Improvements for the Range page?

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Anyway, for practical reasons, I think that we should stick with Lina's and DontTalk's suggestions.

well my suggestion was to simply add a qualitative part to it for the rare cases, for example it would help separate the lower dimensional being that can move and attack through higher dimensions, which would obviously show that their range quality and extent is superior to a normal being's. Its like the range gap between a human and a being with light years of range in a 2-D plane


of course it would only apply to the very few profiles where lower dimensional character can move and attack through higher dimensions; and its not really necessarily supposed to be put on every regular profile- just on those special cases, where the special characteristic of the range needs to be pointed out

 

[DontTalk]

Well, for simplicity I would simply go and list "Multiverse level" and similar for most characters.

Of course for special cases like you mentioned and also other cases where one can and wants to quantify absolute range at such levels it can still be added, due to being technically correct.


The whole thing is practically just a list of standard suggestions for which range terms one could use for what, after all. So individualization where meaningful is possible without making it difficult for normal users to understand the standard suggestions.

At least that is my opinion on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Lina's and DontTalk's options would simply be a list of public suggestions. There is no need to overcomplicate matters further.

 

[Lina_Shields]

A page has been made in the Range page here.

It is a work in progress however. I have added in DontTalk's suggestions into the range page as well. Does anyone want me to add in descriptions for them?

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Looks good to me, btw should we also try to come up with a standard for intelligence? It's sort of vague at the moment.

Edit: Checked, not as vague as i thought, disregard what i said.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. It would be appreciated if you add in DontTalk's descriptions as well.

I also changed hectometers and decameters to DontTalk's suggestions.

 

[ThePerpetual]

I like the list we have now, but wouldn't most swords fall under just "melee range," given its 3 meters at maximum currently?

 

[Antvasima]

(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:

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.

@Lina I would appreciate if you could modify the range page accoridng to DontTalk's suggestions. Thank you.

 

[Lina_Shields]

@Ant: Yea, will get to that right now.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the help.

 

[Lina_Shields]

DontTalk's suggestions have been added to the range page. However, there are no descriptions for the

• Universal+
• Multi-Universal
• Multiversal
• Complex Multiversal
• Hyperversal
• High Hyperversal
• Outerversal
• True Infinity

Descriptions can be made for those, if you want.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, they are trickier. Perhaps it is better to let them be self-explanatory, without descriptions?

 

[Kavpeny]

My two cents:

The page looks fantastic, compared to before. Kudos to everyone involved in the process. It is true however, that the missing descriptions look awkward.

@Antvasima: The terms are the same as their counterparts on other statistics, so I don't think their description would be trickier. In any case, I think we should hear out Lina's suggestion for their descriptions first.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Descriptions for the remainder of the missing range terms will be filled in tomorrow, starting from Universal+

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help.

 

[DontTalk]

Two things:

1. I relatively strongly disagree with Planetary starting at 15329 km, because that would mean that attacks which can hit any place on earth (you need 12742 km range for that) don't count as planetary, which, I believe, is what all use of the range term "planetary" on profiles to this point refered to and also is part of the intuitive definition of planetary range IMO.

2. There is currently a gap between Interstellar and galactic range. Either Interstellar should end at 100.000 or Galactic should start at 50.000. Which of the two technically doesn't matter.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalk makes sense.

 

[Lina_Shields]

1. 15327 km is the circumfrence of Mercury, which

• is the smallest thing that is considered to be a planet.
• has a diameter of 4879 km, which provides the above circumfrence.

We can use the circumfrence of Earth, which should be 40075 km. However, we need to specify that the value we got for this is measured from Earth.

2. We can use 50,000 LY, as that is the radius of the Milky Way.

 

[DontTalk]

Why would you want to use the circumfrence, though?

That would imply that you define planetary range as "able to shoot once around the whole planet into your own back" instead of "able to hit everyone on the planet with your attack".

I find the former a very unintuitive definition of planetary range, and I don't think I am alone with that given that every reasoning for planetary range on profiles that I know relates to the attack effecting everyone on earth.

For example the Death Note and its users are currently planetary range (though that might soon be upgraded), because the death note can kill people all around the globe.

It would only need to have range equal to earths diameter to do that though (12.742 km).

Similar Vento is for example ranked as having planetary range, because her technique can have an effect on any human on earth.

And so on.


Technically I would be fine with using the diameter of Mecury as smallest planet of our solar system, but that gives the case that shooting from Maine to California would almost fall into the planet level category.

Hence starting the planet level category at the diameter of the earth, just like the planet level AP level starts at GBE of earth, seems like the most intuitive and fitting option to me.

