Freezing and Temperature Feats Continued

[KLOL506]

Dark makes sense.

 

[Jaakubb]

I'm NOT saying that freezing feats can't scale to anything else because they use supernatural energy, but because it doesn't require the character to produce or tank any quantifiable amount of energy AT ALL. I'm FINE with putting freezing feats in AP, just don't scale it to durability, other attacks, or anything like that. Not even as supporting feats. Andytrenom was fine with this. Same goes with storm feats by extension because storms are simply chain reactions caused by cooling, so for example, dark souls tier 6-B should be downgraded.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean, we seem to agree that you can't really scale heating/freezing in of itself to statistics like physical durability and striking strength. And I've put forward the argument that even with a shared power system this is true.

That said, scaling freezing attacks to other freezing attacks (and possible to heating attacks, since they operate generally on the same principle) seems fine to me.

I'd rather not get into a discussion on specific verses here; we can make a Dark Souls thread some time later if this is accepted.

 

[Jaakubb]

I was just bringing up dark souls as an example. Virtually all storm feats should be discarded because they're just a chain reaction caused by cooling, which requires no quantifiable energy output.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Both. Explosions are an example of a heat-based attack that's also a force-based attack, considering the heat of the reaction (the fireball) and the shockwave. So you'd have the heat of it vaporizing the rocks, and the force generated by the explosion it causes thereafter, which, given the simplicity of the example you're giving, can both be pretty easily calc'ed.

So if I understand it correctly the vaporization energy calculated still completely counts for both AP kinds of the beam?

I never said that. My issue is with scaling force-based techniques to heat-based techniques. There's a lot less issue with scaling heat-based attacks to heat-based attacks than there is that.
Yeah, but that sentiment is exactly what I disagree with. And tbh when we can scale light techniques to darkness techniques, we are already doing scaling way more questionable than kinetic to heat energy based techniques.

Amongst the countless supernatural powers there is just no reason we would do this specific distinction and scale between different attributes of supernatural techniques for everything else.

And as long as we tier both after the amount of energy the different type is irrelevant.

Physics wise it is natural to assume that supernatural power converted into a phenomenon goes 1-to-1 energy wise. There is simply no reason for massive amounts of energy to disappear to nothing in the process.

Fiction wise this virtually always the case anyway. A mage with lots of supernatural powers is virtually always perceived powerful, regardless of which spell is cast.

And it is way more practical to assume this to start with.

I see nothing we would gain from throwing out physics, common understanding and practicality in order to accommodate exceptions.

Exceptions can be dealt with and they will usually show themself. Writers use tropes to have to explain less to the reader, which is why we usually get the appropriate explanation when the system deviates from the trope.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I wouldn't say 'virtually all of them', although yes, like I mentioned above a large amount of them should be re-evaluated.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DT hammers the nail in the thread yet again.

 

[KLOL506]

I am also in agreement with DT

 

[Jaakubb]

Freezing feats tho? Can we at least agree that they cannot affect anything else at all? And storm feats too by extension.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT makes sense to me as well.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with DontTalkDT too if I didn't make it clear.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Also Wikipedia says that 40-50% of an explosion comes from the blast and 30-50% of an explosion comes from thermal radiation. However, most sources I've seen (funnily enough including the source Wikipedia linked) saying that it's 50% blast and ground shock and 35% thermal radiation.

So if we decide to separate force and heat in the end, 50% of the explosion to be credited to force and 35% credited to thermal radiation (again, unless it exceeds the maximum energy intake).

As Antoniofer said though, if we know the specific heat, we don't need Inverse Square Law.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So if I understand it correctly the vaporization energy calculated still completely counts for both AP kinds of the beam?
No. I was saying that in the case you presented me, you could do separate calcs with ridiculous ease.

Yeah, but that sentiment is exactly what I disagree with. And tbh when we can scale light techniques to darkness techniques, we are already doing scaling way more questionable than kinetic to heat energy based techniques.
I can't really see why you disagree with the sentiment, considering our site operates on it already.

I'm not entirely sure about how pointing out 'more questionable' stuff we do makes heat to force scaling any less questionable. It just points out other issues that need to be tackled.

