• 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.

Heat vs AP

LSirLancelotDuLacl said:
Like agnaa said before, you are just deciding at which point a difference is different enough to matter arbitrarily
Click to expand...
Like I said before, I'm deciding that point based on what the wiki already does. We think it matters enough to use heat capacity, we think it matters enough to differentiate LS/SS, I really don't like hearing the tried and tired "everything on the wiki is arbitrary" as it implies any standards we set up for gauging feats are meaningless.

I'm noticing every time I point out double standards here, the default argument is that our standards are meaningless to begin with.

LSirLancelotDuLacl said:
why exactly would we differentiate heat in fictional settings where the source of such is the very identical same as other techniques, like chakra, whatever Mana replacement, Nen or whatever.
Click to expand...
Cool, introducing factors from specific verses and moving goalposts in this convo.

Pretty simple, the Chakra/Mana/[Insert Generic Fictional Energy] or whatever is turned into heat, which acts like and spreads like heat. It's turned into force another time, which acts like and spreads like force. They're two separate things, which should be judged separately.

LSirLancelotDuLacl said:
Now, when they are ACTUALLY treated as something different in universe? I can actually agree with you.
Click to expand...
Don't we already assume it acts realistically in the universe, given we assume it has realistic properties that can be calced?

If your point is "fiction ignores physics, so let's not apply it", toss away calculations. The constants used to inflate character statistics here are part of the same textbooks I'm bringing up info from on this thread. Heat resistance and blunt force resistance don't correlate, water has a certain heat capacity, light moves at a certain speed, it's all physics, it's all part of the same package. Picking and choosing just makes the calculations inaccurate in their application.

So in a verse that equates the two, the heat obviously doesn't reflect real life properties on such a fundamental level that they shouldn't be calced as heat.
 
@Dargoo I'm at work so sorry to dip back to an old comment. Just gonna unfollow after this since we seem to just come at odds whenever we debate this.

I don't believe I'm proving your point. What I did prove was that durability may not fully correlate to heat. AP absolutely should as we currently define it. That was the thing I said.

Away I go now.
 
My point is that we should change AP as it's currently defined because of what you just pointed out, so I'm not concerned with AP as it's defined right now, as it's clearly at odds with how the physics we use to judge feats works.

Alright, then.
 
It isn't so much we should ignore physics entirely, but rather case by case. Yes, in many verses where plenty of characters are Superhuman due to their Ki, Chakra, Mana, Magic, Limit Breaks, Psynergy, ect, plenty of force and heat based attacks are interchangeable. We got plenty of characters who can punch or swing a sword with the same Force/energy as they can the energy required to deep fry a giant beast, or cast a giant ice berg. Or a step further, even generate supernovas for even higher up verses.

But for verses where we just have a bunch of regular guys carrying around a bunch of gadgets, yeah we don't assume every weapon they character is the same tier. I did give the example that smashing a vehicle and melting one are two separate feats entirely. There's also plenty of examples in which 9-A anti-tank missiles one-shot tanks, where as those same tanks take little to no damage from an 8-C fire/plasma/electricity weapon or a High 8-C freeze weapon. Then of course the tank's durability shouldn't be any higher than Small Building level.

I did say multiple times on other threads that a character's durability and a vehicle's durability are two different things.
 
There wasn't any implication meaninglessness though, just that the situation hovering such issues felt rather arbitrary and like a grey point with uncertain stuff. If it isn't, all the better. I didn't even allude to all we do being arbitrary.

What goal post is to be moved? No seriously, what is that about? Many times in verses like this, techniques of equal level with the one source are treated as equal. Fire techniques to something like an Earth technique, Tearing Earth to Thousand Thunderbolts in Negima, Fire stuff from Natsu to other spells. If equally powerful opponents are treated as equal in these aspects with unified energy sources for these traits despite their natures, why do we start hinging physics when the verse has already dropped them for this specific issue? This is not the same as dropping our guidelines altogether either.

No, my point is that there comes a point where very specific things aren't being treated by our standards of reality, and holding them to such standards after the fact feels pointless. If by this you would mean the entire properties of fire would be put into doubt so calcing energy would be pointless, why would be dispute other properties in the first place if they still hold up? I just don't see this being similar to the speed circumstances of lightning and light when they screw up somewhere. An area has been heated up to a certain degree that a certain material can be affected this much, and its spread over a certain area. That still gives an energy yield, there's stil and area and the fire still spreads and gives a minimum of heat, why wouldn't these actually consistent facts be discarded? I am almost sure light and lightning shenanigans can still be used even if these contradictory matters are actually addressed in the show but we were actually told other properties (like the speed) remained. I am no expert for sure but it is totally possible I am incredibly misguided about this,
 
Eh, doesn't look like it will go anywhere looking at the state of things and that we've apparently done this before, so I'mma unfollow until something good comes outta this.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
We got plenty of characters who can punch or swing a sword with the same Force/energy as they can the energy required to deep fry a giant beast, or cast a giant ice berg. Or a step further, even generate supernovas for even higher up verses.
Click to expand...
The energy being the same really doesn't matter, it's how they're spread. If you pumped heat-energy into a person equivalent to a punch the injury you'd see is fundamentally different than a punch, even if they have the same exact energy.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I did say multiple times on other threads that a character's durability and a vehicle's durability are two different things.
Click to expand...
They're both made of matter, why are you applying correct physics for one and incorrect physics for another by default?

