KT's Surface Area Durability Scaling Thread

[KingTempest]

Happy New Years Eve. Good to hear from you all.

I've been tackling whether to make this thread or not, since it changes so much about what we know with calcing durability, but I agreed that it's fine to calculate the durability of certain phenomenons, yet scaling to them is the issue.

We have a common issue in scaling to calced durability, specifically from explosions or other things that encompass the durability of an entire front side of the body, and people could scale to it for bruising their shoulder.

It's based on this diagram below.

Where a calculation will calculate all of the blue, then somebody will scale to all of the blue by damaging the red.
It's like scaling to the durability of every brick on a wall combined by cracking only 1 brick.

Realistically, most people on the site scale to others by damaging a small portion of their body. Something like the surface area of a fist would be 7.867 square inches (or 0.0050754737 m2), but people will scale to calculations that account for the entire front half of the body's dura (0.68 m2), a difference of 134 times.

When I brought it up to others, my solution of "only calculate the portion that's damaged by others" was considered calc-stacking. But it'd be more accurate than to scale someone to something for damaging a part of their body 100x smaller than a calculation. But then a "solution" to that was to just backscale, which makes no sense for scaling to less than a hundredth of a portion of the body that was damaged. Possibly using the surface area of a fist that I linked above works as well in my opinion, makes it a more realistic

At least with cutting attacks and such, the part of the body that's really wounded by a cut isn't that much smaller than what's wounded by blunt attacks. But this? This is absurd. It's like scaling to the dura of your whole leg cause someone cut your toe off.

I suggest to keep the calculations as they are, and to remove all methods of scaling that involve scaling somebody to a full body durability calculation unless a person was damaging their entire body. An example is something like this, which envelops the entire side of the body.

It shouldn't be noted on a character's profile if they survived an explosion or a meteor or something that encompassed their entire body. Only with the example above can it be used, but probably on the profile of the person who wounded them. Just like how we give tanks different durability ratings for just damaging a portion vs destroying the entire tank.

This can be noted on the durability page's calcing durability section. I recommend drafting it like this.

However, because the energy required to harm a fist sized portion of the body is significantly less than the energy required to damage the entire front side of the body, a calculated value should not be placed on the character's page unless (in a rare scenario) it needs to note the value for the full destruction of their body. This is helpful for common vehicles or large that are completely destroyed. Characters can usually scale when they harm an entire side of the body, not just one small portion like a fist sized part of their chest.

 

[Mr_Sugabz]

Does that mean that if my hand can withstand 100 KJ of energy, then my body can't necessarily withstand it?
If so, wouldn't that complicate things? Like, we have to separate the durability of the character, like 9-A for his chest, while his hands are 8-C?

 

[Kachon123]

Does that mean that if my hand can withstand 100 KJ of energy, then my body can't necessarily withstand it?

Other way around. If your whole body can withstand 100 KJ of energy, it wouldn't necessarily take 100 KJ to only damage your hand.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Pretty sure this is often a repeated topic. While it is true we don't always take energy pressure into account and technically most people are 9-C when it comes to withstanding blows that attack the entire body, it often becomes complicated to distinguish too much.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Mr._Bambu @Agnaa @DMUA @Therefir @Migue79

 

[KLOL506]

Just like how we give tanks different durability ratings for just damaging a portion vs destroying the entire tank.

I will note an issue with this specific line. We do not grant durability ratings for destroying the entire tank (That's literally destroying it LOL), we only grant it the durability for the strongest things it can withstand before failing, we don't give ratings for "just damaging a portion" if it doesn't fail or still remains operational.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This sort of issue tends to come out in the wash, minus the circumstances of extremes such as explosions. What you're proposing is to essentially redo all of our non-explosion calculations without bearing in mind that most of the characters on this site are still working with generally similar surface area ratios of their attacks. In discussions I see, most people just bear in mind that lower surface area attacks (read: bullets) are more effective in combat for this reason, hence the rise in prominence of the notion of "piercing damage", which really just amounts to a much lower surface area.

Explosions are an extreme because the way we currently calculate them is the best way to do it without just scaling every single thing to the full brunt of the explosion. So, in current debates, two 7-Cs with a small difference would almost certainly pay mind to the fact that one is 7-C for face-tanking an explosion and the other took a bullet of that power that had a diameter the size of their head: thus, in effect, the bullet-tanker had a much more significant feat.

I don't think we should pursue this change, therefore- I deem it both unnecessary and also agree that this would strangulate the flow of calculations (or, at least, acceptable calculations)- most people still create calculations riddled with errors, and this would almost certainly make them worse by far.

 

[Vzearr]

This sort of issue tends to come out in the wash, minus the circumstances of extremes such as explosions. What you're proposing is to essentially redo all of our non-explosion calculations without bearing in mind that most of the characters on this site are still working with generally similar surface area ratios of their attacks. In discussions I see, most people just bear in mind that lower surface area attacks (read: bullets) are more effective in combat for this reason, hence the rise in prominence of the notion of "piercing damage", which really just amounts to a much lower surface area.

I don't think we should pursue this change, therefore- I deem it both unnecessary and also agree that this would strangulate the flow of calculations (or, at least, acceptable calculations)- most people still create calculations riddled with errors, and this would almost certainly make them worse by far.

I mean the OP isn't wrong, although a big change it would make the sites scaling more accurate which is always a good thing. I don't hold any value in this conversation but I'm just saying.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

You shouldn't comment on a calc group thread unless you have permission, same is true for Kachon123 and Mr_Sugabz.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

In my opinion on the OP.

