Freezing and Temperature Feats Continued

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, just a heads up. Technically, based on the laws of thermodynamics. It isn't just thermal energy, but the totality of all energy in the universe is a static number. The totality of all kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal energy, gravitational binding energy, electrical energy, radiated energy, sound energy, light energy, nuclear energy, Mass-energy ect. The totality of all of it in the universe is one big static number. more details here.

So in a sense, Thermal energy and Electrical energy are Kinetic energy. It's already been explained above that Thermal energy is defined as the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules within the object or atmosphere moving around to produce heat. And the only way to make something Absolute Zero in temperature is to force all atoms and molecules to stop. And Electrical energy is the kinetic energy of electrons moving around to generate electricity. Kinetic energy in general is also no different, it can't be create or destroyed but only transferred.

For example, when you start to run, you're absorbing the kinetic energy of the atmosphere so the KE in your body increases as much as the KE in the surrounding air decreases. And when you stop, the KE leaves your body and returns to the surrounding air. Or another example of transferring energy is a billiards crashing into another ball, it had X kinetic energy as it moves, but then the energy is slowly drifting outside the ball as it moves as it's getting transferred into the air via the flow of gravity. Or when it crashes into another ball and completely stops, and the kinetic energy is then transferred into the next ball.

And there's really only two forms of energy when we all look at it; Potential energy and Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy in motion; or the energy being either transferred or extracted. Potential energy is the stored energy, or energy that is either contained or passively flowing. But, potential energy is also described as the amount of work kinetic energy required required to overcome. For example, the Gravitational Binding energy is the potential energy of a planet, moon, or star being held together. So it requires the same amount of kinetic energy to disrupt that entire flow at minimum. It also requires the same amount of energy to compress that much energy all at once, that's why forming planets out of nothing requires harnessing the GBE levels of energy. And yes, the GBE of a planet can change over time due to various events such as Earthquakes, floods, asteroid impacts, ect. A planet may grow larger or smaller and thus raise or lower GBE. That's how there was a theoretical impact that created the Earth was Low 5-B; and it used to have Low 5-B levels of GBE. But over time and after numerous Tier 6 events, the Earth now has baseline 5-B levels.

Heating and cooling feats are also identical for that very reason. Regardless of transferring thermal energy, which is also kinetic energy. Regardless of raising or lowering thermal energy in an object or atmosphere, it requires an equal amount of work all the same. It requires the same amount of work to cause an object to move as it does to stop a fast moving object to completely. Therefore, it requires the same amount of work to lower the temperature of an object by X degrees as it does to raise it in X degrees.

So, our attack potency is based on the ability to displace energy; whether it's kinetic energy, thermal energy, electrical energy, gravitational energy, elastic energy, ect. However, it is agreed that energy doesn't always equal work in other scenarios. Chain reactions are a thing, but there's a difference between using tools to perform feats and doing the feats with your own powers. And of course blowing up a gas station by lighting a match is not an AP feat at all as no one used their own energy to displace that explosive reaction. It gasoline simply reacted to the spark, and the natural flow of energy simply com busted on its own.

However, performing a technique or spell to cause an explosion to happen is an Attack Potency feat because it's their own energy or magic. And so is freezing or vaporizing a lake. The energy they have is the potential energy being stored, and the Ki blast and or spell is the kinetic energy in motion being released. So all of it is attack potency. Now for verses that have a universally named energy source like Ki, Chakra, Psynergy, Ether, Mana, The Force (In Star Wars case). All of it is "Energy in the universe being displaced" much like the real world, but is far more flexible. Energy Manipulation is energy manipulation when used in that context. And the more energy that can be manipulated all at once, the stronger the feat is. Hence why DontTalk is making more sense to me.

I agree there are notes, such as the fact that energy is often used in different ways. Like Durability against blunt force trauma =/= heat resistance. And why smashing a vehicle is often only a 9-B feat despite the same vehicle being able to resist 9-A/8-C levels of heat/radiation without melting or boiling. And there's all these different elements that are more durable in different ways. It's why glass isn't more durable than solid steel despite having more heat capacity. It's for that reason that a lot of more down to earth military themed verses should just scale various weapons from their own calcs. Like just because some plasma rifles have a higher calc than some Sniper Rifles or fragmentation grenades, doesn't mean we should scale them all just because the plasma rifle does less damage to various vehicles or armored units ect. And of course, inverse square law for tanking big explosions or using calculators for the Emisivity and surface area, and specific temperatures should be used when a character is simply tanking a big heat wave are used for determining durability feats and heat/radiation resistance feats.

