• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Kinetic Energy Standards

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andytrenom

She/Her
VS Battles
Administrator
10,748
6,476
There is a certain thing that has been bothering me lately, and that is our kinetic energy standards, or rather a certain part of our kinetic energy standards. What I'm referring to is the practice of using Kinetic energy when a character carries a living human at certain speeds. That's the main thing I'll be addressing here but there are also a few other things that I'll include in this discussion, they just won't be the centre of attention.

The Issue
So if you didn't already know, our standards demand a few things before we tier someone based off how much kinetic energy they would generate running at a certain speed. Right now, if you simply get from point A to Point B at mach 5000 it will say nothing about your AP; but if you're carrying something or someone while doing the exact same thing you get to be rated based off the kinetic energy the object will possess due to moving at that speed. This is why characters like the CW Flash are currently rated around town level in his earlier keys, because he has had to move people at certain speeds to save them from various calamities.

Scientifically speaking, this makes perfect sense. If you're making a 100kg object move at 5000km/hr then you're supplying kinetic energy equivalent to a mass of 100kg moving at 5000km/hr to that object, logic doesn't get simpler than this. And surely many feats of moving objects at high speeds are still valid in my eyes, but, doubts really start to arise when you're specifically talking about feats where another human or living being is moved at high speed


What's the problem here? Well, to explain that I would first have to remind everyone why simple movement feats aren't applicable to KE in the first place: because in fiction, moving at certain speeds is recurrently not portrayed as generating raw force that would come out of a human moving at that velocity. And this is the problem, the same thing can be said for speedsters moving other people as well .

If you are dealing with a heroic speedster, feats like this would usually play out something like this "Innocent civilian is in mortal danger, speedster dashes in, they have now been moved to a safe spot". Even if you're not, taking a human from one place to another at high speed will seldom see the human suffer consequences of moving at these speeds and they will be just as fine as when the speedster picked them up in most cases. Cases where the human doesn't come out totally fine and are shown to endure some negative effects (vomiting, disorientation etc) but nothing major are arguably worse, because in this case the verse demonstrates how high-speed movement harms a human body, and it's not remotely at the level kinetic energy would imply even if the Kinetic energy is as low as 9-A. Even something as "slow" as hypersonic+ generates KE thousands of time above what a human can handle and fiction rarely portrays it as anything more harmful than having a ride with an extreme motorcyclist.

Point being, saving/transporting humans at MHS+ speeds is normally not supposed to demonstrate the speedster's ability to apply nuke levels of energy to a person for offensive purposes, doing so at HHS+ speed is not supposed to imply the capability to hit someone with the force of building destroying explosions, etc . And yeah I know, someone blowing up Earth is not usually supposed to demonstrate their ability to destroy Jupiter either but, when we already reject basic speed feats as means of calculating AP on the basis of them being disconnected, why should we not do the same for speed feats while carrying person, when they also have this exact issue? That's what I wanted to get across

Changes
In case this is accepted, what should the new standards be? Well, moving human beings and living creatures would no longer be applicable for Kinetic Energy Calculations under normal circumstances. Hurling/Launching someone away at high speeds and moving at high speeds specifically for an attack though are still perfectly applicable. Further discussion may be needed to decide how we treat moving inanimate objects at high speeds, since the situation is more ambiguous here. Another thing, since humans not experiencing harmful effects was a point in why KE shouldn't be used, some may point out that in cases of moving an explicitly superhuman character, KE should be fine. I think it would just depend, if they don't acknowledge experiencing any kind of force from the high speed movement an exception shouldn't be made but if they do the situation might be different.

Other Stuff
Now that that's out of the way, it's time to move on to the other stuff I want to talk about

KE For Scientifically Accurate Depiction Of Speed And AP

There should be a new condition added to Kinetic Energy Standards, and that is for KE to be usable when the given story utilizes a scientifically accurate depiction of superspeed. The logic behind disallowing KE for simple movement is that fiction usually does not treat it as AP, obviously there would be exceptions to this and it just doesn't feel right to have the rule without acknowledging this simple fact. An example of what I'm talking about is Korosensei from Assassination Classroom. He is capable of moving at mach 20 and it is explicitly stated that if he tried to move at this speed while carrying his students, they wouldn't survive. The verse acknowledges the connection between speed and damage dealing capabilities so Korosensei should be able to be rated according to his kinetic energy. So should other character whose verses go this in-depth into the character's speed and its implication in the context of harming people.