The claim you made, "you are just deciding at which point a difference is different enough to matter arbitrarily," and the argument you were referring to, Agnaa's, both rely on the claim that the distinctions we made on the site are arbitrary to begin with. You can't not allude to that as your argument hinges on it.

What goal post is to be moved?
You're moving to talking about specific verses, when the discussion is on the site and its standards as a whole. Let's try and remain there, eh?

why do we start hinging physics when the verse has already dropped them for this specific issue? This is not the same as dropping our guidelines altogether either.
If the verse is already ignoring physics and heat is, contrary to basic thermodynamics, interchangeable with force, why are we assuming everything else about that heat obeys physics so we can calc it?

Again, you're talking about hypotheticals here. If a verse actually goes as far as to conflate the two, that doesn't mean we must assume the same for every other verse. That's my point.

No, my point is that there comes a point where very specific things aren't being treated by our standards of reality, and holding them to such standards after the fact feels pointless.
This makes no sense. We're giving heed to the specific constants made from these general laws but ignoring the laws themselves?

That still gives an energy yield, there's stil and area and the fire still spreads and gives a minimum of heat, why wouldn't these actually consistent facts be discarded?
Because how they spread is not consistent. Them having a consistent energy value means nothing; as I've pointed about above there's absolutely no correlation between heat transfers and force transfers and their effects on an object if they have the same energy.

I am almost sure light and lightning shenanigans can still be used even if these contradictory matters are actually addressed in the show but we were actually told other properties (like the speed) remained.

Here's the thing - we actually already ignore the speed of light if the light doesn't act like real light.

We expect lightning to be realistic for it to have realistic speeds and energy.

We should expect heat to be realistic if we are to calc it with realistic standards. We should treat heat realistically if we assume it abides by realistic standards. This is all based on precedent, not my "arbitrary" distinctions.
 
@Dargoo technically, it's often more like comparing matter (A tank made of steel) to matter that's shielded by a supernatural energy source (Such as Ki). Vaporizing the body of a character already dead is still only a 9-A feat, but a character taking 0 damage from sitting in the center of the sun would still be a legit 8-A+ feat. Also, planet levels of heat with precision for instance would be similar to planet levels of force with precision.
 
Standing next to a guy with an aura hot as the sun and all around him is a hell on earth that wols probably be heat residents and I'd its said in verse he has zero heat residents and that the dudes durability is enough to live the heat it still should be heat residents?
 
@DDM

You're kind of forgetting that being in the center of the Sun isn't just a heat feat, it's also a very impressive force feat due to the massive pressure at the location.

Not really? If something is radiating planetary levels of heat, even concentrated, it won't produce force unless there's a medium like matter to do so. Radiating out heat in itself provides no force. Even then you're never going to exude planetary levels of force, that's just a fact about thermodynamics.

"Supernatural energy shields" could have heat and force resistance feats of their own, which we'd judge them by. In many series, RWBY for example, you can have a supernatural sheid that blocks out force but can transmit air/heat across it, like a membrane.
 
It's kind of weird that the debate on the previous, less organized thread has been more active lately there than here.

Would it be helpful for me to close that thread and redirect it to here?
 
Hmm take care of both "heat bypassing durability" and "freezing calcs make no sense" in the same thread? Won't it become far too crowded? Your choice doe, i don't mind either way.
 
Tetsucabrah said:
So do heat based attacks usually result in vaporization calcs?
Click to expand...
Depends, but this is not about calcs. This is about heat vs durability and why it makes no sense for it to be the same.
 
>title's Heat vs AP

>this is about heat vs durability

thinking:
 
Agnaa said:
>title's Heat vs AP
>this is about heat vs durability

thinking:
Click to expand...
Oh shut it. Just read the OP. It was meant to say that "heat is not ap in the sense that it doesn't attack durability". Or more like "temperature can't be resisted by durability".
 
Heat is AP. But I'm fine with not giving dura for tanking heat attacks.

All of this comes with the asterisk of "unless the verse demonstrates otherwise".
 
Agnaa said:
Heat is AP. But I'm fine with not giving dura for tanking heat attacks.
All of this comes with the asterisk of "unless the verse demonstrates otherwise".
Click to expand...
Well obviously. I take it you agree with the OP then.
 
Sure, I just got asked to move here from another thread which I shared more disagreements with.
 
Might as well state my opinion.

