High 3-A and above Durability and Lifting Strength

[Bobsican]

Okay, as I was informed of this being a gray area off-site currently, i'd like some more formal affirmation on the matter:

Given that we currently deem characters that are finitely 3D physically yet with High 3-A or above durability (say, Goku), as having infinitely durable atomical bonds (which is why they're "immune" to non-smurf matter manip)...

Certain more exotic hax can also fall into this category, such as abilities that disintegrate molecules or atoms, as for a character with infinitely stronger durability the bonds between the particles making up their body would also need to be infinitely stronger.

Would damaging them by pulling apart, crushing and so on require infinite or above LS by default, or not?

 

[Dalesean027]

I'll get staff

 

[Baken384]

Platinum Tearcoded post ngl.

 

[KLOL506]

Eh, I'm not sure TBF, stuff like this IMHO should be case-by-case (Given that DT recently made a thread pertaining to atomic hax being dura neg as being a case-by-case matter), but if you really want a usable answer, your only option is to wait for DT to respond a month or two from now.

 

[Unknownnah]

LS stocks rising...

 

[Bobsican]

Case by case doesn't really mean anything here per-say as the issue would be where would we draw the line if that's that case.

 

[KLOL506]

In that case I suppose we can ask some experienced folk.

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @Sir_Ovens @ByAsura

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's similar to blocking attacks of crazy striking strength. On paper, it would be impressive lifting strength feats to pull or rip apart someone or something with high tier durability, but not sure how it can be handled without getting into calc stacking territory.

 

[KLOL506]

It's similar to blocking attacks of crazy striking strength. On paper, it would be impressive lifting strength feats to pull or rip apart someone or something with high tier durability, but not sure how it can be handled without getting into calc stacking territory.

I don't think calc stacking even matters when you're dealing with stuff High 3-A and above.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Either way, I don't think blocking a High 3-A punch nets you Infinite lifting strength or blocking punches from Low 2-C and above giving you Immeasurable lifting strength. So I don't think ripping a character with High 3-A durability or ripping Adamantium apart would grant Infinite lifting strength and what not.

 

[Bobsican]

Either way, I don't think blocking a High 3-A punch nets you Infinite lifting strength or blocking punches from Low 2-C and above giving you Immeasurable lifting strength. So I don't think ripping a character with High 3-A durability or ripping Adamantium apart would grant High 3-A lifting strength and what not.

What about VS threads if we go down this path of logic? Would characters with finite LS be capable of "ignoring" durability of High 3-A and above characters with LS?
I'd also have to ask on why to take this approach if calc stacking isn't an issue to begin with as mentioned above.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

What about VS threads if we go down this path of logic? Would characters with finite LS be capable of "ignoring" durability of High 3-A and above characters with LS?

I'd go with no regarding the durability negation thing. They could simply pin down a character, but that's not quite the same as damaging them. But ripping someone in half is obviously AP.

 

[Chariot190]

I'd say case by case, like logistically yeah, but it's important to note not all verses think the way we do, DBZ is an especially notable one given they can bridge whole gaps of infinity via finite multiplication as just an example of how a verse can behave differently from how we'd expect. Like just because it makes sense on paper, doesn't mean that's what a verse will go with, aka as with anything, use common sense and the actual source to come to a conclusion.

Same goes for Vs. matches too, how a verse demonstrates something is most important, we shouldn't pretend something isn't how it actually is, we index first and foremost. DBZ is, coincidentally, a good example of characters with disproportionate AP to LS.

 

[Bobsican]

I'd also have to ask on why to take this approach if calc stacking isn't an issue to begin with as mentioned above.

 

[Chariot190]

I'd also have to ask on why to take this approach if calc stacking isn't an issue to begin with as mentioned above.

It very much is an issue, unless it comes from a hard statement, anything that derives a value, from another calculated value, is calc stacking.

 

[Bobsican]

You don't really calculate High 3-A or above, however, such tiers are always reliant on statements or scaling, unless you mean for the rare cases of infinite stat amp multipliers or similar.

