High 3-A and above Durability and Lifting Strength

[KLOL506]

@Executor_N0 @DMUA @Therefir @Armorchompy @Psychomaster35 @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @Mr._Bambu @Agnaa @Wokistan @Migue79 @SunDaGamer Your input here would be appreciated.

 

[KLOL506]

As for my vote, I strongly disagree with scaling people who can rip apart High 3-A people limb from limb to Infinite LS as this would lead to roundabout ways of calc-stacking now that I think of it. Same reason we prevented upscaling the normal human spine-rip calc from people who had Tier 8 feats for MK.

 

[Armorchompy]

Obviously infinite energy is required to harm someone with infinite durability. Pretty stupid to argue otherwise, tearing someone's arm off isn't negating durability, it's just outputting energy like any other attack would. It's not even just a High 3-A thing, you can't rip off an 8-B's head if you're 8-C just cause they're Class 5 and you're Class K or whatever.

I think we find ourselves at the (il)logical conclusion of our simplified tiering system here. Granting a character infinite LS for doing something like blocking a punch (or even just, not getting flung away) by a High 3-A attack is really stupid (because literally all of them would have it, among other things), but so is saying a 9-A with Class K could rip a Class 1 planet buster's arm off.

What I suggest here is that we just go "okay, the reason we are here is because we've made necessary abstractions (LS not scaling directly from AP, chief among all) in our system, let's just accept that another one is required" and say that you need infinite LS to harm a High 3-A in a vs match, but doing that in your own verse is not enough to give you a High 3-A rating. Bit inelegant but it's the only way you do it without something very silly suddenly becoming the norm. There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

you can't rip off an 8-B's head if you're 8-C just cause they're Class 5 and you're Class K or whatever.

We, of The Republic of Lifting Strength, have found 0 evidence that an 8-A class 5 jobber can withstand the tensile, compressive, flexural, and/or shear forces of a high 8-C+ class G king.

Anyways I’m sorta retired from vsb, but I believe I should just say the following in defense of the LS meta here.

If someone blocks a high 3-A attack then just use common sense and say that it’s an infinite LS feat. If someone is an obvious exception (like Goku) due to anti then just make them an exception. I don’t really see why you’re trying to pretend like this is the hardest thing ever and that the tiering system can’t function with it .
Goodbye again vsb….

 

[Chariot190]

We, of The Republic of Lifting Strength, have found 0 evidence that an 8-A class 5 jobber can withstand the tensile, compressive, flexural, and/or shear forces of a high 8-C+ class G king.

Possessed by the Becky spirit....

 

[Armorchompy]

use common sense

obvious exception

"Common sense" to me suggests that the "obvious exception" is the norm, and should not be assumed to not be that. You could say "just use common sense and say all FTL characters are High 3-A, excluding obvious exceptions" or "just use common sense and say LS/speed scales from AP directly, excluding obvious exceptions" but in practice that just never works, and such rules have been put into place for a reason.

 

[KLOL506]

What even is going on here anymore

 

[Chariot190]

What even is going on here anymore

Mods falling for the LS Meta shitposts, overcomplicating high 3-A interactions, and throwing me under the bus in secret, so not much really.

 

[Baken384]

Mods falling for the LS Meta shitposts

It is not a shitpost. It's coming.

 

[azontr]

You can't lift. You can't crush. You can't tear. You stay in the Dark Ages, believing your 3-A Class 5 goat wins against my 9-A Class T goat despite the fact they have no tensile strength durability. But we at the Republic of LS see the truth, sitting on a throne that we lifted up a mountain of victories.

You stay ignorant. We stay winning.

 

[EmbalmerMaster9000]

Travis Touchdown (Class 50 lifting strength) getting ripped in half by Player [Fart Attack] (Class K lifting strength)

 

[Bobsican]

If we go by what Armorchompy said, it seems we'd need to add another note to the LS page over LS not exactly ignoring durability (especially against characters with infinite or above durability) out of some sorts of compromises regarding physics and consistency for the sake of rating stuff. How should it be worded?

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't really think we need to add a ruling for it, our rules are already more than enough to be inaccessible to new people and this is pretty niche.

