-
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
- Thread starter Andytrenom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kinetic energy feats
- Status
- 9,978
- 2,016
Didn't we already resolve this issue? Is fairly limited now, although personally I rather not do it (similar with exploding planets).Ugarik said:
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #45
@Ugarik Yes, there are no problems there
- 31,651
- 34,715
KE for carrying people I do agree shouldn't be an AP feat, but throwing a hammer at Mach 5000 should be more case by case. If he legit throws it really far in which Mach 5000 is a legit demonstrated on screen feat and it builds up power through speed with that be inherently impressive, then I don't see the problem with that being an AP feat. It doesn't have to have a big explosion to have high AP. But if it's just over a short distance with Mach 5000 as a reaction speed feat, then I wouldn't use that to calc KE. And kicking someone to the moon should inherently be impressive even if it causes little to no destruction; especially if kicking someone off the Earth's atmosphere would inherently require someone being launched at High Hypersonic speeds. Also, Meteors for sure should be allowed to have KE calculated.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Honestly if the argument is "running at X speed and not getting harmed is a feat" any speed feat in open air is a durability feat as long as it's fast enough to where air resistance causes damage.
But fiction typically ignores this so often we evaluate speed and attack potency seperatly.
What I've seen more and more lately doesn't reflect that. "Tier 8/7 via swinging sword in general vicinity to lightning" is an example of this.
But fiction typically ignores this so often we evaluate speed and attack potency seperatly.
What I've seen more and more lately doesn't reflect that. "Tier 8/7 via swinging sword in general vicinity to lightning" is an example of this.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #50
I think you're looking at this a bit out of context. The "hammer thrown at mach 5000" was part of a hypothetical situation where a hammer is thrown against a wall, with the intent of smashing it, but failing to do so; which is the kind of situation I don't think should be used for KE. I'm obviously not saying that throwing a hammer by itself is not a KE feat, that's silly.DarkDragonMedeus said:
- 31,651
- 34,715
Yeah, swinging a sword to react to fast projectiles is also too iffy as that's more so just a reaction speed not meant to be treated as an AP feat; it's not the same thing as two giants swinging giant swords at speeds that are swift for giant standards.
@Andy, ah I see.
@Andy, ah I see.
- 15,418
- 5,748
The argument seems fine enough.
Still wondering what would happen to simple object carying feats. For example, the Game & Watch verse's AP feats is nearly entirely based on moving at high speeds while swinging/carying objects, without any collision every happening to see the damage it would cause.
Still wondering what would happen to simple object carying feats. For example, the Game & Watch verse's AP feats is nearly entirely based on moving at high speeds while swinging/carying objects, without any collision every happening to see the damage it would cause.
- 15,637
- 5,392
In my opinion KE shouldn't be used unless there's statements that are talking about it similar to Mass-Energy, or we're measuring the KE of an inanimate object that hit or was hit by a character.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #56
Objects aren't the same case as humans but there are still possible issues. If someone grabbed a broken guitar and ran to another part of the globe to drop it at a decent shop, moving at near lightspeed in the process, I would be really hesitant to call it a mountain level feat.
- 15,418
- 5,748
I'd definitively rather not treat KE to the same rigid standards as we do with Mass-Energy. Mass-Energy is rather obscure, but KE is basic physics. And I think that most people can visualize that something moving fast = it's gonna hurt, unless we're talking about speedsters.
- 31,651
- 34,715
Mass-Energy in general is more based on theories rather than facts; which even Einstein himself was skeptical on it. KE is very fundamental and should definitely be used for high speed impacts from meteors for instance, we just shouldn't assume every reaction speed feat not used for combat scales to AP or durability. KE was agreed to only be used for storms if there's proof someone actively blew away clouds by physical means such as great winds. KE is also often used for telekinetically lifting Continents such as Queen Zeal's feat.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Not that I disagree with the basic sentiment behind the OP (KE for moving people is unreliable), but the reasoning provided here is contradictory.
Why are we are selectively picking when we want the Author's Intent to be important or not? It's either one or the other. There should be no middle ground.
