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?

 

[Therefir]

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

An AOE fallacy would imply that such object does indeed have Low 5-B energy but simply failed to display or convey that level of power through the environment.

A KE calculation with results much higher than the destruction caused is not an AOE fallacy, because the contradiction is not that the destruction couldn't display that level of energy, it is the KE calc that failed to show it.

You are trying to paint KE calculations as if they were an irrefutable fact while ignoring the destruction, when it should be the other way around.

The visual aspect should always take precedence over hypothetical results.

 

[Earthyboy]

A KE calculation with results much higher than the destruction caused is not an AOE fallacy, because the contradiction is not that the destruction couldn't display that level of energy, it is the KE calc that failed to show it.

Okay, so it's not the attack that failed to transfer the destruction to the environment, it's the calculation itself... the math, so to speak.

The math...

 

[Earthyboy]

The visual aspect should always take precedence over hypothetical results.

Why can't you do the same thing for 5% Deku or literally anyone who hasn't destroyed a planet but is 5-B? Is there an exception because there's the mathematics involved?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Honestly, if the visuals are weaker than the KE result, i think KE can take priority, but if the KE result completely blows the visuals and intentions out of the water, they don't

You don't need to know kinectic energy to know that a 200 kg ball moving at mach 300 would obliterate a wall, is just intuitive logic.

Is a big object, heavuer than humans, moving a hundred times faster than a bullet, at that point the author is just either writting a gag or has no intentions in regards to the object's power.

In the case of a 7-B attack leaving a 7-C crater, that's just AOE being lower tbh, unless they push the 7-C narrative super hard, i think it would just be 7-C range and 7-B AP

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Honestly, if the visuals are weaker than the KE result, i think KE can take priority, but if the KE result completely blows the visuals and intentions out of the water, they don't

You don't need to know kinectic energy to know that a 200 kg ball moving at mach 300 would obliterate a wall, is just intuitive logic.

Is a big object, heavuer than humans, moving a hundred times faster than a bullet, at that point the author is just either writting a gag or has no intentions in regards to the object's power.

In the case of a 7-B attack leaving a 7-C crater, that's just AOE being lower tbh, unless they push the 7-C narrative super hard, i think it would just be 7-C range and 7-B AP

Ngl, I might agree with this. The examples provided in the KE page and the opposing sides are literal exaggerations.
No shit a wall not being cracked by a MHS ball is unrealistic. I'm saying that the destruction shown should not be proportional and/or limit the AP of KE.

 

[Newendigo]

Is a combination of case-by-case basis, common sense, and a bit boundaries.

KE calculations that don't show at large destructive result are fine in cases when it revolves around a small shaped-penetrator (A projectile, or say, person) with a ton of kinetic energy, as that would penetrate through most materials without leaving widespread destruction other than a relative small amount of debris.

However, something like the KE of a shockwave that was somehow calculated to be, say, Large Island level, when the actual blast doesn't destroy a single thing in its surroundings, literally nothing, I do say throw away the calc an try a new, more conservative approach.

The KE result and the destruction shown don't have to be necesarly on par with each other, but they can't be orders of magnitute away from one another, you don't need to know science to point out that a water splash that can be seen from space and that only wets a square mile of area after impact, is not ******* Low 5-B.

I'm saying that the destruction shown should not be proportional and/or limit the AP of KE.

But how far would you prioritize KE over the extremely lower results? What is your boundary here?

Is a KE attack that is calc-ed at High 7-C, which doesn't destroy a wall, better than one that reaches 6-C results? The gap between them (Wall and Large Town) is still astronomical.

 

[Andytrenom]

My problem is why it's applied to KE specifically. The calc results being contradicted by overall context and narrative should should be a consideration in any feat yet we single out KE. That's why I don't think this rule needs to exist

It's also pretty much impossible to realistically depict the effects of KE at all situations without heavily complicating the plot and can break the setting in higher end cases, which is precisely where AoE fallacy applies.

 

[Armorchompy]

"AOE Fallacy"

There is a huge difference between "[Character] is not 5-B because not all of their attacks are planet busting" and "[Feat] is not tier 7 because it barely dents a wall", comparing them is a poor argument. We typically don't require a character's entire portrayal to be consistent but if a feat contradicts itself then yeah, it was almost objectively not meant to be portrayed as a feat of the KE's magnitude and that KE should be ignored in favor of what is clearly being shown

No one is ignoring the destruction shown, we're just saying the KE and AOE shouldn’t have to match up.

"No one is ignoring the destruction shown, we're just choosing to ignore the destruction shown in favor of the destruction we think we should have happened."