 

[Bobsican]

I mean, the controversy of AP and LS not correlating has been a topic brought up for years at this point, expanding a bit further to minimize further redundant concerns (namely in terms of how LS and durability interact as far Vs threads and general scaling are concerned) would help reduce workload and ease discussion of edge cases.

I'd also reiterate the unaddressed concerns on if finite LS can also be used to choke characters with infinite durability or above or not.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think you could reasonably choke a higher tier character with lesser LS. You're not doing any actual harm to their body, just compressing it. Granted it is not a very likely strategy once the gap gets big enough given that they could just, I dunno, wiggle a bit and vaporize you.

 

[Bobsican]

What about Telekinesis on that regard then, in particular against targets with infinite durability as well? Gotta be comprehensive just in case.

I'm also getting the impression that to pull apart, crush, or other stuff among those lines to characters, a combination of AP and LS is required, is it true?, or would only one of the two reaching the respective durability of the target be sufficient? If so, which?

 

[Armorchompy]

What about Telekinesis on that regard then, in particular against targets with infinite durability as well? Gotta be comprehensive just in case.

Sure. Can't hurt them but you could restrain their movement and strangle them. There's an argument they could overpower the grasp with AP but that lies more on verse portrayal than anything.

I'm also getting the impression that to pull apart, crush, or other stuff among those lines to characters, a combination of AP and LS is required, is it true?, or would only one of the two reaching the respective durability of the target be sufficient? If so, which?

It's hard to rule and this is just my specific take on it but the way I'd do it is that a character must have the LS to pull the feat off on a normal human (presuming a humanoid target here) and AP sufficient to harm the foe (if it comes to tearing flesh and bone, it'd probably need to be a stomp worthy AP advantage, but something like tearing a ligament with a joint lock can be done against equal foes). Otherwise we'd have does odd situations where, if LS is the primary denominator and needs to match durability, a 3-B character with Class K capable of tearing 3-C people apart in their verse would no longer be capable of doing so in a vs match, and I think we'd all agree that's silly.

 

[Bobsican]

I suppose further input from others could also be used on the second part, especially as that's still a bit vague.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

Well, if no one disagrees with Armorchompy's take at this point on LS to damage characters requiring mainly comparable AP or above, and at least LS to "realistically" do it on a 10-B human in most scenarios, then I think it may be worth considering to be mentioned as a note in the LS page alongside the main clarification from this thread on how LS interacts with durability as far vs threads are concerned, particularly when either the LS or the durability are infinite.

 

[Chariot190]

I mean, the controversy of AP and LS not correlating has been a topic brought up for years at this point, expanding a bit further to minimize further redundant concerns (namely in terms of how LS and durability interact as far Vs threads and general scaling are concerned) would help reduce workload and ease discussion of edge cases.

Case by case. Making a rule for something that is verse and case-dependent, is quite frankly, dumb. In the same way we don't scale LS off AP as already outlined, verses and characters may not, and usually don't, treat it linearly.

Case and point.

I don't think we need to do anything. Like be real, when has ANYONE argued ripping a uni's dude head off is Inf LS? I've never actually seen it and I feel I lurk CRT's often enough to have if it's been a thing.

And given you mentioned Vs. Threads, which blatantly makes this in regards to Baken's agenda, ignoring High 3-A and above because duh, that's case-by-case dependent even still.
Just like with anything else, in a Vs. Match, details like that should be discussed in the match itself, as depending on the character, verse, and feats involved, it can vary.

You're very much overcomplicating things and thinking too hard about a hyper-niche aspect that may, or may not, work, and the only way we'd know is if we knew the two exact characters interacting in question first before making a call, in the same way we have no idea if a dude is blitzing, haxing, or one-shotting a dude without knowing how they stack up and the feats in play.

What about Telekinesis on that regard then, in particular against targets with infinite durability as well? Gotta be comprehensive just in case.

TK is quite literally no different, at that point you may as well tack on gravity manip and who knows how many other abilities.

I'm also getting the impression that to pull apart, crush, or other stuff among those lines to characters, a combination of AP and LS is required, is it true?, or would only one of the two reaching the respective durability of the target be sufficient? If so, which?

Would, again, probably depend on both the character's feats. I mean you can get AP or LS from the same action if you know the work involved in most physical cases, you're oversimplifying things here.