If this method constantly generates unreliable results, then that should be the reason IMO. What we think the author intends means and has always meant jackshit to us without actual confirmation, why should it be different now?
Why are we are selectively picking when we want the Author's Intent to be important or not? It's either one or the other. There should be no middle ground.
If this method constantly generates unreliable results, then that should be the reason IMO. What we think the author intends means and has always meant jackshit to us without actual confirmation, why should it be different now?
- 31,651
- 34,715
The main part that was agreed was simply moving/flying at great speeds to rescue someone should't be used for AP. And I agree that calcable feats should inherently take more priority over Author's intent which is why KE of powerful attacks should still be used even if it doesn't quite demonstrate destruction on certain levels.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I agree, but the reasoning behind this agreement is contradictory bollocks. "The scene isn't meant to be viewed as an AP feat" is one of the worst reasonings in the dawn of the wiki and we have always treated anyhing remotely resembling such an argument as worthless. There is absolutely no reason to change now.
If the method generates unreliably high results on a daily basis, that's the actual reason that should be used. Not "Lol Author Intent". Feats are feats regardless of what the author thinks.
The exact same argument could be used to downgrade every single Creation Feat. We and the OBD are the literal only Popular VS Debating Forums that treat Creation as equal to Destruction. Near very single author out there doesn't intend it to be that way, but their intent doesn't mean absolutely anything unless they go out of their way to point this out in the work or supporting material.
If the method generates unreliably high results on a daily basis, that's the actual reason that should be used. Not "Lol Author Intent". Feats are feats regardless of what the author thinks.
The exact same argument could be used to downgrade every single Creation Feat. We and the OBD are the literal only Popular VS Debating Forums that treat Creation as equal to Destruction. Near very single author out there doesn't intend it to be that way, but their intent doesn't mean absolutely anything unless they go out of their way to point this out in the work or supporting material.
- 31,651
- 34,715
Oh yeah, that statement in general is pretty bad. Especially since as mention above telekinetically lifting Continents at great speed has often scale to AP such as in a lot of JRPG verses such as Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #63
Disallowing KE when someone simply moves fast but not when they are carrying someone while moving fast, even though the argument "fictional doesn't usually treat these things as AP" can be made for both. Is arguing against this really picking and choosing? Because it feels like the opposite.
- 15,332
- 7,563
"Fiction doesn't treat this as AP" is just "the author doesn't intend it" under a disguise, and yes, it is picking and choosing at its best. The same argument can be made word-for-word with Creation Feats, which 99% of authors in fiction don't want to be AP, just some fancy Reality Warping power. What they intend is irrelevant. Unless the work itself outright points out or implies in some way that there is a difference, or Canon Guidebooks or supporting material state that there is a difference, then we keep treating it as AP because logically it requires energy.
The only way one can discard a method is if it constantly leads to results that are contradictory in the work, regardless of which franchise it is. If that happens to be the case here, then use that reason. Not Author Intent.
The only way one can discard a method is if it constantly leads to results that are contradictory in the work, regardless of which franchise it is. If that happens to be the case here, then use that reason. Not Author Intent.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #66
Don't make a statement like "99% of authors don't want creation feats to be AP" right after saying "we cannot guess what authors intended". That doesn't make the most sense.
- 15,332
- 7,563
We have historically treated them as separate, Ugarik, because the feats in both classes end up extremely disparate. That's not an author intent argument, that's a Feats argument. The exact thing I said should be the actual reason in the above posts instead of the "Author doesn't want this."
@Andytrenom
That's a strawman. I never said anything like the latter in those 3 posts above. Can you please point out where I said that?
@Andytrenom
That's a strawman. I never said anything like the latter in those 3 posts above. Can you please point out where I said that?
- 15,332
- 7,563
And don't pretend I didn't repeatedly say I agree with the overall downgrade. I'm saying the reasoning is wrong and should be changed to something that doesn't contradict every single standard we have on not allowing Author Intent to be used.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #69
"What we think the author intends means jack shit without official confirmation" You have some confirmation for majority of the authors intending creation to be unrelated to AP? Or does your own statement also mean "jack shit"?