You chose to ignore KE calculations that solely rely on physics.

No, we chose to ignore KE calculations that are inconsistent with themselves and should not be used as the basis of a tier. Physics are obviously not the issue here, the issue is when the claim being made by the calculation is contrasted by what actually happens in the series.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

"AOE Fallacy"

There is a huge difference between "[Character] is not 5-B because not all of their attacks are planet busting" and "[Feat] is not tier 7 because it barely dents a wall", comparing them is a poor argument. We typically don't require a character's entire portrayal to be consistent but if a feat contradicts itself then yeah, it was almost objectively not meant to be portrayed as a feat of the KE's magnitude and that KE should be ignored in favor of what is clearly being shown

"No one is ignoring the destruction shown, we're just choosing to ignore the destruction shown in favor of the destruction we think we should have happened."

No, we chose to ignore KE calculations that are inconsistent with themselves and should not be used as the basis of a tier. Physics are obviously not the issue here, the issue is when the claim being made by the calculation is contrasted by what actually happens in the series.

Beautifully put.

 

[The_Impress]

rq where do we list AoE Fallacy being a relevant counterpoint? Back in the day I literally couldn't find this shit

 

[The_Impress]

Also moving this to be a staff thread, since this is a sitewide proposal changing substantial number of ratings

@Antvasima gather input.

 

[King]

Also moving this to be a staff thread, since this is a sitewide proposal changing substantial number of ratings

@Antvasima gather input.

I don't think that was necessary. Non-staff members did make some good points.

 

[Andytrenom]

I should point out that I'm not against dismissing KE feats if they make a point out of it failing to achieve a result far below where it's calced (Someone trying to break a wall and failing). I just don't think we should demand the aftermath or environmental effects of a KE feat has to always be realistic with how powerful it is calculated to be

 

[The_Impress]

I don't think that was necessary. Non-staff members did make some good points.

...you can still make those good points. Staff Discussion ensures only these good points are made, and parroting/repetition/filler is far less prevalent.

You can always message on these threads if you're giving points previously not considered and worthwhile.

 

[Newendigo]

rq where do we list AoE Fallacy being a relevant counterpoint? Back in the day I literally couldn't find this shit

We don't have a page that explains when AoE Fallacy can be used as a good counterpoint or not, or any page that explains AoE Fallacy.

Which I always found problematic in and out itself, because just about everybody has a different use of the term.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

So, the problem is the relation between kinetic energy and area of effect? Perhaps we should make a page for area of effect with all of the relevant information and link it in the Kinetic Energy Feats page to make things clearer.

 

[ElajRuengies]

Yes. Death of the author exists.

"Death of the author is Birth of the battle-boarder."

Anywho, the issue seems to be which takes the highest priority with a KE feat- the KE itself or the actual damage shown. I believe what's being proposed is that KE should normally take priority, but if it's outrageously higher than the actual destruction, then it should be treated with skepticism.

In any case the rule does need to be made more specific; I don't agree with getting rid of it though.

Spoiler: Off Topic

Also, I know this is veering off topic but "Area of Effect Fallacy" needs to be renamed to something else, because it's not like "No Limits Fallacy" where there's a genuine logical flaw.

Arguing that [the Destructive Capacity of a character is not consistently what their feats show them capable of according to physics, therefore there's something wrong with the feat], isn't a logical error; under Real World conditions it makes sense and is a sound argument. The flaw isn't with the logic, but with ignoring that there's Artistic License at play so that there can be a story (Otherwise Broly would've destroyed the Planet at the very least while transforming, because there's no way the berserker's got "Perfect Ki Control" in that state, as one example.)

 

[Andytrenom]

Some context on the rule that started this whole thing.

Originally the rule was that if a destruction feat accompanied a KE feat the destruction feat should be used. I thought this didn't make much sense and wanted to reword it. Eventually we settled on rewording it to the destruction feat explicitly contradicting the KE feat. One of the ideas I have seen thrown around is that the new rule states there needs to be destruction supporting the KE feat for that that KE feat to be used which is..not true? The context of the previous rule which was simply reworded makes it very clear

Original thread for context

https://vsbattles.com/threads/kinetic-energy-standards.49745/

This leaves the issue of when accompanying destruction values can be used to dismiss a KE feat

 

[King]

Some context on the rule that started this whole thing.