The only real odd case is tensile, given mechanical properties don't, and often aren't, linear. At that point you'd need feats I guess? But I mean, is it actually that hard to find feats? You get uppercutted in the jaw by a 7-A, wow, your head didn't fly off, the angle of the punch relative to the body would have it be tensile.
But even then that's only by default, take DBZ is the example that keeps on giving.

There's no "guideline" or "rules" to be made, quite literally, not one verse will adhere to whatever standards we make, for the exact same reason we split LS/AP to begin with, if you're so concerned about matches, discuss it in the match itself just like any other stat or ability, hell maybe a 8-C who has a billion ton tearing could rip a Class 5 8-A's head off if the 8-A's showings, feats, verse and so on dictate, yeah he might be vulnerable, or maybe the 8-C can't because the 8-A has a showing or dura feat that'd apply and neg it, who knows?

 

[Baken384]

hell maybe a 8-C who has a billion ton tearing could rip a Class 5 8-A's head off if the 8-A's showings, feats, verse and so on dictate, yeah he might be vulnerable,

me and the squad going on a journey to find the 8-a character's tensile strength that is on par with the class g forces

 

[Chariot190]

me and the squad going on a journey to find the 8-a character's tensile strength that is on par with the class g forces

 

[Bobsican]

Case by case. Making a rule for something that is verse and case-dependent, is quite frankly, dumb. In the same way we don't scale LS off AP as already outlined, verses and characters may not, and usually don't, treat it linearly.

Case and point.

I don't think we need to do anything. Like be real, when has ANYONE argued ripping a uni's dude head off is Inf LS? I've never actually seen it and I feel I lurk CRT's often enough to have if it's been a thing.

Not many users really touch LS semantics in the first place, especially when it comes to involve infinite tiers and so on, in fact I had some plans to do stuff among these lines depending on how this thread went.

And given you mentioned Vs. Threads, which blatantly makes this in regards to Baken's agenda, ignoring High 3-A and above because duh, that's case-by-case dependent even still.
Just like with anything else, in a Vs. Match, details like that should be discussed in the match itself, as depending on the character, verse, and feats involved, it can vary.

You're very much overcomplicating things and thinking too hard about a hyper-niche aspect that may, or may not, work, and the only way we'd know is if we knew the two exact characters interacting in question first before making a call, in the same way we have no idea if a dude is blitzing, haxing, or one-shotting a dude without knowing how they stack up and the feats in play.

TK is quite literally no different, at that point you may as well tack on gravity manip and who knows how many other abilities.

Would, again, probably depend on both the character's feats. I mean you can get AP or LS from the same action if you know the work involved in most physical cases, you're oversimplifying things here.

The only real odd case is tensile, given mechanical properties don't, and often aren't, linear. At that point you'd need feats I guess? But I mean, is it actually that hard to find feats? You get uppercutted in the jaw by a 7-A, wow, your head didn't fly off, the angle of the punch relative to the body would have it be tensile.
But even then that's only by default, take DBZ is the example that keeps on giving.

There's no "guideline" or "rules" to be made, quite literally, not one verse will adhere to whatever standards we make, for the exact same reason we split LS/AP to begin with, if you're so concerned about matches, discuss it in the match itself just like any other stat or ability, hell maybe a 8-C who has a billion ton tearing could rip a Class 5 8-A's head off if the 8-A's showings, feats, verse and so on dictate, yeah he might be vulnerable, or maybe the 8-C can't because the 8-A has a showing or dura feat that'd apply and neg it, who knows?

Thing is that two separate verses can have conflicting takes on how to approach this, and by extension leaving it case by case is no different from basically having no standards whatsoever here beyond basically separating AP from LS by default unless it involves fast motions for the latter. I'd remind that not every member is a calc group member and thus common sense won't really hold up, it's like how there's an arbitrary one shot gap for vs threads as verses have have very arbitrary gaps to determine this.

 

[Chariot190]

Not many users really touch LS semantics in the first place, especially when it comes to involve infinite tiers and so on, in fact I had some plans to do stuff among these lines depending on how this thread went.

Exactly, it's hyperniche. Just make the thread, we need acual context on the specifics first, making a rule and trying to run with that ain't gonna work when, as established, how a verse actually handles this can, and will, vary greatly.

