Freezing Calcs, and Why they Make No Sense

[Antvasima]

So, about the new thread...

 

[Agnaa]

So, about the new thread...

Dargoo's been heavily swamped, seemingly both IRL and on-wiki. He hasn't been prompt to many important threads he's involved in. I'm not expecting the new thread to be made very quickly.

Earl's probably the best bet (he did say 2 days ago that he'd have a new thread the next day), but iirc he's been a little busy too.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Ugarik]

Okay it seems like this thread has gone of topic for a while now, but I still desided to give my opinion about this

First of all thermal feats (such as freezing or melting) should count as AP. The reason for this is that heat can always be transformed or transfered into another form on energy, including mechanical one.

Heat should not however be used to scale durability unless it was created as a byproduct of a mechanical attack. This is because every form of energy acts differently on a particular material and affects its different properties. Tanking mechanical energy mostly depends on its hardness, toughness ect. while "tanking" heat - heat of fusion, melting point and latent heat capacity and so on. For example an average joe can "tank" up to 2 megajoules of heat but it doesn't mean I am Wall level for being able to punch him in the face

This rule should be applied not only to heat but to every form of energy exept mechanical one. (for example electical or radiat energy)

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Ugarik seems to make sense.

 

[Damage3245]

I also think that Ugarik makes sense here.

Heat being used to scale durability is a pretty iffy thing.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ugarik makes sense. This was also the conclusion reached on my thread regarding "heat" instead of cold.

So needless to say i agree with this. Now we can do this with:

1 - Heat specific durability if it has any

2 - A form of resistance in the P&A

On my thread people decided that heat specific durability would be better, but imo that is FAR too hard to judge as you would need calcs. However resistance to x temperature can be way easier to implement.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Ugarik also does make sense, but for durability it should be more context based. I mean, surviving inside the center of the sun is only 8-A as opposed to 4-C. There's also a big difference between surviving a giant 3000 degree Celsius laser and tanking a 3000000 degree Celsius laser that has 1000 times less AoE. Even though both of those are technically the same attack potency feat, the latter does far more damage to someone unless the target is a really big target.

Also, Kaltias said this on another thread. We typically use watts for change in temperature and electricity feats; which is the Joules being generated per second. And exception is if the heat or electric wave lasts only a fraction of a second, then we still go by total energy being produced. And as usual, if the context is that the character uses their "Universal power source" for heating/cooling feats as well as their melee attacks, then any sort of feats still scales to all their stats.

 

[KLOL506]

Medeus makes sense. I think for Heat dura feats as a whole we should look for more context before applying them.

If the heat feat also involves force like sending someone flying into the distance instead of just engulfing them and burning them, I can accept that being a dura feat, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Obviously the context matters. We did decide in the other thread that we should specifically take:

• The amount of energy that hits the target

• It should take a rather short amount of time.

So someone sitting on lava for the rest of his life ain't tanking sun level heat.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually that's less than half of a grenade's worth of power.

 

[Agnaa]

So Earl's thread is agreed with (heat feats shouldn't scale to normal durability normally), but this thread is disagreed with (freezing feats shouldn't scale to AP)?

 

[KLOL506]

Pretty much seems like it. Though in my opinion, if heat feats also involve force like pushing someone or sending them flying like an explosion's shockwave does then it can apply and prolly doesn't need to be separate from physical dura.

 

[Xulrev]

For freezing calcs, specifically:
The person in question doing the freezing is interacting with a system that has a set amount of energy in it and that system must reach a certain level of energy to become frozen.

If I introduce energy forcibly into a system, I'm contributing [X] energy to it, which the wiki shorthands as 'Attack Potency' when you measure for [X].

If I remove energy forcibly from a system, I'm ejecting [X] energy from it; this is the exact same principle, just in reverse, and still involves the transferral of energy from one system to another. This is what freezing does, at base.

It's AP with how the Wiki treats it no matter how you shake it since you have to be forcing energy into some system by how thermodynamics works, and doing that by force is AP.

So we've come full circle from where the thread's dissenting opinion was over a month ago finally?

 

[Ugarik]

What I'm trying to say is surviving in the core of the Sun should give you 8-A durability. It should not give use any durability at all. Only extreme heat resistance in P&A list.

 

[KLOL506]

Surviving in the core of the sun isn't just a heat feat tho, it's also an extreme force/pressure feat as well due to the insane amount of gravity there.

 

[Hellbeast1]

^^

 

[Ugarik]

The 8-A didn't even take gravitational forces into account. In only calced the ammount of heat a human would absord.

 

[Antvasima]

Which of our policy and instruction pages would need to be updated based on Ugarik's analysis?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know the guide and reference to common feats treats core of the sun as an 8-A+ durability feats based on pure heat, but I'm pretty sure the 28 G's combined with the mass/density of the sun's core would also have some factor. Though, maybe we could calculate that the force of someone sitting inside the sun's core; it could be higher or lower. And actually, surviving stuff that is pure heat and not much force depends on context. I'll explain in the next paragraph.

Of course, simply withstanding a laser that happens to be 15 million degrees Celsius will not equate to durability by default. Unless there's Watts to be calculated among other things. The reason may be because it may take a consider mount of time to actually heat someone up to a temperature on that level. But someone's body being heated until their entire body is literally heated to 15 million degrees Celsius without a single scare; let alone getting incinerated would still be durability.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

What I'm trying to say is surviving in the core of the Sun should give you 8-A durability. It should not give use any durability at all. Only extreme heat resistance in P&A list.