 

[Chariot190]

You don't really calculate High 3-A or above, however, such tiers are always reliant on statements, unless you mean for the rare cases of infinite stat amp multipliers or similar.

Destroying an infinite realm or whatever, and then scaling like dude got punched by someone on par, there's ways, unless the character in question is explicitly noted to have "infinite durability", the moment we take extra steps to arrive at that, is when we shouldn't even contemplate this shit. Doubly so given how niche and roundabout it is.

 

[Bobsican]

No calculation is done in the process of that, that's just powerscaling, which is a separate policy altogether, if anything it seems we'd need to add more policies to clarify this matter if basic scaling can't be used.

 

[Chariot190]

But it's still extrapolation off extra steps. And in some cases, may as well be calc stacking if you need to take steps to get to High 3-A in the first place.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the issue is. Just use common sense.

Let's use DBZ as an example once again. Can Super Goku lift an infinite amount of weight? **** no, he has a numerous amount of showings capping him infinitely below, well after he hit High 3-A mind you, whether that be struggling to lift mass that crushes katchin or even Whis' training outfits that merely compress and dig into the ground, he is anything but Infinite in LS. So what do we do if Goku chokes out or rips the arm off someone like Moro or Piccolo? Nothing.
The verse clearly demonstrates that they arent infinite in LS, and going even further back, has always shown that they have disproportionate AP to LS, whether that be Frieza ripping Nail's limbs off, or 16 with Cell's tail.
In the same way throwing a High 3-A punch isnt infinite LS (because, in theory, you can calculate any punch as LS with a lil bit of literal work), so too would be choking out a mf.

You have to remember, fiction is fiction, it wont always make perfect sense. And having standards for every niche facet of powerscaling is just asking for trouble when 99% of verses dont fit snugly into whatever policy we'd make, this isnt like an explosion where even a toddler would understand, this delves into mechanical properties.

Just use your head, does it make sense for it to be Infinite LS within context? Does the verse portray this as infinite LS in context? Is it consistent and not an outlier? Etc. If you think it might, run it by in a CRT or discussion with verse supporters and staff.

 

[Bobsican]

Extra steps? For the circumstances in the OP it'd require the feat of an High 3-A or above character being injured by LS from another character in the first place, the main reason calc stacking isn't allowed is because it's extrapolating results that weren't intended, while for something like this where no fan stuff beyond basic narrative analysis would be required, it should be fine, by your line of logic Universal Energy Systems wouldn't exist as they generally require a deeper look on a series than a feat being spoon-fed to the audience, nor correlate Durability to AP as by your standards we'd need a statement on characters being capable of withstanding their own punches without harming themselves, even though that'd be implicit out of basic laws of physics and is even the standard on the site.

I mean, that's why we have this thing called outliers, when it comes to something that's not our standard, being reiterated as a consistent part of a given verse in question, then that's just given priority, but only for the respective cases and not in general. However, if your point is that it should be simply be case by case based on that, then I'd be fine with that.

 

[BlackDarkness679]

I'd go with no regarding the durability negation thing. They could simply pin down a character, but that's not quite the same as damaging them. But ripping someone in half is obviously AP.

Then why ripping heads or spine feats arent on the page with values of AP besides lifting?

 

[Bobsican]

I'd go with no regarding the durability negation thing. They could simply pin down a character, but that's not quite the same as damaging them. But ripping someone in half is obviously AP.

I'm also getting concerns off-site of this, namely on if pinning down a character with infinite or higher durability would also include the potential to choke them, including by blocking their means of breathing (air flow to the lungs), or their blood flow.

 

[KLOL506]

Then why ripping heads or spine feats arent on the page with values of AP besides lifting?

Displacement value (Distance the force was carried over) was impossible to gauge for them.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

Gotta wait for DT or something at this point.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Then why ripping heads or spine feats arent on the page with values of AP besides lifting?