Amongst the countless supernatural powers there is just no reason we would do this specific distinction and scale between different attributes of supernatural techniques for everything else.
This argument doesn't make much sense either, really. I could take that sentiment and just say 'we already disregard the scientific standards we use to judge supernatural feats so much, so let's just start scaling lifting strength to striking strength and vice versa'. It has a clear bias towards the status quo of the site implicitly, and is basically a catch-all handwave for improving our calculation and cataloging methods in any capacity. Imagine if this was used during our various revisions of our storm standards, nothing would be done.

tl;dr: Pointing out that we as a site have issues in other places, again, doesn't make this issue any less significant, and kind of sidetracks the discussion in general.

Physics wise it is natural to assume that supernatural power converted into a phenomenon goes 1-to-1 energy wise. There is simply no reason for massive amounts of energy to disappear to nothing in the process.
I don't feel like you understood that part of my argument was that, even if this was our first assumption, more times than not that assumption is contradicted back and forth, as these energy systems plainly don't act like IRL energy. So I'm not sure if you're asking for an assumptio to be made, or if you're asking for an opinion to be insisted against overwhelming opposing evidence.

And honestly? The assumption should be that IRL physics and fictional physics are the same or similar until shown otherwise. In which case, force and heat aren't very much equatable if it follows traditional physics, and energy doesn't scale 1 to 1 between these feats regardless if it doesn't follow traditional physics. There's no real justifiable argument for scaling.

A mage with lots of supernatural powers is virtually always perceived powerful, regardless of which spell is cast.
This statement peeves me a bit. "People are saying the mage is powerful, therefore all his magical abilities scale" has like, zero connection between the claim and the evidence given. In a medieval fantasy setting, I'm sure citizens would wet their pants at the prospect of someone summoning storms and literally nothing else, that doesn't mean his generic energy bolts also happen to contain the combined energy of that storm.

I see nothing we would gain from throwing out physics, common understanding and practicality in order to accommodate exceptions.
This is just confusing though. You started off your argument by telling me that we outright disregard fundamental differences in physics, therefore we don't need to differentiate force and heat, and now you're telling me that my proposal 'throws out physics, common understanding, and practicality'.

It seems to me that what's being touted here isn't 'physics, common understanding, and practicality', but rather the status quo of the site. Which, from your own words, disregards all of these for convenience.

 

[Jaakubb]

Are you guys talking about nuclear explosions or explosions in general?

 

[KLOL506]

I think it's about nukes but I don't know if the full yield would scale if it's at point-blank.

EDIT: YEP, it's nukes. I looked up what Spino was saying and it led to this page: Effects of nuclear explosions

 

[Jaakubb]

I mean at point blank the thermal energy comes from photons released by the reaction so I think it could scale?

But freezing feats though! I'm completely fine with listing freezing (and by extension storm) feats as AP but it cant scale to other attacks and durability!

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Jaakubb

I can almost guarentee you that (practically) nothing will change regarding how we treat heat feats as long as the "same power system, it scales" argument is valid for interchangable stats.

Basically the same thing happened with Environmental Destruction when I wrote that page; it was a great concept that was approved nearly unanimously (probably because it was already used on the site at the time), but a few loopholes made it never apply in a lot of meaningful ways.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, part of the problem is that it takes an awful lot of work to overturn a system used for thousands of pages, and we seldom seldom seem to manage the resources to actually properly apply major revisions nowadays.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I'll help.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm still with DontTalk here all the way. And actually @Dargoo, I can think of plenty of verses where Tier 7/6/5/4/3/2 tiny fireballs and lightning bolts are a thing. Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system and are often performed by mages from verses with a universal power source. Especially when there exist instances of storms getting undone by physical strikes, or pocket realities getting shattered through physical blows.

Yes, there do exist verses that have Shaman type characters who aren't physically considered all that superhuman and would simply just have ED. But plenty of Shounen, RPG style verses, fighting games and verses where gods exists do portray them as being 100% combat applicable.

 

[KLOL506]

DDM makes a good point as usual.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Well, part of the problem is that it takes an awful lot of work to overturn a system used for thousands of pages, and we seldom seldom seem to manage the resources to actually properly apply major revisions nowadays.

So we can't apply major revisions of any kind on our site?