 

[Lina_Shields]

I mean half the circumference.

The reason that half the circumference here would be because said attack in question is going around said planet, which would be half a circle. This equates to

• 20037.5km on one side
• 20037.5km on the other

Now, why are we using diameter again, unless you want said attack to go directly through Earth? A diagram will be made for this.

 

[DontTalk]

Because the attacks do go through earth.

Do you think the Death note can not effect you when you are underground? Of course it can.

Same for Divine punishment or the holy right. Those attacks and many others (e.g. planetary timestops) go through the earth. There is a suprising amount of planetary effects that have no reason to go around, possibly even the majority since I rarely see beams that actually bend around the planets curvature.

Energy beams can also be shot through the planet to reach any place on earth and if characters are ranked planetary range for blowing up the planet that would also correspond to planet diameter.


So yeah, I want to say the attacks go directly though earth.

 

[Ryukama]

@DontTalk Speaking of, some people are discussing whether or not the Death Note's ability counts as range or just hax here. Do you have an opinion on that?

EDIT: Thank you very much for the response, DT.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Any evidence of said Death Note going directly through said Earth? Considering that we only see the Death Note affect people on the surface of the planet, it would be far fetched to assume that said attack would go directly below the surface of Earth instead of going around it.

But then, Death Note's range could be changed to Multi-Universal via Shinigami anyways, so....

Anyways, using the diameter of 12750 km, that is also the distance between Florida and India; this is shown on Google Maps below.

• 2000 km = 72px
• 459px = 12750km

That's only Multi-continental in terms of distance.

Also quite sure that we were never actually shown Holy Right go directly through underground at any point in time, at all. Stop assuming things that are not directly shown within the series.

I'll let the others decide on this however.

 

[DontTalk]

The abilities don't physically cover the distance between them and their target. So there is literally no reason why they would have to bother with going around earth.

That they actually do and by that their range is larger would actually be an unjustified high end that wouldn't fly in a content revision thread. It is basically like implying that teleporting downwards is more difficult than to the side.


And yes, I realize that by that some curved shots over large distaces would indeed fall into planetary range.

Using half the circumference would be the excluding variant, where one says that it has to be defined so that no shot that can not hit any place on earth is planetary.

In exchange for that one has to declare that some attacks that can hit any place on earth are not included either even though they should.


The diameter variant is the including one, where any attack that can hit any place on earth is actually planetary.

In exchange for that one has to declare that some attacks than can not hit any place on earth are planetary as well, even though they shouldn't.


So both systems are not perfect.

Non the less I prefer the including one. That has two reasons:

1. The excluding one is actually never completly exclusive in the first place. Non-curving shots with 20000km range would still fall into planetary range, even though they can not hit any place on earth, due to the earth standing in the way.

2. In the excluding one I think you will have to explain to a lot of people why their teleporting attacks or intangibly transmitted techniques aren't planetary even though they affect everyone on earth.

Of course in theory that is also true with people wondering why the character is planetary if it only shot from Florida to India.

But for once I would think such rankings are more rare than the planetary case and such rankings can only ever be the result of calculation. The latter aspect is relevant, because the actual bounderies on the levels are irrelevant for calculated values, since the precise value is known.

We would for example not need an AP scale if nobody would make stats without calculating them, since we could simply compare the precise joule instead of AP levels.


Well, as said it is true that both systems aren't perfect and half-circumference is something I am also not as strongly opposed to as against the current full circumference value.

But I still think that the diameter value is the lesser of two evils.


Input from other members is something I would be interested in as well, though.

 

[Lina_Shields]

I have asked OBD/Narutoforums about what their thoughts on this issue are.

EDIT: Anyways, here is the diagram to see the two differences between using circumference and diameter for range.

 

[DontTalk]

Why though? I mean if you want to ask people you trust more than our calc group on calc issues that is one thing, but I really don't they why we should allow them of all people to influence our definitions for other stuff.

Arguments are one thing, but I don't think we should care for their opinion at all.

(I mean this is a staff thread, not even our own users get much say in this)

 

[LordXcano]

Gotta disagree with you here in that half-circumference seems better than diameter. I understand your point about how a 20,000 km range without a curve can't hit anywhere on Earth due to the Earth being in the way, but simply changing the range to be = to the diameter doesn't solve the problem of the beam not being able to hit everywhere on Earth.

 

[DontTalk]

It doesn't, but that wasn't the point of that one of my 3 arguments (I think it were 3).

The point of that was that the excluding solution doesn't actually exclude properly (as such attacks without curves are in the set).

Of course the including solution doesn't exclude properly either, but what it does is include properly.