Thing is that two separate verses can have conflicting takes on how to approach this,

Exactly. So why the hell do you want to make a universal rule.

and by extension leaving it case by case is no different from basically having no standards whatsoever here beyond basically separating AP from LS by default unless it involves fast motions for the latter.

Yes. Don't fix what ain't broke, as you quite literally just admitted, diff verses will have diff approaches to this, so, they must be evaluated and concluded seperately while factoring in each case's specifics.

I'd remind that not every member is a calc group member and thus common sense won't really hold up,

So? We shouldn't just make stuff and pretend things are the way they aren't. It's no different than anything else in a match or indexing, we need to know te feats in question first. Also, I can assure you, if lads talking about the fatal five LS techs, they have said common sense.

it's like how there's an arbitrary one shot gap for vs threads as verses have have very arbitrary gaps to determine this.

Literally fixing that right now, are we not? And not really, this isn't just "Big punch hort".

 

[Bobsican]

Exactly, it's hyperniche. Just make the thread, we need acual context on the specifics first, making a rule and trying to run with that ain't gonna work when, as established, how a verse actually handles this can, and will, vary greatly.

Thing is that as things currently stand no argument can ever be made for it as we just default to trying to preserve the status quo independently of how much sense a particular case makes, at best we'd need some more details on how such kind of cases can go "against the norm" without basically having LS feats spoon-fed independently of other stats.

Exactly. So why the hell do you want to make a universal rule.

To have consistency, it's better to at the very least give some agreed on guidelines (in fact that's what this thread has been leading to, you're the only one acting up as if it's best to just leave it inconclusive), over trying to pretend no verse combination in matches will ever lead to simply contradicting premises.

Yes. Don't fix what ain't broke, as you quite literally just admitted, diff verses will have diff approaches to this, so, they must be evaluated and concluded seperately while factoring in each case's specifics.

Thing is that we'd have to lay out what'd be the specifics in the first place as said before, it's clear that merely separating LS from AP usually won't be sufficient with the semantics I'm poking, as currently no standards properly touch on durability, let alone whenever infinities are involved.

So? We shouldn't just make stuff and pretend things are the way they aren't. It's no different than anything else in a match or indexing, we need to know te feats in question first. Also, I can assure you, if lads talking about the fatal five LS techs, they have said common sense.

Literally fixing that right now, are we not? And not really, this isn't just "Big punch hort".

I mean, that's exactly how the one shot gap thread is concluding, trying to generalize a tier 10 thing to stuff thousands, millions or even infinities (lol stat multiplier gaps in tier 2) in comparison, it's just a necessary evil to be able to leave something conclusive so anyone can argue better over having extremely inconsistent criteria, so this doesn't hold up.

 

[Chariot190]

Thing is that as things currently stand no argument can ever be made for it as we just default to trying to preserve the status quo independently of how much sense a particular case makes,

With the exception of High 3-A, your case doesn't make sense. Which is the issue.
You're somehow both grossly oversimplifying it, while thinking way to hard about it. Like it or not, it's case by case dependent, it always will be. We're not gong to pretend otherwise, first and fremost our job is to be accurate. Besides, status quo? We don't have a status quo for this, it's to specfic and varied to have one.

at best we'd need some more details on how such kind of cases can go "against the norm" without basically having LS feats spoon-fed independently of other stats.

It depends on the case in question? You're asking us to make up details, for cases against the norm? But if they're against the norm then we are we supposed to know? We, again, would need to look at it independantly, which you don't seem to be grasping.

To have consistency,

Which is the issue, it isn't, so let's not make stuff up and pretend it is? We already don't do this, it's precisely why this rule exists.
"While Striking Strength measures the energy of a character's physical attacks, Lifting Strength measures the amount of mass they can lift, which is determined by the amount of force a character can produce. This means that they measure two different physical quantities. Furthermore it can't be assumed that a character that can physically produce the amount of energy used in lifting an object by a certain height can also lift it, if it didn't demonstrate the ability to produce that level of Lifting Strength. It is a common feature within fiction to feature characters capable of vastly greater physical striking strength energy outputs than what would be required to lift weights that they are repeatedly shown to struggle with."