However, a lot of verses with a linear power level system doesn't always take those details into account. For a lot of those verses, it's just energy manipulation Vs energy manipulation. Or energy/work required to bypass the barrier of KI surrounding the character. There's PIS and Outliers in mind, but for the most part; universal energy sources treat all feats as impressive as their energy yieldings. Plenty of characters who can harness there same energy to either generate a flood, cause an Ice Age, blow up a planet, disperse a giant cloud, ect can also harness that same energy into a single small blast or punch. It's characters who control there own conversion of energy.

I could be elaborating further, but I hope this clarifies more details.

 

[KLOL506]

Aaaaaaaand DDM makes sense once again.

 

[Jaakubb]

I'd have to disagree with one of the main points DDM brought up. Not all energy is kinetic energy. Take photons for example. Photons carry energy, but since they have no mass, they carry no kinetic energy. However, all energy is still energy. You can take energy carried by photons and through certain processes, convert ot into kinetic energy. Tldr it would be inaccurate to describe everything as kinetic energy. While thermal energy is kinetic energy, many other forms of energy are NOT kinetic energy, although they are still energy and can be converted into kinetic energy.

I disagree with why cooling and heating are identical. You do NOT need to individually stop each particle in a hot object with counteracting kinetic energy. A real life example of this is with laser cooling. This is where photons are used to slow down the vibrations of particles in an object. As I said before, photons do not have any kinetic energy as they have no mass. It would be much more Occam's Razor-friendly to assume that a character is simply succing some of the thermal energy out of an object similarly to but NOT EXACTLY like the previous example than to assume that they made a counteracting force for each individual particle. However, there are some cases where the latter is most reasonable, but I will explain later.

Also I want to make it clear that in this post I am using the definition of kinetic energy used in classical mechanics.

 

[Jaakubb]

Technically light has kinetic energy, but I'm assuming that on this thread we're using the classical definition. My original point still stands unless DDM was talking about the relativistic definition of kinetic energy, which doesn't seem to be true because DDM wasnt really talking about concepts about relativity.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yeah no, you guys are throwing science where it doesn't dit The heat isn't being moved or anything in most cases, because the same way matter can be easily created out of nowhere (or do pillars of ice form from air humidity when that could barely make a meter cubic worth of ice?).

I still think that what the verse views heat as matters most. I know verses where tier eight and sevens can be burned by normal fire, but other verses make raw dura enough against heat.

There are verses where freezing and punching are not scaled to each other at all, and the opposite is true too. Trying to make a blanket rule isn't going to work, and anything that starts with "it's more reasonable to think" tends to be wrong. There is no reasonable assumption one can make for all the verse.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Honestly, I really wish people would permanently drop the Cooling Vs Heating, even Dargoo finally conceded with that. It's already being scientifically explained but Triforce and Kaltias and there hasn't been a single legit counter argument, but there have been even better explanations. It order to freeze objects, one needs to telekinetically stop particles from moving. telekinetically stopping objects from moving is equal to telekinetically launching objects. It's still the same amount of work, and therefore the same amount of AP. Supercooled plasma still requires using up quite a bit of energy in order to do actually. Freezing and object that was initially Octillions of degrees all the way down to Absolute Zero is definitely an AP feat.

The Topic here is force Vs Temperature manipulation how, going back to the Cold Vs Heat is both regressing and derailing. And yes, Tier 7 and 6 characters have been burned by house fire, and Tier 4 characters have been incinerated via getting launched into the Sun. But a lot of those cases are PIS. There are plenty of verses where temperature and force are no interchangeable. Examples are 9-B rockets blowing up vehicles that 9-A plasma rifles can't even melt.

And yes, there are plenty of verses where wizards are portrayed as glass cannons. Such as the case with Elsa and other non combat oriented magic users. But most Shounen and RPG verses and Fighting game verses basically treat kinetic energy and thermal energy, or almost every single type of energy as just "It's all Chakra" or "It's all Psynergy", or "It's all Ki" and the list goes on for various verses. And the verses basically has the stronger they are the stronger their spiritual pressure/Aura is. And one requires enough energy harnessed into a single attack in order to bypass that aura/energy pressure.

I'm aware that it's case by case. But if the lore of the verse does treat physical and magical attacks interchangeably. Then we should for those verses. That's why I made some collapsed sections in the OP explaining how a fanfic verse's story works and the two examples of how the scaling works. I gave two examples of how it would look if we decided not to treat heat and force interchangeably via same energy source and how it looks if we would.