So basically the argument was:

Excluding solution = worse including and better, but not perfect excluding

Including solution = worse excluding, but proper including

So basically the including solution does its main job of including all legitimate cases better than teh excluding solution does its job of excluding all not legitimate cases, which is for me a in total a small pro for the including solution.

 

[LordXcano]

If we assign "worse" as -1 and "better" as +1 then both excluding and including solutions end up at 0 points. In which case it would just be personal perference as to which is better, no?

 

[DontTalk]

If we assign "does properly" as +1, "does improperly" as -1 and "does good, but not completely properly" as +0.9 we end up with 0 for the including solution and -0.1 for the excluding solution though.

Edit: btw. I listed this argument mostly just because it is an argument. It isn't that strong an argument, as to be the center of the discussion. Just a small nudge essentially.

Edit 2: I also wanna draw : <

So here a badly drawn picture about the practical difference between both options.

 

[Lina_Shields]

The abilities don't physically cover the distance between them and their target. So there is literally no reason why they would have to bother with going around earth.

I would like to see this feat happening please (The Death Note going through underground and the Holy Right). As I said before, it is a stretch for the Death Note and the Holy Right to go directly through the Earth considering that the Death Note's effects start from one point and end up from a diffrent point.

point 1 -> point 2

But this effect only moves horizontally via what was shown in the series. Said effect started at Light, and affected a different person all the way across Tokyo (or which city Light was living in), but this would mean that said attack went horizontally instead of vertically downwards however. Considering that this is what is shown in regards to the Death Note throughout the manga/series, I don't see why the Death Note's effects would start moving vertically downwards instead of horizontall around Earth even at farther distances.

Same with the Holy Right, correct? The Holy Right is able to target at any point on Earth relative to Fiamma's location no matter where Fiamma is standing, so there is no reason why half the circumference of the Earth would not be used for its range.

That they actually do and by that their range is larger would actually be an unjustified high end that wouldn't fly in a content revision thread. It is basically like implying that teleporting downwards is more difficult than to the side.

And you know that the can teleport downwards through the ground because? Their range being larger or not is not a high end or not if we don't know what the high end, or what the low end of said range is.

Using half the circumference would be the excluding variant, where one says that it has to be defined so that no shot that can not hit any place on earth is planetary. In exchange for that one has to declare that some attacks that can hit any place on earth are not included either even though they should.

Using half the circumference would be not the excluding variant, but a necessary one because an attack from one point on Earth needs to reach the farthest distance, or on the opposite side of said point where that attack came from. Thus it would be correct to say that said technique went around instead of through the Earth if there was nothing showing that said attack went directly through the Earth.

Now then.

1. The excluding one is actually never completly exclusive in the first place. Non-curving shots with 20000km range would still fall into planetary range, even though they can not hit any place on earth, due to the earth standing in the way.

Anything less than the 20000km range would mean that said beam's range is not sufficient enough to reach all the way around Earth (when fired from all sides), meaning said attack will not reach the fartest point from Earth if said attack was fired from a single point.

2. In the excluding one I think you will have to explain to a lot of people why their teleporting attacks or intangibly transmitted techniques aren't planetary even though they affect everyone on Earth.

Teleporting attacks and intangibly transmitted techniques are already planetary if they are stated to have planetary range regardless. They can go through the Earth, or around the Earth, or even if the method of teleportation is not shown. Being shown this would be enough proof here.

Of course in theory that is also true with people wondering why the character is planetary if it only shot from Florida to India. But for once I would think such rankings are more rare than the planetary case and such rankings can only ever be the result of calculation.

And you know this is rare how? If said attack only reaches 12750km, and can only reach from Florida to India there is no way that said attack can reach anywhere on Earth even if said attack is fired from all directions.

Now then.

Very biased of you to consider your own viewpoints but ignore/twist my own view points completely.

Let's hear what this "excluding solution" and "including solutions" are in terms of proposals for range. In fact, your viewpoints regarding range excluded the fact

• Planetary range is when said attack can only reach 12750*2 km when fired from all sides.
• Teleportation/intangible attacks go below the Earth when in fact they could have looped around the Earth, meaning their range is higher than what you are proposing.

My proposal includes that teleportation/planetary attacks are always going to have planetary range (half circumfrence) if said teleportation/planetary is proven to do so. It also takes in the fact that said attacks will reach the fartest point from the starting point when going around the curve of Earth.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Anyways, if said teleportation/warping attack has planetary range, it automatically has planetary range via statement/feats. The exact distance for it does not matter, as the fact that it can attack anywhere on the planet would come priority to that.

