor N0 iirc, and several other staff and former staff also agreed with me, even Shieldsplus.

I promise not to overwork myself, but I will have it done either late July or mid August at worst. In the mean time, I would probably ask other calc group members like DMUA and Spinosaurus, and Executor N0. Agnaa was also someone who used to agree to what the OP is trying to say, but conceded to me after discussing it on my wall.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help.

I just find it pointless to keep this thread open for endless arguing when it will not lead anywhere anyway.

 

[KatBoi69]

It's very apparent that no one is reading the things I'm typing past a single post.

I have reservations about cooling scaling to AP, but I also have reservations allowing the sort of reasoning exemplified here to take root on the wiki. You don't need to convince me cooling doesn't scale to AP.

You need to convince me the internal part of a cooling feat renders the external part incalculable in terms of the amount of cooling.

I'd summarize my positions as:

1). We cannot throw out the ability to calculate the energy change associated with cooling feats, even if it doesn't scale to AP. It's high school level math that lets us establish a hierarchy for cold hax vs. cold resistance for debates, at the very least. That outward effect is combat relevant and can be mathematically ballparked. There's no reason to gouge our own eyes wrt these very simple calcs because we are worried about fantasy mechanisms in fantasy settings.

2). The mechanism that leads to a cooling effect, unless explicitly detailed in the story, is irrelevant. We can make arguments about lifting being different from AP because we have scientific knowledge from outside the story relevant to the feat. In the absence of that, the feat still happens, and unless its EFFECTS completely escape physics, we should try to calc the effects for scaling purposes.

For example:
-Completely escapes physics: trying to calc KE for an object moving ftl.

-Does not completely escape physics: a creature with non-human physiology lifting a boulder. Look here, the mechanism is unknown, but I can still calculate the energy change of the boulder.

3). There is no problem with creating a power-category for people who can heat and cool things at will. Just because we don't know the exact mechanism, doesn't mean we can't classify those abilities. The wiki does this all the time.

 

[RatherClueless]

Sorry for the late reply.

It's very apparent that no one is reading the things I'm typing past a single post.

I very much have been reading them tho.

I have reservations about cooling scaling to AP, but I also have reservations allowing the sort of reasoning exemplified here to take root on the wiki. You don't need to convince me cooling doesn't scale to AP.

You need to convince me the internal part of a cooling feat renders the external part incalculable in terms of the amount of cooling.

I . . . have no idea what that last sentence even meant.

I'd summarize my positions as:

1). We cannot throw out the ability to calculate the energy change associated with cooling feats, even if it doesn't scale to AP. It's high school level math that lets us establish a hierarchy for cold hax vs. cold resistance for debates, at the very least. That outward effect is combat relevant and can be mathematically ballparked. There's no reason to gouge our own eyes wrt these very simple calcs because we are worried about fantasy mechanisms in fantasy settings.

It really doesn't allow for that tho? Imagine a character who can cool down all of earth by a fraction of a kelvin and another character who can cool down an entire building to almost absolute zero. The first one would be considered "more potent", however, in pretty much absolutely no scenario would they ever be able outdo the second character. Cold resistance is simply based on temperature. All there is to it, really (and we don't even treat it like that right now anyways, so you'd probably need a revision for that to be used like that).

2). The mechanism that leads to a cooling effect, unless explicitly detailed in the story, is irrelevant. We can make arguments about lifting being different from AP because we have scientific knowledge from outside the story relevant to the feat. In the absence of that, the feat still happens, and unless its EFFECTS completely escape physics, we should try to calc the effects for scaling purposes.

For example:
-Completely escapes physics: trying to calc KE for an object moving ftl.

-Does not completely escape physics: a creature with non-human physiology lifting a boulder. Look here, the mechanism is unknown, but I can still calculate the energy change of the boulder.

"The mechanism isn't known" when lifting an object? Unless they magically make it float or something of the sort, I really can't see that point being viable, since, at least of the top of my head, I can't think of a single explanation as to how a physical feat wouldn't scale to AP. Maybe I'd have to give it a bit more thought. The issue with cooling is that one half of the assumptions that can be made are hax, while the other half leads to absurd inconsistancies or just both. You don't have that with lifting feats, unless you want to argue that lifting a boulder could totally be subjective reality or something like that.

3). There is no problem with creating a power-category for people who can heat and cool things at will. Just because we don't know the exact mechanism, doesn't mean we can't classify those abilities. The wiki does this all the time.

If there is some hole in a wall and we have no idea how it happened, we typically don't attribute it to someone's AP or anything like that. At the very most they'd get a "possibly" rating. Not sure why we should do it for cooling.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You need to convince me the internal part of a cooling feat renders the external part incalculable in terms of the amount of cooling.

The question is "why would the mechanic make us unable to judge the visible effects it has", yes? In which case this was gone into in-depth a lot of times.