This is actually my fav method. Treating resilience to temperatures as simply "Resistance to X levels of cold/hot" in the P&A section.

I have seen profiles which already treat resistance to heat like this.

 

[Jaakubb]

What about the main topic of this thread, freezing feats? When you freeze an object, you cannot simply "negate" the thermal energy of an object with your own energy. You have to either force the energy out (which wouldn't scale as it doesn't show that the character can actually produce this energy themselves or even focus it into an attack) or use conduction, like how a refrigerator circulates refrigerant through itself so that the energy will simply be transferred automatically through natural processes (that require no outside energy source if the objects are in contact with each other).

 

[Antvasima]

So should we try to apply Ugarik's conclusions, or is it better to start a new thread first?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, I still think some parts he said felt exaggerated; such as "withstanding heat not being durability at all". Instead, I think what Kaltias said here was what hammered it regarding durability based on temperature. I do agree with what Ugarik said about the rest about calculating change in temperature being Attack Potency whether it's healing or cooling.

And I think it might be best to apply with said suggestions with these notes in mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Ugarik]

I wouldn't call it an exaggeration since materials respond to heat and mechanical work differently. Hurting a human won't make you high end 9-B because they can survive up to 2 million joules of heat. Insted, I would add some levels of heat resistance (like of Regenerationn)

Low - immunity to boiling water or being very close to fire (up to 300C)

Mid - immunity to fire (up to 1000C)

High - immunity to lava or molten metal (up to 6000C)

Extreme - immunity to common star temperature

Anything above that should be considered as heat immunity. And anything between is not common and should not be mentioned

 

[Hellbeast1]

Hmm interesting idea (But could this extend to other resistances)

 

[Antoniofer]

I would suggest to not divide cold/heat resistence in levels, and simply put the example the level of temperature in "()".

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I would suggest to not divide cold/heat resistence in levels, and simply put the example the level of temperature in "()".

This.

I don't think anything beyond star level can be considered immunity especially when there are people in the wiki with several billion degrees of heat resistance. It's a LOT simpler to just say "resistance to x levels of heat/cold".

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, heating up your entire body does indeed have less precision than a punch, but so do things like body slamming or crash landing. Heat resistance depending on context should still be durability to some extent, but it's more so based on the size of the target and how much thermal energy the body actually absorbs. A character being able in lava no penalties should still be Wall level to some extent as well as heat resistance. But surviving a brief shot from a X degrees Celsius laser would not by default. I also agree that we shouldn't make levels for heat resistance and that it just needs to list a specific example.

I also think that comparing character durability to inanimate objects doesn't entirely work here. Durability is never linear and this goes without saying, but our system and especially if the characters are nuclear levels of superhuman and above do very well simplify the distinction.

 

[Ugarik]

No, the can't compare heat energy to termal energy in this case. By that logic glass would be about as durable as steel.

 

[Jaakubb]

Wait wouldn't that mean that you could kill a bunch of tier 6 and mountain level characters with a nuke (100,000,000 degrees Celsius fireball)?

 

[Jaakubb]

Still, what about freezing calcs specifically? I laid out my problems with them in my earlier post.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Wait wouldn't that mean that you could kill a bunch of tier 6 and mountain level characters with a nuke (100,000,000 degrees Celsius fireball)?

Well, nukes are that hot for a literal instant. It literally does nothing. But virtually yes, you can indeed kill higher tiered characters by burning them.

About freezing calcs. Iirc they still apply if they can turn that energy into AP.

 

[Ugarik]

Technically in real world no. Because the amount of heat a material can withstand without melting is always above the ammount of mechanical energy.

A material can be very fragile but capable of taking a huge amount of heat but not vice-versa. Fiction is not always consistent on that though

 

[Antoniofer]

The term "turn energy into AP" do not really have sense tho, as AP its the capability to produce energy, so the term do not fit that well.

And we still fall into freezing do not really produce energy, simply freezing great amount of terrain at high speed its not physically possible (and when I said that, I mean that there's no way to calculate it, as it would involve temperatures below absolute zero)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Even bending energy is still no different than producing energy. And it was already mentioned that fiction does consistently treat freezing feats as energy feats as well; such as characters freezing stuff with their own aura/chi/essence/ect. Ugarik, DonTalk, and Mr Bambu already elaborated in detail on this topic. If vaporizing a body is a 9-A feat, I'm pretty sure using ice/cold to return all that body vapor back into a restored human body would be considered similar if such a feat were to happen.

Also, heat doesn't negate durability. DonTalk, Kaltias, and many others elaborated why on other threads. But it is true that fiction is both consistent and inconsistent at the same time.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Also, heat doesn't negate durability. DonTalk, Kaltias, and many others elaborated why on other threads.

Well, they don't negate durability. No one said that, they just attack a different type of durability. In my Heat thread i even posted some examples of characters dying to trash levels of heat simply it's heat and not a punch.

 

[Antoniofer]

But bending energy its not the same as AP, not by our standards; its the case someone archive building levels perfomances do manipulationg several tons of matter, but by only few kg of matter at they disposing they wouldn't be able to archive the same feats.

Negate durability its kinda relative: the tough guy of supernatural durability can't stand being inside a house surrounded by flames die by the burnings, the flames didn't negate its durability, its just that the character wasn't good standing elevated temperatures. We consider absolute zero as hax, by any method of freezing above that temperature its any different?