Kinetic Energy Standards

[Antvasima]

I meant that I think that it should preferably be included in a revision.

 

[Andytrenom]

Your example is kinda vague Ant if I am being honest. What was the context of him punching the ground, was the crater what was focused on in-universe rather the punch's speed and what exactly does it mean "As that is what has been explicitly shown"?

what has been explicitly shown with the crater that hasn't been with the punch? Not the result since it has to be calced, not the volume either in many cases since it needs to be scaled most of the time, is it the fact that he punched out a decent but not immediately apparent volume of earth that's explicit? If so what makes him moving his arms at a decent but not immediately apparent speed not explicit? Given that we had enough information to calc it at near lightspeed it so the scene must have been portraying his punch as enormously fast

 

[Antvasima]

I just mean that the intended explicitly shown scale of the destruction from the feat should take precedence over the movement speed of the character responsible, as attack potency and speed are usually kept as two separate qualities in fiction as far as I am aware.

 

[Kaltias]

About the "carrying an object at high speed" part in the OP, I'd say that it should be used only when it's for a charging attack or something.

If it's simply carrying someone around it shouldn't count unless there are in-verse reasons to do so.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Kaltias.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Going to point out, we should generally use KE for feats that appear to be clear cut demonstrations of power in scenarios in which they'd normally be used. We don't use KE for reaction speed feats such as Spider-Man rescuing Hulk or characters moving fast enough to grab a character and carry them outside an incoming explosion. For swinging swords, I'd say moving fast to react to fast projectiles is iffy. But I'd say two Giant characters swinging Giant Swords at great speeds as they trade blows should be fine for KE calcs.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems like a valid point.

 

[Imaginym]

I'm curious: The opening post seemed to state that part of the motivation behind invalidating such feats was that it's inconsistent. But what happens when there's a character where such feat yields are consistent?

What about when people or objects carried are already durable enough (Some 'verses have feats applicable even to regular citizens or minor characters, no?) to survive the energy being moved at such speeds would impart on them? Especially if it could just be air resistance?

The premise also makes me curious. It seems to be about invalidating what the fiction doesn't treat as a feat. Even though that kind of goes against applying physics when author intent can often be flawed.

Heck, I'd assume there are a lot of cloud related feats that aren't treated as such in-universe. Do we use the same kind of logic to say they're inappropriate for Attack Potency?

What about when authors simply don't do math for independent speed or lifting strength, & underestimate how remarkable a feat might be? Do we ignore it because it's erroneously treated as mundane?

And this would still all leave a strange taste in my mouth, for characters to be shown to move at speeds carrying masses, yet not get KE for it, because it's been inconsistent with other characters.

And isn't there a means of finding Striking Strength from Lifting Strength?

 

[Andytrenom]

To my knowledge, normal speed feats are already inapplicable as AP feats for the same reason of not being depicted as such. So that's why I used the argument against carrying feats even though I would not normally make it against most feats like vaping a house or creating a quake.

Am I wrong here, and there is another reason entirely for dismissing simple movement as KE feats? If so tell me what it is, because "ran to the eifel tower in 1 second" is not AP applicable for a reason and if that reason also applies to "ran to the eifel with his girlfriend in 1 second" then KE can't be calced. It just undermines the rule more than being a reasonable exception to it.

And that's why I made this thread, because there's one policy that isn't really consistent with another preexisting one, not because I think only feats depicted explicitly as AP by the author should be recognised, as some seem to be under the impression of.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well yeah, simple movement won't make normal humans Street level, but Body Slamming is Street level.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do think that only speed feats that are either treated as AP by the author or that are more realistically handled should be allowed.

 

[ComicBookMyths]

100% disagree, that's honestly a terrible reason to reject KE. Most speedsters tend to have some sort of aura that would protect them and anything they're in contact with from these high KEs, even if it's not explicitly stated: the most obvious example being the Flash.

 

[Andytrenom]

I've heard it's a thing in DC Comics and I remember the cw version implying it at some point, but what makes you conclude that the majority of speedsters in fiction have an ability like that?

 

[ComicBookMyths]

The fact that speedsters from any universes rarely leave any damage in their wake when moving at high speeds. DC have gone and given a working explanation for that for their speedsters whereas others tend to just leave it out. Take Quicksilver from Marvel for example, as far as speed goes he's just a slower version of the Flash minus the hax, he has run past people at thousands of times the speed of sound while basically causing some leaves to rustle when in reality something like this should happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGARbnnfM.

 

[Andytrenom]

You can't just take a concept from one universe and apply it to entirely separate universes. These universes would have to provide their own logic for why certain things happen that wouldn't in the real world, what explanation DC gives is completetly irrelevant if you aren't speaking specifically about DC properties.

