-
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.
Freezing Calcs, and Why they Make No Sense
- Thread starter Dargoo_Faust
- Start date
- Status
- 10,758
- 6,491
"You opinionate that fiction often treats "tanking freezing" as something similar to "tanking blunt force", and I'll opinionate that we only really see that in RPG Video Games where game mechanics has the game classify "freezing/ice" as a class of damage"
Honestly, that's just me giving benefit of the doubt to the idea of ice being equated with blunt force in fiction. I personally feel them being separated is more normal but regardless, the point is simply that it's not such a widespread concept as "AP=/=Speed" that taking it as the default assumption over physics would be justified
Honestly, that's just me giving benefit of the doubt to the idea of ice being equated with blunt force in fiction. I personally feel them being separated is more normal but regardless, the point is simply that it's not such a widespread concept as "AP=/=Speed" that taking it as the default assumption over physics would be justified
- 31,372
- 34,118
I still stand by what I said. Yes, there can be consideration that Force and Heat are different. Reason we especially take into consideration when making real world profiles, or determine the durability of various vehicles; both real world and fictional verses that are generally less than Urban level. And also for weapons that are less than Urban level; we often differentiate weapons that are pure heat from fragmentation weapons or ballistics. Scaling them from their own calculations rather than making them all the same tier and ignoring context.
However, RPG characters and various other higher tiered video game verses like Mega Man are the most obvious example for why we can't really distinct them. But it's also true for Anime and Manga characters; much of their heat/force attacks and durability comes from Ki or Chakra, or Cosmo in Saint Seiya. There also exist a bunch of Tier 2 or above characters where characters regularly have Tier 2 heat and force attacks. Or another example, Superman's powers all come from stored up solar power. He turns thermal/solar energy into strength, speed, durability, stamina, intelligence, and even new powers. And even his freeze breath becomes stronger than he absorbs solar energy.
And I agree with Andy that the distinction that it's both Attack Potency is not as widespread as the AP and Speed distinction. It's best to go by what DontTalk and Bambu said, who have since left the thread due to exhaustion of the topic.
However, RPG characters and various other higher tiered video game verses like Mega Man are the most obvious example for why we can't really distinct them. But it's also true for Anime and Manga characters; much of their heat/force attacks and durability comes from Ki or Chakra, or Cosmo in Saint Seiya. There also exist a bunch of Tier 2 or above characters where characters regularly have Tier 2 heat and force attacks. Or another example, Superman's powers all come from stored up solar power. He turns thermal/solar energy into strength, speed, durability, stamina, intelligence, and even new powers. And even his freeze breath becomes stronger than he absorbs solar energy.
And I agree with Andy that the distinction that it's both Attack Potency is not as widespread as the AP and Speed distinction. It's best to go by what DontTalk and Bambu said, who have since left the thread due to exhaustion of the topic.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I'm pretty sure most of Bambu's opposition was due to the problem initially being framed as freezing feats not counting as AP in general, right now the main discussion is whether tanking punches means you no sell freezing as well on top I believe officially noting the distinction
And no offense but Dontalk left like comment which was countered by different members afterwards, not doubting his intelligence but just the fact he opposed this shouldn't count for much when the argument itself has been countered and there has been a notable amount of discussion after him
And no offense but Dontalk left like comment which was countered by different members afterwards, not doubting his intelligence but just the fact he opposed this shouldn't count for much when the argument itself has been countered and there has been a notable amount of discussion after him
- 31,372
- 34,118
DontTalk is overworked, so he can't really comment much; especially with the moving to a new forum and the Tier 1 revisions taking center stage. He also said he was going to be inactive till Friday. And I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments against his are not really any different than the refutes that came on previous threads.
Maybe someone like Executer N0 or Ugarik could comment, but I'm pretty sure they agree with DontTalk as well.
Maybe someone like Executer N0 or Ugarik could comment, but I'm pretty sure they agree with DontTalk as well.
- 648
- 97
So is the argument that we can't ignore freezing feats because it is sometimes treated as an equivalent feat in fiction? The choice to ignore certain concepts of physics but keep others seems pretty arbitrary as Agnaa explained earlier. We need either real scientific reasons or an actual fictional consensus. For every example that treats cooling feats as equivalent to heating feats, there is also an example that implies otherwise.
- 10,758
- 6,491
That doesn't really change the point. It's unfortunate that he is busy but this is still taking one comment from one member which has been refuted multiple times as a prime reason to reject a thread
Positions may need to be considered for practicality puropses when there's a long complicated debate, but in this case there's no need for that, the comment itself should be judged not who made it
Positions may need to be considered for practicality puropses when there's a long complicated debate, but in this case there's no need for that, the comment itself should be judged not who made it
- 31,372
- 34,118
They're not sometimes, they're like piratically all the time treated as an AP feat. Plus, there's still some common sense to be had that countering thermal energy requires some form of equivalent exchange. Most freezing and Heating feats are based on Alchemy; that's the word I've been looking for. Alchemy is a strange concept, but it basically combines science with philosophy and magic. (Also note that philosophy is technically science as well as it's the original science). Full Metal Alchemist is a perfect example of this. Alchemy basically suggests that heating and cooling requires transferring energy in one way or the other.