Originally the rule was that if a destruction feat accompanied a KE feat the destruction feat should be used. I thought this didn't make much sense and wanted to reword it. Eventually we settled on rewording it to the destruction feat explicitly contradicting the KE feat. One of the ideas I have seen thrown around is that the new rule states there needs to be destruction supporting the KE feat for that that KE feat to be used which is..not true? The context of the previous rule which was simply reworded makes it very clear

Original thread for context

https://vsbattles.com/threads/kinetic-energy-standards.49745/

This leaves the issue of when accompanying destruction values can be used to dismiss a KE feat

I think we can set parameters of the KE and the destruction being at least in the same tier.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Snip

I have to ask, why does the damage shown take priority over the speed? Let be bring up what Therefir said.

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

You guys are asserting that the AOE is the author’s “objective” interpretation. But why? Both the velocity and AOE are equally present, AOE more valid? To answer that, nothing.

---

I also want to speak on something Therefir said specifically.

our fan-made and heavily assumption-dependent calculations

Dude, why even say this? This is a jab to all calculations. Every single calc involves assumptions and are fan made, so I guarantee you that their feat to get the results they calculated. You might as well rid all calcs because it’s not “the author’s objective interpretation”.

---

Back to what I was saying before. Both the speed and AOE are interpretations of the author because they allowed it to take place in their story. Therefore it’s hypocritical on your end to ignore the KE because you are contradicting your idea of ignoring the author’s intent.

No writer is gonna accurately depict how KE works. Your ideas show that you are demanding something that’s unlikely to happen.

Also you guys are using some of the most unrealistic examples trying to debunk this. What form of media has something move at MHS+ speeds but barely dents a wall?? That’s not a contradiction, that’s a dumb ass writer.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Dude, why even say this? This is a jab to all calculations. Every single calc involves assumptions and are fan made, so I guarantee you that their feat to get the results they calculated. You might as well rid all calcs because it’s not “the author’s objective interpretation”.

I mean... visuals are the closest we can get to a direct representation of the Author's ideas of that particular move/thing's destructive capabilities.

KE requires the author to know how it works, and intend it to apply on the feat itself, DoA applies here too. So if the subject is "Which more accurately represents one's intent", Visuals are an objectively less assumption-dependent representation.

The whole KE thing depends on we applying a formula we are not sure works in-universe, so when it heavily contradicts the destruction, (such as 8-C KE Bullets not denting a wall), then it's impossible to say KE was even remotely considered.

AoE fallacy, as other have stated, is not a logical fallacy at all, it is a legit argument. It only exists as a fallacy because of Poetic license. If it was established beforehand that a character is capable of X, then the author has the license to not represent it accurately if said capability breaks the setting, or is inconvenient to the overall narrative. A feat contradicting itself cannot fall under AoE fallacy because we never see the higher result properly established, thus, saying it's just the author using their Poetic License is impossible, as one cannot prove he was establishing a capability with the KE, rather than with the visuals.

 

[Armorchompy]

I have to ask, why does the damage shown take priority over the speed? Let be bring up what Therefir said.

You guys are asserting that the AOE is the author’s “objective” interpretation. But why? Both the velocity and AOE are equally present, AOE more valid? To answer that, nothing.

Because the destruction is what is being tiered, not the speed. If we were tiering the speed then we would defer to the speed of the object, and not calculate it from its weight and the amount of destruction.

Like, seriously, I think it's pretty obvious that the destruction that the author intended to portray was the one they actually showed, not the one that is not actually in their work and can only be obtained by doing math that they never intended us to do.

Back to what I was saying before. Both the speed and AOE are interpretations of the author because they allowed it to take place in their story. Therefore it’s hypocritical on your end to ignore the KE because you are contradicting your idea of ignoring the author’s intent.

No, a KE calculation requires a calculation to extrapolate the effect the feat should have, while we can actually clearly see the effect it did have. It's literally putting headcanon (math-based headcanon, sure, but still headcanon given that fiction does not adhere to maths) over the actual concrete events of a story.

No writer is gonna accurately depict how KE works. Your ideas show that you are demanding something that’s unlikely to happen.

We don't use our expectation of what should happen over what actually happens. It's fiction, it doesn't behave realistically most of the time, that doesn't mean that we should just act like it should have and ignore what actually did happen.

So yeah, writers are dogshit at math, which is the exact reason that we shouldn't prioritize our math over their work.

Also you guys are using some of the most unrealistic examples trying to debunk this. What form of media has something move at MHS+ speeds but barely dents a wall?? That’s not a contradiction, that’s a dumb ass writer.

Surely you are familiar with the idea of exaggerating to accentuate an argument? Though I'm sure some feats like that do exist.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I mean... visuals are the closest we can get to a direct representation of the Author's ideas of that particular move/thing's destructive capabilities.