And I mentioned earlier that I don't intend for this to have the staff suddenly put everything down and start re-writing the entire wiki; we can have stuff that's gradually introduced to the site as long as it has people consistently doing small work on it.

I can think of plenty of verses where Tier 7/6/5/4/3/2 tiny fireballs and lightning bolts are a thing.

Which is great, because I'm not saying they can't exist, I'm saying that we can't translate a large fire's energy to a punch's energy by default.

Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system and are often performed by mages from verses with a universal power source.

Totally agree. Both blatantly disregarded the infrastructure we used to calc feats and often operated on pseudo-science that we made up ourselves. One of them, storms, had consistent improvements in this regard, however, due to great effort from our calc team. I wish the same could be said of pocket realities, but that's something that can be discussed in a more relevant thread.

Although none of what I just said or what I just quoted above has anything to do with this thread, really. I'm not sure what was brought up; I'm not questioning the use of storm calcs as a whole.

Especially when there exist instances of storms getting undone by physical strikes, or pocket realities getting shattered through physical blows.

Which are actual feats of striking strength. Why bring this up when we're talking about interchangeably using heat and force? I feel like this is just padding your previous point.

Yes, there do exist verses that have Shaman type characters who aren't physically considered all that superhuman and would simply just have ED. But plenty of Shounen, RPG style verses, fighting games and verses where gods exists do portray them as being 100% combat applicable.

This doesn't seem to actually be arguing against my points against our methods of scaling. Instead, this kind of just assumes that mixing around heat and force attacks is fine to begin with, therefore there exists verses that 'portray' them as scalable, when my entire issue here is the standards that let us do that in the first place.

On a side note, I'd perfer if we didn't repeatedly leave "I agree with" comments unless the opinion's been changed or there's something beyond that to add, as those will eat up the thread's 500 comments extremely fast.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not saying that no important changes can be applied, just that it is hard to get them done in practice, especially if it is uncertain if they are even particularly beneficial.

 

[Jaakubb]

@Jaakubb
I can almost guarentee you that (practically) nothing will change regarding how we treat heat feats as long as the "same power system, it scales" argument is valid for interchangable stats.

Literally my entire point' for why freezing feats don't scale is because they DON'T' involve a power source proportional to the energy displaced during the feat. NO energy is produced, energy that is ALREADY in the environment is moved.

Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system

No. Storms are just storms unless the text says otherwise. They are chain reactions that happen as a result of cooling.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

especially if it is uncertain if they are even particularly beneficial.

Well, there's already a wide consensus on the matter of heat and force feats being seperated by default (something which is already done on multiple profiles, if I might add), my talk with DontTalk just concerns cases where they are sourced from the same power/energy system.

So I don't know how whatever consensus we get from my and DontTalk's discussion will particularly affect the amount of work that will be done to implement this, as we're already implementing the majority of it. And as a result I don't know why this point is particularly relevent here.

 

[Jaakubb]

So are we done with the heat vs normal kinetic energy thing? Force is the wrong term.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah. I don't recall any administrators or even regular users rejecting that premise (they only rejected it not being listed at all, and we're past that), and it was supported by around 4-5 staff just off the top of my head.

Force is only wrong in that it's not what we're measuring for, but fair enough.

 

[Jaakubb]

So are we gonna focus on freezing feats now? The "same energy source" argument had nothing to do with my arguments against freezing feats scaling to other stats.

 

[Abstractions]

If Cold has no bearing on durability or AP, should a more clear distinction between Ice and Cold be made? As one is a byproduct of the other but only Ice can be used in a manner that pertains to defending or attacking and thus be scaled to KE.

If so, should we then expand or change the existing Absolute Zero page to be something more than just extreme freezing?

Also, if we now put Heat resistances under durability and it is made compulsory, how do we then quantify someone's effective resistance 100% of the time?

I'm really sorry if these are pointless or dumb questions.

 

[Jaakubb]

Ice is just what you get when water is really cold and it is a physical object. If the ice is being launched at high speeds, then sure, the kinetic energy of the ice can be called. However, if the ice is absorbing heat, the amount of thermal energy absorbed doesnt scale to anything unless the character is tanking the thermal energy.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'd rather a conclusion be reached on my talk with DontTalk before we proceed with more particulars, personally.