 

[DontTalk]

Point 1: You are making arbitrary assumptions in order to increase the range ranking of those abilities. They are 1. not affected by walls and 2. not affected by gravity.

There is no reason to assume they would go around earth instead of taking the shortest way.

I also seriously doubt that death note "demonstrated" that its power, which for any and all purposes doesn't travel in the first place, goes around the globe instead of taking the shortest way.

The fact that it is usable from another realm kinda proves that it doesn't have to go along the surface.

And for the holy right? It also doesn't have to go along the earth surface. It shot down satellites orbiting earth.


What you are suggesting is that if we put them on the moon their range would decrease, since they can only shoot along the ground.

That assumptions is as nonsensical as saying "a flame that hasn't demonstrated burning rubber can't burn rubber".

or

"has this intangibility ever worked against glass? If not we can not assume it does"

If the mechanics indicate that they can and it practically is not demonstrated different then this kind of things are assumed to work.


Generally it is also so that high ends have to be proven, not low ends.

So you go prove me that all those abilities do not work by being able to target all earth including the insides.


2. I know because abilities generally are orientation invariant. Teleportation doesn't care about gravity and neither is it important whether the person stands normally or upside-down. What is between the starting point and the end point actually doesn't matter, because the ability doesn't go through any of the space between this two points either way.

What you are suggesting is the we can not assume that a teleporter can teleport himself out of a space station.

Or more specifically that if I put a large enough earth wall (which is essentially all the earth is here) around myself the teleporter will not be able to teleport himself inside the wall, the holy right won't be able to reach me and the death note wont have an effect, even if I am inside the range they have demonstrated.


3. Again: wrong for all cases where intangible attack transmission is involved, no transmission is done at all (most of those cases are that actually) or the planet as a whole is affected. Which are a lot of cases.

4. Wrong, by example mentioned before.

5. Wrong, because this would not imply that they could for example teleport between two space-stations 20000km away from each other. It would imply though that they could teleport between 12000 km space stations, though.

6. I clearly said "I think", which should indicate that this wasn't an objective evaluation based on data, but one from my subjective experience. You can subjectively disagree if you have the impression that the other ones are more common. Just as people would have different opinion on what is intuitively right.


I honestly don't quite understand what you wanted to say with the last paragraph. (the one with the bullet list in the middle) Especially I don't get what you want to say in the first bullet point and last sentence.

Still a few things to it:

• You realize I called them including and excluding variant, because my option primarily aims to include all attacks that can reach any place on the planet, while your option primarily aims to exclude all attacks that can not hit any place on the planet, right? Not because of including and excluding arguments or something.
• I hope you don't mean "proven" in the sense of assuming they do so if not explicitly stated otherwise like you mentioned above. Because that is not proven, that is an assumption.

To the second post: It would matter a lot, assume for example they do not battle on earth, but in space. Whether their attack is assumed to reach 12000 or 20000 km far makes a huge difference.

 

[Lina_Shields]

It seems that you and I are getting nowhere making up arbitrary assumptions about what said planetary range would be, so let the others decide this. Leave it.

Anyways, the guides for the missing sections for the range are being created now. They will be updated soon.

EDIT:

Universal+: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout time within a single 4-dimensional space-time continuum Multi-Universal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere between two to a thousand 4-dimensional space-time continuums Multiversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere between a thousand to infinite 4-dimensional space-time continuums High Multiversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout 5-dimensional space. Low Complex Multiversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout 6-dimensional space. Complex Multiversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout 7-dimensional to 9-dimensional space. High Complex Multiversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout 10-dimensional to 11-dimensional space. Low Hyperversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere throughout 12-dimensional space. Hyperversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere from 13-dimensional space and above, as long as it is a finite number of dimensions. High Hyperversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere, as long as they are bound by concepts of space and time (Hilbert space) Irrelevant: At this point, range has no meaning as said characters on this level transcend it (1-A or above).

 

[Reppuzan]

Well, I'm really not the guy for number crunching like this, but simply being able to hit someone anyone on Earth without needing to move into range (whatever that distance is) would be planetary for me.

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with Lina's suggestion for higher range descriptions, with the exception that I think we should make a distinction between Multiversal and Multiversal+.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I would suggest something along the line of:

Hyperversal: Attacks are able to reach anywhere from 13-dimensional space and above, as long as it is a finite number of dimensions.

 

[Lina_Shields]

What would the description for Multiversal+ be? Would it be something along the lines of

Attacks are able to reach infinite 4-dimensional space-time continuums.

Anyways, updated Hyperversal according to your suggestions. Do you want me to upload the range page now?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that would be fine for Multiversal+.

You can update the range page, yes.