Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

[Mr. Bambu]

what makes you think that

Pulverization is, as mentioned above, an entirely arbitrary threshold. If you really felt that way, you'd realistically feel very adamant about E=MC^2 being used, since A. that's how energy becomes matter and vice versa anyways, and B. that's a valid way to "destroy" something. Pulverization is a terrible methodology for the sole reason that it is a goal post randomly chosen. You could just as easily argue fragmentation and vaporization with no significant changes.

 

[Jasonsith]

If people still want to fancy air displacement formula and explosion formula were "best" enough,

Taking the defensive mage vs offensive mage example back,
The offensive mage destroyed a (say 20 cm x 200 cm x 200 cm) cement wall which a defensive mage created. This will be a very typical scene where two mages fight each other.

The volume of the wall will be 20 x 200 x 200 = 800,000 cm^3

The attack potency to destroy a cement wall (say fragmentation) will be = 6 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 4,800,000 J (Wall)
(say low violent fragmentation) = 17 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 13,600,000 J (Wall+)
(say mid violent fragmentation) = 18.5 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 14,800,000 J (Wall+)
(say high violent fragmentation) = 20 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 16,000,000 J (Wall+)
(say pilverisation) will be = 40 J/cm^3 * 800,000 cm^3 = 32,000,000 J (Small Building)

The reverse destruction method is simple to understand. And is the current method we have already been using in assessing other creation and destruction feats for objects smaller than celestial objects.
Now try to use any other method to run the scenario above. And think if the figures look just as reasonable.

Or you (DT?) have already had another example which may support any propositions you may have claimed.

I will be working for hours very soon. I will) come back and check out if any constructive feedback has been raised. No pun intended.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It being a mere opinion is more dangerous to support a standpoint.
And I would like everyone to think about why one's point actually makes sense instead of just dump voting for one opinion.

Okay I am explaining why proxy of construction/creation by pulverisation makes most sense:

Situation - A battle mage creates a cement wall. Usually the mage will pick up soil from the ground, then use magic or geokinesis or whatever superpower to form it into one cement wall as if it were one whole piece of cement. There, soil as a raw material as if it were cement already pulverised, is formed into a cement wall as if it were one whole piece.
Another batttle mage launches an attacks and pulverises the cement wall, braking the defense. The energy to pulverise a wall will be the same as the energy to construct the wall.
Similar situations happen more times than not.

If one insists pulverisation yields too much for a creation feat, I can compromise by backstepping to violent fragmentation.

If a mage picks up soil to create a wall this would not even be a creation feat in the context we are talking about here. That would just get calculated via PE/KE as usual.
What we are talking about are strictly feats of creating something from nothing (except mana or similar). So it's wrong to think of creation, in the context we are talking about, as reverse pulverization. The reverse of the creation feats we talk about would be existence erasure or converting matter into mana.

If you think pulverization should be used that's in my opinion as valid of an opinion as any, but it has shown itself that we have a spectrum of preferred opinions. On one hand, are you, suggesting a rather high end by using pulverization. On the other end are people that think we should just slap unquantified on those feats, which is basically the absolute low-end.
I made my suggestion of using the low-ends of multiple methods as a compromise between those that want to be strict and those that wish to be more lenient.
Personally, I don't think a pulverization end would be able to gain majority approval.

I'm not a huge fan of using PE that way since that puts all adults into 9-C.

I also don't think it makes much sense for many constructs to collapse onto someone. Creations such as mountains have pretty much already settled, to get their center of mass any lower you'd need to actually destroy it and then break it apart.

Orientation/center of mass/border stuff seems fair though.

I mean, in terms of creation feats it wouldn't put adults into 9-C.

One could argue that for something like a mountain the character could create it with like a 3 meter high slope or something below it missing, so that it drops on the opponent. Given, you're right that defining what we assume "falling over" to do for a country or something would be pretty weird.

I'm still open for this method if others want it, but I can also go with the low-end table method.

