Issue with Kinetic Energy rules

[Zamasu_Chan]

Staff Thread​

I want to keep this OP short.
This was brought up in an OPM thread starting from message #28.

From the Kinetic Energy page:

• There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the kinetic energy calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
  • For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case.

before I point out my problems, let me bring a few examples.

Like pointed out before, Orochi, had his previous feat denied because the KE should have ripped the planet apart.
Vlitra bursting out of Gaea yielded high 5-A+ results but was denied because it should have destroyed Gaea.
Mark lost his 7-A rating because this feat didn’t make a 7-A crater (Here's the scene since it's not in the calc).
RIP 8-A Ravage because of a slash of water.

Firstly, this sounds like the area of effect fallacy. As a reminder, AoEF asserts the idea that a character isn’t a specific level because they don’t destroy their surroundings with every attack. For example, Naruto's 7-B Rasengan only destroying a tree. This is essentially the same logic the rules are setting. Not only that but it's also an appeal to reality because we're expecting to have those KE reats match real world physics.

Secondly, why does the KE need to match up with the visuals of the feat? We can't expect writers to know the exact value needed for kinetic energy feats. Realistically speaking no writer is gonna have a character move an object with X mass at Y velocity and get Z results while animating those exact same results as Z.

Lastly, with this being much less a rule and more of a hindrance, why even bother calculating KE feats to begin with? As pointed out multiple times, the damage shown takes priority, showing there's no need to use KE feats to begin with. I doubt the vast majority of users would agree with this at all, and if are KE rules have to resort to nullifying, essentially, all of them, then there's a serious issue.

So what do I propose? Remove the rule entirely.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

So what do I propose? Remove the feat entirely

Zamasu, you wild as hell

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Zamasu, you wild as hell

I meant rule, I had to fix that.

 

[Midtop]

I agree, some good points were brought up and made

 

[Migue79]

I disagree with removing the rule outright. Maybe re-wording the rule seems like a more sensible option, given KE DOES give some unrealistic results sometimes and it isn't the best way to approach a feat, you know? I do get what you're saying, and I do agree that this does come off as AOE fallacy-ish. I believe modifications and clarifications to the rule should be made instead.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree that this rule always seemed strange since realistically speaking I don’t think any KE calcs cause proportional affects on the environment to their energy yield, but that can be compared to supersonic characters not causing sonic booms, characters falling from a great height and leaving an impossibly large crater despite their low weight, characters with finite mass exceeding lightspeed, and a whole bunch of other unrealistic nonsense we accept despite breaking real world physics.

So at least modifying the rule would be good.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I agree that this rule always seemed strange since realistically speaking I don’t think any KE calcs cause proportional affects on the environment to their energy yield, but that can be compared to supersonic characters not causing sonic booms, characters falling from a great height and leaving an impossibly large crater despite their low weight, characters with finite mass exceeding lightspeed, and a whole bunch of other unrealistic nonsense we accept despite breaking real world physics.

So at least modifying the rule would be good.

LMAOOOO! How did I know what you were talking about before even clicking on the link?

 

[Antoniofer]

In general, AoE fallacy apply to supernatural power or characters, and not to natural phenomena. You may calculate a speeding projectile to be 8-B, but if that very projectile is unable to pierce through concrete walls or wooden doors then the AP of the projectile can't be 8-B, otherwise it wouldn't have pierced through those "mundane" objects.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I believe what is presented by the author, the animation, and the visuals, are more likely to represent something's capabilities than fanmade calculations based on Real World physics, which might not even be considered by the media in the first place.

 

[Quangotjokes]

Following FRA

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I believe what is presented by the author, the animation, and the visuals, are more likely to represent something's capabilities than fanmade calculations based on Real World physics, which might not even be considered by the media in the first place.

Tbf don’t like, 0% of authors take into account pixel calcs in general, not just KE?

 

[Therefir]

Secondly, why does the KE need to match up with the visuals of the feat? We can't expect writers to know the exact value needed for kinetic energy feats.

So you're saying that we should completely ignore the author's intention, perception and presentation of a feat and go our own way to intentionally inflate a feat that really has no evidence of being anywhere near its KE values, just because our fan-made and heavily assumption-dependent calculations say otherwise? Sounds like the peak of hubris to me.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Tbf don’t like, 0% of authors take into account pixel calcs in general, not just KE?

