Kinetic Energy Standards

[Antvasima]

Well, referencing the linked to page section, I personally prefer to only use kinetic energy for destructive feats, as well as for when the story treats kinetic energy in a somewhat realistic manner. Deflecting bullets at high speeds or carrying a person or object in a non-destructive manner seems unreliable to me, as it usually contradicts what is shown along with the established scale.

 

[Wokistan]

That's just an issue with possible outliers though, not the concept of KE calcing that sort of thing. If you get a KE result off that that's consistent, I don't see the issue. Not every verse is as inconsistent as the comics are.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, we shouldn't use KE in such situations until the characters come crashing to a stop by a punch or crashing into a wall.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am admittedly jaded from my experience with Marvel and DC Comics.

 

[KLOL506]

The Spider-Man calc is inherently flawed to boot. Spidey didn't tackle the Hulk into a solid wall.

The IMP's probably fine tho.

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with the OP and I think Kep's suggestion are fine as well.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Kep Btw I do not actually agree with your statement on author intent being irrelevant. Won't get into that here since you agree with the overall revision and debating author intent would be derailing, but I wanted to get that out there.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

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?

I fail to see how this argument is speaking of author intent. It's speaking of how our system is built; with speed and attack potency as two seperate statistics.

We already selectively bar certain evaluations of feats, however. So that's not really an argument. Either/or fallacy nonwithstanding. We already don't consider the act of running itself a KE feat as we, as a site, evaluate speed and attack potency seperately. We bar the use of attack potency to determine speed (a character punching hard enough to put a hole in a wall, getting energy and then backtracking to speed from Kinetic Energy).

We make tons of rules based on fictional trends. Why is KE exempt from this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Kepekley regarding the reasoning for why regarding the carrying people at great speeds. And I also believe we should still choose KE values over destruction values for meteors and giant explosions among other things as we've been doing that for years and appears to be common sense at that point. And same with Solar Eclipse feats, we still use KE for that.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

When have we ever used KE for large explosions?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We do for nearly all of our planet and moon busting feats like ever. This includes calcs from Dragon Ball, Kirby, Toejam & Earl, Xiaolin Showdown, Starfy, Starcraft, and a whole bunch more. And the explosions massively dwarf the initial planet or moon being exploded, so it sounds like common sense for them to be well above 5-B.

 

[Andytrenom]

I think pretty much everyone agrees with carrying people not being KE applicable by now

Does anyone have opposition to the other stuff? Using KE when the verse acknowledges the destructive potential of superspeed and the modification of the "when KE is accompanied by a destruction calc" rule.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, referencing the linked to page section, I personally prefer to only use kinetic energy for destructive feats, as well as for when the story treats kinetic energy in a somewhat realistic manner. Deflecting bullets at high speeds or carrying a person or object in a non-destructive manner seems unreliable to me, as it usually contradicts what is shown along with the established scale.

@Andytrenom

Well, the above is what I mentioned earlier.

Can you summarise your intended changes to the "KE accompanied by a destruction calc" rule? I handle a massive number of tasks, and have a hard time properly keeping track of all of them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I heavily agree with Ant.

@DDM Planet busting feats aren't explosions though, although they can be triggered by one. I'm speaking of explosions w/out them moving out chunks of stuff at relativistic speeds; just the fireball.

Also while I don't necessarily disagree with you, "we have used this in the past for X and Y verse" is not an argument, as we're debating the validity of the system, not the validity of feats made under said system.

 

[Imaginym]

If I may.... Isn't the reason characters moving at high speeds in fiction don't cause damage to people they carry because of some combinations of: Writers not knowing/caring about math/physics, & not wanting to depict the consequences?

Moving the mass of a person at a high enough speed in real life has often quantifiable, & deadly kinetic energy. If we suppose the same or similar physics for fiction, we, likewise, get results deadly to normal people.

Physics operate that way, whether an author wants to portray The Flash as heroic or not by having him carry people out of burning buildings instead of having them incinerated/melted or blown up or otherwise harmed by the kinetic energy when he holds them & runs.

So why should we discredit feats of moving mass at high speeds just because the author had an ulterior motive to avoid depicting damage to that mass, or didn't know/care to detail it in the first place?

They don't treat it as AP because it isn't important to what the author's trying to show, & it isn't always intended to be informative about the AP or Durability of one or more character(s).

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ima Would you say just running at a super speed should also qualify for KE? After all, physics also dictate that moving one's own mass at these high velocities should produce massive amounts of kinetic energy. If moving a person is usuable for AP because physics say so then shouldn't all other speed feats be just as viable for the same reason?

 

[Andytrenom]

Can you summarise your intended changes to the "KE accompanied by a destruction calc" rule? I handle a massive number of tasks, and have a hard time properly keeping track of all of them.

This is the current rule

"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."

