Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

[Armorchompy]

for reference, fragging that steel spheroid gives 8-A, while the air pressure thing gives 8-C, which sounds like a huge downgrade but that's because the frag value of steel is very high, doing the same for the 24m radius stone spheroid gives 8-C+for air pressure vs 8-B frag. Imo this method is great.

 

[KLOL506]

for reference, fragging that steel spheroid gives 8-A, while the air pressure thing gives 8-C, which sounds like a huge downgrade but that's because the frag value of steel is very high, doing the same for the 24m radius stone spheroid gives 8-C+for air pressure vs 8-B frag. Imo this method is great.

instead of relying on destruction values we should look for how much area the object's volume covers and base our conclusions based on that. City blocks are massive IRL.

And also keep in mind that when creating cities or buildings they aren't 100% solid, they need to be hollow to... well, accomodate people and stuff.

 

[Armorchompy]

Fragmentation is there just for reference to compare the air pressure method to. And

2129340000 cm^3 x 0.1013 = 215702142, Small Building level. This is for a building's mass, from Bambu's calc. So not too bad of a lowball. Creating a human is 62000 cm^3 which leads to 9-C btw, while creating our baseline for a 7-A (when fragged) mountain would give Low 7-B. Overall not too bad imo

Even with buildings the result seems pretty accurate.

 

[Agnaa]

instead of relying on destruction values we should look for how much area the object's volume covers and base our conclusions based on that. City blocks are massive IRL.

And also keep in mind that when creating cities or buildings they aren't 100% solid, they need to be hollow to... well, accomodate people and stuff.

Frag's just for reference to our conventional tiering methods, it's not being suggested for creation, air displacement is.

Reaching 8-B through air displacement requires creating 4.54e11 cm^3 of stuff. Or 454,333 m^3. Compare that to your intuitions of a city block at your leisure.

 

[KLOL506]

Holy shit, that's like, 3.4% of the Boeing Everett Factory's volume.

 

[Agnaa]

(We'd probably end up accounting for hollowness in that, which would bump it up to, like, 17% of the factory's volume)

 

[Armorchompy]

Holy shit, that's like, 3.4% of the Boeing Everett Factory's volume.

is that like, good or bad?

 

[Antvasima]

A big thank you to everybody who are helping out.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @KieranH10 @Migue79

What do you think about the above GBE and volume list discussion?

 

[Damage3245]

The air pressure method described up above may be best, though I'm fairly certain that fiction only acknowledges air being pushed out of the way a handful of times.

 

[Armorchompy]

It almost never does, yes, but it's still a good way to calculate it in those cases since the result is fairly conservative yet not low enough that it's underwhelming

 

[KieranH10]

While, as said above, fiction essentially never takes this into account. This method seems oddly reliable imo, and gives a seemingly reliable tier for such a feat.

 

[Armorchompy]

While, as said above, fiction essentially never takes this into account. This method seems oddly reliable imo, and gives a seemingly reliable tier for such a feat.

Exactly my opinion, yes.

 

[Armorchompy]

The one issue I can see with this method is that creating stuff underwater would give far higher results, and creating it in space could give none.

 

[KieranH10]

The one issue I can see with this method is that creating stuff underwater would give far higher results, and creating it in space could give none.

The water problem would likely be an issue yes. As would Space, but I'm unsure how many objects are created in space that aren't simply planets, so I don't think this would be much of an issue.

 

[Armorchompy]

We could just always use earth's air pressure even if it's not done in a place where it would apply, although that'd make it a bit arbitrary.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Depends upon the situation. Maybe hard-limit GBE to situations where a planet-like structure is actually formed? (As in, no flat-plain cities, it needs to be a mini-planet or somesuch to qualify).

I agree with this one, yeah. GBE for round structures, basically.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

GBE for round structures is something I approve.

 

[Andytrenom]

Most structures aren't going to be round tho, we still need a method that works more universally

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know that, other shaped objects will need other methods yeah. But I do not agree with Mass-Energy unless very specific of Mass being turned into pure energy and vice versa.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think it's really weird to specifically use GBE for sphere and another method for everything else, if we can find a good enough method that applies to the latter we should have it apply to the former too

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Armorchompy's latest comment.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Someone also brought up the air pressure method.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know whether or not that is a good solution.

Our calc group, @DontTalkDT , @Antoniofer , and @Ultima_Reality might be able to properly evaluate it though.

 

[Armorchompy]

I still do think air pressure might be the best method

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think it's really weird to specifically use GBE for sphere and another method for everything else, if we can find a good enough method that applies to the latter we should have it apply to the former too

I'm all ears, lad. GBE is the best option I can think of for creating something.