Visuals apply to speed as well. No need to cherry-pick.

KE requires the author to know how it works, and intend it to apply on the feat itself, DoA applies here too. So if the subject is "Which more accurately represents one's intent", Visuals are an objectively less assumption-dependent representation.

Then KE as a whole is irrelevant.

The whole KE thing depends on we applying a formula we are not sure works in-universe, so when it heavily contradicts the destruction, (such as 8-C KE Bullets not denting a wall), then it's impossible to say KE was even remotely considered.

Then remove KE.

AoE fallacy, as other have stated, is not a logical fallacy at all, it is a legit argument. It only exists as a fallacy because of Poetic license. If it was established beforehand that a character is capable of X, then the author has the license to not represent it accurately if said capability breaks the setting, or is inconvenient to the overall narrative. A feat contradicting itself cannot fall under AoE fallacy because we never see the higher result properly established, thus, saying it's just the author using their Poetic License is impossible, as one cannot prove he was establishing a capability with the KE, rather than with the visuals.

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

Because the destruction is what is being tiered, not the speed. If we were tiering the speed then we would defer to the speed of the object, and not calculate it from its weight and the amount of destruction.

Like, seriously, I think it's pretty obvious that the destruction that the author intended to portray was the one they actually showed, not the one that is not actually in their work and can only be obtained by doing math that they never intended us to do.

No, a KE calculation requires a calculation to extrapolate the effect the feat should have, while we can actually clearly see the effect it did have. It's literally putting headcanon (math-based headcanon, sure, but still headcanon given that fiction does not adhere to maths) over the actual concrete events of a story.

We don't use our expectation of what should happen over what actually happens. It's fiction, it doesn't behave realistically most of the time, that doesn't mean that we should just act like it should have and ignore what actually did happen.

So yeah, writers are dogshit at math, which is the exact reason that we shouldn't prioritize our math over their work.

Your words imply that author’s intent, narrative, and statements >> calculable feats. If so, this feat is relativistic+ because a MFTL+ calculation goes against what the author intends.

 

[Armorchompy]

Visuals apply to speed as well. No need to cherry-pick.

It's not cherry-picking to say that the visuals of the destruction are more relevant to the destruction, it's basic logic.

Then KE as a whole is irrelevant.

Then remove KE.

That is obviously not the conclusion here. If there is no reason to assume that the KE of something is inconsistent, then the assumption is that it is consistent. Believe it or not, that is the most common situation, in my experience.

Your words imply that author’s intent, narrative, and statements >> calculable feats. If so, this feat is relativistic+ because a MFTL+ calculation goes against what the author intends.

Way to ignore everything else I said. Regardless, I hold no opinion on that feat, so it's not the "gotcha" you think it is, not that a single example coming from a highly nonstandard verse should be taken seriously in a site-wide debate.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this? I personally strongly agree with Therefir and Armorchompy.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

It's not cherry-picking to say that the visuals of the destruction are more relevant to the destruction, it's basic logic.

I just said the speed of an object can count for visuals as well. Both KE and AIE can be calculated from visuals, but choosing one without reason is technically cherry-picking.

That is obviously not the conclusion here. If there is no reason to assume that the KE of something is inconsistent, then the assumption is that it is consistent. Believe it or not, that is the most common situation, in my experience.

Before I tackle this, give my examples. They can be hypotheticals or feats shown in media.

Way to ignore everything else I said. Regardless, I hold no opinion on that feat, so it's not the "gotcha" you think it is, not that a single example coming from a highly nonstandard verse should be taken seriously in a site-wide debate.

I didn’t. What I put in bold summed up your premise. Responding to all three paragraphs would’ve been redundant. Anyway, my point still stands. You’re blatantly putting narrative over actual feats. And let’s be real here, if the current situation was me upgrading a character because of author’s intention then I’d bet you’d oppose it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this? I personally strongly agree with Therefir and Armorchompy.

Eh, the rule is very rarely employed in my experience. I have no problem with it staying for the sake of consistency.
At best one could add to the rule that if the destruction is vague or hard to quantify exactly the KE can still be used if it is somewhat in the same ballpark. I don't think anyone ever got nitpicky enough in evaluation to make such an addition necessary, but being specific doesn't hurt.

 

[The_Impress]

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

This actually is missing context:

Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack.

It's mostly with respect to the terminology within Attack Potency, i.e. "you're not island level for wrecking an island by default", NOT AoE fallacy support, where issue is that you're getting a separate series of AP yields, which'll still be energy outputs.

Your words imply that author’s intent, narrative, and statements >> calculable feats. If so, this feat is relativistic+ because a MFTL+ calculation goes against what the author intends.