They aren't durability negation feats, but it's consistently hard to calculate as KLOL said. Though, I generally expect characters with the spine feat to be no lower than 9-B. And scientifically, characters or objects with High 3-A durability would technically required Infinite lifting strength, as is doing so to Low 2-C and above requiring Immeasurable lifting strength. But once again, those would fall similarly to our calc stacking rules as we don't assume being X times more durable than an average human multiplies the original feat by X. Though, ripping someone with City level durability should still be at least City level AP via power-scaling, but stacking LS multipliers would be calc stacking.

 

[Bobsican]

Wait, so AP can scale from LS, but not the other way around? May I remind that under the current standards if anything it should be the opposite? It does seem that, as linked over there, the standards seem contradictive, so I'd prefer if we got to some consistent solution, going by the previous thread I'd remind that as LS and AP use different units, they can't be exactly converted from one to the other without making assumptions, although from what I've discussed over that thread with @Agnaa off-site, it may be possible to just lowball this deal by dividing the AP by the length of the arm of someone's LS feat, or by 10x the length of their arm, if even fewer assumptions are desired.

More relevantly, I've discussed this topic with @Agnaa off-site for a while, and he overall thinks that there's only three ways to get a consistent answer to this deal:

1: AP and LS become equivalent, or heavily relatable at worst by default.

2: Finite LS can work even with characters with infinite durability.

3: Finite LS doesn't work with characters with infinite durability, but can work on anything finite with lower LS (3-A and below).

Personally I think the first option is the best one, but the current consensus seems to lean into the third option, but I'd think it'd be best to solidify on the secondary matter of it in terms of if a character with 3-A durability (not High 3-A) and otherwise "unknown" LS would be vulnerable to being teared to pieces by a tier 9 character with Class G LS, if we down that path, which should preferably also be elaborated on given the concerns above.

 

[Chariot190]

Class G LS

I see you've encountered Baken.

 

[KLOL506]

Wait, so AP can scale from LS, but not the other way around?

This actually requires you to jump through multiple hoops. Most of the time tho, you can't scale AP from LS, like say, doing weightlifting and whatnot, because the lifting impulse compared to a punching impulse in your body muscles are incredibly slow. The LS feat needs to be a rapid and swift feat, like throwing or swinging really fast for it to be applicable as AP.

 

[Bobsican]

Thing is that slowly lifting something ends up allowing the usage of more muscle fibers than a mere quick punch would, meaning that more force would be possible to be applied with LS than AP, and by extension there's a relation, I'll remind that this is a currently accepted standard as linked over there.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

it's more like Hax, not LS. It would be easier to judge by a specific example

 

[Bobsican]

By definition it's not hax, unless we end up allowing 3-A characters by default become vulnerable to stuff like Class G LS (in the sense of being teared apart).

 

[Gendolfgg1]

By definition it's not hax, unless we end up allowing 3-A characters by default become vulnerable to stuff like Class G LS (in the sense of being teared apart).

I just do not know if it is possible to break nuclear ties, it is physically impossible

 

[Baken384]

By definition it's not hax, unless we end up allowing 3-A characters by default become vulnerable to stuff like Class G LS (in the sense of being teared apart).

The no tensile strength proof for the city level boy is going crazy... I fear they are getting ripped apart

 

[KLOL506]

Thing is that slowly lifting something ends up allowing the usage of more muscle fibers than a mere quick punch would, meaning that more force would be possible to be applied with LS than AP, and by extension there's a relation, I'll remind that this is a currently accepted standard as linked over there.

Our LS Page clearly states this out in bold. We don't allow there to be a relation to begin with.

"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. Hence Lifting Strength and Striking Strength are in general not comparable and should be evaluated separately."

This was clearly established in this accepted CRT. From @Ugarik 's words:

"Another way to define it. No collision are allowed for LS. Force must be a result of a continious pushing or pulling. Impact force wouldn't scale to lifting strength."

I'd suggest refraining from further discussion on this specific topic and go back to discussing the original topic of High 3-A and above Durability and LS shenanigans.