• 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

Ser_Hakim_Dayne said:
And for the horses ?
Click to expand...
Wait, surviving injury is a problem for dura. Bears can survive a needle going at a bajillion joules through their paw. It should be "At least "X animal's durability""

Like "At least Street level (Can one-shot horses)" for horses &

"Attack Potency: At least Wall level (Can one-shot elephants)"
 
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
Click to expand...
This is a great idea.
If it's possible, it's also better to organize the list of feats so that each pages are more homogenous in topics. How they're organized is up for a discussion.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much if not exactly what I was going for. It's not to hard to make a relevant split. Let me put it this way...

1. The minimum recommended RAM is 8 GB. 4 GB works for Windows XP/Vista, but most websites became unusable to those OSes.
2. I have 12 GB of RAM on my laptop and it struggles to copy-paste a sentence on the References for Common Feats pages.
3. ImmortalDread stated that they and JustaRandomButler use 64 GB of RAM, but most people don't really have that luxury. I don't think we need a gaming rig to edit what is essentially a Word document on a web browser.

Metalballrun said:
Are there accepted calcs/formulae for calcing regular punches?
Like the general AP of a punch based on speed and weight (e.g. Character A weights 69kg and throws a punch at 420 m/s).
Click to expand...
Not as far as I'm aware. Afaik, there are three ways to calc a punch: https://wayofmartialarts.com/average-force-of-a-punch/

They are force, pressure, and energy.

For energy, they pretty much determined how much force a punch can exert over a foot and be done with it. Using the energy model, the average person can do 100-110 ft-lbs, or 135.6 to 149.1 joules (10-A). Rocky Marciano, the only heavyweight boxer with a calculated punch energy rating, can do 925 ft-lbs, or 1254.1 joules (9-C).

For force, apparently a human can punch at 800-1200 newtons. I'll use two distances: 1 foot, and the length of my own fist-clenched arm facing forward (23 inches).
Human TypeForceEnergy (1 foot)Energy (Arm Length)
Average Human800-1200 Newtons243.84 to 365.76 joules467.36 to 701.04 joules
Amateur Boxer2500 Newtons762 joules1460.5 joules
Elite Heavyweight Boxer5000 Newtons1524 joules2921 joules

Lastly, basing things on pressure (and using the general rule of thumb of 4 square inches for the impact area), here's what I can gather.

Human TypePressureForceEnergy (1 Foot)Energy (Arm Length)
Average Human70 to 150 psi280 to 600 lbs (1245.5 to 2668.9 newtons)379.63 to 813.48 joules727.62 to 1559.17 joules
Flyweight Boxer447 psi1788 lbs (7953.4 newtons)2424.2 joules4646.38 joules
Heavyweight Boxer1066 psi4264 lbs (18967.2 newtons)5781.2 joules11080.64 joules

I would have preferred a more reliable resource than that random .com site I linked, however. Just pointing that out in case people wind up being tone-illiterate on me.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
@Just_a_Random_Butler
Click to expand...
Ah, I see.

So it's not just splitting it into two, but you're also open to splitting it into three if necessary. However, this raises the question, of where exactly or what part should we start to perform the split and when will it become necessary to split it again?
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
Ah, I see.

So it's not just splitting it into two, but you're also open to splitting it into three if necessary. However, this raises the question, of where exactly or what part should we start to perform the split and when will it become necessary to split it again?
Click to expand...
I do think it's possible to put crate destruction into a collapsible table rather than all those dang subsections in order to maybe reduce memory, but other than that, hmm... The only way I thought of so far is splitting cosmic feats (ex. shaking Earth) from the non-cosmic feats (ex. crushing skulls).
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
Ah, I see.

So it's not just splitting it into two, but you're also open to splitting it into three if necessary. However, this raises the question, of where exactly or what part should we start to perform the split and when will it become necessary to split it again?
Click to expand...
I am not sure. Sorry. But feel free to summon other staff members to give input regarding where the page should be split to make it easier for all of our members to edit.
 
Flashlight237 said:
What of this?: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267849753_Forces_Required_to_Vertically_Uproot_Tree_Stumps

Uprooting trees is a common feat, and just the stumps need at most 60,000 kN (6118.29727787 kg) of force, which is Class 10.
Click to expand...
Flashlight237 said:
Don't mind me, just fixing a common feat: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Flashlight237/Common_Feat_Fix:_Breaking_a_Lock
Click to expand...
I think that the above calculations seem fine to add if they have been accepted.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
Click to expand...
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
Ah, I see.

So it's not just splitting it into two, but you're also open to splitting it into three if necessary. However, this raises the question, of where exactly or what part should we start to perform the split and when will it become necessary to split it again?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
I am not sure. Sorry. But feel free to summon other staff members to give input regarding where the page should be split to make it easier for all of our members to edit.
Click to expand...
This still needs to be handled btw.