Zamasu honestly this thread only serves to remind me of the "joke" calc you did for Spider-Man breaking a brick, which by using KE you made a thousand times stronger (midway tier 7) than the same character tanking nukes 3 times, pulverizing two tanks, having a skyscraper land on him, getting decked by the collective punch of all of China, shattering a aircarrier ship and God knows what else (All low-end tier 8).

I'm just gonna come around and say it, this is blatant wank, points brought up in OP can literally be used against basically every other standard in existence because they're that generalized (Why isn't every single FTL character tier 3??? AOE FALLACY???!?!?). AOE Fallacy's entire point IS, fair representation of characters by phasing out minor details author didn't consider, but guess what? By your OWN POINTS, in the OP, rarely any author would ever give a **** about KE output, so whose portrayal are you even representing? Certainly not the damn author, this only serves to get a higher number listed on the file. Never more, never less.

Only way I see a fraction of the OP accepted is, argument the standard should be case-by-case, or Andy's "same tier" proposal, but even that's hella iffy

 

[Newendigo]

I just said the speed of an object can count for visuals as well. Both KE and AIE can be calculated from visuals, but choosing one without reason is technically cherry-picking.

This falls under the fourth rule of Kinetic Energy Feats

"Kinetic Energy based on Movement Speed is case by case: Fiction often treats the speed with which a character can move himself as unrelated to their attack power. As such feats like just running or carrying a small object, like another character, should only be used if the fiction has made clear that the speed of the movement correlates to the character's power or if the character uses the fast moving object to attack."

Basically, if speed is in no point ever correlated to the power output of a character, or a destructive feat, then it should not be used to calculate AP.

 

[The_Impress]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this? I personally strongly agree with Therefir and Armorchompy.

I think more input may be beneficial to get an idea of prevalence, at least from the calc group members :V

 

[Armorchompy]

I just said the speed of an object can count for visuals as well. Both KE and AIE can be calculated from visuals, but choosing one without reason is technically cherry-picking.

Addressed already. The "technically" also is kind of an admission that the argument makes no sense

Before I tackle this, give my examples. They can be hypotheticals or feats shown in media.

I shouldn't need to, literally any projectile, or animal tackle, or thrown object, probably falls under this. But if you really need it, here's a random calculation I made a while ago.

I didn’t. What I put in bold summed up your premise. Responding to all three paragraphs would’ve been redundant. Anyway, my point still stands. You’re blatantly putting narrative over actual feats.

I'm putting narrative over a clearly incorrect interpretation of a feat.

Also, for the record, you do realize this works the both ways? If a human character falls from a height, and causes a tier 8 crater upon landing, is that a 9-B feat to you?

And let’s be real here, if the current situation was me upgrading a character because of author’s intention then I’d bet you’d oppose it.

Bet all you want, this isn't relevant.

 

[Antvasima]

I think more input may be beneficial to get an idea of prevalence, at least from the calc group members.

Okay.

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @DMUA @Damage3245 @Jasonsith @Wokistan @KieranH10 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment

What do you think about this? I personally strongly agree with Therefir and Armorchompy.

 

[KLOL506]

I was gonna repeat what Armorchompy said but he beat me to it. I agree with him and Therefir.

Eh, the rule is very rarely employed in my experience. I have no problem with it staying for the sake of consistency.
At best one could add to the rule that if the destruction is vague or hard to quantify exactly the KE can still be used if it is somewhat in the same ballpark. I don't think anyone ever got nitpicky enough in evaluation to make such an addition necessary, but being specific doesn't hurt.

And DT I guess.

 

[Damage3245]

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.

I don't see how that's an AoE issue exactly. Naruto destroying a tree doesn't mean he is limited to destroying a tree.

Whereas if Naruto used a "7-B" Rasengan and failed to destroy the tree, then I think that AoE could be invoked with actual justification.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

What do you think about this?

I agree with Armorchompy and Therefir

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Zamasu honestly this thread only serves to remind me of the "joke" calc you did for Spider-Man breaking a brick, which by using KE you made a thousand times stronger (midway tier 7) than the same character tanking nukes 3 times, pulverizing two tanks, having a skyscraper land on him, getting decked by the collective punch of all of China, shattering a aircarrier ship and God knows what else (All low-end tier 8).

If the rule was removed, it would still be unusable. I get you love to police Marvel Comics but this comment was quite unnecessary.

