Freezing and Temperature Feats Continued

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Just creating something maybe, taking out the energy to make the ice not so much.

I already said this, if the implication of the ice or the fire shit or whatever is as a showcase of power or something determined by power, it should totally be usable. And if the source is a general source that fuels other things like physical abilities, there's no reason I can find not to scale it to them (if proper scaling happens of course).

 

[Jaakubb]

I'm fine with using it as a showcase of power. Feature it in a respect thread or something. Just don't pretend that the feat automatically means the character is capable of producing energy comparable to the energy moved out of the ice. That's all I'm arguing for. There's lots of impressive things a character can do that have little to no effect on AP.

Also could we try putting non combat applicable AP ratings in red? Like this or something

8-C environmental Destruction

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

First of all, I think discarding author intent as a general rule is dumb, what the writer of a story was trying to get across is obviously going to be important to what's happening in the story, it's just that sometimes events in-universe contradict the author's word or he is unaware of all the implications of what he's written, in which case we would give priority to what's happening in the story rather than what the author says or we think he intends

So let me get this clear that Freezing feats can be quantified and catalogued to start.

But to comment on this personally, I think we sort of dropped the privilege of making that argument the moment we made our standard for quantifying character feats fan-based-calculations, which operate on real life principles. It's rather hypocritical to say 'well, authorial intent can be thrown aside so we can do our calcs' but then add on 'but we can't ignore it when the same science we use to do our calcs debunks them'. Obviously our extrapolations of an author's work are liable to be critiqued in ways that the author's work can't.

Secondly, Freezing feats being the character's power is mostly made clear within the narrative itself

"Freezing being the character's power" is not a mutually exclusive claim from "freezing is different and should be classified as different than punching something".

I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles.

 

[Agnaa]

Also could we try putting non combat applicable AP ratings in red? Like this or something

That doesn't work in profiles, coloured text takes its own line and I don't think there's a way around that.

For example: 10-B physically,
8-C environmental Destruction
, 7-A with Super Duper Saiyan

 

[Jaakubb]

Oh yeah, just use span instead of div.
Bruh, bruh

I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles.

Yeah, now that andy brought up that AP doesn't automatically scale to any other stats, I've changed my mind. I agree that it should be listed separately. We could use color to make sure that it's clear which AP stats aren't combat applicable. Maybe dark red instead of the red I used. darkred

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think coloring the text is a good idea; that's kind of extra effort and messy to type in source mode editor.

 

[Andytrenom]

"It's rather hypocritical to say 'well, authorial intent can be thrown aside so we can do our calcs' but then add on 'but we can't ignore it when the same science we use to do our calcs debunks them'. Obviously our extrapolations of an author's work are liable to be critiqued in ways that the author's work can't"

I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion "author intent can't be ignored even if debunked by science" from my argument. My issue was playing the author intent card where it doesn't apply, such as discarding ice feat's correlation to power even though that's usually implied within the narrative and not via baseless word of god statements or the author having contradictory views on the character's power which is what we ignore

As for debunking author intent, I don't see where that comes from either, freezing not being an output of energy in real life does not contradict the fact that a character's ability to freeze things is often tied to their level of power in their fictional setting, not really seeing how your argument applies to anything I actually said

"I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles"

If I hadn't made it clear before then alright, I'm perfectly fine with listing temperature feats as a separate form of AP and durability to other feats. The only thing I'm arguing is related to format, where such feats will be listed, and my answer is where all the other feats depicting the power of characters are listed: the AP and tier sections

 

[Jaakubb]

But freezing feats will not be able to be used as supporting feats, or anything that affects other stats of a character, right? I'm not quite sure about this argument so I'll probably be wrong, but I'll make it anyways (devils advocate i guess). Freezing feats "often being tied to [a character's] level of power" and "usually implied within the narrative of too arbitrary

Also coloring text is easy, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Antoniofer]

I personally believe that the freezing power being bound to a source of energy do not change much, see the example of someone that can freely freeze 10 m radius innately with someone that does the same but tied to a limited supply of certain energy. Would say the last one is "weaker" in the sense that is going to run out of fuel eventually, meanwhile the other one limitation is simply being conventional tiring (assuming it draws stamina), but with our current system the last one is steongest cuz it actually use some kind of supply.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Yes, rate of cooling is important.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

> or anything that affects other stats of a character, right?