Honestly, I can go with pretty much anything that isn't E=mc^2 or slapping unquantifiable on all reality warping feats, just as long as we can get an actual agreement on it.

 

[Agnaa]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

What do you think about Jasonsith's intended compromise solution?

If Jason doesn't want to use explosions because they're irrelevant to creation, then I'd rather take the Air Displacement end, since it's actually a mandatory part of creating something.

The only argument against it that I've seen is that "Fiction doesn't show air rushing away", but it sure as hell doesn't show creations being fragmented as part of creating them.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Air displacement is third option I could probably live with. Just gotta make sure people don't get the idea to use the theoretical KE of the air to calc stuff then.

 

[KingTempest]

I still don't like air displacement. Doesn't quantify density iirc

 

[Agnaa]

fwiw frag/pulv doesn't quantify density either, just material toughness.

 

[KingTempest]

fwiw frag/pulv doesn't quantify density either, just material toughness.

At least it quantifies something even though it's still not full and complete.
With air displacement you can create a rectangular prism out of Osmium and you can create the same but out of Lithium. If they take up the same amount of space then it's the same energy.

 

[Jasonsith]

What we are (I am) talking about are strictly feats of creating something from nothing (except mana or similar). So it's wrong to think of creation, in the context we are talking about, as reverse pulverization. The reverse of the creation feats we talk about would be existence erasure or converting matter into mana.

Thank you for clarifying. At least we are (I am) finding a way to downtone a creation feat so that you as a consultant and sysop feel good about it.

On the other end are people that think we should just slap unquantified on those feats, which is basically the absolute low-end.

Thank you for saying so.
In fact this should always be a failsafe if any feat calculation data looks not reasonable.

I made my suggestion of using the low-ends of multiple methods as a compromise between those that want to be strict and those that wish to be more lenient.

Personally, I don't think a pulverization end would be able to gain majority approval.
Appropriateness is one thing. Approval of the majority is another. If one method is just inappropriate, even if it gets approval by the majority (I mean some people are actually discussing which method works in where and how it is), it will just be a laughing stock if the real outsiders see it a ridicule.

I mean, in terms of creation feats it wouldn't put adults into 9-C.

Thank you. I think we have discussed this on small object KE when discussing how small animals (particularly small real world animals) fight. And the current solution is to find their equivalent to our normal human punch.

One could argue that for something like a mountain the character could create it with like a 3 meter high slope or something below it missing, so that it drops on the opponent. Given, you're right that defining what we assume "falling over" to do for a country or something would be pretty weird.

Should we consider it as "gravity potential energy raising 2 m above ground" model not appropriate for object creation?

I'm still open for this method if others want it, but I can also go with the low-end table method.
Honestly, I can go with pretty much anything that isn't E=mc^2 or slapping unquantifiable on all reality warping feats, just as long as we can get an actual agreement on it.

Thank you for speaking out your bottom line.
In fact, as much as some situation is actually appropriate for mass energy conversion method, we have already had our own guidelines on when this is appropriate. Thanks for ruling out expanding this method for other creation feats anyway.

So any lower end than mass energy method or whatsoever will do right?




Now

Taking the defensive mage vs offensive mage example back,
The offensive mage destroyed a (say 20 cm x 200 cm x 200 cm) cement wall which a defensive mage created. This will be a very typical scene where two mages fight each other.

Who wants to run data on this example using any method you see appropriate? I will start to do so say 8-14 hours later if no one else has yet.

fwiw frag/pulv doesn't quantify density either, just material toughness.

At least it quantifies something even though it's still not full and complete.
With air displacement you can create a rectangular prism out of Osmium and you can create the same but out of Lithium. If they take up the same amount of space then it's the same energy.

Thank you for actually discussing.






Sorry I really need to go back to work. It is 08:45 in Singapore now.

