Freezing Calcs, and Why they Make No Sense

[Jaakubb]

Do you guys want to discuss this on discord or something?

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DontTalk basically said that we should treat cooling feats and heating feats equally for similar reasons why creation and destruction are treating equally. It was also explained on another thread that cooling feats aren't much different then cloud dispersion feats and that while it's true that cold is basically just lack of thermal energy, it's still often equal to heat in other areas. Such as it required equal amounts of energy to cool something a certain temperature than it does to heat something the same temperature. And surviving Sub-Zero temperatures is treated as equal to surviving in climate temperatures hotter than human body temperatures.

Dargoo still seems to disagree, but Andy, Bambu, DMUA, and myself still agree with him.

 

[Andytrenom]

>we should treat cooling feats and heating feats equally for similar reasons why creation and destruction are treating equally

That makes no sense given the current proposals, treating ice and impact attacks as interacting with the target differently and needing sperate showings to withstand at a given level. How destruction and creation will be equated in terms of harming someone I, well, kinda find it fun to think about actually lol

Edit: Ignore this, I misread something

 

[Antvasima]

I trust DontTalk's sense of judgement.

 

[Xulrev]

I still stand firm by Bambu here as well as my own words; the original statements he and I made further up the thread stand true, and no amount of wordplay dismisses that, and as a result it should be treated as AP still.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Anton, Andy, and a variety of regular users agreed with me, while Agnaa, DontTalk, and Bambu dissented, although the only people who debated it properly were Agnaa/Bambu and myself.

I can't say much other than I put out my arguments in full. I've evidenced that heat and force resistance has no correlation, I've explained that our system needs to assume physics is continuous in fiction for calculations to exist, and that we should treat heat realistically as it is often treated in both fiction and in RL, where we source the constants used for the calculations we perform.

I'm generally not surprised by the outcome of this (I'm actually more surprised I managed to convince Andy and Anton of my arguments), but dissapointed nontheless. I'd personally like more input from other calc members and staff, although I doubt that'll change much.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reading Andy's comments, I thought he agreed more with DontTalk. At least the first few, not sure about his most recent post though. And I agree that being too tired isn't an argument, but given the numerous threads that are all over the place, it's no surprise. Bambu also said he was tired of it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Whether someone's resilience to ice attacks can be equated to his overall durability tho, I might side with "No". I don't think being able to take cannon balls, laser beams or explosion without breaking would usually imply they have the ability to keep heat from leaving their body as well, equating different types of durability for simplicity's sake is fine, but if the method of attacking is different enough it cannot be assumed to be stopped by the same type of durability

Now, this concept is in fact something we already follow, but I'm not quite what our official stance is for equating durability against cold and durability against other attacks

@DDM reffering to this.

 

[Andytrenom]

@DDM I agreed with Donttalk when the proposal appeared to be about outright dismissing freezing feats as AP. I don't support that now either, I only agree with creating a distinction between impact based feats and temperature feats

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"Creating a distinction between impact based feats and temperature feats" is kind of the crux of what I'm arguing now, given how discussion went here.

It's why Earl ended up making a new thread that was linked here, with that specifically as its topic.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree that there should be some distinction but that depends on case by case. For potent characters, distinction them kind of over complicates them. Characters like Goku or Superman's level don't really distinct them well unless PIS is involved. But for Urban stuff and below and especially the durability of various vehicles, I do agree that there should be some distinction. Using it for basic tiered verses and characters is fine, but it's not good to overly complicated higher up tiers. Especially if Tier 2 Fire and Ice exists.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I feel like even for above-Urban level characters you still see some distinguishment, it's more that when you're talking about planetary explosions and supernovae, the temperatures associated with those feats are already so ridiculously high that heat resistance is already part of the package.

It would be beneficial to distinguish even those, as I can think of a few characters who can induce enormous heat over small areas, but not really an extreme amount of force.

Like I said previously I don't intend on disregarding the feats, just having a different mindset on them.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if this requires a complicated analysis and balanced solution, I probably shouldn't interfere, as I do not have the time to properly involve myself in such a manner.