Honestly I can't think of any scenario where we take a freezing/heating feat and apply it to blunt durability or punching strength, or other forms of damage like electricity.

The arguments for it ever doing that falls loosely into these two camps:

• Their punching/striking shares a power force with the heating and freezing, therefore it should scale.
  • This firstly assumes that the power source (Ki, Chakara, Magic, Whatever) functions identically in energy values and properties to energy in real life. While some verses might make a point out of this (a lot of hard-magic verses go in-depth about energy exchange in magic), far more often the in-verse 'energy' contradicts RL energy in a way that makes equating the two a false equivalence.
  • Even if the power source functions identically to RL energy, even in RL heat and force aren't really equatable, this is a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics.
  • Considering these both, if the energy source isn't realistic than it can't realistically translate, and if it is realistic then it still can't realistically translate.
• The verse treats heating and striking as the same type of damage.
  • The only examples that I can think of where this happens is Video Games, where fire and striking both drain the enemy's health pool with little differences. Although this is clearly an example of Game Mechanics (obviously game developers won't spend 90% of their resources differentiating how heat and blunt force damage their enemies), some games do add in little details in stuff like executions to differentiate them.

 

[Antoniofer]

To be fair, most Health Bars refer to endurance, Durability is generally DEF (but it can also be dodging, blocking and/or parrying, depends of how the verse treat it), and thus generally translate to "amount of damage before fainting or dying".

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

> and thus generally translate to "amount of damage before fainting or dying".

Problem is, because it's a game, it often doesn't differentiate between different kinds of damage in regards to this. Which is why I pointed out how it's more game mechanics. My point applies if it's health or DEF we're talking about, really.

 

[Antoniofer]

Welp, I wouldn't suggest to use such a simplistic mechanic in order prove that heat = blunt damage, as you suggested; but there's a bunch of other mechanics that separate different types of damage and defensive statistics. Tabletop games for example explicitaly (at least the ones here) separate the different types of damage.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So I suppose we agree on this, then?

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah sure, guess stuff like this is would be no longer applicable, am I right?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Not everything is entirely game mechanics; there's just Power Levels in general for a lot of verses. As DonTalk said, many verses simplify power scaling in which character A > character B in every way or consistently grow stronger than they were yesterday and all that. Also, some characters have literally growing stronger also makes them faster and all there elemental techniques are increased.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Not everything is entirely game mechanics

Never made that claim. I'm calling an extremely specific argument game mechanics.

there's just Power Levels in general for a lot of verses.
Not sure what 'power levels' is describing here, and how it ties into equating the thermodynamic equivalent of apples and oranges. Some examples would be helpful.

 

[Jaakubb]

Honestly I can't think of any scenario where we take a freezing/heating feat and apply it to blunt durability or punching strength, or other forms of damage like electricity.

Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

Aren't some storm calcs done by KE? iirc they also have really really close values.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I feel like we're far too generous with applying storm calcs to (combat applicable) AP, personally.

 

[Antoniofer]

We're too generous in general, in ancient times we at least didn't scale any kind of power to combat applicable AP, or scale travel speed to reaction speed for example; people sometimes forget that we have the Unknow rating, one rather put that instead of assuming stuff.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

We scale random rubble to AP because they supposedly moved at mach speeds and thus hold a specific amount of KE while ignoring that the same amount of KE would vaporize normal rubble, so stuff like storm calcs aren't the only things we are too leniant with.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I disagree, I think we're far too knit picky with stuff that are clearly their own attack potency that the feat is clearly related to their own power. Yes, there are plenty of glass canon shaman like characters, but a lot of "Mystic Knight" type RPG characters easily have storm feats combat applicable.

Anyway, someone should probably inform someone like DontTalk or Mr Bambu

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Maybe, but acting like moving water vapor at mach and making a storm with it out of nowhere is just cherry picking the physics we'd like to apply for a feat.

But in this ckntext, the only reason Freezing would scale to normal AP would be the intent of having the freezing be a showcase of power, like Aokiji freezing the see like it's nothing. But then taking that part of author intent and extrapolating it to "the power released by their attacks is equal to the amount of atom movement they negated" is way to bug a jump for me.