I wanted to replace it with two new rules or one combined rule

Both of them are a work in progress and could do with some improvement

1. "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>"

I am worried that this may go against area of effect standards if not defined properly, so we would have to be careful about that

2. "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"


My reasoning for replacing the rule is because it is currently very flimsy, giving nothing more than "Destruction also happens in the scene" as a condition for disqualifying KE. The rule as it is, is not at all fit to use when judging the validity of KE under multiple different scenarios and you could legit make the argument that punching someone into the moon doesn't qualify for KE if the person leaves a big crater on the spot where he lands, without going against the rule.

 

[Imaginym]

@Ima Would you say just running at a super speed should also qualify for KE? After all, physics also dictate that moving one's own mass at these high velocities should produce massive amounts of kinetic energy. If moving a person is usuable for AP because physics say so then shouldn't all other speed feats be just as viable for the same reason?

Is that not the basis that ramming feats fall under? I can recall us finding AP for, say, some Pokemon via knowing the mass & a potential movement speed.

As far as I know, in cases where users KNOW the travel speed & the mass, or can be very certain of them, calculation stacking scenarios aside, using a character's own mass & speed to find AP for them has been accepted.

Unless I'm mistaken, don't we seek to quantify fiction from a realistic perspective, but accounting for the inconsistencies fiction has? Feats are feats, even if fiction often ignores area of effect, or the consequences of high speed & more. A lot of fiction ignores a lot of physics.

I'm definitely not a physics expert, but isn't it accurate that, if, say, a human suddenly accelerates to relativistic speeds, they would experience a ton of heat, air resistance, undergo nuclear fusion, & explode as a result of particle collisions from their speed, or something to that effect?

I don't think a lot of fiction portrays high speed entirely realistically.

Also, I think it seems strange for us to say, that, if a speed feat & a Lifting Strength feat happen, both as part of the same scene, it seems strange to acknowledge both, but then say that they can't be the basis of AP simply because the carried mass was a living being that didn't get damaged. But that feels more like an emotional concern than a logical concern.

 

[Antvasima]

@Andytrenom

Well, all that was intended is that, for example, if a character punches the ground near the speed of light, and it leaves a large crater, the crater result should take precedence, regardless whether it gives a greater or lower result, as that is what has been explicitly shown by the story.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ima Any feat of a person running at superspeed involves moving their own mass at that speed, if we were to indiscriminately apply physics to every feat in fiction then every person with superspeed would have to be eligible to have their AP rated according to their speed and Weight. But we don't do that because it's unreliable, and carrying feats have the same level of unreliability, which is why they shouldn't be used.

To add on that to that, it isn't very hard to realize why a person being accelerated at high speed without any ill effect should not be used as evidence of the speedster being capable of harming people by applying accelaration to a person and subjecting them to its realistic consequences.

This isn't an emotional concern. This was only made because I legitimately couldn't justify using this method to rate characters when taking in to account other standards.

 

[Imaginym]

Well, all that was intended is that, for example, if a character punches the ground near the speed of light, and it leaves a large crater, the crater result should take precedence, regardless whether it gives a greater or lower result, as that is what has been explicitly shown by the story.

That seems reasonable, I think. But that may not be my call, as I'm not staff, correct?

I had assumed Andytrenom was trying to say that feats where a character moves fast while carrying a person should be invalid for KE, despite the presenc of both a speed & a lifting strength feat, & as part of the same feat, no less.

Also, regarding realistic standards for KE, I had pondered. As I established, I don't know physics that well, but under real world physics, is it accurate that:

If a regular sized person grabbed something very large above their head, such as an aeroplane, perhaps grabbing it with an open palm grip, & didn't sufficiently secure their grip, then took flight, it would be possible for the object to fall off balance, or tilt & drop out of their grip?

Similarly, if a regular person picked up something large & fragile above themselves (such as a large, ruined building.) & took to motion, couldn't the pressure their hands exert lifting it, & that of the object's weight, at the point of contact, cause the object to begin breaking down even more, from the opposing source of pressure? So, someone picks up a big, ruined building, & it begins losing chunks of itself?

I bring this up because I had assumed it had been proposed to enforce realistic standards on feats involving lifting/carrying while in motion, & consequences like the above don't seem common in fiction. But perhaps that's because such consequences aren't accurate to real world physics; I don't know them well, & that's why I'm asking.

 

[Imaginym]

@Ima Any feat of a person running at superspeed involves moving their own mass at that speed, if we were to indiscriminately apply physics to every feat in fiction then every person with superspeed would have to be eligible to have their AP rated according to their speed and Weight. But we don't do that because it's unreliable, and carrying feats have the same level of unreliability, which is why they shouldn't be used.
To add on that to that, it isn't very hard to realize why a person being accelerated at high speed without any ill effect should not be used as evidence of the speedster being capable of harming people by applying accelaration to a person and subjecting them to its realistic consequences.