If people want to go through the pain and hassle of attempting to decipher the non-uniform spheres bit of the GBE formulas, they're free to.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For the record, regarding the air pressure thing since apparently I didn't comment on it even if I thought I did- that's well and good for when there's actually air. That won't always be the case.

 

[Armorchompy]

For the record, regarding the air pressure thing since apparently I didn't comment on it even if I thought I did- that's well and good for when there's actually air. That won't always be the case.

it also works underwater or for other planets, only thing it wouldn't apply to is space

 

[Mr. Bambu]

it also works underwater or for other planets, only thing it wouldn't apply to is space

Seems really weird that we're ignoring the vast majority of volume in the universe, then.

GBE is the better option in my book. S'pose I can't do much if I end up outvoted, but air pressure is a situational choice.

 

[Armorchompy]

Seems really weird that we're ignoring the vast majority of volume in the universe, then.

I mean, what matters is that most of fiction focuses on things happening on Earth, and as Kieran pointed out, in the cases where something is created in space, 9/10 times GBE can be used to calculate it anyway

 

[Mr. Bambu]

...are you really certain most of fiction revolves around Earth?

I'm being facetious of course but I hope you understand my point that while GBE ain't the perfect option, neither is air pressure. GBE at least takes very little in the way of assumptions- the objects certainly possess it. It is an established method that works until you get into the realm of very, very small things.

 

[Armorchompy]

Air pressure isn't perfect but I greatly doubt that it can't be applied to 99% of our < tier 5 creation feats. And it takes no assumptions either, most fiction doesn't show it but it's unquestionable that some air is being moved by creating something.

 

[KLOL506]

what about moons that are High 6-A in size? Or continent-sized land masses or massive mountains? What then in those cases?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would indeed doubt it could be applied to as many as you say, whereas technically speaking GBE can be applied to 100% (granted, below a certain threshold vaguely in lower Tier 8-upper Tier 9 you get insanely diminished returns, but that's neither here nor there).

 

[Armorchompy]

I would indeed doubt it could be applied to as many as you say

Why not? All you need is volume. If they're difficult to calculate, then so are our basic destruction feats.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Because you're assuming 99% of our calcs take place on Earth or in an Earth-like atmosphere. Particularly alien planets, even with their own atmosphere, couldn't do it without specific statements about the state of the atmosphere. Space feats too, but for different previously mentioned things.

 

[Armorchompy]

As long as the planet is earth-like, it's not an erroneous assumption at all imo.

 

[Agnaa]

I would indeed doubt it could be applied to as many as you say, whereas technically speaking GBE can be applied to 100% (granted, below a certain threshold vaguely in lower Tier 8-upper Tier 9 you get insanely diminished returns, but that's neither here nor there).

I think, when we're talking about creation feats below tier 5, there will be ludicrously many more feats involving non-round objects created outside of space, than there will be feats involving round objects in space.

From the fiction I've seen, I'm surprised that there's even any disagreement there.

 

[DontTalkDT]

My stance: Technically any object has GBE and one could use that. However, for smaller objects, I don't think the result would fit great.
Air displacement stuff can be done whenever we see air (or whatever else) displaced (should IMO not be assumed), but if it is it's a perfectly valid method.
Potential energy, relative to how high above where the character is standing something can be created, can be used as a method. The corresponding attack can be to drop the object on the opponents head. Other than the rest of the methods, this should probably not be scaled around though, since the energy comes from dropping the object (i.e. its position).

I'm still in favour of creating a low-balled volume list in addition to those methods, though. Or maybe a mass list instead of a volume list?
One could even use the other methods as guidance when creating it. Like, one could see how big of a stone ball one needs to create so that dropping it from 2m above the ground (high enough to squash a human) is mountain level. Then one could compare that to how big one would need to create to displace air so fast that it reaches mountain level (edit: maybe assuming 1s or so). Then one could compare that to other things like size for mountain level GBE, the necessary size of an explosion to be mountain level and maybe how big of a rock one would need to fragment and the size/mass of some reference object if the tier has one.
Then we could remove some of the least reasonable outliers (e.g. what GBE returns for low tiers) and with a bit of luck we can agree on a value that just appears somewhat in the right area.

 

[Agnaa]

Those sound like some interesting ideas. I'll start working on that now, actually.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm trying to reverse-engineer the GBE equation to solve for mass, assuming a rock with a density of 2700 kg/m^3 in a perfect sphere. Here's my working out, but I'm a little bit rusty on algebra, and I don't want to create an entire table if I messed something up. Can anyone double-check this for me?