Also, Photons could still fall into potential energy. Anything that isn't kinetic energy is potential energy.

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly at this point it's turning into a case-by-case basis. Which we do already make use of BTW.

 

[Antvasima]

Medeus seems to make sense to me.

 

[RatherClueless]

I honestly, didn't want to comment here, since I am sick, busy and lazy and since I was hoping this would figure itself out... but I guess I was wrong. I will try to keep it as short as possible.

Honestly, I really wish people would permanently drop the Cooling Vs Heating [...] It's already being scientifically explained but Triforce and Kaltias and there hasn't been a single legit counter argument

No worries, I can give those to you. So, lets look what those two said.

Yes, when you cool something down you always create even more heat somewhere else. You need energy to cool things down anyway

[...]

You need work to transfer heat from a colder object to a hotter one, and work always creates heat.

If cooling things down didn't require energy, fridges wouldn't need electricity to work.

So, what's the issue with this one? Well, it's misleading as heck. You don't need energy to cool sth down. Heat is the existance of energy while cold is the absence, the same way shadows are the absence of light. If you have a hot cup of tea, it'll cool down without you doing anything. However, if you decide to blow at it, it'll cool down faster. This leads to the next issue, the "a fridge needs electricity, thus cooling needs energy" statement. Why is it misleading? Because a fridge can never EVER cool something by diretly infusing energy. Nothing can. It is only possible cool something indirectly. Cooling works by one system spreading its energy to a close by system. If you simplify a fridge, it works the same way as wind making you feel chilly. New systems with small amounts of energy come into cantact with a (relatively) energy rich system, taking part of the energy and move on. Making those new systems move is the thing that takes energy, not the cooling itsel. Simply puring energy into a system will only ever create more heat.

Alright. Now to what Kal said... well, long story short, he isn't wrong... it is more so that I don't see how that proves "heating = cooling" or is of any use here.

Now to DDMs most recent walls of text. I'll give a TLDR right away: So what/Doesn't matter/That's misleading.

Yeah, just a heads up. Technically, based on the laws of thermodynamics. It isn't just thermal energy, but the totality of all energy in the universe is a static number. The totality of all kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal energy, gravitational binding energy, electrical energy, radiated energy, sound energy, light energy, nuclear energy, Mass-energy ect. The totality of all of it in the universe is one big static number.

This is a massive "so what?". From the following I think I know why you brought this up... but it 100% doesn't matter.

[...] And the only way to make something Absolute Zero in temperature is to force all atoms and molecules to stop. [...]

W-wow. That is so unbelievably false... it hurts. Do you know how much energy is requred to make that happen? Even just one dergree? I'll tell you. An infinite amount. The more you push against those atoms and try to make them stop, the more heat you create. The more heat you create the more the atoms want to move. You would litterally create a sea of flames when doing that XD

For example, when you start to run, you're absorbing the kinetic energy of the atmosphere so the KE in your body increases as much as the KE in the surrounding air decreases. And when you stop, the KE leaves your body and returns to the surrounding air.

lost for words is the only thing I can think of. "absorbing the atmoshpheres KE" lmfao. What KE even? Wind? Even if so, that is false. There are nice books on Aero-thermo dynamics out there. I'd recommend reading one. When you run, the atmoshere absorbs your energy (in form or KE and heat) and not the other way around and it doesn't give it back to you afterwards either.

Or another example of transferring energy is a billiards crashing into another ball, it had X kinetic energy as it moves, but then the energy is slowly drifting outside the ball as it moves as it's getting transferred into the air via the flow of gravity. Or when it crashes into another ball and completely stops, and the kinetic energy is then transferred into the next ball.

This example is far more understandable, but the "getting transferred into the air via the flow of gravity" makes no sense. Are you talking about friction creating heat, slowing down the ball? Because gravity itself is basically a non factor.

Heating and cooling feats are also identical for that very reason. Regardless of transferring thermal energy, which is also kinetic energy. Regardless of raising or lowering thermal energy in an object or atmosphere, it requires an equal amount of work all the same. It requires the same amount of work to cause an object to move as it does to stop a fast moving object to completely. Therefore, it requires the same amount of work to lower the temperature of an object by X degrees as it does to raise it in X degrees.

Oh boy. Lets make this quick. A truck driving up a slope from 0-100 kmph with strong winds coming from the front, vs the same truck in the same condition going from 100-0. What requires more energy? You are litterally taking the most perfect of perfect scenarios here... which are completely non applicable... at least not on earth.

