Kinetic Energy Standards

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT & Assaltwaffle
Do you have any suggestions for how we should best solve the possible problem that Andytrenom brought up?

Well, that really is a matter of subjective opinion on how we want to treat fiction.

One possibility not yet mentioned it is to differentiate between feats that give a clear high end and those who don't.

A few examples:

-A calc based on how high an object could be thrown gives a very clear high end on the throws power. A KE calc based on another speed than what the height suggests would be questionable.

-A baseball is throw against a wall at relativistic speed and only leaves a small dent in the wall. Since energy to destroy a wall is far below the KE this should probably not be considered.

-A mace is swung at relativistic speed at a hill and the hill is destroyed. Since the object destroyed is destroyed completly there is probably no real high end on the destruction, since excess energy could have gone wherever. (no real high end meaning here: No high end that doesn't use such an amount of physics that it is nigh-impossible to calculate and uses properties that we usually ignore either way)


Otherwise one could also say something in the direction of "Destruction takes precedence on KE, unless the destruction in question clearly doesn't reflect the attacks strength" or something like that.


I think all solutions here will have some degree of ambiguity.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, it is hard to word such a rule in a manner that covers all of the angles.

Does anybody else here have any ideas for a solution?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Case by Case, is kind of our most redundant term although our most common sensical. But yeah, throwing a Bat at Relativistic speeds and all it did was scratch a wall or knock a laser gun out of someone's hand will not qualify for KE.

However, swinging a mace at Relativistic speed and shattering a hill in the process will have destruction value be a legit feat, but if the KE of the mace being swung yields a higher result, then that may be fine to use.

Massive Titan or superhuman swinging a Mountain Sized Sword at Relativistic speed should also be fine for calcing KE.

 

[Andytrenom]

@DDM do you think the current rule about not using KE when their is a destruction feat accompanying it should stay, or be removed?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

As long as there's proof that the character legit moves that fast on screen/panel and there's some form of destruction feat accompanying it, it should be fine. I think it's fine to stay or at least say there's case by case. IMO, the shattering the hill with a mace sounds similar to meteor feats; which for meteors, Kinetic Energy should take priority over destruction values.

 

[Andytrenom]

I think it should still be reworded. Do you have any suggestions that will make it clear what the logic behind the rule is, so that it's easier to apply it on a case by case basis?

 

[Andytrenom]

What we do with the rule seems to be the only thing left to determine. Let's try to get that done so that the revision can be concluded.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Help would be very appreciated.

 

[AKM sama]

It's like DT said, it's very hard to cover all aspects and every solution will probably end up having some ambiguity.

In that case, perhaps we can mention that "generally" AP calc takes precedence over KE calc, but it should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Antvasima]

That might be an idea, yes.

 

[Andytrenom]

Thing is, just saying case by case wont achieve much. At minimum you should make the main logic behind the rule clear so that it's easy to determine what kind of scenario it's supposed to prevent and what kind of scenario it's supposed to allow

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps you can ask Assaltwaffle and DontTalkDT to help us out further again?

 

[Andytrenom]

Donttalk's already here but I'll contact Assalt

 

[Antvasima]

Well, he might not subscribe to this thread anymore, but I suppose that we can wait and see.

 

[AguilaR101]

It should be removed because plainly the rule is just an appeal to the law of conservation of energy that is ignored for everything else, if a character being rated city level from a single calc that doesn't also portray a realistic level of destruction feels extremely odd it's probably because the feat is an outlier.

The main reason kep gave for dismissing carrying feats as legitimate is precisely because they seldom paint a consistent picture of the character's capabilities when comparing it to all of their other feats, the fact those feats don't accurately portray the realistic consequences of moving at those speeds is a secondary concern.

Alternatively we can hold all KE feats to higher standards and require them to give a secondary frame of reference (ie: visible destruction that lines up with the projected AP values) for them to be actually useable, if they don't they aren't valid and if the destruction doesn't line up with the projected energy values then the energy needed to cause that destruction takes precedence.

 

[Antvasima]

What do the rest of you think?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think Aquila makes good points, but not sure if completely removing it from the page is a good idea. I do think some of the wording of Aquila's statements sounds good though.

 

[Antvasima]

I also prefer to keep the rule in some form.

 

[Andytrenom]

I honestly don't think we should require ke feats to show visible destruction on the level of their energy output, that just feels like demanding too much to treat a simple feat as a feat. If the destruction is specifically what is depicted as the feat as opposed to the act of a character moving something real fast, for example making a hammer fly to the statue of liberty and destroying it for the sole purpose of demonstrating his powers I could see the argument. Tho if you say ke of the hammer should still take priority I would actually be fine with that

Another thing to consider. According to Ant, the reason for this rule is because fiction usually treats AP and speed separately. But, we already have separate rules that make us take this notion into account when evaluating feats and if "moving small objects" is going to be covered by the new regulations, then things like moving a mace and destroying a wall will be disqualified for that reason not because we need an entirely separate rule to exist for this situation

I'm currently leaning towards removing the rule tbh and just letting the other rules be what prevents the situation this rule is trying to. You are free to convince me otherwise tho

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I guess that makes sense, but I'd like to here Assalt's input.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am regrettably too tired and distracted to get very indepth into this subject.