Pixel calcs are just attempts of figuring out proportions, the author should be aware of them, just not down to the pixel.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

So you're saying that we should completely ignore the author's intention, perception and presentation of a feat and go our own way to intentionally inflate a feat that really has no evidence of being anywhere near its KE values, just because our fan-made and heavily assumption-dependent calculations say otherwise? Sounds like the peak of hubris to me.

Yes. Death of the author exists.

 

[Earthyboy]

I meant rule, I had to fix that.

Not gonna lie, you had me there for a second.

 

[Earthyboy]

So you're saying that we should completely ignore the author's intention, perception and presentation of a feat and go our own way to intentionally inflate a feat that really has no evidence of being anywhere near its KE values, just because our fan-made and heavily assumption-dependent calculations say otherwise? Sounds like the peak of hubris to me.

Just sounds like an AOEE fallacy to me.

 

[King]

So you're saying that we should completely ignore the author's intention, perception and presentation of a feat and go our own way to intentionally inflate a feat that really has no evidence of being anywhere near its KE values, just because our fan-made and heavily assumption-dependent calculations say otherwise? Sounds like the peak of hubris to me.

I think what the OP tries make a point is that why even use the KE in the first place? Shouldn't we then always go for calculating the damage caused by the attack? I think that's what the OP meant by "removing the rule".

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I think what the OP tries make a point is that why even use the KE in the first place? Shouldn't we then always go for calculating the damage caused by the attack? I think that's what the OP meant by "removing the rule".

There are situations where KE is plausible, such as a large object being stopped by a character, thus, not hitting anything and not having it's KE misrepresented.

 

[Earthyboy]

There are situations where KE is plausible, such as a large object being stopped by a character, thus, not hitting anything and not having it's KE misrepresented.

Doesn't disregard the OP's point though...

 

[Therefir]

Yes. Death of the author exists.

The death of the author applies when a reader's interpretation of a concept or event is more valid than that of the author.

But how can that be the case here when these KE calculations not only contradict the author's intent, but also the visuals, which are the most important when it comes to classifying a feat.

Just sounds like an AOEE fallacy to me.

AOE fallacy would be Goku having the power to destroy the universe, and later failed to make a dent in a train with his punches.

In the case of KE calcs they are entirely dependent on the result itself (which is also further dependant on real life physics that may not even apply to a fictional verse). This wouldn't be an issue if Orochi destroyed Mercury, and later failed to destroy a minimal portion of the Earth. If people came and said that Orochi couldn't be Low 5-B because his attack failed to replicate previous shows, now that would be an AOE fallacy.

KE calcs like these are not a good example of AOE fallacy, because they never actually showed to have that level of energy in the first place.

 

[King]

There are situations where KE is plausible, such as a large object being stopped by a character, thus, not hitting anything and not having it's KE misrepresented.

It is quite difficult to find a realistic representation of KE in battle manga. Even if characters stop things like meteors, there's the problem that the shockwaves alone would wipe out a large area but that doesn't happen. Thus, the KE calcs can only be used for very very few cases. Even if KE gives us high results, it will almost immediately be contradicted by another feat.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Well I don’t agree with not using KE calcs

 

[Antoniofer]

AOE fallacy would be Goku having the power to destroy the universe, and later failed to make a dent in a train with his punches.

This is more of an anti-feat or inconsistency rather than an example of AoE fallacy. AoE fallacy is when a character rated as X level in AP is not forced to cause X level of destruction everytime it attacks.

But yeah, we can't ignore both visuals and intent in favor of a calculations; if a meteor crashes with earth, wioes out the surface but the planet remain whole then the meteor can't be any higher than 5-B, for much as one calculate it.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

It is quite difficult to find a realistic representation of KE in battle manga. Even if characters stop things like meteors, there's the problem that the shockwaves alone would wipe out a large area but that doesn't happen. Thus, the KE calcs can only be used for very very few cases. Even if KE gives us high results, it will almost immediately be contradicted by another feat.

It's still possible to use KE, in a lot of cases actually. (Games, where game Mechanics is a thing)

"In fiction, use reality as a ruler, never as a rule."

Has anyone ever said that before? I kinda want to make that my signature.

 

[Nierre]

"In fiction, use reality as a ruler, never as a rule."

Has anyone ever said that before? I kinda want to make that my signature.

My NFT, sorry.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I'd just remove this rule at all

 

[Therefir]

Well I don’t agree with not using KE calcs

I'm fine with using KE calcs as long as they don't heavily contradict their actual, visual showings.

