-
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.
- 3,260
- 293
We can go with the SI system of units for the range then. Instead of using miles, kilometres will be used as the distance, correct?
Also, considering that different weapons have different ranges/area of effect, it would be advised that we cover all the possible distances that said weapons in fiction can cover.
For example, some weapons can reach up to a neighbouring city, while others can reach up to a faraway island, country, etc.
Also, considering that different weapons have different ranges/area of effect, it would be advised that we cover all the possible distances that said weapons in fiction can cover.
For example, some weapons can reach up to a neighbouring city, while others can reach up to a faraway island, country, etc.
- 7,413
- 3,301
I agree with this. Using metrics would be a way better choice since you know - most of the world uses the system.Lina Shields said:
- 2,335
- 1,005
By weapons, I meant firearms, or bows. Which is anywhere from about 50-2000 meters, which is a superhuman range I guess.
And metric system is easier to use too. Not allot of trouble when every new unit is a power of 10.
And metric system is easier to use too. Not allot of trouble when every new unit is a power of 10.
- 2,335
- 1,005
Yes, it is more standardized, and simplified.
Maybe we should wait for suggestions on ranges that are beyond melee but beneath continental.
Maybe we should wait for suggestions on ranges that are beyond melee but beneath continental.
- 8,675
- 5,560
Well, Lina and Hop's suggestions seem fine to me.
- 3,260
- 293
Still not on board with categorizing range of weapons/characters into two categories "Above human" and "Far reaching". This is because
Also noting that the SI system of units has standard prefixes increasing by increments (a factor of ten), listed as deca, hecto, kilo, mega, etc. However, what they don't do is categorize all those prefixes into two general categories.
However, I am in favor off distinguishing a Power range, and Attack range.
For example, if one can only reach up to tens of metres with their general attacks, but can reach up to Cross-planetary distances with mind attacks/telepathy, we can write it on that characters' range description as:
- Weapons in real life & fiction tend to have variable range. For example, small arms and bows have a range of 10 to 100 metres without any scoping assistance . Weapons that use a scope such as a sniper rifle, or Swedish AK4OR are going to have further range due to access to greater distances, etc
- The term "Above human" is too generalized, as any range that is above what a human is capable of reaching is considered to be above human. Bows and small arms are usually applicable for up to around 10 to 100 metres (leaning on the lower end here), while missiles are capable of attacking cities that are a fair distance away, which can be up to kilometres.
- There is also the area of effect and explosion speed that nukes are able to cover, which can range from kilometres to tens of kilometres instantly in terms of radius, so that would still be qualified as range in terms of how far an attack can reach.
Also noting that the SI system of units has standard prefixes increasing by increments (a factor of ten), listed as deca, hecto, kilo, mega, etc. However, what they don't do is categorize all those prefixes into two general categories.
However, I am in favor off distinguishing a Power range, and Attack range.
For example, if one can only reach up to tens of metres with their general attacks, but can reach up to Cross-planetary distances with mind attacks/telepathy, we can write it on that characters' range description as:
- Range: Tens of metres with regular attacks, Cross-planetary with mind attacks/telepathy.
- 2,512
- 261
(Didn't know the thread was still ungoing, kinda thought it was finished when I got to it..)
I would mostly be on board with Lina's suggestion.
Though I would want to suggest two/three changes.
Instead of Decameter and Hectometer I would suggest using tens of meters and hundreds of meters, because:
-Those terms are uncommonly used. Even the Hectometer wikipedia page states that.
-Due to being uncommonly used probably no profile on the page uses this to this point, while tens or hundreds of meters might already be found.
-Calling them this is more in line with calling the kilometer rankings tens/hundreds of kilometers.
Hop's suggestion for intercontinental range is actually not self-explanoratory, but could be considered.
If we want to do that (I am more or less neutral on that) I would suggest that beginning at 5500 km, as that is the minimum range for a missle to be considered intercontinental according to wikipedia.
Planetary starts for me at the range where a character can target any point on the planet.
That range would be reached if one has range equal to the planets diameter. (aka. is able to shoot to the other side of the planet if shooting straight through it or reachs the range through mind attacks or stuff)
Mecurys diameter would be below intercontinental range (in the sense mentioned above). Not suprising given that mecury isn't that much bigger than our moon.
Hence I would advise against beginning planetary at mecury and instead say that the minimum value for planetary range is being able to shoot every point on earth.
That makes sense given that the vast majority of planets we deal with will be assumed to be earth sized and that earth is also our standard for planet level.
So I would suggest letting planetary begin at 12742 km.
