- 18,929
- 27,717
- Thread starter
- #41
Fair fair
Can you ping some other staff like clover and dale (since they've commented prior) maybe get their updated opinion
-
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.
Does this calc actually violate KE rules?
- Status
Fair fair
- 21,469
- 30,790
- 17,276
- 27,078
What's new?
- 18,929
- 27,717
- Thread starter
- #44
Nothing really, I just wanted clarification if the last time you commented here meant you were in favor of accepting it as a possibly, were still entirely neutral, or were leaning agree.
- 17,276
- 27,078
Oh thought I said already but I was leaning agree
- 18,929
- 27,717
- Thread starter
- #46
No you did say already but I was just curious for further confirmation cuz I was a bit confused.
- 31,397
- 27,687
I'm currently leaning disagree for KT's reasons.
- 17,276
- 27,078
Did I read things wrong, I don't think I saw a disagreement
- 31,397
- 27,687
- 17,276
- 27,078
Okay I might have misread earlier then I thought he a was making that statement in agreeance for some reason.
Its super late for me so I'll reread everything later for now put me back as neutral until I read again
- 1,012
- 540
- 21,469
- 30,790
We measure destruction done above the KE. If we throw a ball with 7-C force and it doesn’t crack a wall, it’s 9-B
The attacks KE is tier 5 from shoving itself through earth at high speeds. If just moving a tectonic plate an inch can cause earthquakes throughout earth, then thrusting a fat ass tree through the planet, regardless of its volume, should do a lot of damage
- 385
- 224
This isn't the case here. It's not about stoping while doing less damage, it's about passing through doing less damage. It's not the same. "Doesn't crack wall" isn't relevant here anyway, the roots should not "pierce the Earth completely" for using your example.
A ball with 7-C energy can still cause 9B damage but it won't stop from it.
doesn't matter as both tier 5 attack doing tier 7 damage and tier 7 attack doing tier 7 damage would still cause earthquakes.
That inconsistency is independent of it being tier 5. If the initial KE was tier 7, it would also cause earthquakes. What you are saying is not about the initial KE, you are just talking about the effect that the destruction should have caused on the Earth.
What my inference from your claim should be? "If effects that destruction should have caused aren't compatible with visible destruction, ...", what is the result here and how it even affects initial KE? The series just didn't take it into consideration, but even if we accept that destruction is less that volume of the roots (which is illogical) this still doesn't affect initial KE as those effects like earthquakes are depended on destruction, not initial KE.
- 13,225
- 21,036
- 385
- 224
Who said it can't crack
- 385
- 224
I literally said that "can't crack" example is invalid for this situation and why
- 13,225
- 21,036
Either way, it's true that destruction caused (if applicable) is always taken over kinetic energy
- 385
- 224
destruction should take precedence over the energy lost during destruction, not the initial energy which isn't even relevant to the caused destruction.
If a flying ball with 7-C energy can't crack a wall, using 7-C for ball is obviously wrong.
If a flying ball with 7-C energy destroys a wall and remains most of its energy, it's consistent, simple. If energy change and destruction differ, you still take destruction over it.
- 3,006
- 1,381
Couldn't we use the interpretation that the roots simply kinda "vaporize" their way through the earth? It's very common in fiction that a projectile passes through an object without destroying anything other than the part that got hit despite the fact it realistically should have.
Like if a character were to throw a 50kg ball of lead through a wall at half the speed of light and the ball only destroyed the part of the wall it directly touched without even moving a single additional brick, would we say this feat is not not even tier 9. Basically, the roots don't get fully stopped by the planet meaning they don't actually fully transfer 5B energy onto earth same way this hypothetical ball wouldn't transfer all of its energy onto the wall
Like if a character were to throw a 50kg ball of lead through a wall at half the speed of light and the ball only destroyed the part of the wall it directly touched without even moving a single additional brick, would we say this feat is not not even tier 9. Basically, the roots don't get fully stopped by the planet meaning they don't actually fully transfer 5B energy onto earth same way this hypothetical ball wouldn't transfer all of its energy onto the wall
Lou_change
He/Him- 10,152
- 5,393
Is it possible the tree could be holding the ground in place or would the tectonic plates start shifting from just the force exerted near the surface.
- 13,225
- 21,036
I mean I don't know why we'd make such an assumption in an attempt to rationalize something rather than just going off of what we know
- 18,929
- 27,717
- Thread starter
- #62
So are you switching your stance to disagreeing?
- 13,225
- 21,036
I'm thinking it over some more, I was just not a fan of that argument
Lou_change
He/Him- 10,152
- 5,393
I meant similar to how actual trees hold the ground I figured that may be something worth considering
- 385
- 224
If so it could also explain why there wasn't earthquake as roots didn't "move" anything and replaced vaporized parts. This still doesn't mean much as we don't calc visible destruction though.