Well, that should be that for now.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. That was a pretty good rebuttal.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I also don't tend to comment on this, since my comments on the initial thread tended to lead to great annoyance.

Rather, we already know what cooling is. There have been threads and threads of it. All of the people (who have been paying attention, at least) should have a solid idea of what cooling vs heating is. At the moment I believe it is considered equal largely because it is still manipulation of the energy, removing it from the system. The "heating = cooling" statement largely just refers to them being the same push in opposite directions. One adds energy, the other subtracts.

Dunno what the other bits are about if I'm entirely honest, but allow me to beg for one minute: let us not return to deciding the definition of cooling in terms of energy for another eight threads until we all die of old age.

 

[Antvasima]

That is probably a good idea.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Clueless has been rather elaborate, but I still don't consider him on point. But Bambu said it best that the only differences between freezing and heating feats is the direction. They're about as parallel as creation and destruction and as parallel as rising and falling. It does require work to prevent balloons from floating. Or if someone is flying, it requires work to hold them down.

Anyway, the point I was making was that Kinetic energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. When you punch and object, the kinetic energy of your fist is transferred into the object you punched. Also, even things like drinking water is the kinetic energy or potential energy of the water is absorbed into your blood. And even chewing food is kinetic energy is being used to transfer the potential energy of the food into your body.

And yes, temperature feats are still kinetic energy in the sense. Punching an object to increase speed is still AP in the same Way accelerating particles to generate heat is an AP feat. And Punching an object to repel the kinetic energy so that the collision explodes into the atmosphere this stopping the object is the same us freezing an object. It's still using energy to extract energy as it explodes into the atmosphere. Thus slowing down or stopping the atoms and molecules in the process.

And yes, it's extremely difficult to stop atoms and molecules via traditional real world methods, but the same thing is said about moving at the speed of light. Though, at the moment, it's only theoretical that lightspeed relativity requires infinite energy; it doesn't in fiction for obvious reasons. Since the Speed of Light has been proven to be finite speed. Lots of characters can just telekinetically stop those particles from moving completely. And if other areas need to be heated up, so be it. But AZ temperatures are still AP and calculable. And even Colder than Absolute zero is a thing in fiction. Just as much as FTL movement speed is in fiction.

If the truck is speeding full on, and only accelerating. Punching it with enough force to instantly make it come to a complete stop does require a significant amount of energy to answer the truck example. I'm well ware of other factors such as gravity and the like. But, what if all of the above is being controlled by one character all at once? There's nothing to argue against the character's true power in that regard.

I agree with Bambu that we really need to stop constantly repeating topics that aren't worth the same 8 or more threads being repeating over and over again.

 

[Agnaa]

They're about as parallel as creation and destruction and as parallel as rising and falling. It does require work to prevent balloons from floating. Or if someone is flying, it requires work to hold them down.

This comparison's misleading, imo. You add energy into a system when creating or destroying something. You add energy into a system when raising or lowering something. You add energy into a system when increasing the temperature, but not when decreasing temperature. Heating/cooling is more analogous to creating/absorbing, but we don't consider absorbing things to be AP unless that absorbed energy is later used for an AP feat.

And Punching an object to repel the kinetic energy so that the collision explodes into the atmosphere this stopping the object is the same us freezing an object. It's still using energy to extract energy as it explodes into the atmosphere.

These are very different. The energy required to cool an object is not proportional to the energy required to heat an object. Or in other words, the energy used to extract energy when cooling an object isn't proportional to the energy extracted.

But AZ temperatures are still AP and calculable.

I never knew that we calculated AZ temperatures, that sounds insane to me. There's a reason we don't calculate KE when it gets close to or above the speed of light. I'm fine with it being a thing in fiction of course, but we shouldn't be calcing it when we know physics doesn't work there.

I agree with Bambu that we really need to stop constantly repeating topics that aren't worth the same 8 or more threads being repeating over and over again.

Honestly, aside from this there's nothing to talk about until Dargoo comments here again.

 

[Jaakubb]

These are very different. The energy required to cool an object is not proportional to the energy required to heat an object. Or in other words, the energy used to extract energy when cooling an object isn't proportional to the energy extracted.

I don't remember seeing any rebuttals to this.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Main thing would be "there ain't nor proof anything is being moved or removed and relocated almost every time".