Rule Modification/Removal

There's a certain rule for when Kinetic Energy should not be used

"There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the speed 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."

At the very least I think it should be changed to something like this

"An attack is performed, but it explicitly fails to achieve a level of destruction/damage that the supposed kinetic energy of the attack should have been sufficient for"

"For example a hammer is thrown against a concrete wall with a calculated speed of mach 5000, but upon hitting the wall doesn't cause any damage at all. <insert concise explanation of why kinetic energy shouldn't be used here>"

You can also add another condition or expand the previous one to include

"The kinetic energy feat is part of a destruction feat and among the two, only the latter is actually portrayed as a demonstration of the character's capabilities"

"For example, if a character swings a mace into a large hill at near the speed of light and destroys it completely, with the destruction of the hill being meant as a showcase of his power; the energy required to destroy the hill will take priority over the energy required to swing the mace"

As it stands the whole "if there are two calculations and one of them isn't KE then KE can't be used" is an extremely flimsy policy to enforce and should be modified, if not outright removed. Following what the rule currently is, a feat where someone is punched into the moon and leaves a 2 meter wide crater can only be said to have tanked 9-A/8-C levels of energy because of the crater.

Okay I think that's all
 
I will need to sleep soon, and I do see some points to the rule; Calc Stacking exists for a reason yes, but I don't think we should go overboard with the restrictions. I can agree with the whole rescuing people at great speeds part can be pretty vague, but there are times where people charging at great speeds on screen is treated as build up AP. And there doesn't have to be a lot of destruction to qualify as AP.

I'll come back for more details tomorrow though.
 
Ah, I see, and we also don't use a character's speed rating listed here to implement in a calculator either due to Calc Stacking. But I do agree to this then. I will get some sleep now though.
 
As I have mentioned previously, I have a similar problem with our current kinetic energy standards, so I obviously agree about that speed feats that are not destructive, or treated as possessing vastly heightened power, shouldn't be used for inflated statistics.

I will add a link to this discussion to the official highlights thread.
 
@DDM Actually there is also the whole "if you throw a mach 5000 hammer at a concrete wall and it doesn't do shit then you shouldn't use KE" which I proposed.

And the other rule after that about "destruction feat being portrayed as the character's true power" I only proposed to replace the current more flimsy rule, so i am fine if you disagree with it.
 
Would you consider throwing a human into the sky to be as disqualified as carrying a human?

For the "scientifically accurate depictions part", Jōjirō Takajō already has AP based on his speed for this reason.

That rewrite of using destruction over KE seems fine after I've read your examples for it.
 
@Agnaa No offense but did you actually read the OP?

"Punching someone away at high speeds and moving at high speeds specifically for an attack though are still perfectly applicable"

Yeah I know I said punching away instead of throwing away but it's the same thing.
 
I did, but punching virtually always comes with some sort of damage, while I'd imagine throwing would often be more akin to the carrying feats, or at least would only have damage from gravity on the way down.
 
I see, well I'll make it clear. Throwing someone into the sky is fine for Kinetic energy.
 
I'm also going to change "punching away" to "launching/hurling away" to clear the confusion.
 
Did we ever consider this valid? Regardless, I'd argue that it is contextual on whether or not it should apply to AP, as in, it needs to be used as an attack.

I'm in support of the others though if ever a show designer/graphic artist/whatever depicts a feat like that moon one in that exact way they should probably be fired/flogged to be fair.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I'm in support of the others though if ever a show designer/graphic artist/whatever depicts a feat like that moon one in that exact way they should probably be fired/flogged to be fair.
Sorry, but what do you mean?
 
I can suggest this.

Kinetic Energy can only be used for AP in these two cases:

1. A character throwing an object somewhere intending to cause some dagame uppon the colision

2. Kinetic energy is a byproduct of some other attack (for example clouds moving after All Might's Detroit Smash)
 
Andy, I mean I'm in support of the secondary suggestions and that bad animators should be flogged, clearly
 
Oh, I mean, not drawing a really giant crater when someone is tossed into the moon isn't really bad animation but I digress.
 
100% agree with this.

Honestly kinetic energy should be used even more selectively than what the OP is adding, but I'm glad to see more restrictions on it nonetheless. We evaluate rate speed and AP separately for a reason and we already disallow using the inverse for kinetic energy.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
100% agree with this.

