GBE for Cosmic-sized Beings

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

I remember that some time ago, a calc for a Solar System-sized thing yielded a ridiculous result of 3-B. I think that was SMT or something, but that's not really important.

The reason why it was so high is that our own tiers are based on a lot of nothing. An explosion from the sun has to travel all the way to Neptune and still have the strength to destroy it there. This requires a lot more energy than just destroying both the sun and Neptune when they're close, due to inverse square and all that good stuff. However, filling this void with matter would make the requirements for this feat even higher, especially if we include Gravity and thus GBE into the mix. Hence why destroying a big thing that is the size of a solar system is much harder than destroying a voidful solar system.

However, this puts some doubt about the current ratings of most of our Large-Sized characters that are beyond Solar System-sized. Since by default, we tend to rate a character the size of X the same tier as the thing they're the size of. But given that those characters tend to be fully physical beings, this doesn't work when compared to mostly void-y structures like Solar Systems or Galaxies.

We have a few characters whose tier are based on their size and who are bigger than solar systems, including stuff like the Tenryu or Pyro. This would mean that, at least durability-wise, their tiering might be incorrect. So I'm wondering if we should update our standards when it comes to such beings or just leave it as is?

 

[Sera_EX]

I say leave it alone. The common mentality is that a galaxy sized being is galaxy level. That's simple enough for us to work with.

 

[Dark649]

I agree with Sera.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Even if it's the common mentality, it's still vastly inaccurate and would lead to problems if we were to try and calculate the GBE of planets larger than stars. Like, when do we stop using GBE and start slapping approximate comparisons like "this thing is the size of the solar system so it's solar system level. Bam."? It's too arbitrary and "easy" for my tastes.

Plus it's not like we haven't done things that went against common mentality in the past. Stuff like GBE for planets or inverse square law aren't intuitive for most people, neither does stuff like vaporization leading to much higher results than the thing being destroyed. I'd much rather prefer accuracy rather than intuitiveness.

Plus it's...not like it would change that much. I can probably count on my hands the number of profiles that would truly be affected by this (outside of scaling).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Keep in mind, that planets and stars that large would often have escape velocity at FTL speeds make them essentially more like black holes than they are planets or stars. There was a calc for a composite star that had 3-B as a result for durability given the massive density is what holds most of the weight.

I'm open for calcing GBE even for planets that are solar system sized though; though, planets with super low density could also be a possibility, but density lower than hydrogen sounds pretty weird.

 

[Sera_EX]

Well, we don't mind being vastly inaccurate regarding other things, so I don't think this will cause any major issues if we just stay as things are.

 

[Kaltias]

Using GBE as durability doesn't really work anyway tbh, since it's the energy required to blow up something.

It'd be kinda like saying that a normal human has 9-B durability because you need energy in that ballpark to completely destroy their body

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

@Sera Yet we still try to avoid it when possible. And it's perfectly possible here.

@Kalt Even then, a thing that requires 1000000000 joules to truly be destroyed won't die from taking 1 joule of energy or something. They would most likely have durability in a similar ballpark. Considering that this method would be several orders of magnitude higher than baseline, this is still relevant.

 

[Andytrenom]

I was about to say something regarding this but Kal already said it...

 

[Kaltias]

@Saik

I get what you mean, but my point is that being big doesn't inherently make your durability comparable to your GBE.

For example, a tier 6 blast could pierce through the entire planet despite the fact that it isn't even remotely close to the Earth's GBE in terms of energy.

 

[Andytrenom]

While we are on this topic, should characters who are literally planets or stars but sentient actually be rated as 5-B or 4-C because of it?

Like I know it seems to makes sense at a glance but, 5-B or 4-C is the energy required to destroy the planet or star to a point where it won't reassemble naturally, it isn't really something the celestial body can release by itself. And the point where the living celestial body starts to die could be much lower than being turned into literal space dust.

Though if this isn't what our standard has actually been, and is only something I observed in a few random profiles then I guess there isn't a problem.

 

[Kaltias]

Idk if that's the standard but I don't think that it should be.

 

[Sera_EX]

They'd still have Planet level or Star level durability though.

 

[Andytrenom]

I mean would they? Take "Happy Mr Earth Guy" for example. Who's to say he won't stop being so happy when we, say, rip Florida from his body and he would need to be reduced to tiny pieces of himself drifting apart in space for him to be considered "injured".

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It really depends. If characters are capable of movement, then we could calc KE. Or for living celestial objects that are FTL, I believe GBE is fine for Tier and Durability. But for motionless characters that size, they can be a bit harder to judge.

 

[Kaltias]

@Sera

That would be only the energy required to blast them apart, not harming them in general.

Earth's diameter = 12742 km

Surface of the hole = 10000 km^2 (as an example)

Volume =1.274.200.000.000.000.000 cc

With pulverization a hole this big would be tier 6, and it would be blasting through the planet from side to side.

The problem is more that "durability" as we define it here doesn't exist irl, so giving something durability via being an irl celestial body doesn't work

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here?

 

[Andytrenom]

The discussion barely even started Ant

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Aurelion Sol would be an interesting one to calc, guy is the size of a galaxy

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, as Kal said durability isn't a universal concept and there are multiple variables to consider for what type of damage; force, heat, penetration, ect. And that's also a common weakness with a lot of large sized characters/objects in general is that they're more susceptible to chip damage. Shattering a window of a skyscraper technically counts as damaging a skyscraper, but it sure doesn't make someone High 8-C. It's also similar to bee stings harming large animals among other things. Slightly damaging a planet or a planet sized space station, isn't the same thing as damaging a human sized Planet level character.

 

[Kaltias]

My opinion is basically that a planet/star/whatever celestial body shouldn't really have a tier aside from their own feats.

At least for a person bigger than a planet you can argue that they should be able to punch a planet hard enough to break it (Although i'm not really a fan of that interpretation either because it's like saying that I should be able to break a rock the size of my face by punching it), but in the case of a character who literally is the celestial body, scale them from their best feats/whatever they scale from