Anyway, I suppose that you have a good point about that we may demand too much in that the destructive feats need to be of the same scale.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Perfectly understandable, you do deserve some good rest. And AssaltWaffle said he's been taking a break from the wiki for a bit.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. DontTalkDT seems to have unsubscribed from the thread, so I would suggest politely asking him to comment here again.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

This thread is colossal. Any chance I can get a TLDR?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The last thing we're discussing is the decision to remove this 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.

Andy and Aquilia's most recent 3 paragraph posts explain the reasonings in detail.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am afraid that I am having some problems recalling all of the arguments myself at this point.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I honestly don't think we should require ke feats to show visible destruction on the level of their energy output, that just feels like demanding too much to treat a simple feat as a feat.

What complicates treating a "simple feat as a feat" here is when someone happens to move an object really fast, but there are no other effects demonstrated other than speed. And that same argument can be made for, say, Mass-Energy, SoL feats, or Lightning feats, but we have stringent standards because the feats are near-universally inconsistent and give wild results where there shouldn't be any.

If you're reasoning that a character can punch with the forces of a nuclear bomb when they simply moved fast while carrying an object or individual, you're ultimately forgetting that fiction treats speed and strength as two different statistics. If the fictional continuity takes the time to explain and be (mostly) accurate to the physics, then we can apply the physics. We would typically debunk the feats by showing levels of destruction, but all that results in is a savenger hunt for KE feats that don't have any destruction shown because our standards currently force people to disprove the feats instead of having to prove and support them.

But, we already have separate rules that make us take this notion into account when evaluating feats and if "moving small objects" is going to be covered by the new regulations, then things like moving a mace and destroying a wall will be disqualified for that reason not because we need an entirely separate rule to exist for this situatio

Our specific rules don't ultimately do much of anything. All we do is place the burden of proof away from the positive (the kinetic energy having destructive forces that match what is shown) to the negative (you need to show a contradiction first). Stricter rules are needed to account for general trends in fiction much like we have with numerous other types of calculations.

I'm currently leaning towards removing the rule tbh and just letting the other rules be what prevents the situation this rule is trying to. You are free to convince me otherwise tho

The other rules don't prevent any significant "situation". Most KE feats we calculate don't have a visible destructive output (a sword swing that doesn't hit a target), and even then the rules aren't implemented in the way you suggest often (a sword swing that does hit a target, but all we do is assume that target was durable enough to tank the KE instead of reasoning that perhaps the KE wasn't accounted for in the feat). To be blunt, and to use the example of Bloodborne, there is literally nothing that hammer hits that indicates 8-A levels of force.

The new rules should stay; I honestly think they should be more strict, however I understand that we need to take small steps towards greater accuracy being such a large site.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo I'm not sure if you got what my point was, or maybe I just didn't explain it very well

Yes I obviously agree that carrying a human at high speeds shouldn't generally be a KE applicable feat, I created this very thread to address that. What I'm arguing against is the need for this specific 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."

It's because this rule is apparently based off of fiction treating speed and AP differently, and if that's true then it really doesn't have a reason to exist because there would be other rules to take care of this anyway. Punching at mhs+ speed and creating a crater would just be covered by the rule of normal speed generally not being KE applicable and doing so with a hammer would be covered by moving small objects not being normally KE applicable if that regulation is accepted.

There just doesn't seem to be any reason for this rule to be a thing if we already have or can have other policies that take care of the same problem it's trying to prevent and do a far better job due to actually giving a good idea of what kind of feats we should be rejecting instead of just going "destruction feats mean KE shouldn't be used" and leaving it at that.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It's because this rule is apparently based off of fiction treating speed and AP differently, and if that's true then it really doesn't have a reason to exist because there would be other rules to take care of this anyway. Punching at mhs+ speed and creating acrater would just be covered by the rule of normal speed generally not being KE applicable and doing so with a hammer would be covered by moving small objects not being normally ke applicable if that regulation is accepted.

I don't think I claimed that you were pushing against the CRT you made, however I can see that my post can be read like that as my examples against this included stuff discussed in the OP and thread. So, my bad on that.

My point was that the rule you describe doesn't do anything, besides causing people to look for KE feats that don't have your aforementioned crater. We need the rule because the previous rules require disproving something that should be proven first.

And obviously the only reasoning behind the rule isn't "fiction treats speed and AP differently". That's a point, but not really the point.

