Issue with Kinetic Energy rules

[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