Last edited:
- 3,006
- 1,381
I'm ofc not denying visible destruction but the argument is more so that earth didn't fully stop the roots so the visible destruction does not need to be even close to the kinetic energy of the roots.
Also without assuming vaporization/replacement the feat doesn't actually make sense. We don't see any big piles of removed dirt and the roots moving seem to have literally no effect on earth. And regardless of how slow they would be going and how low their KE is, they should still cause massive earthquakes and create giant piles of dirt wherever they emerge.
- 385
- 224
@Antvasima can you call DT to look at if it violates KE rules? Some arguments have been presented since his last message.
- 18,929
- 27,717
- Thread starter
- #68
He’s not going to get your ping.
Testarossa002
Username Only- 1,796
- 1,926
Take this with a grain of salt. All I have is a layman understanding of kinetic energy.
Using the ball mentioned above as an example.
If character A throws a 50kg ball at subsonic speeds at Character B, but it pierces through a cardboard, leaving a ball-shaped hole and character B catches said ball.
I think the KE should be what takes precedence in the case above over calcing the ball-shaped hole in the cardboard
What should be a disqualifier is if the ball is stopped from travelling further by the cardboard.
Then the destruction, or rather, lack of should take precedence.
Same thing with the trees here. They're not getting stopped by the planet. Just pierced through and stopped
Using the ball mentioned above as an example.
If character A throws a 50kg ball at subsonic speeds at Character B, but it pierces through a cardboard, leaving a ball-shaped hole and character B catches said ball.
I think the KE should be what takes precedence in the case above over calcing the ball-shaped hole in the cardboard
What should be a disqualifier is if the ball is stopped from travelling further by the cardboard.
Then the destruction, or rather, lack of should take precedence.
Same thing with the trees here. They're not getting stopped by the planet. Just pierced through and stopped
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,081
- 7,867
The idea that the feat isn't showing us comparable destruction to the ke generated shouldn't hold the feat invalidated. There's Shinra who definitely doesn't show mountain level destruction with his KE, KE that he constantly generates in fights. There's Monstra from RWBY who didn't show mountain level destruction when it landed on the ground. I could find more but to not make this about other verses, its pretty clear fiction isn't always gonna show us accurate destruction nor should that be a hard determiner if we accept such feats.
- 13,225
- 21,036
Shinra has actually KE on his side that's stated in-verse, and I know nothing about the RWBY verse. But check our Kinetic Energy Feats page and you'll see the following:
"Speed cannot be used to find KE when
"Speed cannot be used to find KE when
- There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the kinetic energy calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
- For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case."
- 3,006
- 1,381
Yes, but, destruction calcs only contradict KE calcs if the projectile is stopped by what it's hitting
In your example, if the metal ball goes straight through the wall without even visibly slowing down then the actual destruction doesn't contradict kinetic energy. As the energy that actually transfered from the ball to the wall would visibly be far lower than the full KE of the ball.
The same thing should apply here. The roots very clearly don't get stopped by the earth meaning the energy transfered fro roots to earth is objectively not equal to the overall KE of the roots
- 13,225
- 21,036
That's not at all a limit, it's just an example, since you'd expect a 200 kg ball being launched at Mach 300 to break through a wall. The general principle of "if the KE causes an impact and that impact's damage is substantially less than what is expected of the KE, then the destruction takes precedence"
- 3,006
- 1,381
That's just an appeal to reality. By this logic you could debunk almost any KE or speed feat ever by saying "well if they truly moved this fast they should cause X level of destruction".
- 13,225
- 21,036
That's why I said "substantially" less lol, I don't think anyone's gonna care if a High 6-C KE object causes 6-C damage but if a Low 5-B thing is only causing 6-C damage then there's trouble. Of course, that's also only if the object makes contact to begin with (instead of being stopped before it hits the ground or something like that)
Call it what you want but you're arguing against standards
Call it what you want but you're arguing against standards
- 3,006
- 1,381
Substantially or not doesn't really matter. It's literally just an appeal to reality. You can have tier 3 characters punch through tier 7 characters without damaging the rest of their body at all because that's just how things are done in fiction.
If you watch a fictional character throw a ball of metal through a wall at 50% the speed of light and unironically say "well the rest of the wall is completely unaffected so this feat isn't even building level" then you're simply appealing to reality and nothing else.
No. The standards say KE can't be used if a destruction calc contradicts the KE calc. That's not the case as the energy transferred to earth is unquantifiable and undeniably far lower than the full KE of the roots as they didn't get stopped by earth nor did they seem to visibly slow down.
Since the amount of energy transferred from the roots to earth is unquantifiably less than their full KE, there is no contradiction.
- Status
Similar threads