From here let me expand what Lina already suggested:
To make this shorter
Stellar: Diameter of the sun. 1.391.400 km
Interplanetary: I believe the lowest distance between planets in our solar system is between earth and venus. According to this it gets as close as 38.000.000 km.
That would in my opinion be the beginning Interplanetary range.
Interstellar: For that I would suggest the distance to Proxima Centauri, the star closest to our sun.
That distance would be 4.25 lightyears.
Galactic: For this level I would suggest either the diameter or the radius of the milkyway.
So 100.000 lightyears or 50.000 lightyears.
Intergalactic: I would suggest the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy as the closest major Galaxy.
That would be about 2.500.000 lightyears.
Universal: Should begin at the radius of the observable universe IMO.
So about 46.6 billion light years.
This goes to infinity and after that we get classifications like:
Multi-Universal / Interuniversal / Multiversal / Multiverse level
and
Higher dimensional / Hyperversal
and
Outerversal
So one maybe should point out that in terms of distance this isn't necessarily higher than the former levels (shooting to another universe could require just a range of 2 cm or something), but technically just shows degrees of freedom of movement.
I would mostly be on board with Lina's suggestion.
Though I would want to suggest two/three changes.
Instead of Decameter and Hectometer I would suggest using tens of meters and hundreds of meters, because:
-Those terms are uncommonly used. Even the Hectometer wikipedia page states that.
-Due to being uncommonly used probably no profile on the page uses this to this point, while tens or hundreds of meters might already be found.
-Calling them this is more in line with calling the kilometer rankings tens/hundreds of kilometers.
Hop's suggestion for intercontinental range is actually not self-explanoratory, but could be considered.
If we want to do that (I am more or less neutral on that) I would suggest that beginning at 5500 km, as that is the minimum range for a missle to be considered intercontinental according to wikipedia.
Planetary starts for me at the range where a character can target any point on the planet.
That range would be reached if one has range equal to the planets diameter. (aka. is able to shoot to the other side of the planet if shooting straight through it or reachs the range through mind attacks or stuff)
Mecurys diameter would be below intercontinental range (in the sense mentioned above). Not suprising given that mecury isn't that much bigger than our moon.
Hence I would advise against beginning planetary at mecury and instead say that the minimum value for planetary range is being able to shoot every point on earth.
That makes sense given that the vast majority of planets we deal with will be assumed to be earth sized and that earth is also our standard for planet level.
So I would suggest letting planetary begin at 12742 km.
From here let me expand what Lina already suggested:
To make this shorter
Stellar: Diameter of the sun. 1.391.400 km
Interplanetary: I believe the lowest distance between planets in our solar system is between earth and venus. According to this it gets as close as 38.000.000 km.
That would in my opinion be the beginning Interplanetary range.
Interstellar: For that I would suggest the distance to Proxima Centauri, the star closest to our sun.
That distance would be 4.25 lightyears.
Galactic: For this level I would suggest either the diameter or the radius of the milkyway.
So 100.000 lightyears or 50.000 lightyears.
Intergalactic: I would suggest the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy as the closest major Galaxy.
That would be about 2.500.000 lightyears.
Universal: Should begin at the radius of the observable universe IMO.
So about 46.6 billion light years.
This goes to infinity and after that we get classifications like:
Multi-Universal / Interuniversal / Multiversal / Multiverse level
and
Higher dimensional / Hyperversal
and
Outerversal
So one maybe should point out that in terms of distance this isn't necessarily higher than the former levels (shooting to another universe could require just a range of 2 cm or something), but technically just shows degrees of freedom of movement.
- 3,260
- 293
Should there not be a classification between Universal and Multi-Universal, or Universal+ (meaning said attacks can reach at any point in time within a single space-time continuum)?
- 2,512
- 261
Through time one can not quantify, as one would have to know how many seconds are 1 meter basically.
To other universes or through higher dimensions is actually entirely possible and gives finite distances.
Thing is we don't practically know what this distances would actually be. They could be arbitarily low (the distance between universes could for example be just 3.14 mm) or they could be arbitarily large (like 100^100^100 lightyears distance).
That's why I wrote:
"So one maybe should point out that in terms of distance this isn't necessarily higher than the former levels (shooting to another universe could require just a range of 2 cm or something), but technically just shows degrees of freedom of movement."
So technically you could fire to a different universe, but have no more than planetary range in your own. (take darquesse for example: she has practically a range of a few kilometers, but could probably fire an attack into another multiverse)
So for all practical puposes you are right and the numbers can basically be treated as unquanifiable.