 

[Jaakubb]

Sure. I have no strong opinion on that so I'll wait.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Dargoo Faust, it isn't just those fireballs being the same potency as the larger AoE spells being precise, but a lot of characters do use the same magic that's used to effect a planet's atmosphere to enhance their strikes.

Pocket Reality feats or creation feats in general are very much interchangeable with destruction feats for the same reason light and darkness calculations are interchangeable as well as heat and cold feats. They're all feats of power that we can't simply just "Ignore".

I said context and case by case is the key. Not every magic user is versatile yes, but a whole bunch of them are. Gandalf for instance has striking strength comparable to his magic; used a non RPG example so there. And yes, Fire Emblem is a common example in which Magic resistance inherently scales from Magical Attack Potency. Which I can explain later.

@Jaakubb, again; those words are approaching overwhelming amounts of headcanon for plenty of verses. Plenty of characters do use their own power to form thunder storms. Example being this. It is an S-Rank Tome that can only be wielded by S-Class Thunder Magic users as those weaker aren't powerful enough to use it. And it's consistent with various C rank to B rank tomes getting 8-A to 7-C results plus other S Rank tomes like Rexflame, Rexcalibur, and Rexaura should be the same by lore. Example of a storm feat being 100% combat applicable.

I do agree that staff consensus is important, and that comments that are nothing but, "I agree with blank" are kind of clogging the thread. And other staff members could be asked, but I'm positive most of us agree with DontTalk.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Are you guys talking about nuclear explosions or explosions in general?

Well for some reason according to our explosion yield calculations page it says that if the explosion is a nuke we can just scale the character to the whole yield, but if it is not a nuke we need to multiply by 50%.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You mean add 50% right? Multiplying by 50% is just halving the result.

Edit: Nvm you actually need to half non-nuke explosions.

 

[KLOL506]

Even though the opposite is true of this. Even the link there is explicitly saying that only 50% of the nuke's energy is from the blast, and only for nukes (The same link Spino posted). Guess our Explosion Yield Calculations page needs a little bit of fixing.

What about tanking it at point-blank tho? What then? Me personally, I think the full yield would scale given Jakubb's reasoning so prolly nothing will change regarding taking explosions right in your face.

No idea about freezing feats tho, sorry.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

a lot of characters do use the same magic that's used to effect a planet's atmosphere to enhance their strikes.

And? What says that's translatable?

Do they have planetary striking feats?

Pocket Reality feats or creation feats in general are very much interchangeable with destruction feats for the same reason light and darkness calculations are interchangeable as well as heat and cold feats. They're all feats of power that we can't simply just "Ignore".

You clearly missed where I said that line of discussion was off-topic.

And in the case of what's actually relevant for this thread, obviously there's different kinds of 'power' as our system so often differentiates already. I'm not saying a heat-based feat isn't a feat of 'power' at all, just that it's a feat of heat-based power.

I do agree that staff consensus is important, and that comments that are nothing but, "I agree with blank" are kind of clogging the thread. And other staff members could be asked, but I'm positive most of us agree with DontTalk.

Only 2 staff members (you and Ant) have weighed in on DontTalk's points, though, out of the larger majority of admins who have participated on this thread.

I'm also refraining from discussing specific examples too much, I'd rather not have this thread derail significantly by turning into a proxy revision for multiple verses.

 

[KLOL506]

Spino is in agreement with DontTalk, and I think Bambu and DMUA have also weighed in their agreement with DontTalk AFAIK

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Spino is in agreement with DontTalk, and I think Bambu and DMUA have also weighed in their agreement with DontTalk AFAIK

Fair enough on Spino; I wasn't considering calc team as staff when I posted that. So I'll revise my statement to 3 (Spino, Ant, DDM).

Bambu and DMUA commented on the previous thread, where I was arguing something entirely different which I have already dropped. If we're speaking for other people though and using completely unrelated arguments for a tally though, Andy, Kep, Anton, Ricsi, Damage, and even (indirectly) Ant has supported my points above. Which is why it's more wise to have them weigh in seperately on my conversation with DontTalk.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I unfortunately haven't had the time to read the entire discussion, and do not remember it all that well at this point.