Are we going to get rid of this? No. Because different verses, characters, and the like, don't treat it the same, as such, we judge each case independently and case by case, without making up a "guideline", we simply judge by context and feats. Which is precisely the same here.

it's better to at the very least give some agreed on guidelines (in fact that's what this thread has been leading to, you're the only one acting up as if it's best to just leave it inconclusive),

It is best to leave it inconclusive, not only is this an overtly niche concept, but quite literally 99% of verses, have their own takes and feats, and should be judged based on what they have, instead of assuming otherwise.

And I would appreciate if you watched your tone, "Acting up", because I think your conclusions are objecively and fundamentally flawed?

I mean, that's exactly how the one shot gap thread is concluding, trying to generalize a tier 10 thing to stuff thousands, millions or even infinities (lol stat multiplier gaps in tier 2) in comparison,

The one shot gap is split, and seems to be leaning toward a more realistic one shot gap, contrary to your "completely arbitrary" statement.

it's just a necessary evil to be able to leave something conclusive so anyone can argue better over having extremely inconsistent criteria, so this doesn't hold up.

I quite frankly do not care, we are, first and foremost, an indexing wiki. Our job is to be accurate, not fabricate made up gaps, that nobody has had issue with before.
You outright admitted that verses do not treat it the same way, yet you ask to be willingly ignorant for the sake of matches? I vehemently disagree.

Like it or not, feats are feats, we work off feats. Even the one shot gap or hax ultimately boils down to feats, yet here you're asking us to completely disregard feats instead. It is not an equilavent rule. Durability and AP ultimately both work off the same rules, that isn't the case here.

over trying to pretend no verse combination in matches will ever lead to simply contradicting premises.

That's quite literally why I'm saying it's wrong, they likely will contradict to some degree, as such, compare it in the match itself, judge by their feats and context, and then draw a conclusion based on that, no different than judging if a hax will work or not.

 

[Bobsican]

With the exception of High 3-A, your case doesn't make sense. Which is the issue.
You're somehow both grossly oversimplifying it, while thinking way to hard about it. Like it or not, it's case by case dependent, it always will be. We're not gong to pretend otherwise, first and fremost our job is to be accurate. Besides, status quo? We don't have a status quo for this, it's to specfic and varied to have one.

The "High 3-A" part would fall under the "infinities involved" umbrella that was previously mentioned, I'm not saying that we should entirely dismiss the idea of it being case by case, but at the same time there should be some minimal outlines for users to be capable of judging properly, we could start with the High 3-A stuff if that'd make discussion more smooth.

It depends on the case in question? You're asking us to make up details, for cases against the norm? But if they're against the norm then we are we supposed to know? We, again, would need to look at it independantly, which you don't seem to be grasping.

I mean, what I'm asking here is for details (or examples, if you will) on how would a case be able to go against the norm without basically having LS feats spoon-fed and entirely independently of other stats.

Which is the issue, it isn't, so let's not make stuff up and pretend it is? We already don't do this, it's precisely why this rule exists.
"While Striking Strength measures the energy of a character's physical attacks, Lifting Strength measures the amount of mass they can lift, which is determined by the amount of force a character can produce. This means that they measure two different physical quantities. Furthermore it can't be assumed that a character that can physically produce the amount of energy used in lifting an object by a certain height can also lift it, if it didn't demonstrate the ability to produce that level of Lifting Strength. It is a common feature within fiction to feature characters capable of vastly greater physical striking strength energy outputs than what would be required to lift weights that they are repeatedly shown to struggle with."

Are we going to get rid of this? No. Because different verses, characters, and the like, don't treat it the same, as such, we judge each case independently and case by case, without making up a "guideline", we simply judge by context and feats. Which is precisely the same here.

As said before the thing here would be a guideline on how it's judged case by case, rather than leaving it all up in the air, in other words such guidelines wouldn't focus on how a verse treats it but instead give general ideas that can be accepted for a certain claim and what isn't, as that's simply lacking at the moment regarding how LS interacts with durability, or LS and the involvement of infinities in either the LS itself, the durability of a target, both, and so on, as said before.

It is best to leave it inconclusive, not only is this an overtly niche concept, but quite literally 99% of verses, have their own takes and feats, and should be judged based on what they have, instead of assuming otherwise.