To other universes or through higher dimensions is actually entirely possible and gives finite distances.
Thing is we don't practically know what this distances would actually be. They could be arbitarily low (the distance between universes could for example be just 3.14 mm) or they could be arbitarily large (like 100^100^100 lightyears distance).
That's why I wrote:
"So one maybe should point out that in terms of distance this isn't necessarily higher than the former levels (shooting to another universe could require just a range of 2 cm or something), but technically just shows degrees of freedom of movement."
So technically you could fire to a different universe, but have no more than planetary range in your own. (take darquesse for example: she has practically a range of a few kilometers, but could probably fire an attack into another multiverse)
So for all practical puposes you are right and the numbers can basically be treated as unquanifiable.
- 3,260
- 293
Note that for Universal+, you do not need the actual distance required for this. If a character is able to attack a different character in a different point across time, that is grounds for Universal+ range (Universal+ range =/= AP however).
Also, for the distances between other universes/dimensions, said distances are considered finite, but we do not know the exact number of it. However, the term Cross-Universal/Multi-Universal applies when a character is able to attack someone from a separate universe (Ex: Thanatos from Saint Seiya inflicting death).
Now, regarding the distance between higher dimensions compared to our own (3-D to 4-D, etc), I do not think that the distance between the two can accurately be measured, as the concepts of distance and time in 3-D are irrelevant in terms of 4-D, or higher anyways.
So for all practical purposes, you can't really quantify numbers for Universal+, Multi-Universal, Multiversal distances unless said verse directly states the size/distance between universes, or the multiverse.
Also, for the distances between other universes/dimensions, said distances are considered finite, but we do not know the exact number of it. However, the term Cross-Universal/Multi-Universal applies when a character is able to attack someone from a separate universe (Ex: Thanatos from Saint Seiya inflicting death).
Now, regarding the distance between higher dimensions compared to our own (3-D to 4-D, etc), I do not think that the distance between the two can accurately be measured, as the concepts of distance and time in 3-D are irrelevant in terms of 4-D, or higher anyways.
So for all practical purposes, you can't really quantify numbers for Universal+, Multi-Universal, Multiversal distances unless said verse directly states the size/distance between universes, or the multiverse.
- 2,512
- 261
@Lina: Actually the distance measurements in lower dimensions are a special case of that in higher dimensions (well, for the non-euclidean cases one has to be careful about some stuff).
They are basically completly compatible. Distance in 3-D stays the same distance in 4-D.
Not really important for the debate though, just a small fun fact.
They are basically completly compatible. Distance in 3-D stays the same distance in 4-D.
Not really important for the debate though, just a small fun fact.
- 4,268
- 284
Overall, the absolute magnitude of the length of the range is the key thing we would be looking for (and calculating it for higher spatial dimensions just requires generalizing the pythagorean formula to any number of spatial dimensions as and when needed), but the number of spatial dimensions have to be factored in as well just because more axis provide a "broader" range overall. For example: 1 meter of range with 4 spatial axis is of a "better quality" than a range of 1 meter in a set-up of 3 spatial axis
- 3,260
- 293
@DontTalk: So what is the distance between the 3rd and the 4th dimension?
Give me a number please.
Give me a number please.
- 2,335
- 1,005
Well if an attack or power is beyond measure we can say immeasurable or unknown, or specify that its also 4D.
Hop means. Okay, we're 3D, but not infinitely 1D. We're limited in all 3 dimensions, you have a body height, width and depth, so maybe you can make the argument that a 4D (4 as in 4 psychical dimensions, not space+time) or higher (unless they're 1-A or above) may not have greater range than a being that is 1 dimension lower. Like there's probably some Tier 2's that can't reach as far as some Tier 4's. IDK, but all Hop is saying is that it's just better for the profiles' quality if we specify or just say immeasurable.
Hop means. Okay, we're 3D, but not infinitely 1D. We're limited in all 3 dimensions, you have a body height, width and depth, so maybe you can make the argument that a 4D (4 as in 4 psychical dimensions, not space+time) or higher (unless they're 1-A or above) may not have greater range than a being that is 1 dimension lower. Like there's probably some Tier 2's that can't reach as far as some Tier 4's. IDK, but all Hop is saying is that it's just better for the profiles' quality if we specify or just say immeasurable.
- 3,260
- 293
They can be added to the range section tomorrow then, after a couple of touch-ups.
- 2,335
- 1,005
Hop agrees.
Will we consider revisions in the future if the system does not work properly or is flawed?
Will we consider revisions in the future if the system does not work properly or is flawed?