I'm just gonna come around and say it, this is blatant wank, points brought up in OP can literally be used against basically every other standard in existence because they're that generalized (Why isn't every single FTL character tier 3??? AOE FALLACY???!?!?). AOE Fallacy's entire point IS, fair representation of characters by phasing out minor details author didn't consider, but guess what? By your OWN POINTS, in the OP, rarely any author would ever give a **** about KE output, so whose portrayal are you even representing? Certainly not the damn author, this only serves to get a higher number listed on the file. Never more, never less.

Nah I'm straight, you got it fam.

Only way I see a fraction of the OP accepted is, argument the standard should be case-by-case, or Andy's "same tier" proposal, but even that's hella iffy

ok

@Armorchompy @Therefir I'm outta here

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with the general idea of Armorchompy and Therefir. I think the narrative should be taken over real world physics which writers ignore, especially in the case of KE feats. This goes both ways too, such as falling from the sky causing a massive crater.

Though as DontTalkDT that the rule isn't really that big of an issue in general though it wouldn't hurt to further specify on the guidelines.

However I do have a question in a specific scenario

If a character is being slammed into something (e.g. a character being pummelled into a wall at a very high speed that it causes a crater), there would actually be a valid reason for the destruction to the wall being less than the KE because the character being pummelled is tanking the energy. From my understanding the best way to calculate his durability would be KE minus the destruction to the wall. Would that be fine?

 

[KLOL506]

If a character is being slammed into something (e.g. a character being pummelled into a wall at a very high speed that it causes a crater), there would actually be a valid reason for the destruction to the wall being less than the KE because the character being pummelled is tanking the energy. From my understanding the best way to calculate his durability would be KE minus the destruction to the wall. Would that be fine?

Hmmmmmm, and how do you propose to calculate the KE here in the first place? Wouldn't you need a proper speed value first being used within the feat itself and not from power-scaling??

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Yeah that's assuming that exists

 

[Andytrenom]

"Because....to do."

We tier energy, not destruction, evident by the attack potency page as a whole. And the whole "we are calculating speed" is a non argument and addresses nothing. The idea of calculating speed from destruction shown was never relevant so I don't know why you brought it up

Your second point discounts every feat that isn't destruction, not just KE. Also, not every author is gonna solely rely on destruction to convey a character's strength and may not be able to portray it for plot reasons so that's not a really good point to make

"No, a KE calculation....over the actual concrete events of a story.

Mostly neutral here but that logic of headcanon can be applied to most calcs

"We don't use our expectation of what should happen over what actually happens...over their work."

The feat did have happen, we calculate what happened, the energy the object would have when moving at the speed it is. The idea is to simply acknowledge that portraying it's environmental effects in all situations is not feasible

 

[Andytrenom]

"KE requires the author to know how it works, and intend it to apply on the feat itself, DoA applies here too. So if the subject is "Which more accurately represents one's intent", Visuals are an objectively less assumption-dependent representation."

Not trying to cherry pick, I just have a problem with this argument the most. KE is not some esoteric idea, it's one of the most basic concepts of science you will learn in school and pretty much everyone knows that the size and speed of an object contribute to its energy, whether it's intended to be applied is a valid point but the author not knowing how it works is very unlikely

 

[Andytrenom]

@The_Impress I didn't propose anything about same tier, I gave the context of the rule and why I think it's at least partially misused

 

[Jasonsith]

"KE requires the author to know how it works, and intend it to apply on the feat itself, DoA applies here too. So if the subject is "Which more accurately represents one's intent", Visuals are an objectively less assumption-dependent representation."

Not trying to cherry pick, I just have a problem with this argument the most. KE is not some esoteric idea, it's one of the most basic concepts of science you will learn in school and pretty much everyone knows that the size and speed of an object contribute to its energy, whether it's intended to be applied is a valid point but the author not knowing how it works is very unlikely

That on top of another fact:

Some author does not care.

---

I have one question regarding speed, lifting strength and kinetic energy though.

That currently,

• Attack potency yield can be calculated from a feat where kinetic energy can be deduced from the mass of an object and the speed it was thrown
• We currently do not accept KE calculated from an FTL speed
• If a character lifts an object and throws it at a speed, the acceleration of that object can be taken into consideration for the

Do these rules sort of punish characters that throw heavy objects at FTL speeds? What rules can be amended to circumvent with this?

A lot of characters lift and throw objects at FTL speed (esp. for crazy eroge verses and Toon Force verses). It does not sound right if these characters have lesser lifting strength than the more tame verses where celestial bodies are thrown at relativistic speed.

(As if a character that throws an object at a higher (say FTL) speed should have no less lifting strength than a character throwing it at a lower (say ~94% c relativistic+) speed.)