- 10,758
- 6,491
"Alchemy basically suggests that heating and cooling requires transferring energy in one way or the"
No one really argued it doesn't involve transferring energy...and even if they did, are you seriously using alchemy as a basis for what principles should be followed and what shouldn't?
No one really argued it doesn't involve transferring energy...and even if they did, are you seriously using alchemy as a basis for what principles should be followed and what shouldn't?
- 648
- 97
"Common sense" isn't always a valid argument. For example, most people think that an ice cube introduces "coldness" into a drink (yes I'm using this example again). However, this is not true. Regarding your first statement, there are MANY counterexamples. I don't think Ice King freezing the fortnite island was intended to be an AP feat. You need more than just a few examples, you need fictional consensus.DarkDragonMedeus said:
- 31,372
- 34,118
Not familiar with Fortnite, but causing snow storms have been treated as attack potency feats. And even Environmental Destruction is also consistently combat applicable. The Temple Bosses from Majora's Mask are another example of this. Yes, there are novels where a physically normal Shaman performs in environmental destruction feat, it's just environmental destruction and not physical stats. But once again, countless video game characters treat the same feats as being interchangeable with all their powers. And as for Equivalent Exchange, this article. In fact, it even explains it's the definition of the first law of thermodynamics.
- 10,758
- 6,491
" Environmental Destruction is also consistently combat applicable"
Environmental destruction is literally non combat applicable AP. Are you confusing it with general weather feats or something?
Environmental destruction is literally non combat applicable AP. Are you confusing it with general weather feats or something?
- 31,372
- 34,118
@Antvasima, I have contacted Executor and Ugarik.
@Andy, whether feats are environmental destruction and they can be general AP feats based on context.
@Jaakubb, the problem is we can't assume everything is a chain reaction. Yes, there are plenty of authors who don't know how physics or thermodynamics work. But once again, characters who cause Ice Ages. If the character is literally one performing the feat, then they're obviously the driving force. If Attack Potency was transferring energy into an attack on a specific object, then that could be counter intuitive. There have been suggestions that if someone's body generated heat, then it would be an attack potency feat due to releasing thermal energy. Then their body producing cold would technically be a durability feat since since the same amount of thermal energy would be released into their own body. Basically equating to the same heat attack hitting the character. Like a strange Newton's Third Law situation.
No, heat and cold attacks aren't really hax in a general conscientious. DonTalk said there were like dozens of different distinctions of how attack potency works. But it's best not to overly complicate the system since there's like 20 engines to look at. And also, it isn't just the existence of magic or Ki, as those are just two of many examples; it's especailly true for those things that exist though. It's often just the whole authors don't know math all too much.
@All, I'm running late for work, so I will come back in 9 hours from now.
@Andy, whether feats are environmental destruction and they can be general AP feats based on context.
@Jaakubb, the problem is we can't assume everything is a chain reaction. Yes, there are plenty of authors who don't know how physics or thermodynamics work. But once again, characters who cause Ice Ages. If the character is literally one performing the feat, then they're obviously the driving force. If Attack Potency was transferring energy into an attack on a specific object, then that could be counter intuitive. There have been suggestions that if someone's body generated heat, then it would be an attack potency feat due to releasing thermal energy. Then their body producing cold would technically be a durability feat since since the same amount of thermal energy would be released into their own body. Basically equating to the same heat attack hitting the character. Like a strange Newton's Third Law situation.
No, heat and cold attacks aren't really hax in a general conscientious. DonTalk said there were like dozens of different distinctions of how attack potency works. But it's best not to overly complicate the system since there's like 20 engines to look at. And also, it isn't just the existence of magic or Ki, as those are just two of many examples; it's especailly true for those things that exist though. It's often just the whole authors don't know math all too much.
@All, I'm running late for work, so I will come back in 9 hours from now.
- 20,509
- 1,590
@DarkDragon
That seems insanely specific. You're taking very very specific cases where people resist freezing through durability and applying that as "rule". That would be applying rules for the "x character resisted causality manip through AP therefore higher AP means resistance to hax" because "some verses do it".
That seems insanely specific. You're taking very very specific cases where people resist freezing through durability and applying that as "rule". That would be applying rules for the "x character resisted causality manip through AP therefore higher AP means resistance to hax" because "some verses do it".
- 15,637
- 5,392
- Thread starter
- #260
Except, this kind of falls apart when you consider there's absolutely no connection between heat resistance and blunt force resistance?DarkDragonMedeus said:
If we were to follow that logic for real life, water ought to be one of the most sturdy, unbreakable materials out there, given it has such a high heat capacity and can "tank" being heated up so well.
Like seriously, I can't even think of many fictional verses that give someone a resistance to punching based on how much heat they can withstand. I stand by my point that the conflation is something we've made up because we need to calculate the feats, not because it actually has any basis in RL or even in fiction. Let me go ahead and debunk the examples that were given so far:
- RPG characters and various other higher tiered video game verses like Mega Man are the most obvious example for why we can't really distinct them.