- 3,260
- 293
We can consider doing revisions to the systems in the future. However, what we have now atm is better than having nothing at all.
- 167,703
- 76,304
- Thread starter
- #63
Agreed.
We should also probably add a similar note, as the one in the Intelligence page:
"Regrettably, we did not have a set range scale from the start of this wiki, and largely left it up to individual users to define the statistic on a case-by-case basis, and now it is too late to do a massive revision.
However, some suggestions would be:"
We should also probably add a similar note, as the one in the Intelligence page:
"Regrettably, we did not have a set range scale from the start of this wiki, and largely left it up to individual users to define the statistic on a case-by-case basis, and now it is too late to do a massive revision.
However, some suggestions would be:"
- 4,268
- 284
for a 5-spatial dimensional examples, lets say something moves from (0,0,0,0,0) to (4,7,1,8,5), then the total distance would be sqr-root[(4-0)^2 + (7-0)^2 + (1-0)^2 + (8-0)^2 + (5-0)^2] = 12.45 (estimated to 2 decimal places)
- 3,260
- 293
That seems reasonable. Seems to be similar to pythagoran theorem, if we were starting from point zero.
But realistically
Can we actually find the actual distance between our universe, and the 4th dimension? Probably not. I've already asked OBD about this issue as well, so don't bother.
But realistically
| shooting to another universe could require just a range of 2 cm or something |
- 4,268
- 284
well just think of it like an axis system, if a universe has 3 spatial dimensions, then moving even a little bit on the 4th axis will move you out of the R3 range of the universeLina Shields said:
- 6,850
- 1,500
Wow, this thread is long.
Anyways, just my two cents (warning, many of these, if there's no proper justification by example, are guesstimates).
Melee range (Body contact - 2meters (I estimate around here is the average human kicking distance))
Extended Melee range (2 - 10m (Longest spear range estimate to knife throwing range))
Throwing range (10 - 100m (Up to the range of a skilled dart thrower using an atlatl; also, effective range of shotguns using slugs))
Bow range (100 - 400m (Best max range for an arrow to pierce plate armor to maximum range of a long bow; also effective and maximum range of handguns are 100 and 200 respectively))
Firearms range (400m - 1km (Up to the range of a skilled hunter with a hunting rifle))
Heavy firearms range (1 - 7km (Sniper rifles like the Barret M82 can go from 1.8 effective range to 6.8km maximum range))
Artillery range (7 - 200km (Up to the range of Project HARP shooting straight up at mach 10))
Missile to Country range (200 - 5000km) Idk. Can't find or remember something of this range so I just called it this and be done with it.
Country to Continental range (6,000 - 16,000km (Range of the earliest ICBM range to R-36m Russian ICBM range; FYI, longest above-water mountain range is 7,000km Andes, the border between USA and Canada is 8,900km))
Continental to Planetary range (16,000 - 40,000km (the latter is the longest submarine mountain range, global mid-ocean ridge system, the minimum is longer than the entireity of the Philippines, and the circumference of the world is slightly above 40,000km))
Cross-planetary range (40,000 - 50,290,000km (distance between Mercury and Venus, the shortest distance between planets in our solar system))
Multi-planetary range (50,290,000 - 1,275,000,000km (distance between and Saturn)
Solar System range (1,275,000,000 - 4,443,090,000km (distance between Mercury and Neptune))
etc.
etc.
etc.
These are just my suggestions and I screwed up a lot somewhere here and there with my research but yeah.
If ever, I think these are not to be taken literally but just to give ideas to ballpark someone's range.
On another note, I vote for separating attack range and teleporting range.
Oh, and format imo should be... Range: Cross-planetary range (punched someone from the Earth to the moon); Solar System range with teleportation (sent someone into another planet on another solar system)
Anyways, just my two cents (warning, many of these, if there's no proper justification by example, are guesstimates).
Melee range (Body contact - 2meters (I estimate around here is the average human kicking distance))
Extended Melee range (2 - 10m (Longest spear range estimate to knife throwing range))
Throwing range (10 - 100m (Up to the range of a skilled dart thrower using an atlatl; also, effective range of shotguns using slugs))
Bow range (100 - 400m (Best max range for an arrow to pierce plate armor to maximum range of a long bow; also effective and maximum range of handguns are 100 and 200 respectively))
Firearms range (400m - 1km (Up to the range of a skilled hunter with a hunting rifle))
Heavy firearms range (1 - 7km (Sniper rifles like the Barret M82 can go from 1.8 effective range to 6.8km maximum range))
Artillery range (7 - 200km (Up to the range of Project HARP shooting straight up at mach 10))
Missile to Country range (200 - 5000km) Idk. Can't find or remember something of this range so I just called it this and be done with it.
