Issue with Kinetic Energy rules

[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.