And I would appreciate if you watched your tone, "Acting up", because I think your conclusions are objecively and fundamentally flawed?

I'm not making up conclusions, I'm merely voicing how this thread has gone based on the input of other calc group members, remember to hold an open mind especially for a topic like this one where any conclusion is basically a compromise out of how variable fiction is on this topic.

The one shot gap is split, and seems to be leaning toward a more realistic one shot gap, contrary to your "completely arbitrary" statement.

I quite frankly do not care, we are, first and foremost, an indexing wiki. Our job is to be accurate, not fabricate made up gaps, that nobody has had issue with before.
You outright admitted that verses do not treat it the same way, yet you ask to be willingly ignorant for the sake of matches? I vehemently disagree.

Like it or not, feats are feats, we work off feats. Even the one shot gap or hax ultimately boils down to feats, yet here you're asking us to completely disregard feats instead. It is not an equilavent rule. Durability and AP ultimately both work off the same rules, that isn't the case here.

It's realistic only as far tier 10 is concerned, naturally we lack the resources to properly measure such gap in far more superhuman tiers, let alone infinity-based tiers, or the fact that the one shot gap in itself is overly simplifying things, as in that thread it has been brought up that the minimal energy output to one shot a human is below 10-B, so instead of doing multiple benchmarks for different body parts (let alone not every being in fiction being human shaped or organic) and accomodating in detail for every tier, a catch-all gap is being done, which is quite off-topic for this thread anyways, so I wouldn't recommend to focus too much on this part.

I mean, yet that's being done currently for the sake of vs threads having a proper way to measure AP in a relevant manner, I can understand your issue to some degree when this involves usage for indexing, but in vs threads compromises simply have to be done, this is blatantly asking for a double standard just out of personal preference, which is simply a no.

Feats are relevant, I'm not dismissing that, the question as outlined above is around what'd be the minimal (or if other stuff can be used in favor or against) for the respective cases without leaving it up in the air.

That's quite literally why I'm saying it's wrong, they likely will contradict to some degree, as such, compare it in the match itself, judge by their feats and context, and then draw a conclusion based on that, no different than judging if a hax will work or not.

In practice that will just lead to whoever side has the most fans in favor to push for an argument that favors the character they like, which is not good as that leads to double standards, part of the intent here is to avoid exactly that.

 

[Chariot190]

The "High 3-A" part would fall under the "infinities involved" umbrella that was previously mentioned, I'm not saying that we should entirely dismiss the idea of it being case by case, but at the same time there should be some minimal outlines for users to be capable of judging properly, we could start with the High 3-A stuff if that'd make discussion more smooth.

High 3-A and above I agree.

I mean, what I'm asking here is for details (or examples, if you will) on how would a case be able to go against the norm without basically having LS feats spoon-fed and entirely independently of other stats.

Then it's Unknown? We do nothing, tough luck basically, not much we can do if they have nothing.
Unless they have statements, scaling, or established precedence? That's usable too. But that, again, would depend on context and verse, aka, again, case by case.

As said before the thing here would be a guideline on how it's judged case by case, rather than leaving it all up in the air,

Judged based on feats? What's hard to grasp here? It isn't being "left up in the air", literally just use the verse's context and feats.

in other words such guidelines wouldn't focus on how a verse treats it

Unfortunately, verses will likely treat it differently, as such, that's a critical component that can not be ignored.

but instead give general ideas that can be accepted for a certain claim and what isn't, as that's simply lacking at the moment regarding how LS interacts with durability,

Again, feats.

Like take compressive strength. Could a 8-C Class G/T crush a 8-A Class K? Probably not. Why? Because let's say the 8-A took a 8-A punch, bam done, a punch despite being a punch, still has force behind, a 8-A punch would apply well beyond just Class G/T force, so in such a case, yeah, durability WOULD neg that LS, assuming the 8-A has showings of durability or tanking that would apply.
But could that same Class T apply that LS in a different way? Maybe, mechanical properties do vary, they don't have to be linear, in that case, what types of things has that 8-A tanked? Like say an uppercut to the jaw? That'd apply for tensile based on angle, or like that cool Vegeta move where he grabs your arms and kicks ya, that angle and force applied would be tensile for the arms.
Ok but what if that 8-A doesn't have feats like that? Hell what if he's 8-A for like a completely unconventional reason?
Well, lil bro might just get pinched with ten fucktillion tons of pressure, it is what it is.