There just doesn't seem to be any reason for this rule to be a thing if we already have or can have other policies that take care of the same problem it's trying to prevent and do a far better job due to actually giving a good idea of what kind of feats we should be rejecting instead of just going "destruction feats make ke feats inapplicable" and leaving it at that.

Considering as per my example of Bloodborne above, the rule doesn't regulate much if anything even within its own sphere of influence. The new rule isn't redundant; while it makes the old rules ultimately redundant it addressees different problems that are due to how our current rules are actually applied.

The idea that the feats need to be 'rejected', as if we assume they are valid to begin with for whatever reasons is flawed in itself. We should shift the standard to proving it's realistic Kinetic energy, not looking for an explicit contradiction.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo The rule I'm talking about removing is a pre-existing one btw, not a new one.

and even if you think the rule should stay, it still needs at least a rewording. Just saying that if there's a destruction feat then KE will be inapplicable doesn't help at all in evaluating things on a case by case basis, as it could technically be argued that punching someone into the moon is only 8-C if you create a crater of that scale without twisting what the regulation says one bit. It needs to give a clear idea of what kind of situations we will dismiss, what kind of situation we won't and preferably provide the main reasoning for why the rule is even important.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm not entirely sure how the rule says that "if there's a destruction feat, KE is inappliable". It's only if the destruction feat actively contradicts what the KE feat should be. Sure, around 99% of the time you see a destruction feat from your average "moved next to lightning KE extravaganza" it will make absolutely no sense with the KE, but that doesn't mean the rule is specifying that the feat having destruction immediately disqualifies it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though; I can see I've misinterpreted some of your arguments so far.

 

[Andytrenom]

It's in the section "Speed cannot be used to Find KE when"

and only follows the above statement with "There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation." with the justification being just the claim that a destruction calculation is more trustworthy than Ke calculation without specifying any kind of context that the claim is being made in.

So yes, that's definitely what the rule implies in its current state, whether intentionally or not

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

How is considering the destructive value to be more reliable than the kinetic energy value to be, as you put it, "Just saying that if there's a destruction feat then KE will be inapplicable"? KE is clearly is applicable in that case, it's just considered to be less reliable, which IMO is accurate.

If you think the rule is redundant, though, I can sort of see your point there, especially considering the new rule.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo Maybe if there was any kind of context that the rule specified before making the assertion it wouldn't come off that way. But saying "Speed cannot be used to find KE when there is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation" is in fact the same as saying "if there's a destruction feat then KE will be inapplicable" when the only reasoning given is a claim about Destruction being more reliable than KE without any context.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo But saying "Speed cannot be used to find KE when there is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation" is in fact the same as saying "if there's a destruction feat then KE will be inapplicable" when the only reasoning given is a claim about Destruction being more reliable than KE without any context.

Those two quotes are functionally not what the rule says, though.

If the KE matches or is near the destructive calculation, then the KE can be used; the rule specifies that the destructive calculation takes precedence, so that if there is a contradiction, the KE is not considered.

Would this wording be more satisfying towards your concerns, though?

"There is a destruction/AP calculation along the kinetic energy calculation regarding the damage the object causes. In this case, the destruction/AP takes precedence, as the kinetic energy of the object doesn't reflect how it interacts with other objects. Therefore, the destructive feat takes precedence, as kinetic energy is not being accurately portrayed in the medium."

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo That's exactly what the rule is read as

and your version doesn't really seem all that different

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo That's exactly what the rule is read asand your version doesn't really seem all that different

I tried to explain the reasoning behind it in greater detail, as your primary concern was that "the only reasoning given is a claim about Destruction being more reliable than KE without any context".

If that wasn't sufficient I'm not sure what is; I don't think it really needs more justification. Physics (specific to the feat) shouldn't be applied when they're outright contradicted in a given feat.

 

[Antvasima]

Dargoo seems to make some good points.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo I'm talking about what reasoning it specifies on the page itself not what reasoning may have been used to decide the rule by the members, can you show me where the rule actually specifies things like "If the KE matches or is near the destructive calculation, then the KE can be used" or the other reasoning you gave to counter my statement that it only gives Destruction calculations being more trustworthy than speed calculations as a reasoning?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

can you show me where the rule actually specifies things like "If the KE matches or is near the destructive calculation, then the KE can be used" or the other reasoning you gave to counter my statement that it only gives Destruction calculations being more trustworthy than speed calculations as a reasoning?

"The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the speed calculation" means that the speed calculation is still valid until contradicted. The thing is, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single feat where the calculated KE and associated destructive force actually match each other, so in practice, yes, whenever there is a destructive value the KE is tossed aside.

I mean, I wrote an alternative version of the rule that expands on your issue with "AP calculation would be a better proof".