 

[KingTempest]

Meant to say air displacement* accidentally said air density

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, in terms of creation feats it wouldn't put adults into 9-C.

wdym by this? Do you mean because, like, ordinary human adults can't create matter out of nothing? Or do you think that PE for popping an adult into existence wouldn't be 9-C?

Who wants to run data on this example using any method you see appropriate? I will start to do so say 8-14 hours later if no one else has yet.

I don't really see the point, I've already run data on all tiers from tier 10 to tier 6. I don't know what running the numbers on a specific wall adds. And, like I said before, 9-B is a massive tier, every single method except for GBE and pulv would land somewhere in 9-B, even if they're 3 orders of magnitude apart.

GBE would land in 10-C, and pulv would just barely make it into 9-A.

 

[Jasonsith]

snip

Running data out of a bunch of data is one thing, applying it to see if the formula actually works as expected is another.

I am still going to test the data and make sure each formula works as intended before things go south.

 

[Armorchompy]

For me DT's method = Air displacement, I'm fine with either

 

[Jasonsith]

While Fragmentation yield of a rock object = Volume of object in cc X 8 J/cc,
Air displacement yield of the same rock object = Volume of object in cc X 0.1013 J/cc

This is so much a downplay: that a genuine creation feat (which is meant to be impressive on its own) be downplayed to be less impressive than a destruction feat. Which does not even make sense. Why would it take less energy to create an object than to destroy it? It makes no sense the energy required to create an object is smaller than the energy required to destroy the same object.

I am sticking with (or should I say, back stepped to) Fragmentation yield method (if Violent Fragmentation or Pulverisation is considered too much by Agnaa).

 

[Agnaa]

Why would it take less energy to create an object than to destroy it? It makes no sense the energy required to create an object is smaller than the energy required to destroy the same object.

Because they're different things.

Because there's a ludicrously large number of ways to destroy objects, each of which give different results.

Because creating objects is almost never done through a dissipating wave of energy.

Because creating objects does not have to affect the regions between the matter it creates.

Hell, we consider GBE a valid method for destroying objects, and that's far more than air displacement until around tier 7. It downplays harder than frag until 6-B, and iirc downplays harder than pulv into tier 5.

Why should creation of objects be considered equal to one arbitrary method of destroying it? Creating a town has nothing to do with dropping a nuke that destroys the town.

EDIT: Hell, you yourself said that explosions shouldn't be used to determine creation feats because exploding an object and creating it have nothing to do with each other. Why the change in opinion for pulv/frag? Explosion radius is a valid way of getting the energy to destroy something, it just happens to be lower than even air displacement.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody remind me which method(s) that DontTalk prefers that we should use please?

 

[Agnaa]

I compiled a table of various methods of creation (PE at 2m elevation, air displacement, GBE) and destruction (explosions, frag, reference materials) to see how all of them compare, and what volumes are required to reach those tiers through those methods.

Explosions were found to be the most lowballed method, so DontTalk created a list of volume requirements for each tier based off of the volume an explosion needs to reach that tier. Since this ran into issues at later tiers, he had it gradually move from this to GBE around tier 6.

The plan was to find the volume (or perhaps mass) of a created object, then compare it to that table of values, and assign it an appropriate tier.

This isn't really a calculation method; you can't get 9-B+ through it. Each tier just has a minimum volume of matter to create to reach it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you very much for helping out so much. We should probably use the explosion method then.

 

[Jasonsith]

I compiled a table of various methods of creation (PE at 2m elevation, air displacement, GBE) and destruction (explosions, frag, reference materials) to see how all of them compare, and what volumes are required to reach those tiers through those methods.

Explosions were found to be the most lowballed method, so DontTalk created a list of volume requirements for each tier based off of the volume an explosion needs to reach that tier. Since this ran into issues at later tiers, he had it gradually move from this to GBE around tier 6.

The plan was to find the volume (or perhaps mass) of a created object, then compare it to that table of values, and assign it an appropriate tier.

This isn't really a calculation method; you can't get 9-B+ through it. Each tier just has a minimum volume of matter to create to reach it.