You know what forget it, that doesn't matter. If you don't like the authorial intent argument ignore it, there's still the problem of such feats repeatedly involving accelerating human beings to lethal velocities without any ill effects whatsoever, despite the feats being meant to prove the character's ability to apply energy to something in a destructive/combat effective manner.
And the main thing the revision tries to question is "are carrying feats distinct enough from movement feats to not be treated the same?" whether it's a matter of authorial intent or probability of inaccuracy which make movement KE unreliable, the bottom line is that if the same issue is present with carrying feats they should be treated the same way.
You know what forget it, that doesn't matter. If you don't like the authorial intent argument ignore it, there's still the problem of such feats repeatedly involving accelerating human beings to lethal velocities without any ill effects whatsoever, despite the feats being meant to prove the character's ability to apply energy to something in a destructive/combat effective manner.
And the main thing the revision tries to question is "are carrying feats distinct enough from movement feats to not be treated the same?" whether it's a matter of authorial intent or probability of inaccuracy which make movement KE unreliable, the bottom line is that if the same issue is present with carrying feats they should be treated the same way.
- 1,178
- 407
How are they desparate? Force is lifting strengh and '"Force = KE/ lenght"' regardless how we treated it historically.
If I say "I don't think Saitama has Class Y lifting strengh despite the fact that the force from his moon jump is on that level. The author clearly didn't know how much force that feat requires" would you consider it as a valid argument.
If I say "I don't think Saitama has Class Y lifting strengh despite the fact that the force from his moon jump is on that level. The author clearly didn't know how much force that feat requires" would you consider it as a valid argument.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #71
Anyway, I apologise if I didn't word my arguments in the best manner. I was in a bit of hurry so wasn't able to take my time very well replying to the comments.
- 15,332
- 7,563
There. We don't treat it that way because we historically haven't due to it leading to inconsistencies within the work.Ugarik said:
> If I say "I don't think Saitama has Class Y lifting strengh despite the fact that the force from his moon jump is on that level. The author clearly didn't know how much force that feat requires" would you consider it as a valid argument.
If you reworded it to "I don't think Saitama has Class Y lifting strength because his only Direct lifting feats are lower than that", I'd agree with the general argument.
- 10,758
- 6,491
- Thread starter
- #74
@Kep What's your opinion on "KE shouldn't be used when destruction is treated as more impressive" rule? I only wrote that because I needed the current rule to be changed to something better, but if the rule inhrrently has problems I could see it being removed all together.
- 2,304
- 2,734
Also feats like Quicksilver moving Ultron
- 15,332
- 7,563
@Ugarik
Okay, then why not use the fact that it leads to inconsistencies in almost every franchise as the argument? Why say stuff about Author Intent that has always been irrelevant to us? That's my whole point here, as I have said four times now.
Okay, then why not use the fact that it leads to inconsistencies in almost every franchise as the argument? Why say stuff about Author Intent that has always been irrelevant to us? That's my whole point here, as I have said four times now.
- 11,141
- 14,182
Well, the OP also pointed out the disparity between the results of the calcs and the contradictory/inconsistent effects on the characters who are being transported using those speeds. That's a fair argument.
Now since we all agree on that, let's stop derailing this any further or the thread will lose its way.
Now since we all agree on that, let's stop derailing this any further or the thread will lose its way.
- 168,560
- 77,357
@Kepekley23
Do you have suggestions for how we should reword the text in the Kinetic Energy Feats page to solve the relevant problems in an appropriate manner?
Do you have suggestions for how we should reword the text in the Kinetic Energy Feats page to solve the relevant problems in an appropriate manner?
- 15,332
- 7,563
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Kinetic_Energy_Feats#Speed%20can%20be%20used%20to%20find%20KE%20whe
- A certain character moves at a certain speed while carrying an object. This is because it requires energy to move an object at a certain speed.
- An exception to the above rule would be someone moving at high speeds while carrying a person. This is because such feats end up being often inconsistent with the rest of the feats, as well as disconnected to what should actually happen to a normal, average bystander being carried at such enormous speeds in real life.
- Status
Similar threads