---

Another problem is with the consistency of the art style of the verse. It can be building sized in one screen, having KE calculated at a very high value becuase of KE = 0.5 m v^2 and mass is proportional to volume - just to have its size reduced to smaller than a head of a teenager human.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I did bring that up before but DontTalkDT said it's reasonable for an unquantifiable feat to be treated as lower.

 

[KingTempest]

I have one question regarding speed, lifting strength and kinetic energy though.

That currently,

• Attack potency yield can be calculated from a feat where kinetic energy can be deduced from the mass of an object and the speed it was thrown
• We currently do not accept KE calculated from an FTL speed
• If a character lifts an object and throws it at a speed, the acceleration of that object can be taken into consideration for the

Do these rules sort of punish characters that throw heavy objects at FTL speeds? What rules can be amended to circumvent with this?

A lot of characters lift and throw objects at FTL speed (esp. for crazy eroge verses and Toon Force verses). It does not sound right if these characters have lesser lifting strength than the more tame verses where celestial bodies are thrown at relativistic speed.

(As if a character that throws an object at a higher (say FTL) speed should have no less lifting strength than a character throwing it at a lower (say ~94% c relativistic+) speed.)

Since it doesn't start at FTL speeds and it accelerates from rest, can't we do Relativistic KE?

 

[Jasonsith]

Since it doesn't start at FTL speeds and it accelerates from rest, can't we do Relativistic KE?

I can settle on the relativistic speed cap for objects thrown at FTL for the sole purpose of determining KE yield.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I did bring that up before but DontTalkDT said it's reasonable for an unquantifiable feat to be treated as lower.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. Especially after we (I mean the wiki, not you in particular) had this debate a dozen of times already. (and that is probably literally a dozen)

The KE of things goes towards infinite when they approach the speed of light. So the entire sentiment of "FTL feats should be higher than relativistic ones" would mean that FTL feats would be ranked as infinite attack potency.
Unless that's what you want you can't quantify FTL KE in a manner that is above relativistic KE in general. So yeah, it is reasonable for it to be treated as lower than close to lightspeed KE, but for good reasons.
FTL KE sadly breaks physics and hence is unquantifiable via KE calcs.

And before someone brinks it up again, the 93% value is not some number for which we cut off relativism that can be used for this purpose. The 93% value is purely chosen as a stability measure, so that the data error isn't limitlessly amplified for close to lightspeed feats. It has nothing to do with not acknowledging relativism.

 

[Armorchompy]

If a character is being slammed into something (e.g. a character being pummelled into a wall at a very high speed that it causes a crater), there would actually be a valid reason for the destruction to the wall being less than the KE because the character being pummelled is tanking the energy. From my understanding the best way to calculate his durability would be KE minus the destruction to the wall. Would that be fine?

I think in this kind of case it's ok as long as the difference isn't too big. Like, if the crater is 9-B+ and the KE is 8-A, then it's definitely not usable, but if the KE is 9-A or 8-C, probably fine

 

[KieranH10]

We cant limit it to tiers, tiers aren't all the same size, which would mean irregular and unfair comparisons between feats. If we put a limit to it, it would be much better to be a simple value (KE being 5x higher or lower, for example).

The main problem is whether KE is consistent with the full portrayal of the feat. If a character crashes to the ground at X speed, which is fully shown, but the doesn't make a crater that shows that damage, then surely the visual of the crater is much more in-mind of the creators than the speed at which a character is going.

This would also affect our Meteor Standards, since they're just KE calculations.

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean I'm making a general example, obviously there's a difference between 9-B+/8-C and 4-C+/4-B

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here then? Do our current rules need to be further clarified?

 

[KLOL506]

We cant limit it to tiers, tiers aren't all the same size, which would mean irregular and unfair comparisons between feats. If we put a limit to it, it would be much better to be a simple value (KE being 5x higher or lower, for example).

The main problem is whether KE is consistent with the full portrayal of the feat. If a character crashes to the ground at X speed, which is fully shown, but the doesn't make a crater that shows that damage, then surely the visual of the crater is much more in-mind of the creators than the speed at which a character is going.

This would also affect our Meteor Standards, since they're just KE calculations.

@DontTalkDT what do you think? At least, about the Meteor stuff?

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't agree with giving it an inherent value, especially since part of the KE of something will disperse in locations where the damage cannot be evaluated by our calculations.

 

[Jasonsith]

So what should we do here then? Do our current rules need to be further clarified?

Basically two issues exist.