Up till this moment I believe I am outvoted no matter what quality of arguments every side have.
Explosion formula (non-nuclear air blast) / GBE model seems the most voted.

I just want to ensure:

1. Will the table yield be a very minimum for use to calculate creation feats? Like if the creation has a durability or attack potency of its own, will be creation be such uptuned in the whatever specific stance valid? I think it should - should situation applies. Otherwise, explosion non nuclear air blast for creating objects "garbage".

2. (Without affecting the validity and method of creation feats and destruction feats) Is the explosion formula / GBE formula eventually intended for a bigger use? Like revamping our current attack potency table? This will take a new thread to talk about.

 

[Agnaa]

Like if the creation has a durability or attack potency of its own, will be creation be such uptuned in the whatever specific stance valid?

I don't quite understand what this means.

I don't think creating a human with 6-A attacks should make the creator of that human 6-A.

But, if you're talking about other creation methods being valid (PE for objects created above the ground, GBE for objects that are held together gravitationally, temperature change for exceedingly hot/cold objects, mass-energy equivalence for objects with explicit statements of such, air displacement if there's a notable displacement of air shown) then those values would be used instead. And perhaps you're right that these alternate methods should only "uptune" such feats.

Is the explosion formula / GBE formula eventually intended for a bigger use? Like revamping our current attack potency table?

No.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So do I understand right that we mostly settled on the table method now?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I at least think that we should probably use a table chart that shows which created volumes or masses that correspond to which tier, similarly to our attack potency page.

 

[Theglassman12]

I got another question regarding the creation feat. So if there’s an object capable of warping a place to be something else, would that count for any AP feats or is that just reality warping on that range? I need to know cause a certain verse might end up losing ALL of their higher ratings if this doesn’t count for AP.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not sure. Sorry. It is a good question though.

 

[AKM sama]

So if there’s an object capable of warping a place to be something else, would that count for any AP feats or is that just reality warping on that range?

I don't see how that is AP. AP is destroying that place in one-shot. Warping it to be something else should be reality warping. (Although, you can still get a separate rating with RW depending on the context.)

 

[Theglassman12]

The feat in question is the triforce in Zelda being able to warp the sacred realm into the dark world because Ganon’s evil heart changed the realm to be a reflection of his heart when he got the triforce.

 

[KingTempest]

If the material changed, change in GPE?

 

[Armorchompy]

meh, to me this kinda stuff shouldn't really scale to AP. You're not changing the entirety of a world, just an unspecified perspective

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It mentions "Significant Reality Warping" on the AP section. And warping it in the form of basically giving birth to an Observable Universe can be AP, but key words is "Can be". Significant reality warping often refers to stuff like merging universes, splitting universes, fast paced reality warping that changes the layout, ect.

 

[Antvasima]

So do I understand right that we mostly settled on the table method now?

Well, I at least think that we should probably use a table chart that shows which created volumes or masses that correspond to which tier, similarly to our attack potency page.

So about this...

 

[Jasonsith]

So about this...

Also, list out the formula, variables and assumptions for each method (should have already done).
The table containing different benchmarks derived from different creation feat calculation formulae serves as a reference only.

It is by default that the "reverse non-nuclear air blast near total fatalities method" is the bare minimum energy equivalent for creating something (even garbage) that occupies spaces.

And as Agnaa says,

Like if the creation has a durability or attack potency of its own, will be creation be such uptuned in the whatever specific stance valid?

I don't quite understand what this means.

I don't think creating a human with 6-A attacks should make the creator of that human 6-A.

But, if you're talking about other creation methods being valid (PE for objects created above the ground, GBE for objects that are held together gravitationally, temperature change for exceedingly hot/cold objects, mass-energy equivalence for objects with explicit statements of such, air displacement if there's a notable displacement of air shown) then those values would be used instead. And perhaps you're right that these alternate methods should only "uptune" such feats.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure if the table we implement into a page should list out all the formulas, variables, and assumptions. It should probably just give the bare-minimum benchmarks for tiers that we've agreed upon. But I guess it could link back to my fully-detailed summary, if a curious observer wants to read more.