If a ball launched at Mach 100 produces 20 kilograms of TNT, but fails to even break a wall at the exact moment it was supposedly producing that energy, then there is definitely a point where we have to draw a line and say "yeah, this is ridiculous and a really bad way to measure the power of a character".

 

[Earthyboy]

In the case of KE calcs they are entirely dependent on the result itself (which is also further dependant on real life physics that may not even apply to a fictional verse).

That's still an AOEE fallacy. Just because it's not a character and rather an inanimate object doesn't change my point.

If a ball launched at Mach 100 produces 20 kilograms of TNT, but fails to even break a wall at the exact moment it was supposedly producing that energy, then there is definitely a point where we have to draw a line and say "yeah, this is ridiculous and a really bad way to measure the power of a character".

But it's completely okay to have a character at 8-C, despite them not generating shock waves with their attacks all the time? What is the difference between the ball and the 8-C character? The fact that one's an inanimate object and one's not? Is there a rule saying that AOEE only applies to characters?

 

[Earthyboy]

I'm fine with using KE calcs as long as they don't heavily contradict their actual, visual showings.

The video game incarnation of Sonic is capable of hitting with an energy capable of busting a small star, yet he never destroys an actual planet by just kicking... Does that mean he isn't Low 4-C now?

Your argument is saying that KE feats are only usable if they match their visual showings, which in this case, is an AOEE fallacy. Actually, it's also Appeal to Reality to an extent.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

The death of the author applies when a reader's interpretation of a concept or event is more valid than that of the author.

But how can that be the case here when these KE calculations not only contradict the author's intent, but also the visuals, which are the most important when it comes to classifying a feat.

Death of the Author ignores author's intent so that shouldn’t be an argument, therefore the author is simply another reader with a different interpretation. Being more valid because it was written by the author makes it seem like you’re arguing the Author's words are objective.

 

[Kilgorethecouch]

I guess my only question here would be, well if A tungsten ball has incredibly high KE of 7-B but the crater left behind is only 7-C, would that be enough for the KE calc to be acceptable. What kind of leeway are we talking here?

 

[Therefir]

But it's completely okay to have a character at 8-C, despite them not generating shock waves with their attacks all the time?

Actually yes, we can't expect characters like Deku or Goku to always produce 7-A+ or 3-A levels of energy with each of their hits, because that would be unmanageable and break the setting.

Which also covers my second point, you want to use real life physics to measure the hypothetical energy of a moving object, while at the same time completely ignoring the level of destruction that said moving object would cause in real life.

If that's not contradictory in itself then I don't know what it is.

 

[Earthyboy]

Actually yes, we can't expect characters like Deku or Goku to always produce 7-A+ or 3-A levels of energy with each of their hits, because that would be unmanageable and break the setting.

Goku doesn't produce 3-A levels of energy because of Ki control. This is explicitly stated and implied throughout Dragon Ball. Goku even learned to stop his punches from destroying a universe at one point.

Deku on the other hand almost never generates shock waves when using 5% of his power despite being listed as High 8-C. Which according to your logic, would imply that 80% of the time he's not generating those billions of joules worth of power. Do you see the problem with this? This just seems like another way to deny the fact that AOEE completely breaks the established rule on kinetic energy.

The rule needs to be removed, period.

 

[Earthyboy]

Realistically, if All Might's supposed to be 7-A by the time he faces AFO at around chapter 90, his United States of Smash (a move which is explicitly implied to be one of his strongest moves) only generates 7 kilotons worth of power...

So, was All Might's the United States of Smash him not going all out? Was it an attack that for some reason, was incapable of doing 7-A level damage to the surrounding area? Despite the fact that the attack itself harmed a 7-A character.

There's too many inconsistencies in your argument for me to take it seriously.

 

[Baken384]

Earthyboy makes more sense to me imo

 

[mal]

JJK Solar System Level will become reality

 

[King]

Earthyboy makes more sense to me imo

Deku pfp vs Deku pfp.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

you want to use real life physics to measure the hypothetical energy of a moving object, while at the same time completely ignoring the level of destruction that said moving object would cause in real life.

No one is ignoring the destruction shown, we're just saying the KE and AOE shouldn’t have to match up. You chose to ignore KE calculations that solely rely on physics. Therefore you’re claim is hypocritical.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

An alternative term for Destructive Capacity which has more direct meaning: The Destructive Capacity that an attack is equivalent to. A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

The attack potency depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack.

- Attack Potency

: V

 

[mal]

- Attack Potency

: V

so if A never tank 5c attack that mean B shouldnt have that tier if b injured a? right?