1. Some character throws some heavy object at high speed (sometimes even FTL), then created a crater or even destroyed a large volume of an object. The KE, mass of object (low end lifting strength) and acceleration of the mass (for calculating high end of lifting strength) can be determined.

While our current rules say "resultant destruction yield should supercede the KE yield", OP proposes to "remove KE feat rules and ban KE feats as proof for AP and LS yield".

Some mods disagree and others work for a "meet the middle" solution.

2. Some character throws some heavy object at high speed (sometimes even FTL). Meanwhile other character throws another heavy object at a lower high speed (say relativistic). The newtonian KE, mass of object (low end lifting strength) and acceleration of the mass (for calculating high end of lifting strength) can be determined.

While relativistic KE cannot be calculated for objects thrown at FTL speed, it is kind of counter intuitive that a character throwing objects at FTL speed is weaker than other

Currently the mods are not yet settled on how to circumvent with the issue, with one insisting that relativism should be honoured at all times without suggesting a way to make a ceiling for characters that throw objects at FTL speed to cope with the ridicule that characters that throw things faster is weaker than characters throwing objects at slower speed because their speed yield calculations crash under relativistic KE (in fact, most characters are shown to fight under newtonian KE and even more so for high tier characters and large sized characters).

Please don't misrepresent my argument. Especially after we (I mean the wiki, not you in particular) had this debate a dozen of times already. (and that is probably literally a dozen)

The KE of things goes towards infinite when they approach the speed of light. So the entire sentiment of "FTL feats should be higher than relativistic ones" would mean that FTL feats would be ranked as infinite attack potency.
Unless that's what you want you can't quantify FTL KE in a manner that is above relativistic KE in general. So yeah, it is reasonable for it to be treated as lower than close to lightspeed KE, but for good reasons.
FTL KE sadly breaks physics and hence is unquantifiable via KE calcs.

And before someone brinks it up again, the 93% value is not some number for which we cut off relativism that can be used for this purpose. The 93% value is purely chosen as a stability measure, so that the data error isn't limitlessly amplified for close to lightspeed feats. It has nothing to do with not acknowledging relativism.

Well, then at least I plead for setting the same ceiling for FTL feats.

Otherwise it would go anti logical that "an object that is thrown at a higher speed yields smaller than thrown a lower speed".

What is our work around for this issue other than a proposal for a hypothetical speed ceiling?

I think in this kind of case it's ok as long as the difference isn't too big. Like, if the crater is 9-B+ and the KE is 8-A, then it's definitely not usable, but if the KE is 9-A or 8-C, probably fine

Well the mid point can be hard to determine.

Leaving open for others to debate.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't agree with giving it an inherent value, especially since part of the KE of something will disperse in locations where the damage cannot be evaluated by our calculations.

Yeah I don't agree either.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, then at least I plead for setting the same ceiling for FTL feats.

Otherwise it would go anti logical that "an object that is thrown at a higher speed yields smaller than thrown a lower speed".

What is our work around for this issue other than a proposal for a hypothetical speed ceiling?

Again, this is inevitable, no matter how much you dislike it. Real physics dictates that lightspeed KE is infinite energy. Regardless of which method we would quantify FTL KE with, it would always be lower than a slower, close enough to lightspeed, KE feat. It's absolutely impossible to make a ruling where relativistic KE doesn't outclass whichever FTL method you chose.

It also inherently makes no sense to assign such an arbitrary result to it. There are two things that one can use to argue some energy level: Author intent and Physics. Like when we say to use destruction over KE where it contradicts KE that is us honoring author intent to a degree.
However, the author has no specific value in mind when they do a FTL KE feat. Or at least no specific value we would know unless the fiction literally tells us what it is.
Meanwhile, physics just tells you the feat is unquantifiable. So FTL KE calcs would neither be us quantifying what the fiction tries to tell us, nor be us applying proper physics to what we see.
It just makes no sense to do so.

I don't agree with giving it an inherent value, especially since part of the KE of something will disperse in locations where the damage cannot be evaluated by our calculations.

Yeah. I think in that regard one should take the fact that it says

There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation.

seriously. If there is a destruction calc that gives a different result, but doesn't contradict the KE calc due to the uncertainty involved, the KE should be good to go.

 

[Mr._Bambu]

I've recently picked up quite a few other priorities (Elden Ring dropped, it is a contractual obligation that I do everything in it), so I'll be quick, and might not return.

I have thought the aforementioned rule is a really ******' goofy rule to apply solely and exclusively to KE. However I do realize why people defend it, so I'm not strongly opposed to the rule's existence.

Regarding the FTL KE stuff above... **** nah.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalk makes sense in his last post above.