Country to Continental range (6,000 - 16,000km (Range of the earliest ICBM range to R-36m Russian ICBM range; FYI, longest above-water mountain range is 7,000km Andes, the border between USA and Canada is 8,900km))
Continental to Planetary range (16,000 - 40,000km (the latter is the longest submarine mountain range, global mid-ocean ridge system, the minimum is longer than the entireity of the Philippines, and the circumference of the world is slightly above 40,000km))
Cross-planetary range (40,000 - 50,290,000km (distance between Mercury and Venus, the shortest distance between planets in our solar system))
Multi-planetary range (50,290,000 - 1,275,000,000km (distance between and Saturn)
Solar System range (1,275,000,000 - 4,443,090,000km (distance between Mercury and Neptune))
etc.
etc.
etc.
These are just my suggestions and I screwed up a lot somewhere here and there with my research but yeah.
If ever, I think these are not to be taken literally but just to give ideas to ballpark someone's range.
On another note, I vote for separating attack range and teleporting range.
Oh, and format imo should be... Range: Cross-planetary range (punched someone from the Earth to the moon); Solar System range with teleportation (sent someone into another planet on another solar system)
- 4,268
- 284
well, it depends, are we only looking for absolute length/distance or are we determining the qualitative aspects as well
I think we should just use both, and list the absolute length (like 10 meters or universes for example) along with the number of spatial dimensions the range can go into
(for example, a character that has 10 meter range but in 4 axis can be listed as 10 meters in 4 spatial dimensions) - and we can standardise this approach to all profiles from tier 11 to High 1-B
I think we should just use both, and list the absolute length (like 10 meters or universes for example) along with the number of spatial dimensions the range can go into
(for example, a character that has 10 meter range but in 4 axis can be listed as 10 meters in 4 spatial dimensions) - and we can standardise this approach to all profiles from tier 11 to High 1-B
- 2,335
- 1,005
Gemmy suggestion is like mine. I think it's a better foundation for a system, since it categorizes upper and lower ends for range, but maybe Lina's is more feasible. Multiples of 10 from the previous system is easy to do, and feasible. For instance we could say Goku has a very high range for his teleport power (as long as he can sense ki in that place), and his fighting range is like, several thousand KM or a few gigameters. IDK his real range I'm just giving an examle you'd see on the wiki.
Here's how it'd look
-
Range: Several gigameters (thousands of kilometers) attack range, Immeasurable/Unknown Teleportation Range
-
We could just put "Power Range" instead if said character doesn't teleport or has multiple powers with this max range.
Here's how it'd look
-
Range: Several gigameters (thousands of kilometers) attack range, Immeasurable/Unknown Teleportation Range
-
We could just put "Power Range" instead if said character doesn't teleport or has multiple powers with this max range.
- 4,268
- 284
qualitative and quantitave are not mutually exclusive, what I meant is, for higher dimensions, we shud list out the number of axis (like 5 spatial axis for example) AND the extent of distance in absolute terms (like 10 meters for example) when evaluating rangesAntvasima said:
for normal beings, we shoudl just use the absolute length of the range
also one change I would like to recommend; 46.6 billion light years should just be listed as observable universal IMO
and hey what about a ranking labaled as a radius of hubble volume since that too is an important length
- 2,861
- 224
Quite honestly, other than melee and extended melee? I just go "Meters, dozens of meters, hundreds of meters, kilometers, dozens of kilometers, hundreds of kilometers, thousands of kilometers", and everything after that is all but planet-wide already. Nice, simple, straight to the point. Obviously, if one technique/group thereof has much different range from the others, that should be noted...
- 4,268
- 284
what do you mean.... you just have to generalize pythagorus theorem to any number of dimensions to find the maximum range of a being of any number of spatial dimensions......Antvasima said:
like lets say a being has a max range from (0,0,0,0,0,0) and the range at max goes to (9,1,2,3,6,7); then using the pythagorus theorem's generalization, we can say the range is approximately 13.42 meters in terms of absolute length in a single direction
- 167,703
- 76,304
- Thread starter
- #78
I mean that entities of this scale do not generally engage in practical demonstrations of the range of their attacks. We are simply given demonstrations of their scale, and that is it.
- 4,268
- 284
oh yeah, I mean if they do demonstrate some kind of a range, it can be quantified, but generally yes the range for a lot of such entities for span across a multiverseAntvasima said:
Similar threads