 

[Jaakubb]

Still, potential energy doesn't scale to AP. I can come up with two examples

Take volts for example. Volts are a measure of electric potential. At face value, one would assume that taking a shock with more volts is more deadly than with less volts. This is usually partly true, but in reality, voltage isn't actually significant as to whether or not you will be injured by a shock. What really matters is current, which is the rate of flow of electricity (almost like J/s which scales to AP).

Also, suppose you go on a space elevator in a completely airless planet, then you jump from that height. You have a lot of potential energy, but all of that potential energy comes from the elevator pushing you up. None of the potential energy comes from you.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The elevator example isn't really the equivalency and it's not a feat at all We use potential energy for launching or throwing objects at great distances, not for carrying them up elevators or stares. Throwing a 1000 kg rock 2000 meters high is a 1000 kg * 2000 m * 9.807 m/s^2 = 19614000 Joules or Wall level+ feat.

We're also well aware of the lightning example because inverse square law and more the electrical resistance rather than shear durability is what protects from lightning. Tanking lightning isn't 8-C', but bending lightning bolts or pulling them out of the clouds are also often 8-C.

 

[Jaakubb]

We use potential energy for launching or throwing objects at great distances, not for carrying them up elevators or stares.

In that case, those are kinetic energy calcs, not potential energy calcs. To launch the objects, you need kinetic energy. Potential energy does not scale to AP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Potential energy is still a baseline for Kinetic energy of launching feats. If there's on screen speed of the large object being thrown or launched, then we can calculate the speed and put that into the kinetic energy calculator. But in a book for instance where we're given how high they threw the object but no time frame or launching speed. We do calculate Potential Energy.

 

[Jaakubb]

It is still kinetic energy. The act of launching an object into the air requires kinetic energy, not potential energy. Kinetic energy is defined as "energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion." I am bringing this up because in the other thread (which you closed and said we should just continue on this thread) you said that characters' AP scales to their potential energy.

And yes, we are calculating potential energy, but because we know that it solves for the exact same solution as kinetic energy, so we're basically solving both at the same time. That's like solving for y by solving for x and then saying "we didn't solve for y, we only solved for x!" (given that x=y).

 

[Jaakubb]

And that wasn't the point of my example with volts. The point is that potential energy (in this case, volts) has no correlatio with the amount of damage an attack deals. Sure, you can't have amps or watts with zero voltage but it simply isn't true that higher voltage equals higher damage.

 

[Jaakubb]

Also, I think that dispersing heat into the environment should be considered an Environmental Destruction feat at best that doesn't scale to other stats because:

It shows no indication that the character is able to produce these levels of energy themselves

and

We have no proof that the character can use this heat dispersal effectively in an offensive manner (Ex. by absorbing it like doomslayer does with argent energy OR focusing the heat in one spot).

We can't just assume that they can focus all of the energy into one spot to attack others, and the assumption that they are dissipating heat so spread out into the environment that it is barely noticeable is MUCH more Occam's razor-friendly than the assumption that the character is DESTROYING ENERGY or absorbing megatons of joules.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We already addressed that point; we once again can't simply dismiss Freezing Calculations at all. And even Environmental Destruction scales to Attack Potency often times. Krake is High 6-A via a global flood. And actually, if often does require producing massive amounts of energy in order to disperse that much energy all at once. Remembered when you said the way refrigerators work is that the fans on the inside blow energy away? By that logic, it could be argued that most Ice attacks such as freezing lakes or stars are like super strong winds. Wind energy is also Kinetic energy and thus 100% combat applicable. Kind of making it counter intuitive.

 

[Jaakubb]

That is NOT how refrigerators work. The only reason the fans on the inside blow air is to keep a constant current of air. Again, if I put an ice cube into a drink (or in the case of the refrigerator, introduce refrigerant to a refrigerator) I don't need to mix it or anything for the heat to go to the ice cube, conduction happens automatically/naturally and needs no outside energy source as that is the nature of energy(higher energy place to lower energy place).

