Heat vs AP

[Firephoenixearl]

Well as i said. I would mostly vouch for the "resistance to temperature". It seems to be not only reasonable, but easy too. Whereas putting it on durability would make the durability section rather crowded.

 

[RatherClueless]

Just make it a second dura all together, like AP and striking strength is separated as well

 

[Andytrenom]

I imagine it will be similar to Todoroki's profile, which isn't that crowded

 

[RatherClueless]

Fair enough. I think the point we can all agree to regardless is "it needs separation". Now we just have to agree on how >.>

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

it's perfectly fine to list resiliance against heat based attacks in the durability section, but a distinction would need to be made

Oh yeah, we can just do that.

Enji Todoroki is another example of another character with a separate durability against heat-based attacks.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Nothing needs to be majorly changed in the system, the feats are treated through the same standards as the calcs that are made to define them, and we even already do it on a number of pages.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ok but shouldn't we add resistance to "heat" as in "temperature"? I still believe heat will be used to argue against temperature. I still believe we should divide heat from temperature. Or maybe put durability against heat on he Durability and Temperature resistance in the P&A resistances section.

Cus as i said above, i very much feel i will be used where a character has dealt with several hundred degrees and will be argued to resist 15 million because the heat is the same. There is also a problem with the range. The greater the range, the greater the energy/heat the greater the durability, except it shouldn't scale like that. Because a human doesn't tank "all" of the energy it's just scattered.

An example here would be Stella's User blog:Firephoenixearl/Stella's Bahamut Howl. The thing is she released flames that eveloped an entire city. However any person tanking "that" attack would have to deal with the temperatore, but not the same heat. That's why i am against treating it as "energy".

 

[RatherClueless]

@Earl well, but that's kinda how it's always been treated. Even AP works like this here (which does not mean I like that fact).

Like, idk, let's say guy A farts out an attack for 1hr straight and destroys a planet and guy B farts out his attack for half an hour and destroys half a planet. Well, guy A will have twice the AP than guy B... which is dumb. If you measure it like this, you are effectively measuring a character stamina rather than their AP >.>

However, if we were to measure in Power or God forbid Intensity (the best way to measure "strength"), ppl would get pissy, since in that system a building buster can kick a planet busters butt...

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yes but that is still exceedingly flawed. Hiding our justifications behind such flawed reasoning and calculations is not the best way to go. Having heat be measured in intensity is what i can agree the most tbh. Maybe not apply this to all types of calc like the ones with attacking and stuff (although it does apply there as well cus someone who gets hit by a car and the car stops nigh instantly didn't tank the same force as someone who gets hit by a car and gets pushed for like an hour before the car stops, the former tanked a MUCH higher value because the differnce in speed/impulse and therefore force happens in a much shorter amount of time). But for heat it actually makes 0 sense for it to be treated as energy cus heat is omnidirectional and temperature matters a LOT more than time.

 

[Agnaa]

Like, idk, let's say guy A farts out an attack for 1hr straight and destroys a planet and guy B farts out his attack for half an hour and destroys half a planet. Well, guy A will have twice the AP than guy B... which is dumb. If you measure it like this, you are effectively measuring a character stamina rather than their AP >.>

afaik we try not to do that. Many feats we essentially turn into "joules per second" and then use that as the "joules" rating. We don't apply this to most destruction feats as that would kinda seriously wank their values (if an object gets destroyed in 3 frames we'd end up giving a 10x higher value).

 

[RatherClueless]

I went with an hour and half an hour to make a point, however, no one would care with, let's say 1s vs 2s or even 5s vs 10s, even though that's the same thing.

About the 3 frames thing, I can't remember sth like that being stated absolutely anywhere, let alone seeing anything like it in a calc. That aside, even J/s are technically still flawed, since area of affect is not considered.

 

[RatherClueless]

@Earl alright, that car example kinda confused me. Are you saying more Joules transfered = less damage taken and vise versa? Coz that'd be weird.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Earl alright, that car example kinda confused me. Are you saying more Joules transfered = less speed and vise versa? Coz that'd be weird.

No the less time the crash takes, the bigger the actual value (force). To use the formula:

Force = Impulse 2 - Impulse 1 / time

So the less time, the more force. This is just the example with force, but even with energy it's the same thing, the less time it takes for destruction to happen the more powerful something is.

 

[Kaltias]

Ok but shouldn't we add resistance to "heat" as in "temperature"?

No, because heat and temperature are two different things.

Heat=Mass*specific heat*change in temperature.

It's like trying to measure durability in kg because KE=0.5*mass*speed^2

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yes but as i said, heat is not really what does the job here. It's the amount of time you take this heat in. Which is why Rat's case is the most correct.

 

[Andytrenom]

As I said, we measure heat taken in a unit time for AP and durability. So that isn't a problem

 

[RatherClueless]

@Earl Well, 10J/1s is more than 10J/2s, but 10J/s over 2hrs is greater than 10J/s over 1hr... If u know what I am getting at >.>

 

[Kaltias]

We always quantified feats over time in joules/second tho, so time doesn't really matter unless it's less than that.

