• 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.

Creation Feats & Tiering System Note 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jasonsith said:
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.
Click to expand...
DontTalk has already resolved this by gradually and arbitrarily moving to values between explosion and GBE in tier 6.
 
I've spoken on this thread at length before. I still prefer GBE where applicable. I'm very neutral towards the whole "air displacement" thing but I don't really have any better suggestions if people dislike the results GBE gives. That's pretty much all I can say, still. 'pologies.
 
I'm pretty much on the same boat as Bambu. I'd prefer GPE where possible, but the air displacement also seemed to work relatively well. However I do recall problems with both.
 
A large part of the discussion right now is on whether to use the volume table or not, and what exact form it would take. I would appreciate comments on that, as well.
 
I'm in a similar mindset as Bambu currently, air displacement and GPE are good possible methods. But I recall that they did have problems yes.

A volume table could be worthwhile, but I would assume it would come with a lot of problems.
  • Like how would we measure the volume of buildings? Just the space their walls and actual structural materials take up, or the entire inside walkable area too?
  • I would also assume creating something with a volume of 1 cubic metre, but as dense as aneutron star, would be much more impressive than something with the density of cotton. So perhaps mass should come into play, and it should be more of a mass table?
 
Those are worthy things to consider, and I'm not very fussed either way they turn out.
 
KieranH10 said:
I'm in a similar mindset as Bambu currently, air displacement and GPE are good possible methods. But I recall that they did have problems yes.

A volume table could be worthwhile, but I would assume it would come with a lot of problems.
  • Like how would we measure the volume of buildings? Just the space their walls and actual structural materials take up, or the entire inside walkable area too?
  • I would also assume creating something with a volume of 1 cubic metre, but as dense as aneutron star, would be much more impressive than something with the density of cotton. So perhaps mass should come into play, and it should be more of a mass table?
Click to expand...
Yeah, mass should definitely come into play here.
 
That is indeed another option.
 
@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 one of the 3 most important threads in this community to finish right now, so help would be very appreciated here as well.
 
KieranH10 said:
I'm in a similar mindset as Bambu currently, air displacement and GPE are good possible methods. But I recall that they did have problems yes.

A volume table could be worthwhile, but I would assume it would come with a lot of problems.
  • Like how would we measure the volume of buildings? Just the space their walls and actual structural materials take up, or the entire inside walkable area too?
  • I would also assume creating something with a volume of 1 cubic metre, but as dense as aneutron star, would be much more impressive than something with the density of cotton. So perhaps mass should come into play, and it should be more of a mass table?
Click to expand...
This is what I was saying.
A mass table would be better imo
 
KingTempest said:
This is what I was saying.
A mass table would be better imo
Click to expand...
But the non-nuclear air blast total fatality formula never uses mass.
Only rock pulverisation tables will have mass. (& rocks obviously occupy volume too)

Are we switching our formula to tackle this issue?
 
DontTalkDT said:
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:
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.
Click to expand...
Using the volume table I got here (with the modification to High 6-B and above) and multiplying by 2700 kg/m^3 density of continental stone (the most common material for calcs and probably creation feats) we get the following mass table:

| Tier | Mass (kg) |
|---------- |----------- |
| 10-C | 0,0E+00 |
| 10-B | 5,4E+00 |
| 10-A | 1,1E+01 |
| 9-C | 2,7E+01 |
| 9-B | 1,9E+03 |
| 9-A | 2,4E+06 |
| 8-C | 1,2E+08 |
| High 8-C | 9,7E+08 |
| 8-B | 5,4E+09 |
| 8-A | 5,4E+10 |
| Low 7-C | 5,4E+11 |
| 7-C | 2,7E+12 |
| High 7-C | 5,4E+13 |
| Low 7-B | 5,4E+14 |
| 7-B | 2,7E+15 |
| 7-A | 5,4E+16 |
| High 7-A | 5,4E+17 |
| 6-C | 2,2E+18 |
| High 6-C | 5,4E+19 |
| Low 6-B | 5,4E+20 |
| 6-B | 2,7E+21 |
| High 6-B | 1,1E+22 |
| 6-A | 1,9E+22 |
| High 6-A | 2,7E+22 |

Do you guys think that works as a mass table?
 