Cooling is a domino effect, you do something, which causes the energy in a bunch of atoms/molecules to go MIA. The reason why this cannot be calculated is because the "something" and the heat changing are not one and the same. As laid out in the OP, you can cause stuff like cooling items or condensing clouds for a far, far lesser amount of energy than the heat change of the system we are observing. If it's the erasing energy theory some have put forward, then putting a tier would be like trying to calculate e=mc2 of a human body's mass for erasing a person as if physics even remotely applied to the feat. Moving the energy away or absorbing it isn't directly scalable either, because if it's done with a random superpower, then it does not scale to anything else, and if its done through some form of energy like mana, then there's absolutely no way to tell how much energy you need to move heat from one atom to another.

And so on.

I'd summarize my positions as:

1). We cannot throw out the ability to calculate the energy change associated with cooling feats, even if it doesn't scale to AP.

Such a calculation is meaningless, as we have no way to know how such heat even relates to the power who performs the feat.

It's high school level math that lets us establish a hierarchy for cold hax vs. cold resistance for debates, at the very least.

No? Just because Todoroki can make dozens of meters of ice, he can't suddenly focus all that freezing power on a focal point and make something hundreds of times colder than he normally would. I don't think I know of even one person with ice powers who freezes linearly better with how little he is freezing at once.

If one character freezes a sea at minus 5 degrees, and another shrugs off colds all the way up to -272 degrees, the cold won't suddenly stack up.

Instead, the obvious thing to do is the same as with heat, simply look at how cold the freezing is, with celsius or other units of measurement for heat.

That outward effect is combat relevant and can be mathematically ballparked. There's no reason to gouge our own eyes wrt these very simple calcs because we are worried about fantasy mechanisms in fantasy settings.

There is zero reasons to list it in AP instead of putting it in the P&A sections or the techniques section.


And this take also directly contradicts both other takes for keeping heat stuff. And at this point, I have to point out that if everyone on the heat side disagrees with everything besides "we should keep rating it", then that shouldn't be taken as "votes" for the same side. And you realize that with verses where magic is a thing, this directly does scale to the AP of other spells? Like ******* 7-C Dumbledore.

2). The mechanism that leads to a cooling effect, unless explicitly detailed in the story, is irrelevant.

It is not, as the effects we see cannot be assumed to be the same as the energy released or expended to make the event happen.

We can make arguments about lifting being different from AP because we have scientific knowledge from outside the story relevant to the feat.

This is also a false equivalency. Lifting is far more directly tied to AP than freezing is to any energy used by the person without specifics given by the story. The idea of someone with Class P lifting strength not having tier 6ish AP at least is ridiculous.

In the absence of that, the feat still happens, and unless its EFFECTS completely escape physics, we should try to calc the effects for scaling purposes.

These effects are unimportant. They achieve no kinetic impact or destruction, and the power to decrease energy in an area does not need to be listed in the AP section. And again, we do not know how much actual energy is put into such feats from the user of the power, so scaling them to other spells/abilities with the same energy system is still wrong.

For example:
-Completely escapes physics: trying to calc KE for an object moving ftl.

The wiki actually does so, as it did for fire fighters. When I tried to downgrade that, I was told that if the verse states FTL generates more kinetic energy, then we should just apply standard KE calc and not make it too complicated.

I believe it has been since downgraded as the story reveals they were moving only at relativistic speeds, but the precedent for applying KE to FTL is still there.

-Does not completely escape physics: a creature with non-human physiology lifting a boulder. Look here, the mechanism is unknown, but I can still calculate the energy change of the boulder.

You can calculate the energy directly released by the creature's own muscles, and apply that energy to other tasks performed by the same muscles. Such is not true with freezing.

3). There is no problem with creating a power-category for people who can heat and cool things at will. Just because we don't know the exact mechanism, doesn't mean we can't classify those abilities. The wiki does this all the time.

I don't get this point? Ice, fire, heat and such are abilities already. I do not see why this should mean we need to point these abilities out in the AP section if it doesn't scale to the amount of Attack Potency they can actually output?

 

[RisingIons]

I feel like I’m going to be charged tuition after reading this entire thread

 

[KatBoi69]

I feel like I’m going to be charged tuition after reading this entire thread

I don't want to tell you what I paid to have some of this knowledge.

 

[RatherClueless]

Still waiting for that "debunking thread" I was promised

 

[Antvasima]

Still waiting for that "debunking thread" I was promised

@RatherClueless

Can you remind me about the full context please?

 

[RatherClueless]

People said they'll make a thread tackling all the points I made here, which is why we should close/postpone this thread. That was several months ago and nothing happened since.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Which members who have responded here should I send a notification to about that?

 

[The_Impress]

I mean if the debunking thread hasn't happen the initiative should be to deadline it, so the topic doesn't die in inactivity, this can very well come across as an attempt to kill the thread.

@RatherClueless Can you give me names of users who claimed they'll make the debunking thread?

 

[Antoniofer]

The main user that was against the changes was DontTalkDT, but he is in a break iirc; the other user was DarkDragonMedeus.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm still working on the draft, but got behind due to a multitude of RL issues, but otherwise, there were a lot more staff in agreement with me and DontTalkDT before the forum move but most of them have either basically left the wiki and/or are burned out of this topic specifically. It would be best to ask staff who either haven't commented on this thread specifically or where active on previous threads. But from what I recall, people like Executor N0, TriforcePower1, and Kaltias seemed to have the best comments related to the topic from what I remember.

I am still making progress on my rebuttal post however.