But not like there is a correct way to rate all fictional characters correctly.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Pretty much every cloud creation feat using cooling as the method, and I can think of a lot of character who are scaled via creating Ice Bergs out of thin air.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean, how does that matter to what I said?

I'm saying I disagree with how things are done. Saying they are done that way isn't changing that.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Is not really a bug jump.

This is one area where I very much feel unreasonable nit picking is bringing up shit. We can only go so far with not being able to take some sort of assumption, no matter how simple, before we are rejecting things that I don't see couldn't be taken as completely legitimate.

It just comes to a point where it feels genuinely just close minded and inflexible.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You can't, in any way, convince me that a tenth of our characters with heat feats were actually meant to be manipulating the vibration of atoms by author standards, especially for storm feats or the like.

With author intent being the main reason such a thing would actually scale, it's a rather weak argument for me. Especially since we are using physics that give us numbers we want but we are ignoring other physics that would make this impossible. It's literal cherry picking to justify the feat.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

You are entirely free to tell me how else would we get something out of those feats then,

Isn't that what we do already for a majority of cases to fit things the best we can to the unreasonability of fiction without bending things too much? Not stacking calcs, no KE without good reason with how liberally authors forget it, etc.

Because the way this is sounding is just leaving any ice feats in complete non existence because no method that would satisfy you exists.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You can't use science where it's inapplicable man. As said above, unknown is a thing. You might dislike freezing stuff not being able to give you a hard number in joules, but that neither makes me wrong nor you right.

You might notice those two are not using physics due to in-universe contradiction. No calc Stacking because it gives inflated results, no KE without proper reason because fiction doesn't always treat speed=kinetic energy, and heat would fit that just as well. We don't equate creation to energy to mass conversion due to lack of byproducts that should exist.

Really, the same type of rule would even work well. "Don't use these feats unless the verse makes it clear it works as the calc would assume".

 

[Agnaa]

Anyway, someone should probably inform someone like DontTalk or Mr Bambu

I've asked them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Bambu has already commented on the topic and, iirc, mentioned that he didn't want to discuss it further, although since I've abandoned trying to remove freezing/heat from AP/Durability entirely hopefully he's more amicible to comment again.

 

[Antvasima]

Which pages would need to be updated with explanations of the agreed upon new standards?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Agnaa already gave me a short summary of what is suggested, but can someone give me a precise in-depth formulation of exactly what changes are suggested at this point?

Not really too eager to get into this, but I probably should take a look now.

Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

Aren't some storm calcs done by KE? iirc they also have really really close values.

Storms are giant heat engines. Technically heat and KE are more or less the same thing for them, just that the way the approximation works is different.

 

[Kepekley23]

I feel like we're far too generous with applying storm calcs to (combat applicable) AP, personally.

I agree.

Our cloud formula in general needs to be dealt with, which I'll hopefully do once I get enough time to.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Which pages would need to be updated with explanations of the agreed upon new standards?

I think that going through individual pages would be too unweildy. We should instead look through calcs of heat feats, look into how they're applied in the verse it's from on here, then, if the heat is used to scale to physical strength/durability statistics, it should be listed as "X level physically, Y level against heat-based attacks."

We could go through a similar process for storm calculations, with the difference being that under AP it would be "X level, with Y level Environmental Destruction".

@DontTalk

Essentially we've ruled out various justifications for scaling heat-based feats to physical durability and striking strength, and we've ruled out doing it by default. See above for my suggestion in regards to practically applying this.

Additionally, we've also determined that characters cannot resist heat-based attacks purely based on physical force resistance feats, although within a degree of common sense (I don't think we'll see anyone arguing a 5-B with no heat resistance feats dies to a house fire, but something like a 9-B/9-A with no such feats wouldn't be capable of surviving 9-B to 9-A levels of heat-based attacks). Additionally, characters with high heat resistance feats cannot resist physical attacks purely based on their heat resistance feats.

I'll emphasize that heat-based feats will still be listed under attack potency and durability, I wrote out an example of how this would be worded above.

 

[Agnaa]

@Dargoo I think Ant was also asking what regulation pages need to have their explanations updated. As I'm certain that something somewhere will need to be rewritten to implement this.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

So just kinda skimming through as someone who kinda goes with the flow on all this calculation and science stuff...

If there is a character who uses say, a fireball or something like that and their attack vaporizes a lake or something, would this be outlawed with the new standards or is this in a safe zone?