We can not properly conclude, unless we know the dudes fighting, their stats, feats, and specific showings. Couple how a verse might treat force, such as say, Class M grip being able to (specifically) tear the High 8-C Santana's skin off, or the travesty that is DBZ and its completely disproportionate LS/AP showings and statements.

See the issue with wanting to make a catch-all guideline? We literally cannot know unless we know the specifics.

or LS and the involvement of infinities in either the LS itself, the durability of a target, both, and so on, as said before.

Well infinities speaks for itself, at such a point, mechanical properties be damned.

I'm not making up conclusions, I'm merely voicing how this thread has gone based on the input of other calc group members, remember to hold an open mind especially for a topic like this one where any conclusion is basically a compromise out of how variable fiction is on this topic.

Or... we don't "compromise" and just go "hmm, scrimbo has Class F LS, which is above dimbo's Class D, but dimbo eclipses him durability, fortunately, dimbo has showings that enable scrimbo's LS advantage useless, so he scrimbo is getting tanked and laid out".

For example, we don't do this with hax, speed, or anything, even the "arbitrary gaps", are only relative, like a 7x for speed blitzing? Only applies at a certain distance, if they start 4km away, 7x ain't blitzing Dude A before he can do anything, but 5m? Yeah he's cooked. That's a case of simply using common sense in a thread itself, based on said match. Or, more famously, layered hax, we just compare feats between dudes to conclude if a hax will work or not.
What's the issue with doing this with anything else? Argue about match stuff, in said match, if said thing is variable between characters, verses, and context.
The fact you just admitted it's variable between fiction, all but supports my point.

It's realistic only as far tier 10 is concerned, naturally we lack the resources to properly measure such gap in far more superhuman tiers,

What? We can measure well into tier 8, we have some WACKY ass artificial materials like CNT fibers and tubing, insane high-powered hydraulic presses, tensile testing machines, and more. Pretty sure we can go even further based on weird tectonic, construction, and deep sea studies, but I'm not sure on that.

This is a non-argument anyway, one that isn't even true, plus we can make approximate guesses based on actual precedence and formulas, which this very wiki is founded upon mind you.

let alone infinity-based tiers,

Infinity thresholds I agree with, but, literally who is arguing fodder af Class 5 9-B is ripping off epic high 3-A's head anyway?

or the fact that the one shot gap in itself is overly simplifying things, as in that thread it has been brought up that the minimal energy output to one shot a human is below 10-B, so instead of doing multiple benchmarks for different body parts (let alone not every being in fiction being human shaped or organic) and accomodating in detail for every tier, a catch-all gap is being done, which is quite off-topic for this thread anyways, so I wouldn't recommend to focus too much on this part.

As above, but even that isn't foolproof. If a character has a means to mitigate that, say, Batman targeting weak points like you just mentioned, we very well will go "hmm yeah Batman probably floors the dude 5x above him by caving in his nerves or something".
But, it seems you fundamentally don't understand what the AP gap is for.
The AP one shot gap, is more about a reasonable "yeah youre absolutely not getting back up" territory, as opposed to "this is the baseline to ohko a person". Everyone knows that a dude can be ohko'd by less in good circumstances, the ohko gap is more "yeah you're boned" regardless of where one is struck, approximately.

The LS equivalent would be the exact opposite of what you're asking for, not a gap for when LS stops working, but rather, how much LS you can withstand before you're cooked. But even this doesn't work, unlike AP and dura, which both use joules, making it a basic A>B thing 99% of the time, LS not only uses a different measure of energy that isn't actually convertible without extra info like work, but how force interacts with a material, can vary. We NEED to know the characters, verse, and feats in question first.

I mean, yet that's being done currently for the sake of vs threads having a proper way to measure AP in a relevant manner,

See above.

I can understand your issue to some degree when this involves usage for indexing, but in vs threads compromises simply have to be done,

This isn't a compromise, lad, me and you both know, I've had to deal with Baken's yapping too, I get it man.
But even then, I don't agree with enforcing made-up rules for complex interactions (that literally won't even go anywhere 90% of the time) because... It might lead to needing an extra 2 minutes of discussion in a match?
(This is why featboxes good btw).

this is blatantly asking for a double standard just out of personal preference, which is simply a no.