I certainly don't see objects burning into plasma around the aoe attacks of Esdeath. My problem with using the energy needed to remove heat for cooling calcs is that the heat isn't being removed, it goes "poof".

If we don't make people at absolute zero high 3-A though freezing feats (though enough energy to make a black hole could do the trick) because it's an outlier, then making a verse with top tier 8 feats tier 7 or higher for the same reason is also a no for me.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, AZ feats are not High 3-A, nor is traveling at Speed of Light. Freezing a normal human to AZ temperatures for example is a 9-A feat using the heat capacity of a human and average mass. But stuff like an object was initially Octillions of degrees Celsius and freezing that to more normal temperatures is clearly a massive AP feat.

And while it can be questioned where all that heat goes as the atmosphere or environment don't appear to be much hotter despite that, it could be absorbed into the character who froze it.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Certainly not in the real world, it isn't that little. And 8 don't think there is one piece of fiction that presents octillions of degrees getting frozen as not an AP feat.

I do know there are pieces of fiction where a lake is frozen over but everyone is consistently 9-B, even people that tank attacks from magic that uses the same energy source as the freezing.

 

[Jaakubb]

The surrounding environment doesn't burn into plasma because of the inverse square law. If you distribute a large amount of energy over a large enough area, the effects of the energy will be unnoticeable.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, AZ feats are not High 3-A, nor is traveling at Speed of Light. Freezing a normal human to AZ temperatures for example is a 9-A feat using the heat capacity of a human and average mass.

I know that it wasn't accepted on profiles at High 3-A, but I don't think we should use calculations to or near AZ, for the same reason that we don't use KE for SoL or faster feats. We don't accept SoL and above KE just as long as it's below High 3-A, after all.

But stuff like an object was initially Octillions of degrees Celsius and freezing that to more normal temperatures is clearly a massive AP feat.

This can be done naturally without a ton of energy. But even if there were circumstances that made it require a ton of energy (the hot object being a good insulator, the heated object having a lot of mass, etc.) it would still be far less energy than what heat capacity would tell you, and there isn't really a good way to calc exactly how much that amount would be.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We're still going off topic that Bambu and DontTalk already pretty much concluded long ago. And I can't think of examples either, but let's say a character has a body that's X times hotter than the center of the sun. And he has impressive AP based on instantly burning everything he touches. And he can heat up even hotter which makes him grow even stronger. And it's considered extremely difficult to cool him down, which is implied to be the only way to defeat him.

Then someone managed to take him out by freezing him to Sub-Zero temperatures. I know Killer Instinct is 6-C via scaling from a Lake freezing feat, but that feat is legit. It's an alien that freezes things effectively via his own super cooled plasma like body. And his cold is canonically just as strong as Cinder's Heat. And both of them trade blows with other KI characters.

 

[Jaakubb]

Not a good example at all. Lake freezing feat shares nothing in common with cooling said character down. Where are you getting all of these random circumstances that apply to an inconceivably small fraction if any at all of cooling feats?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We literally explained that countless times. Other people are bringing them up and they're used to explain mathematical correctness. The lake is still getting frozen because all the molecules of water are getting slown down. Ugarik, Bambu, and Xulrev already explained that freezing requites negating X levels of heat. Which canceling out energy is enough to be considered AP. A refrigerator would be completely useless if not for the electrical energy empowering it. And if anything, it requires more energy to extract thermal energy than it does to raise it. Which is perfectly realistic given that the speed of darkness is actually faster than light.

Anyway, I'm going to have to take care of other stuff as I'm personally exhausted from this thread. And I really wish someone like DontTalk could be back here soon, but I hear he's gotten even more busy. Ugarik is also pretty level headed, and Executor N0 is normally also someone very level headed with this type of stuff, but I hear he's also busy.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with DDM, and honestly we've exhausted this topic to the point where only Dargoo and DT are needed to finalize what will go through, since they're the experts with this.

I have studies to take care of so if anything notable happens, LMK

 

[Agnaa]

To not derail I've moved my response to a message wall thread.

 

[Agnaa]

After talking to DDM on his wall, I now agree that freezing feats are similarly valid to heat feats, and that verses with a shared energy system should be able to have temperature feats scale to force if that energy system is used for force, without needing to prove this scaling.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Let's wait for DontTalkDT and Dargoo then, so we can conclude this. Thank you for helping out.

 

[KLOL506]

DT apparently has time until next Monday, Saturday and Sunday are your only chances of finishing this.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Let's hope that he can straighten this out then.