Honestly kinetic energy should be used even more selectively than what the OP is adding, but I'm glad to see more restrictions on it nonetheless. We evaluate rate speed and AP separately for a reason and we already disallow using the inverse for kinetic energy.
Two of Andy's proposals are actually expanding KE to be used for more feats, btw.
 
@Dargoo

Agreed.

@Agnaa

Hmm. I am for more restrictions, not less.
 
To summarize what I took away from Andy's post:

Carrying feats are now almost never acceptable for KE. (Restriction)

Scientifically accurate depictions of speed as AP is now calcable using KE. (Expansion)

(This is the one I understand the least) If a feat has a destruction value and a KE value, the destruction value should be used if it fails to achieve the level of destruction that KE would have caused, or if it exceeds the level of destruction that KE would have caused. Rather than always taking priority over KE. (Expansion)

As a practical example of how the last change is different from how it's currently treated, right now if a character was punched to the moon and left a 9-A crater, that would be rated at 9-A. With Andy's suggestion, that feat would be rated by KE, and not by the destruction.
 
And I'm for the rules making sense.

The first of these expansions adds the asterisk to the new rules that media that displays this clearly as attack potency equivalent (running at mach 20 damaging the body of those not comparable was the example) should be given an attack potency rating in this case.

The second of these expansions removes the concept of an anti-feat since the wiki at large doesn't rule out other feats purely on the premise of anti-feats with no other context except in this one scenario. I'm in full agreement with Andy for now. These changes make sense.
 
Antvasima said:
@Agnaa

Hmm. I am for more restrictions, not less.
Whether the restrictions are less or more than before doesn't really matter. Restrictions should be removed if they are flawed and added if they are needed and that's what the purpose of the revision is.
 
Agnaa said:
As a practical example of how the last change is different from how it's currently treated, right now if a character was punched to the moon and left a 9-A crater, that would be rated at 9-A. With Andy's suggestion, that feat would be rated by KE, and not by the destruction.
A feat of punching someone into the moon will never actually be treated as 9-A here, the problem is that the current rule worded the way it is suggests it should be.
 
Well, punching somebody to the Moon requires a certain amount of kinetic energy and is a type of destructive feat, so if that is the only restriction that should be loosened, I am fine with it.
 
The other restriction loosening is allowing scientific representations of speed as AP to be calculated from KE, this is already done with Jōjirō Takajō, whose high speed causes himself damage when he accelerates/decelerates.
 
Okay, but just because the effects of friction are somewhat displayed, this does not automatically mean that the full effects of the real world kinetic energy would be in effect in the fiction in question.
 
So hitting someone with a skyscraper at lightning speed is fine for KE as long as it destroys the skyscraper and the person who got hit is sent flying but not into anything and what about asteroids
 
It's fine, I don't think the skyscraper being destroyed is even necessary.
 
Hmm

Yeah, this makes sense As if you needed to keep beating High 8-C+ Revolutions to Death

The profiles I can think of being effected would be of course CW Flash as said in the OP, and Chowder (Character)
 
Whay if the KE feat use an stated speed?

Also, what if the feat is the combination of destruction, statement and ke? For example Grandfather, destruction is minor, KE is planetary (now I see the issue) but yet was stated to move as fast that the metal was melting.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
100% agree with this.
Honestly kinetic energy should be used even more selectively than what the OP is adding, but I'm glad to see more restrictions on it nonetheless. We evaluate rate speed and AP separately for a reason and we already disallow using the inverse for kinetic energy.
This.
 
@Antonio As stated in the OP, a feat simply being a combination of destruction and Kinetic Energy shouldn't really mean anything. If the destruction portion is treated as the most impressive part of the whole feat only in that case should KE be counted out.
 
Katana swinging her sword would be something akin to an attack

The feat itself was deemed wack but

Either way yeah that would mess with Spider Man
 
Spiderman: I don't know the feat but the description does seem like it won't qualify anymore. Do they imply he had to exert a large amount of Kinetic Energy to move the hulk?

Katana: I personally don't have much issue with sword swinging being calced through KE.
 
This is quite unrelated, but I though Katana's feat was discarded due math issues.

Anyway, other doubt not sure if related but, people will still scale its durability to the AP performed by this? Like Santa Claus (Myth), I'm not really sure if he would survive a crash at those speeds for example (and crashing agaisnt smaller objects do not counts).
 
No, moving the Hulk was just treated as a speed feat, not as a destructive one. I have had a problem with using it for a long time though, and we were already preparing to scale from durability feats for him and other characters instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top