No? Even by your very own logic we don't do this. You're asking for us to just be ignorant, and pretend when we can just solve this in treads themselves much like anything else.

Feats are relevant, I'm not dismissing that, the question as outlined above is around what'd be the minimal (or if other stuff can be used in favor or against) for the respective cases without leaving it up in the air.

Depends on the feats? There is no minimum. Depends on the verse, the feats, the characters, how they'd interact, and so on. Even the time is a factor, 10,000,000 tons of pressure for 0.1 second on a 8-B, or 10,000,000 tons applied slowly over 10 seconds. What do you think is more problematic?

A minimum would need to be figured based on feats and who's doing what and against who.

In practice that will just lead to whoever side has the most fans in favor to push for an argument that favors the character they like, which is not good as that leads to double standards, part of the intent here is to avoid exactly that.

No it wouldn't? Ignoring the fact you can make that argument with quite literally any match ever, even if it's objectively wrong, FRA trains do be a thing that already exist. No, that wouldn't be the case, it's not exactly a case of subjectivity.
"Hey could this 9-B Class 10 choke out the 5-B Class 1?"
"Hmm, unfortunately, the 5-B took [literally any relevant directional attack that hit his body] so no, he could not".
What, you think the 9-B having fans would change that? It wouldn't. Choking out would be invalid, end of, if fans still FRA or whatever, well that's no different from what already happens sometimes, nothing can be done about that, arbitrary rule or not.

Quite frankly this argument is bad, it's just a slippery slope of an argument and trying to prevent a hypothetical that never happened, by making stuff up that doesn't make sense.

I'm going to be blunt.
You want us to make up a rule that objectively, by your own admission, (5+ times, I can quote them if need be), is blatantly wrong and dishonest?
A guideline you have admitted varies by verse, would be extremely inconsistent between characters and verses, would be contradictory, and would also be completely arbitrary, and even in your very own latest post noted that between fictions will vary greatly, bruh wtf
With you citing the AP gap, a far less complex mechanic with less variables, as why it's ok? Ignoring how that's a blatant remnant of the past most people don't actually like and we're striving to make it less arbitrary anyway, why would two wrongs make a right?

I agree High 3-A and above tho as a default btw, but the lower you go, the less straightforward it becomes even just scientifically speaking.

As it stands this has never been an issue anyway, like "it's just a necessary evil to be able to leave something conclusive so anyone can argue better over having extremely inconsistent criteria, so this doesn't hold up.", is just dishonest. We don't do that for most things, like hax, we judge off feats, showings, res, and so on. comparing the two character's feats, and drawing a conclusion based on that, or hell let's not even get into skill. This, happens every day, dozens of times a day. This would be no different, we can not actually conclude this hyper-specific interaction nobody has actually argued in a match before, without knowing who's in said match first. And "anyone" can argue isn't the point here, like ya wouldn't make up objectively false guidelines so people who don't know Grade 3 science can argue about actual complex characters like dudes in tier 1, guidelines exist, when they have to exist, and only as much as it needs to.

Based off everything you've said thus far, I vehemently disagree with the proposal (Fyi, disagreeing with your proposal, isn't stonewalling), ignoring how a "minimum guideline", LITERALLY isn't possible to figure out without extra evidence and context so the proposal is dead on arrival even if I did agree with it.
It's nothing but thinking too hard on something that's never been a problem, while somehow oversimplifying it, just to bullshit a guideline, that in and of itself is objectively not even applicable, all while giving excuses for why we should while making admitting you know it doesn't work like that just so we can be willfully ignorant. I don't have the greatest say here, but put me down for disagree unless you can give an actual reason while accounting for my qualms with this.

 

[Dalesean027]

Yeah I honestly don't see why this is even getting this complicated, I'm in agreement with what chariot has said above and he put it pretty bluntly and blatant.

Honestly by this point I don't think there's anymore room for back and forths, I'd say lets just ping some staff and get their weigh ins after all of this

 

[Reiner04]

Universal LS for goku for pushing vegeta's balls.