It cannot be assumed that a random speedster from a random fiction is likely to have a magical aura protecting him from the consequences of his speed just because DC happened to have created this explanation for its own speedsters.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Andytrenom. Let's return to the main discussion please.

 

[Andytrenom]

The two rules I proposed, one about not doing anything with KE when explicitly trying to use an attack on something and the other about the feat being specifically meant as a destruction/non KE feat, I would like someone to look over these rules and point out any way they can be modified and improved.

I will also try to create a rule for "scientifically accurate depiction of superspeed" situation and if it gets okay'd we will probably have much of the revision in the bag.

There is still the issue of using KE for inanimate objects or superhuman "passengers" which I would appreciate if you guys decide on yourself. Because I honestly have very little to say on that matter.

 

[ComicBookMyths]

No, it's as simple as if they're not causing harm to themselves while running then they won't be causing harm to anyone else that their carrying while running. That doesn't mean KE is not being generated, that's just a big jump. Imo, KE is underused in this wiki at times and should be used more often.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I previously mentioned the modifications that I would prefer to make to the suggestions.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ant I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion into the new rules, or if it even would be better to incorporate them tbh

 

[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.

I just mean that the intended explicitly shown scale of the destruction from the feat should take precedence over the movement speed of the character responsible, as attack potency and speed are usually kept as two separate qualities in fiction as far as I am aware.

Well, I personally do think that only speed feats that are either treated as AP by the author or that are more realistically handled should be allowed.

Well, here is what I wrote, in case it helps, but I am very tired, so reworking your text isn't possible at the moment.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ant I already know what the suggestions were, I just don't how I would incorporate them into the revisions

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody else willing to help us out?

 

[Andytrenom]

Here's my take on the "Realistic depiction of speed" rule at least.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Kinetic_Energy_Feats#Speed%20can%20be%20used%20to%20find%20KE%20whe

• A verse consistently treats speed, and its relation to attack potency, in a realistic manner. Calculating kinetic energy from a character's speed isn't problematic, if it's clear that the story they're from doesn't separate speed from one's general capacity for destruction

 

[Imaginym]

To clarify: The new conditions/rules regarding KE/speed that are in development in this thread would be applicable to everyone, whether they're a speedster or not? Whether the 'verse is normally serious or comedic or scientific or fantastical?

And it seems like this has developed from revising KE feats involving carrying people, to be inclusive of objects, as well as to apply to finding KE for a character from only moving themselves, as is done when calcing ramming one's own body into something.

Also, is it correct that this is still being done, & to be applied to any & all profiles/calcs involving KE feats, because some profiles with KE feats end up inconsistent?

 

[Antvasima]

@Andytrenom

Which of the current rules in that section of the page do you wish to keep, and which ones to remove?

Should we ask Sera EX to help us out here? She is usually good at wording new regulation texts.

 

[Andytrenom]

From that particular section, I don not really wish to remove any rules yet. If we want to only put a regulation on human carrying feats instead of carrying objects in general, then Kep's modification here combined with my addition in my last comment should be enough. If we want to extend this to objects as well, then we need to figure out what instances of carrying objects is viable and not viable for KE and word our regulation accordingly.

Perhaps. if she isn't busy

 

[Antvasima]

I think that a restriction on non-destructive carrying feats in general seems best.

I asked Sera.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Imma start finding AP feats for CW Flash

 

[Sera_EX]

Perhaps. if she isn't busy

I'm always busy.

 

[Andytrenom]

Oh..

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Sera Same

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Do you have the time to help us out with writing new definitions? I am extremely overworked and distracted by dozens of tasks at once, so it is hard for me to handle.

I would appreciate the help.

 

[Sera_EX]

What's the summary of what has been agreed upon?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Sera

Basically there needs to be context for calcing a character's Attack Potency based on movement speed. Like a character moving at massive speeds to rescue someone shouldn't normally be treated as a Strength + Durability feat. But a character attacking at great speed, or the Author or story mentioning speed in relation to Attack Potency in a realistic matter should have no problem calcing KE. KE for destruction feats such as shattering an object and all fragments moving at great speeds should be perfectly fine for calcing KE. And throwing objects at great distances and/or great speeds are also fine to calc KE.

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh dear... Well, unfortunately this isn't my field of expertise so I can't help there :<

This sounds like a calculation thing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, it sounds like something like DonTalk would normally be suited for evaluations. As well as probably other Calc Group members.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody ask DontTalkDT to help us out here instead then?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I tried messaging him, but a glitch ate my message. I might need to relog to fix it but I'll do that later as I'm in the middle of something ATM.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I can contact him, on threads like these that tend to trail off I tend to wait for some conclusions to be made and then give my two cents. Currently, in case anyone's wondering, I agree with the conclusions. I couldn't give a succinct way to tell them though, apologies. If you think DT will be the answer, then he shall be called upon kek