Thank you for helping out. I greatly appreciate it.
 
I believe we are at the point that we have general agreement on a mass-based table to sort in creation feats.
There was no general agreement on a specific table, though. I posted one suggestion for one in my last post.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Using the volume table I got here (with the modification to High 6-B and above) and multiplying by 2700 kg/m^3 density of continental stone (the most common material for calcs and probably creation feats) we get the following mass table:

| Tier | Mass (kg) |
|---------- |----------- |
| 10-C | 0,0E+00 |
| 10-B | 5,4E+00 |
| 10-A | 1,1E+01 |
| 9-C | 2,7E+01 |
| 9-B | 1,9E+03 |
| 9-A | 2,4E+06 |
| 8-C | 1,2E+08 |
| High 8-C | 9,7E+08 |
| 8-B | 5,4E+09 |
| 8-A | 5,4E+10 |
| Low 7-C | 5,4E+11 |
| 7-C | 2,7E+12 |
| High 7-C | 5,4E+13 |
| Low 7-B | 5,4E+14 |
| 7-B | 2,7E+15 |
| 7-A | 5,4E+16 |
| High 7-A | 5,4E+17 |
| 6-C | 2,2E+18 |
| High 6-C | 5,4E+19 |
| Low 6-B | 5,4E+20 |
| 6-B | 2,7E+21 |
| High 6-B | 1,1E+22 |
| 6-A | 1,9E+22 |
| High 6-A | 2,7E+22 |

Do you guys think that works as a mass table?
Click to expand...
Looks valid to me
 
DontTalkDT said:
I believe we are at the point that we have general agreement on a mass-based table to sort in creation feats.
There was no general agreement on a specific table, though. I posted one suggestion for one in my last post.
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT said:
Using the volume table I got here (with the modification to High 6-B and above) and multiplying by 2700 kg/m^3 density of continental stone (the most common material for calcs and probably creation feats) we get the following mass table:

| Tier | Mass (kg) |
|---------- |----------- |
| 10-C | 0,0E+00 |
| 10-B | 5,4E+00 |
| 10-A | 1,1E+01 |
| 9-C | 2,7E+01 |
| 9-B | 1,9E+03 |
| 9-A | 2,4E+06 |
| 8-C | 1,2E+08 |
| High 8-C | 9,7E+08 |
| 8-B | 5,4E+09 |
| 8-A | 5,4E+10 |
| Low 7-C | 5,4E+11 |
| 7-C | 2,7E+12 |
| High 7-C | 5,4E+13 |
| Low 7-B | 5,4E+14 |
| 7-B | 2,7E+15 |
| 7-A | 5,4E+16 |
| High 7-A | 5,4E+17 |
| 6-C | 2,2E+18 |
| High 6-C | 5,4E+19 |
| Low 6-B | 5,4E+20 |
| 6-B | 2,7E+21 |
| High 6-B | 1,1E+22 |
| 6-A | 1,9E+22 |
| High 6-A | 2,7E+22 |

Do you guys think that works as a mass table?
Click to expand...
@Promestein @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 @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @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 @Agnaa @KLOL506

I would greatly appreciate continued input in this thread, as it is very important.
 
Thank you to everybody who are evaluating this. Given that this is a very important change, we need to wait a bit to see if more staff members are willing to respond here.
 
I've mentioned disagreement but I accept the table on the premise that it is largely accepted by others, yes.
 
Okay. Thanks a lot for all of your help. It is extremely appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
Tier 2 revision/question?
Replies
1
Views
707
Wankbreaker
Wankbreaker
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Questions about Multiverse level feats and Multipliers
Replies
14
Views
1K
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
Laxxius
  • Locked
Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
DC Comics: The Light of Creation/The Great Darkness/The Presence (Vertigo) - Clean-up
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
SunDaGamer
  • Locked
Minor change on the Creation Feats page
Replies
12
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top