- Game Mechanics is my response to that. I think it's pretty obvious it's game mechanics when someone being hit with a fire/ice beam is somehow damaging in the same way a bullet does, often because game designers know that adding in a bunch of stuff like heat/cold bars for health overcomplicates the game. So of course video games are your primary example, since there's nearly always a divide between the gameplay and story elements, the later of which abides by physics far more often.
- But it's also true for Anime and Manga characters; much of their heat/force attacks and durability comes from Ki or Chakra, or Cosmo in Saint Seiya.
- If you notice, most of those shounen series breach nuclear/planetary levels of explosives, which produce massive amounts of heat and force as I've described above? And, agai, it's the transfer of energy we're concerned with. Someone using Chi instead of regular energy to burn something is still burning something, and that's still different than punching something as a rule of thumb. You're just using the "energy is energy" argument but with a find+replace for energy with "generic shounen power system".
- Or another example, Superman's powers all come from stored up solar power. He turns thermal/solar energy into strength, speed, durability, stamina, intelligence, and even new powers. And even his freeze breath becomes stronger than he absorbs solar energy.
- How does him being a physics-breaking hyper-efficient solar panel make his heat/force attacks the same thing? Him breaking thermodynamics to gain energy for his attacks doesn't mean that the attacks themselves don't obey thermodynamics. At least, we need to assume that for the required number values to be milked from the feats, otherwise we can't use constants like heat capacity and compressive strength in good faith.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I completely agree with the latter sentiment.Agnaa said:
As per the thread, I'll put out a response soon with my views on the subject matter.
- 20,509
- 1,590
Using superman is one of the worst way to go about this. He's powered by the sun. Not all forms of energy and not all forms of heat iirc etc. It is like saying "dreams provide a form of energy" because there are characters in fiction who actually feed on nightmares to get stronger.
- 20,509
- 1,590
bump
- 20,509
- 1,590
Just to re-publish this in a sense.
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3517767
Me and dargoo agree to take this current discussion to my thread and debate both properly.
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3517767
Me and dargoo agree to take this current discussion to my thread and debate both properly.
- 31,372
- 34,118
Kepekley said he was going to elaborate the details. But he has yet to return. However, we kinda of had a long discussion a long time ago that Ice wasn't considered hax and that poking someone with an Absolute Zero stick wasn't going to be treated as durability negation. There have also been discussions to treat cooling feats as AP equal to heating feats rather than hax.
- 20,509
- 1,590
Wait is the current argument that you can tank freezing with durability? That makes no sense no matter how you spin it.
Sounds about as legit as "inducing coldness". You take heat from something to freeze it, being a planet buster or a galaxy buster doesn't mean your body heat is above 36.6 degrees. It's still just as easy to steal someone's body temperature.
Sounds about as legit as "inducing coldness". You take heat from something to freeze it, being a planet buster or a galaxy buster doesn't mean your body heat is above 36.6 degrees. It's still just as easy to steal someone's body temperature.
- 31,372
- 34,118
It is possible for freezing to negate durability, but only if the cold is Absolute Zero would it negate durability via freezing atoms and molecules from the inside out. Since realistically, objects frozen to absolute zero generally self atomize. Poking someone with an absolute zero stick isn't durability negation because the stick being frozen at such temperatures and still being a stick is something. But it's not really offense applicable as it would no longer be absolute zero the second it starts cooling the body.
Attacks that are close to absolute Zero, while they don't quite negate durability through sheer cold. Certain after effects such as freezing oxygen to the point where air becomes solid could cause suffocation; which would be durability negation.
Attacks that are close to absolute Zero, while they don't quite negate durability through sheer cold. Certain after effects such as freezing oxygen to the point where air becomes solid could cause suffocation; which would be durability negation.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I feel people aren't realizing the main proposals. It's not to treat freezing as durability negation in the same vein as matter manip or soul destruction or what have you; it's just to treat durability against temperature and durability against work oriented attacks as different things.
The distinction makes sense scientifically speaking and at least in the case of freezing, even the argument of fiction ignoring reality doesn't work since fiction most certainly does not conflate freezing resistance with standard durability on a regular basis
The distinction makes sense scientifically speaking and at least in the case of freezing, even the argument of fiction ignoring reality doesn't work since fiction most certainly does not conflate freezing resistance with standard durability on a regular basis
- 20,509
- 1,590
Actually, i believe that should and would logically only apply to "heat" not "cold". Cus heat is "presence of energy", whereas cold is "lack of energy". So you can't really "resist joules that do not exist". So it should just be used as a temperature imo. It should be durability negation that can be resisted with feats of "could fight under -x temperatures". I don't think we can apply the same logic as with the "heat" as we are deciding on the other thread.Andytrenom said:
- 31,372
- 34,118
There hasn't been a conclusion yet, Kepekley hasn't responded. But I'm pretty sure nothing is going to be changed. We definitely can't just ignore freezing calculations, but once again, we're still waiting for a more level headed calc group member to clarify in more in depth detail.
- Status
Similar threads