 

[Jaakubb]

Environmental destruction is still case by case. For example, humans use a bunch of energy every second but can't use it in an offensive context (I mean things household appliances, not armaments). The reason why Kraken's stats scale to 6-A is because apparently a physical action of his caused a 6-A event to happen (I'm just gonna assume that it's like the All Might feat which I find to be valid btw). The pope from science friends or whatever that show was called doesn't scale to his flooding feat because he has never been shown to be able to actually produce the energy himself, like in this case.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mostly agree with Jaakubb's points here.

I will note, however, that typically the cases we're talking about are characters who induce lower temperatures supernaturally (although us calculating it as a feat to begin with assumes that it operates on natural properties), so there seems to be a conflict of interests with trying to assign a number to the feat while also really considering it a feat to begin with.

I feel like it's been made pretty obvious that heat transfers and force applications don't translate to eachother for feats, though.

 

[Jaakubb]

We're also well aware of the lightning example because inverse square law and more the electrical resistance rather than shear durability is what protects from lightning. Tanking lightning isn't 8-C', but bending lightning bolts or pulling them out of the clouds are also often 8-C.

Doesn't high resistance make you take more energy though? The more conductive an object is, the less energy is lost in the form of heat. Apparently, a superconductor wouldn't be damaged at all by electricity because it has no resistance. Electricity durability feats can still probably be calced as heat feats if we can assume resistance. We could probably assume that a character has the same resistance as a normal human body. Couldn't electricity technically bypass durability by directly affecting the nervous system?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It depends on context regarding electricity resistance. For Metal Gears example, Colonel Volgin does legit bend all that electrical energy and harnesses every bit of it into Naked Snake/Big Boss's body. But a normal person surviving a naturally occurring lightning bolt is generally a Street level durability feat since he only absorbs part of the energy.

 

[Jaakubb]

Basically what I said is: More resistance=more energy tanked. Superconductors (no resistance) will take zero damage.

 

[Jaakubb]

I will note, however, that typically the cases we're talking about are characters who induce lower temperatures supernaturally (although us calculating it as a feat to begin with assumes that it operates on natural properties)

I don't know, wouldn't that point invalidate all magic feats in general? Shouldn't we still be able to calc it if it's valid?

 

[Jaakubb]

correction on a mistake i made, refrigerators use convection, not conduction (still very similar)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I don't know, wouldn't that point invalidate all magic feats in general? Shouldn't we still be able to calc it if it's valid?

Not really?

The assumption we make is that they operate off of natural laws in terms of how much energy is removed, so it's fair to say that the energy transfers in the same way heat does given the fundamental properties of heat are why specific heat works the way it does in the first place.

It's more a jab at us not being internally consistent than a real push for us to disregard the feats altogether.

 

[Jaakubb]

What do you think about the whole potential energy vs kinetic energy thing? Aren't potential energy calcs where an object is thrown into the air technically also kinetic energy feats? The feat is throwing the object into the air, not the object falling, and throwing an object obviously involves kinetic energy.

 

[Antvasima]

@All staff members

Can somebody provide a summary of the conclusions here?

 

[KLOL506]

AFAIK, DontTalk, Bambu and DMUA have disagreed with this thread's proposals. Medeus also has the same conclusions, while some like Andy and Agnaa agree with Dargoo's proposals on cooling feats, but almost everyone here is in agreement that heat should equate to AP and durability. At least, that's what I found here.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, DontTalk and the calc group members have prioritised authority when it comes to evaluating our calculation standards and practices, and if they mostly have support in their rejection of this suggestion, that further cements that it preferably shouldn't be applied then.

 

[Agnaa]

After reading DontTalk's response I changed my stance to also disagree with the proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that we should close this soon then.

 

[KLOL506]

Let's wait for Dargoo's response first.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It was agreed by Calc group members that we shouldn't make a distinction between heating and cooling feats for similar reasons to why creation and destruction feats are equal, or why telekinetically bending energy still equates to producing energy. In some cases, the durability required to survive extreme temperatures can be taken with face value with inverse square law among other things. And various characters and vehicles less than Urban may need to make some distinction; especially the durability of vehicles. But distinction of force and heat for characters who are like Goku/Superman level would just over complicate the System.

I can agree to wait for Dargoo, but I also agree that it should be closed soon and that we shouldn't be outright discrediting cooling feats anytime soon.