 

[Antvasima]

We should probably at least list the methods that we used as information further down in the explanation page.

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @AKM sama @Promestein @Ultima_Reality
@SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions

Would you be willing to help finish some kind of workable solution here please?

 

[Antvasima]

Bump.

This is still an extremely important revision to finish.

Is somebody willing to write an explanation of our conclusions and discussion so far here please? I can send a notification to the rest of our staff afterwards.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think there's anything that needs to be added to these two earlier summaries.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Sorry about not keeping track earlier.

 

[Antvasima]

It's going to be extremely difficult to summarize to any readable extent, but I'll try.

I noticed that the Creation Feats page and the Tiering System page disagree on what to do with sub-cosmic creation feats (below tier 5). The creation feats page says to eyeball them and assign a tier based on that, the Tiering System page says most of those tiers can never be assigned without a calculation, since their borders are too arbitrary.

Trying to resolve this has led to a wider discussion of what to do with sub-cosmic creation feats.

There are many ways of calculating creation feats below that tier, but they all seem to be missing something:

• Gravitational Binding Energy, the energy that needs to be added to a gravitationally-bound system to make it no longer held together by gravity.
  • The issue with this is that it only makes sense for gravitationally-bound objects, like meteorites, asteroids, and planetoids, it gives nonsensical answers when things like buildings are plugged in.
• Gravitational Potential Energy, the energy that an object has by virtue of being a certain elevation above the ground.
  • The issue with it is that this makes the most sense for objects that are created in the air, and even then just gives the energy they'd output squishing an opponent with that object.
  • There is also the worry that, since it's based on an object's center of gravity, a skyscraper created standing would end up in 8-A, and a skyscraper created lying on the ground would end up at 8-C, while ideally the orientation of a created object shouldn't change its tier that much.
• Temperature Change, the energy needed to heat/cool an object a certain amount.
  • The issue with is is that this only applies to creating things of notable temperatures, like fire or ice.
• Mass-Energy Equivalence, the amount of energy in raw matter itself, the amount of energy needed to create matter out of nothing in real life.
  • The issue with this is that it gives such obscenely high results (roughly as high as doing newtonian lightspeed KE with the object) that it's seen as unreliable.
• Air Displacement, the energy needed to push away the air (or theoretically water) that the created object now occupies, for a given atmosphere.
  • The only issue with this is that many don't think it accurately reflects creation feats in fiction, and thus should only be used when creation demonstrates air flowing away from the object.

There has also been the idea of using a volume list if no calculation methods are applicable, you'd simply find the volume of the created object and see which tier that corresponds to. I've made this list of where various AP methods land to help that be decided. I've summarized my findings here and here.

Armorchompy also thinks our current way of including empty space in all forms of creation feats is weird, since intuition should say that takes no energy. Our current way of incorporating it is as if there's an expanding creation-sphere creating every object along the way, that gets dimmer with the distance it travels. However, this is the only way to get universe creation feats into 3-A. Without it, iirc, they either land in 4-A or 3-C.

So I guess the current questions are:

1. In what circumstances should each of those calculation methods be considered valid? Should GBE be used for non-planets? Should GPE be used for objects not created in the air? Should Air Displacement only be used when there's an explicit demonstration of it?
2. When we don't have a way to calculate a creation feat, should we eyeball it, give it unknown, or use a volume list to give it a tier?
3. Should we reconsider the way we treat empty space?