This isn't an emotional concern. This was only made because I legitimately couldn't justify using this method to rate characters when taking in to account other standards.

It's "unreliable"? Do you mean, it's inconsistent with the character's other feats? In such a case, what happens when such a rating IS consistent with their other feats?

Regarding carrying feats, I feel that not harming people they accelerate is often a product of author intent wanting to avoid having a heroic character harm innocent bystanders. The characters aren't harmed because it's not beneficial to the story the author has in mind. I don't think it's meant to be a means of telling audiences "this character isn't that strong".

"But that feels more like an emotional concern than a logical concern." was me being critical of the preceding sentence of my own that I said in that post.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I feel like "writers just don't know this but we do" sounds slightly pretentious. It's more so that writers only need to care about such things as much as they influence the story; if an author wanted to make a story that cared about kinetic energy in speed feats they would explain it and write in accordance to it. But a story that is just a string of fights to develop character doesn't need to slow down and explain something like that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Dargoo, I do agree that using KE for Fireballs growing in where chunks aren't flying around is iffy, and especially characters running through big fires that already stopped moving. And there are problems with small explosions that happen in outer space especially. But I still feel like some people are going overboard with putting new restrictions on KE feats for other reasons, or that's probably just me misunderstanding details.

The throwing a hammer or punching at "Mach 5000" does need more context rather than just it being a reaction speed yes; and destruction would have more priority if the destruction was higher than the KE result for sure. But I mean, a scenario in which someone punches a giant boulder, splits it in half and both halves get launched at great speeds should definitely still be valid for KE.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean, scenario in which someone punches a giant boulder, splits it in half and both halves get launched at great speeds should definitely still be valid for KE.

Agreed. The resulting kinetic energy of the boulder can be calculated.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I agree for throwing feats, although swinging feats can be seen as an extention of a movement feat depending on the context. That one 8-C DC Comics feat that is being disregarded for example.

 

[Antvasima]

Throwing feats are probably fine, yes. Punching somebody can also be used via the resulting kinetic energy of the one being launched back by the punch.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Throwing and launching feats using KE would be legit for sure, swinging depends on the context. But actually, looking at Katana's feat again, I don't think the KE calculator is the problem, but rather the stacked speed. I don't think Katana was that close to the bullets when they were fired. Plus, I think I recall DonTalk mentioning that using reaction time is Calc Stacking, especially in regards to reacting to a Supersonic projectile that happens to be really close.

So the problem with Katana's feat isn't the KE calculation, but rather the exaggerated speed that puts it at that level in the first place. That really should have just be treated as a casual Supersonic speed feat; and if we did calc KE from that, it would only be 9-B.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I don't think reaction time is calc stacking at all. Half of all speed feats would be invalid then.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

I have one question.

A character I'm researching has a feat of throwing someone so hard that the person caught on fire from the air friction. It's explicitly described that way, and when said person collides with another man, the character hears both men's bones breaking.

I had DMUA calc this some time ago. Would this feat be subject to whatever revision is being proposed here, or no?

 

[Andytrenom]

Dude.."hurling/launching someone at high speed is perfectly applicable" right there in the OP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Spino, I don't mean it like that; I simply meant reacting to a Mach 1 projectile from a cc distance to get a speed of Mach 100 is calc stacking. The Reactions page is kinda of outdated and is based on reacting to something from a meter. And it's also the reason we didn't accept that one Planck Time reaction time to upgrade DC Superheroes to Tredecillions of C.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Look, the post is long as ****, and I just got off work. Cut me some slack.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Hundreds of calculations are like that on this wiki. We always compare characters to the speed of the projectile in literally every reaction feat.

 

[Andytrenom]

Some slack has been cut for you. There you go

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That's still not what's being meant, dodging a Supersonic projectile from a close range is Supersonic, you don't have to be that much faster than the bullet to dodge it. If there's proof that someone moved X times faster than the projectile, than that's fine. But calcs such as Katana's feat or Scout from TF2's bonk are kind of inflated.

 

[AguilaR101]

Katana's feat involves her making a single swing while multiple bullets shot at nearly the same time are traveling towards her, for her to block them all she has to be that fast or she can't complete the motion without missing some of them.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Seems reasonable. I'm not sure if calling it "calc stacking" is accurate though. More like highballing.

Imo we should compare the distance/time of the projectile and the character to find the character's speed instead of calculating like that.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, all that was intended is that, for example, if a character punches the ground near the speed of light, and it leaves a large crater, the crater result should take precedence, regardless whether it gives a greater or lower result, as that is what has been explicitly shown by the story.

Agreed. The resulting kinetic energy of the boulder can be calculated.

Throwing feats are probably fine, yes. Punching somebody can also be used via the resulting kinetic energy of the one being launched back by the punch.

Has all of this been taken into account in the first post?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think that all has.