Pretty much: Physical attacks and heat are AP. Tanking heat is a dura feat, the same way a punch is (as in we should treat it as dura, not as in they are the same from a physics point of view). I do however think that tanking heat of xJ will not allow you to take a punch of xJ or vise versa. They should both be listed as dura, but separately. Same goes for AP, unless it's shown/stated that they are basically the same.
 
I mean, if you want to make it completely different from durability against kinetic energy, then what's the point of making it durability instead of heat resistance?
 
I would disagree no more than i have in the OP due to the fact that one applies force and one doesn't. Honnestly there are different durabilities for "pressure" "attacks" "grazing" etc (an example would be diamond being very weak to pressure) and heat along with it (Water is far more resistant than any metal in terms of heat resistance but it's not stronger than them). But that's besides the point.

As it would be far smarter to treat it as "resistance to x degrees celsius of heat" instead of "durability no:1, durability no:2" etc.
 
Claiming it's heat resistance is about as smart as saying someone who tanked a punch is "KE resistand"... Like no. There are different potencies measurable in Joules, so treating a standard flame like, idk, the core of the sun and just "muh heat resistance" is kinda a big no-no, unless u want to make different types of heat resistance, depending on temperatures/joules... But that's just a different way of making it a type of dura
 
We treat "KE Resistance" as durability. That's the smartest and most usual way of treating "durability". Heat can just be heat resistant. Water doesn't have "lol durability" it is VERY heat resistant though.

And it's smarter to treat heat in "degrees" rather than in "joules". Because then you'd have character who stand on lava for like a year be more resistant than someone who went in the core of the sun.
 
Durability is resistance to kinetic energy. It get's seperated because normally it's one of the main factors in a battle.

There is no point in giving anything that can be translated into Joules a section of it's own in the durability section. It's there to tell you how much force someone can whist and, and we both know what force refers to in this instance.
 
Like, that's not what I meant by that >.> I thought by heat resistant u meant sth along the lines of "resistance to soul manip" or sth like that. And putting "resistance to heat", without any further explanation is about as smart as putting "resistand to KE" into the dura section without further explanation.
 
I mean we don't just give it like "resistance to heat". We usually already put it as "resistance to extreme temperatures" and it'd be ideal for it to have the explanation/exact temperature it has resisted. So talking from an ideal point of view, yes, we would give exact reasoning on the "resisted being dunked in lava".
 
Well, I mean, ok, but not gonna lie, that lava example is kinda "meh", but maybe that's just me thinking that J/s is the best way to decide AP/Dura >.> or even better, J/(s*cm^2)
 
RatherClueless said:
Well, I mean, ok, but not gonna lie, that lava example is kinda "meh", but maybe that's just me thinking that J/s is the best way to decide AP/Dura >.> or even better, J/(s*cm^2)
Click to expand...
Joules and temperature aren't necessarily the same. I can hold something that's 40 degrees on my body for the rest of my life, but i'd still not burn. Doesn't mean i can touch something that's like 200 degress for as much as a second without getting a severe burn.
 
That's why I said it's a meh example since we allow the same junk for AP and we should just use intensity (W/m^2) as a measuring stick and yeet everything else out the window ree
 
We treat heat feats as the joule output per second, if your concern is that enduring high temperatures for a short period will be treated the same as enduring low temperatures for a long period of time, then don't worry, that isn't happening

And durability is a counterpart to AP in general, not just a measure of kinetic energy resistance; it's perfectly fine to list resiliance against heat based attacks in the durability section, but a distinction would need to be made
 
Andytrenom said:
And durability is a counterpart to AP in general, not just a measure of kinetic energy resistance; it's perfectly fine to list resiliance against heat based attacks in the durability section, but a distinction would need to be made
Click to expand...
I could agree to it, but i feel like having it as "Resistance to Extreme Temperatures (X degrees of cold and Y degrees of hot)" would be a better option.
 
We already quantify heat based feats in the form of joules, feats of withstanding it should also be quantified in joules for consistency sake

Once again, dura is the counterpart to AP, so we can't just make it purely about withstanding blunt force, it has to cover other forms of attacks a character can withstand too
 
@Andy The issue that Earl has is that things react differently to heat and KE. U punching a steel plate with xJ won't do the same thing as heating it with xJ, which I agree with. The thing I am not so sure about is how he wants to implement it. I guess I might as well drop my intensity supremacy talk, since noone seems to care >.>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lewa
Jake Kim Heat Mod Upgrade
Replies
2
Views
267
Lewa
Lewa
Arceus0x
Vaporization of stuff but with higher heat - how do we treat it?
Replies
35
Views
964
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Furudo_Erika
Where does negative temperature scale?
Replies
8
Views
1K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
Upscaling all monsters in general to extreme heat
Replies
0
Views
608
Deleted member 16409
JustANormalLemon
A heat blast that burned a bunch of trees and I want to know how to calculate It
Replies
6
Views
801
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Back
Top