@Damage3245 @Mr._Bambu

Your input help would be very appreciated here.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a note that I do not mind if we split the page into two or three pages named "References for Common Feats 1/2/3", as long as we link to all of them in the relevant top navigation template.
Click to expand...
Can I get a summary of why we'd want to do this?
 
Antvasima said:
I think that the above calculations seem fine to add if they have been accepted.
Click to expand...
The first one you quoted (the tree thing) should already be fine since it is an actual published study rather than something from a wiki member dinking around. The 2nd one (the lock thing), I still haven't gotten a single evaluation for it and all I was doing is patching an already-existing common feat.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Can I get a summary of why we'd want to do this?
Click to expand...
Let's see...

As the page currently is, editing is laggy to a point where simply copy-pasting a sentence (which is normally done immediately) would chug on a computer with 12 GB of RAM. That's when you consider...

1. The minimum recommended RAM is 8 GB. 4 GB works for Windows XP/Vista, but most websites became unusable to those OSes.
2. ImmortalDread stated that they and JustaRandomButler use 64 GB of RAM, but most people don't really have that luxury. I don't think we need a gaming rig to edit what is essentially a Word document on a web browser.
3. ImmortalDread even implied that he had issues with the page crashing on him in a response to Propellus despite having 64 GB of RAM.

It's like Jenga, man. You can only stack so much before the whole thing comes crumbling down. If a page is prone to lagging and even crashing, don't you think it's high time to take the L here?
 
Flashlight237 said:
Let's see...

As the page currently is, editing is laggy to a point where simply copy-pasting a sentence (which is normally done immediately) would chug on a computer with 12 GB of RAM. That's when you consider...

1. The minimum recommended RAM is 8 GB. 4 GB works for Windows XP/Vista, but most websites became unusable to those OSes.
2. ImmortalDread stated that they and JustaRandomButler use 64 GB of RAM, but most people don't really have that luxury. I don't think we need a gaming rig to edit what is essentially a Word document on a web browser.
3. ImmortalDread even implied that he had issues with the page crashing on him in a response to Propellus despite having 64 GB of RAM.

It's like Jenga, man. You can only stack so much before the whole thing comes crumbling down. If a page is prone to lagging and even crashing, don't you think it's high time to take the L here?
Click to expand...
Theoretically editing is a much lesser issue than opening the page for the average user. I'll check out the page and see how it works for myself, I guess, but it complicates things if we're splitting it. Users gotta ctrl+F through three pages now instead of one. Just a thought.

I dunno what "L" you're proposing I take though lol, I just asked a question, man.

Also, Dread's a chick.
 
Okay, briefly tested it out. I think the reports are a little exaggerated as my PC is far from a superbeast, and I copy-pasted an entire calculation into it with about 3-5 seconds of delay. I don't particularly mind splitting it, if people are truly that upset over a minor delay in editing, but I think it inconveniences our users somewhat.

an alternative, of course, would be to accept that about 50% of what's on there at the moment isn't actually a common feat, and is just a general feat, but that's another discussion entirely
 
Well, it probably shouldn't be too hard to find both pages if we link to them in consecutive order in their top navbox template as well as in our wiki navigation bar.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, it probably shouldn't be too hard to find both pages if we link to them in consecutive order in their top navbox template as well as in our wiki navigation bar.
Click to expand...
You're right. I think it's a tiny problem right now, and can be fixed with tiny inconveniences, which is more or less my reasoning for not having strong feelings either way.
 
There seems to be a question about the skull-crushing standard feat here:

vsbattles.fandom.com

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

What do you all think?
 
JTGamer96 said:
We've already discussed that down below.

We just need someone to put it in a calculation.
Click to expand...
You really don't need a calculation for it; they already gave ya a value for the LS needed; it's a "just add it in" deal like the skull feat.
 
Flashlight237 said:
You really don't need a calculation for it; they already gave ya a value for the LS needed; it's a "just add it in" deal like the skull feat.
Click to expand...
Would you or someone else mind doing it? I'd do it, but I'm at work right now and doing classes on my phone.
 
So i found this post on Quora relating to the vaccum of space
It gives a number on the force that the average guy would experience when being sucked into the vaccum of space, so i wanted to discuss if that could be used for the ref page, since rescuing someone from being sucked in or holding on to prevent yourself from being sucked in is a thing that happens a lot in fiction, although it usually isn't treated as a superhuman feat of strength
 
So is splitting the references for common feats page into two or three parts a good idea or not?
 
I feel like it'd be better to just streamline it, I've thought about doing it but I don't wanna deal with all the bureaucracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Flashlight237
Common Feat Fix: Throwing Someone into the Horizon
Replies
4
Views
977
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
About Crushing Skulls
Replies
10
Views
3K
KingTempest
KingTempest
MaybeWantsToEdit
Can this calc be used?
Replies
6
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
GoldenScorpions
Freezing the Earth question
Replies
2
Views
1K
GoldenScorpions
GoldenScorpions
Back
Top