- 167,680
- 76,259
Probably, yes, but it may be best to wait for DontTalk first.
-
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.
Expanding the References for Common Feats page
- Thread starter Omnificence
- Start date
- 32,835
- 38,104
Nah, there can be many timeframes to consider.
- 13,816
- 14,798
- 8,344
- 8,831
Interesting, wonder if it could be viable enough for it to be added as a common feat calc
Popeye The Sailor Man The Assorted Feats
vsbattles.fandom.com
I have another one
- 167,680
- 76,259
What do you think, @DontTalkDT ?Popeye The Sailor Man The Assorted Feats
I have another one
- 10,873
- 12,277
Yeah, "traveling across earths in seconds" is not suitable for common feats as it depends entirely on how long.
One really can't simplify it further than "Know the timeframe? Divide earth circumference by it and you have your result".
One really can't simplify it further than "Know the timeframe? Divide earth circumference by it and you have your result".
- 15,411
- 15,766
What do you think about this? @DontTalkDT
- 10,873
- 12,277
If the others are ok with it I'm too. The calc makes case-specific assumptions, though (sternum instead of rips) which would need to be mentioned when converting it for common feats.
(In general I would advertise for any new feats to be added in standard format)
Scottycj256
He/Him- 1,770
- 924
did anyone mention creating tsunamis or something like that?
- 13,816
- 14,798
Migue and I have had some tsunami calculation methods. Want to see?
Scottycj256
He/Him- 1,770
- 924
sure
- 2,363
- 1,523
- Thread starter
- #575
Does anyone mind if I made another copy or draft of the source code for the RfCF page and corrected all the grammatical errors? I was thinking about doing it in a Word document.
- 2,363
- 1,523
- Thread starter
- #577
@Antvasima Well first, I'd like to propose a bit of a cleanup of the RfCF page before we add anything else. Was thinking of copying the entire source code for it and correcting all the grammatical errors and saving up some space for it, but I have already made several corrections to the grammar and spelling on the page. Also, there was a broken link in the Weather Feats section, so I fixed it.
References for Common Feats
Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Last edited:
- 167,680
- 76,259
Okay. Thank you for helping out.
@Jasonsith
Didn't you plan to improve on the structure of the page in question?
@Jasonsith
Didn't you plan to improve on the structure of the page in question?
- 13,816
- 14,798
Yes but this requires some quality time from me or (even better) feedback from you all.
Like, how should even common feats be categorised? I have made a small recategorisation at my own blog (with "older" feats)
Would like to hear your feedback.
Like, how should even common feats be categorised? I have made a small recategorisation at my own blog (with "older" feats)
Would like to hear your feedback.
Scottycj256
He/Him- 1,770
- 924
Attack Potency, Speed, Lifting Strength
... probably
... probably
- 167,680
- 76,259
Well, according to different types of feats I suppose, such as breaking common objects, explosions, and the like, but more complex instructions are probably needed.
What do the rest of you think?
Also, can you link to your blog again please?
- 8,344
- 8,831
- 167,680
- 76,259
- 13,816
- 14,798
AFAIK "growing" and shrinking planets involve not just movement of mass but also density of it. Please refer to the formula of gravitational binding energy for what is actually happening.
Treatment can be very different on different forms of growing and shrinking.
And if mass creation or reduction involved that would be one more figure to find out and be added to the final yield.
Total yield would be
Kinetic of movement of mass involved
Plus
Difference in GBE of planet before and after size change
Plus
(If any) Energy involved in mass reduction or creation
I mean, no pointing fingers at a certain someone. Just let the calc workers reevaluate on each calc.
And assume every calculation yield unevaluated until being properly accepted or rejected.
Treatment can be very different on different forms of growing and shrinking.
And if mass creation or reduction involved that would be one more figure to find out and be added to the final yield.
Total yield would be
Kinetic of movement of mass involved
Plus
Difference in GBE of planet before and after size change
Plus
(If any) Energy involved in mass reduction or creation
I mean, no pointing fingers at a certain someone. Just let the calc workers reevaluate on each calc.
And assume every calculation yield unevaluated until being properly accepted or rejected.
- 16,084
- 12,561
Do we have a calculation for crushing billiard balls? I recall seeing one but I cannot find it.
CosmicWreck
He/Him- 674
- 385
Can we add surface wiping feats to the common feats reference page?
vsbattles.fandom.com
Average Surface Destruction
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 167,680
- 76,259
It seems fine to me at least.Can we add surface wiping feats to the common feats reference page?
Average Surface Destruction
@Jasonsith @Armorchompy
Does it seem acceptable to you?
- 15,411
- 15,766
It’s already there.Can we add surface wiping feats to the common feats reference page?
Average Surface Destruction
- 32,835
- 38,104
This was accepted like, long back.
- 13,816
- 14,798
I am thinking:Can we add surface wiping feats to the common feats reference page?
Average Surface Destruction
Why is the blast radius of 2*PI()*6375000m/2 being used.
Like, the rationale should be better explained. Why not just the Earth radius? Why not just the Earth diameter? Why not the GBE of the Earth?
Can you even imagine how a fireball such radius could actually achieve surface wiping? Can anyone even imagine how such is achieved?
Last edited:
- 4,962
- 4,424
Sorry but quick question, why aren't amps to strength used for lifting strength?
CosmicWreck
He/Him- 674
- 385
Like this maybe, except a beam or energy ball creates an explosion on contact?
- 32,835
- 38,104
And therein lies the problem. 6375000 m is the radius (The distance you'd get if you dug halfway through the Earth), that's not what we want to use here nor is it what's being used there. We want the Earth's circumference of 40075 km (The distance you achieve when you travel in a straight line around the Earth.
Think of it like this, imagine the Earth's surface being spread out like the Flat Earth stuff and being 40000 km in diameter. The Explosion covering the entire thing would thus have a radius of 20000 km. Same thing here, except the world is round.
Scottycj256
He/Him- 1,770
- 924
what happened to the kinetic energy in relation to speed chart
- 13,816
- 14,798
Great.
Make sure a simplified explanation of the rationale of using such blast radius is drafted and added to the calculation.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
- 32,835
- 38,104
But it's already there, it notes down Earth's circumference and the explosive radius being half that and whatnot. Ugarik also noted down in the comments that this is how Therefir did the calc when the other guy thought radius of Earth was being used, when in fact it was the circumference.
Much obliged.
- 13,816
- 14,798
I mean, something like: (okay I am drafting this by myself)
The circumference of the Earth is chosen for the blast diameter as this is the minimal length depicted to have the blast to cover the whole planet surface in one go.
Last edited:
Similar threads