For reference sake, I wanted to include the affected volume for explosions to Agnaa's chart, i.e. the volume covered by the airburst shockwave assuming it's spherical (which it should be).
So here are those values:

Spoiler: Explosion Volumes

10-C: N/A
10-B: 1.76714586764426e-3 m^3
10-A: 4.44517767564e-3 m^3
9-C: 0.013305788427678 m^3
9-B: 0.659583660806484 m^3
9-A: 918.418335996021 m^3
8-C: 4.58297546924977e4 m^3
High 8-C: 3.66638037539982e5 m^3
8-B: 2.02627123649643e6 m^3
8-A: 1.84765190210613e7 m^3
Low 7-C: 1.84252218395764e8 m^3
7-C: 1.06747173142195e9 m^3
High 7-C: 1.84765190210613e10 m^3
Low 7-B: 1.84252218395764e11 m^3
7-B: 1.160997799232515e12 m^3
7-A: 1.84765190210613e13 m^3
High 7-A: 1.84252218395764e14 m^3
6-C: 7.921807530280032e14 m^3
High 6-C: 1.8476519021061302595e16 m^3
Low 6-B: 1.8425221839576427015e17 m^3
6-B: 1.2882493375126645898e18 m^3
High 6-B: 1.8476519021061302595e19 m^3
6-A: 1.3984798859696923644e20 m^3
High 6-A: 8.172832344362823178e20 m^3

So explosions would kinda be the highest volume for each tier (GBE for low tiers aside).

If we look at all this I would say we should throw out GBE for those low tiers, as it doesn't fit well with the rest. The rest all have more or less the same order of magnitude (or are one or so off), so I would simply take the highest volume of those and round it to some nice value (no need to be overly precise here, given that this is imprecision incarnate). By taking the highest volume value, we get a nice low-end as far as methods are concerned. It's also larger than the reference objects, which is good.

The result could look something like this:

10-C: N/A
10-B: 2*10^-3 m^3
10-A: 4*10^-3 m^3
9-C: 0.01 m^3
9-B: 0.7 m^3
9-A: 900 m^3
8-C: 4.6 * 10^4 m^3
High 8-C: 3.6 * 10^5 m^3
8-B: 2 * 10^6 m^3
8-A: 2 * 10^7 m^3
Low 7-C: 2 * 10^8 m^3
7-C: 1 * 10^9 m^3
High 7-C: 2 * 10^10 m^3
Low 7-B: 2*10^11 m^3
7-B: 1 * 10^12 m^3
7-A: 2 * 10^13 m^3
High 7-A: 2 * 10^14 m^3
6-C: 8 * 10^14 m^3
High 6-C: 2 * 10^16 m^3
Low 6-B: 2 * 10^17 m^3
6-B: 1 * 10^18 m^3
High 6-B: 2 * 10^19 m^3
6-A: 1 * 10^20 m^3
High 6-A: 8 * 10^20 m^3

That was my first idea. However, I wonder if we should maybe lower the requirements for 6-B and above a little. Why?
The volume of our moon is 2.1958*10^10 km^3 = 2.1958e19 m^3.
In other words, due to those low ends 6-A and High 6-A kinda overlap with where we start moon level.
We could go
High 6-A = 1*10^19 m^3
6-A = 7*10^18 m^3
High 6-B = 4*10^18 m^3 (like the air displacement value).
That would prevent conflict between celestial body ranking and this, be in the range of values we are given and make for a smooth transition.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Mindovin @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @Gemmysaur @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @QuasiYuri @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @Dark-Carioca

This is still an extremely important topic, so I would greatly appreciate any constructive help here.

Please read the summaries above.

 

[Jasonsith]

My desktop is broken and needs time to repair, else I can evaluate them in a much easier way.

IIRC we are almost settled on the "air blast non-nuclear total fatality explosion yield"-to-volume method for smaller objects, and switch to GBE for celestial objects. But problem is the that explosion yield at multi-continent level would already be covering the volume of planet Earth, which creates a paradox of having a bigger GBE for a planetoid or satellite occupying a smaller volume than an explosion covering a bigger volume.

My solution?
(1) Test of GPE of raising rock from seabed level to average ground height above current sea level (again this will raise concern for how big an object to switch back to explosion yield),
(2) just switch to pulverisation values for smaller objects.