We don't consider swimming in lava for a lifetime superior to surviving the core of the sun for a day.

 

[Agnaa]

That aside, even J/s are technically still flawed, since area of affect is not considered.

Also, we do already consider surface area of impact, that's why someone who tanks an explosion from 5m away won't be given the rating of the entire explosion.

 

[Kaltias]

Area of effect isn't even really relevant for heat based attacks anyway as it's about temperature change, mass and specific heat.

If you want to calc how heat resistant someone is, the formula is guy's mass*specific heat of a human*temperature variation.

The AoE doesn't really affect the result

 

[RatherClueless]

@Agnaa Not what I meant by that. I meant an attack that spreads over an area of x is "weaker" than an attack that spreads over an area of x/2

@anyone else And pls, could anyone show me any situation where that's been applied or anywhere where it says we do it like that? Coz I couldn't find it in the "Calculation" page(s). If it's some kind of "unspoken rule" maybe someone should make it an actual one?

 

[Kaltias]

Inverse Square Law

 

[Agnaa]

@Rather If the attack uses the same energy, then sure, but that only applies to durability not AP, so it isn't really relevant. We don't give characters 7-C durability for surviving a mountain being lit on fire.

@anyone else

I've seen it before but I don't do/know enough calculations to link.

 

[RatherClueless]

Like I have said, not what I mean >.>

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Area of effect shouldn't be considered. That is my point (in durability). Whether you nuke just me or the entire planet it is the same. You used a lot more energy sure but i tanked the same amount.

 

[RatherClueless]

Imma switch to PC, so I can give a propper explanation of what I mean. >.>

 

[Kaltias]

I mean a 1 gigaton explosion the size of an island and a 1 gigaton explosion the size of a house are equally powerful, what changes is the intensity, but as Agnaa said that only affects the dura of people tanking it, not the AP of the person creating the explosion.

ISL is what you use to calc the dura of the person tanking it

 

[Andytrenom]

@Rather

It is usually assumed that only 1 second of the calculated Joules per second value contributes to the attack potency, or less if the object only had that heat for less than one second.

Calculations (you'll find it under the Heat, Radiation and Nuclear like explosions section)

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ok so since we only apply if it's 1 second, then it's fine. However let's say i attack someone with 1k degrees hot fire. How do we calculate how heat resistant is the dude who resisted it?

Using the

Mass x Specific Heat x (1000 - 36)?

 

[Kaltias]

Mass of the dude*whatever the specific heat of a human is*change in temperature (Human body is around 37 degrees so in this case 963)

Edit: Ye

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Mass of the dude*whatever the specific heat of a human is*change in temperature (Human body is around 37 degrees so in this case 963)
Edit: Ye

Then ok i agree to it.

A specific durability for heat is fine. I guess if everyone agrees then this solves the OP.

 

[RatherClueless]

"I mean a 1 gigaton explosion the size of an island and a 1 gigaton explosion the size of a house are equally powerful, what changes is the intensity"

Like... thats what I have been saying >.>

"but as Agnaa said that only affects the dura of people tanking it, not the AP of the person creating the explosion"

Umm, so a guy who creates a blast the size of earth to destroy earth vs a guy who creates a blast the size of a building that destoys earth, they are both equally powerful? I mean, if you get hit by the first guy, most of it won't even hit you, since the blast is just that massive, while thats not the case with the second guy. In other words, since the second guy has a much more intense attack, he could hurt people the first one could not, which in return means that AP also varies based on area >.>

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well technically both did the same damage but one has the ability to do it in a larger area. Obviously if hit by the former it would require FAR less durability to tank it. So he's correct, it doesn't affect the AP, but it affects the durability of the person tanking it.

 

[Andytrenom]

We explicitly measure AP in terms of energy output rather than area of destruction, so yeah, they will have the same AP

 

[RatherClueless]

@Andy ok, I see what u mean, but, umm... thats not what I was getting at >.>

 

[Agnaa]

A specific durability for heat is fine. I guess if everyone agrees then this solves the OP.

If that solves this thread, then why were we moved into this thread from the old one? That one was saying "Freezing feats shouldn't apply to AP", this one's saying "Feats of tanking heat need their own durability".

 

[RatherClueless]

Everyone misunderstands me ;-;

Feels bad man

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa Iirc Dargoo agreed after a while to just treat freezing and work feats separately, not discredit them as AP altogether

 

[Agnaa]

Then we still need to discuss whether we should separate freezing feats in AP, and whether the same separation needs to be done for heat in AP.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Agnaa Iirc Dargoo agreed after a while to just treat freezing and work feats separately, not discredit them as AP altogether

I believe dargo is also discrediting freezing as durability feats iirc. But i may misremember.

 

[Andytrenom]

You can ask him for clarification I guess