 

[Agnaa]

Looks like this didn't get straightened out...

We won't have time for this before the forum move, but will DT have time after the forum move?

 

[KLOL506]

IDK, I've messaged him a few times but IIRC his stance on this is still the same as last time judging from the comments above in the thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh right, yeah, Dargoo commenting may be more important.

 

[KLOL506]

Dargoo also seems to be busy as of late.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So I was summoned back here and I prepared myself to have another long bout with DDM or DT regarding work/force vs. heat feats, however the thread has somehow regressed to talking about heating vs. cooling feats again.

I'm not sure how obvious I've made this, but on the very first thread I proposed this, not even halfway through the comments there, I explained that my complaint regarding how we classify those feats was related to the semantics of how we defined Attack Potency and not disregarding the feats as a whole. The fact that the thread topic is still heavily suggesting that's the main line of discussion is probably a decently sized factor into the mess of discussion that's here. I also blame that on my poor structuring of my initial OP on the subject; this discussion has changed entirely since then. I've conceded that argument months ago.

As for the topic of segregating heating feats and force feats, I was under the impression we already agreed that by default they can't be conflated; there was just a disagreement between myself and DontTalk regarding how this applies to verses with a universal energy/power system (this is magic 99% of the time).

So I'm kind of confused why a lot of the newer posts, DDM's included, are regarding freezing vs. heating instead of heat vs. force; I thought that discussion was done ages ago.

For future reference, by the way, contact me on discord, I respond to pings there immeasurably faster than DMs here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The reason was because a couple regular users kept bothering the staff about it, and I was hoping for that to clarified permanently. But there are still some who are commenting via message walls regarding that, but I agree that the regression was getting out of hand. However, I explained that the laws of thermal dynamics actually applies to all energy in general, not just thermal energy. However, thermal energy is technically Kinetic energy technically speaking. That's why AP is still AP and Universal energy source is Universal energy source.

I made clarifications that blunt force trauma tanking =/= Heat resistance, but looking at the OP also included collapse posts of how example verses treat distinctions.

 

[Agnaa]

So I'm kind of confused why a lot of the newer posts, DDM's included, are regarding freezing vs. heating instead of heat vs. force; I thought that discussion was done ages ago.

Because we got bored with no progress being made on other areas, since some regular users disagreed on that, we talked about that instead for a while. The thing we're trying to resolve is scaling heat feats to force feats in a power system.

As for the topic of segregating heating feats and force feats, I was under the impression we already agreed that by default they can't be conflated; there was just a disagreement between myself and DontTalk regarding how this applies to verses with a universal energy/power system (this is magic 99% of the time).

Yes. And this still needs to be resolved. I really just wanna get this shit agreed on because then I have a lot of questions about how to practically apply it with verses I know, which can't be done until we reach an agreement here.

I think the only meaningful progress we've made on this since you were last here, is that I've been moved onto the "pro scaling heat to force via the same energy source" side.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

However, thermal energy is technically Kinetic energy technically speaking.

That's correct in that they're both energy; although my point was that the two propagate in fundamentally different ways, and that the ability to produce/resist one doesn't suggest an equal ability to produce/resist the other. This distinction in how they spread and how they're defined is intrinsic to thermodynamics.

You can have a dense object that's hard to apply force to that has a low specific heat, for example. We've kind of had this discussion though; and the technicality that nearly everything in the universe can be expressed in terms of energy doesn't really change much on the conclusions there.

So all this really proves is that heat and force can be expressed through our tiering system, but when considering feats they can't really be conflated, still.

Yes. And this still needs to be resolved.

I'm not sure what can be done to resolve it; it's a (nearly) even split between staff members.

 

[KLOL506]

So then what? We're 100 more comments away from the thread getting closed. We need to do something.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I actually offered a collapse post of examples to give details of what both sides are saying as well as an example typical verse. Plus, I already explained that a lot of verses just have it explained that the more energy uses, the stronger the attack regardless of energy type. And energy precision is a thing regarding any type of elemental attack or melee attacks.

Yes, I agree that surviving a 9-A plasma rifle doesn't mean someone can survive a 9-A punch to the face, or that surviving a 9-A punch to the face doesn't mean they can survive a 9-A plasma rifle without melting or vaporizing. But Universal energy manipulation is still energy manipulation for verses that actually do treat those feats interchangeably.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure what can be done to resolve it; it's a (nearly) even split between staff members.

I can see about two options:

• Continue debating the merits of each option among ourselves.
• Highlight the thread to get more input.