I pretty much agree with Mr. Bambu and the others said above.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean the OP isn't wrong, although a big change it would make the sites scaling more accurate which is always a good thing. I don't hold any value in this conversation but I'm just saying.

Broadly speaking, no, it isn't wrong. But it speaks on something that, as I alluded to, sort of solves itself in most cases, and isn't worth pursuing in others (at least in my estimation).

 

[Antvasima]

Bambu makes sense to me here.

 

[TheRustyOne]

At least with cutting attacks and such, the part of the body that's really wounded by a cut isn't that much smaller than what's wounded by blunt attacks. But this? This is absurd.

Okay I need to speak on this because this is kind of wrong and it bothers me.

A good knife has a tip diameter of 0.45 mm, which would give an area of 0.159043 mm^2. Your fist has an area of 5075.47372 mm^2, that's a difference over several thousands times. So being pierced by it takes several thousand times less energy than your punch in this scenario. Of course size would make this vary by a lot.

A 9mm bullet would have a area of 6361.725 cm^2, a closer gap than the fist and explosion but that's still a difference over 79x.

The gap between a cut and a blunt attack like a punch is just as absurd, yet we can't take into account every single type of cutting weapon on this wiki.

Not as absurd as fist to explosion, but saying a cut "isn't that much smaller than what's wounded by blunt attacks" is very clearly wrong.

To me this thread feels like it'll lead to making multiple durability values for most character profile, which is a bad precedent. The inverse of this would also inflate results as well. With characters being calculated as having 100 Ton durability across 0.005075 m^2, but a area durability that is 0.68 m^2.

This would mean their entire body can withstand13.4 Kilotons of TNT, which isn't good for me. Since, what if someone does hurt them across their entire body and the two can still trade blow with each other after, now both are 7-C. Fiction rarely cares about following these rules and making it more complicated is going to cause more issues.

Our methods are more simple than reality because fiction is more simple, and it isn't like we completely ignore this either.

Example, Kirishima can stab his sharpen fingers into Gigantomachia but we don't scale him to Machia since the difference in area is massive.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This sort of issue tends to come out in the wash, minus the circumstances of extremes such as explosions. What you're proposing is to essentially redo all of our non-explosion calculations without bearing in mind that most of the characters on this site are still working with generally similar surface area ratios of their attacks. In discussions I see, most people just bear in mind that lower surface area attacks (read: bullets) are more effective in combat for this reason, hence the rise in prominence of the notion of "piercing damage", which really just amounts to a much lower surface area.

Explosions are an extreme because the way we currently calculate them is the best way to do it without just scaling every single thing to the full brunt of the explosion. So, in current debates, two 7-Cs with a small difference would almost certainly pay mind to the fact that one is 7-C for face-tanking an explosion and the other took a bullet of that power that had a diameter the size of their head: thus, in effect, the bullet-tanker had a much more significant feat.

I don't think we should pursue this change, therefore- I deem it both unnecessary and also agree that this would strangulate the flow of calculations (or, at least, acceptable calculations)- most people still create calculations riddled with errors, and this would almost certainly make them worse by far.

I agree with this.

I will add that we scale by attack potency (the capacity to deal damage to x durability) rather than attack energy (the ability to produce x energy). Hax aside, our system doesn't really care which tricks you use to get more bang for your buck.

 

[KingTempest]

I will note an issue with this specific line. We do not grant durability ratings for destroying the entire tank (That's literally destroying it LOL), we only grant it the durability for the strongest things it can withstand before failing, we don't give ratings for "just damaging a portion" if it doesn't fail or still remains operational.

I'm referencing the attack potency needed to damage part of the tank vs damaging the entirety of the tank, so we note the value to do both in the tank's durability section

This sort of issue tends to come out in the wash, minus the circumstances of extremes such as explosions. What you're proposing is to essentially redo all of our non-explosion calculations without bearing in mind that most of the characters on this site are still working with generally similar surface area ratios of their attacks. In discussions I see, most people just bear in mind that lower surface area attacks (read: bullets) are more effective in combat for this reason, hence the rise in prominence of the notion of "piercing damage", which really just amounts to a much lower surface area.

I didn't say all that, I'm just saying that our method of calculating durability from explosives shouldn't be noted as a "durability feat" added to the profiles. We don't mark the durability of an entire object, only parts of it to pass by it.

This calculates the surface of the whole body. There is no reason for a person to scale to the surface of the whole body by damaging a small portion of it.

Explosions are an extreme because the way we currently calculate them is the best way to do it without just scaling every single thing to the full brunt of the explosion. So, in current debates, two 7-Cs with a small difference would almost certainly pay mind to the fact that one is 7-C for face-tanking an explosion and the other took a bullet of that power that had a diameter the size of their head: thus, in effect, the bullet-tanker had a much more significant feat.

I don't think we should pursue this change, therefore- I deem it both unnecessary and also agree that this would strangulate the flow of calculations (or, at least, acceptable calculations)- most people still create calculations riddled with errors, and this would almost certainly make them worse by far.

The point of the thread isn't solely to change how we calculate the feats. It's how we scale them

 

[KLOL506]

I'm referencing the attack potency needed to damage part of the tank vs damaging the entirety of the tank, so we note the value to do both in the tank's durability section

I didn't say all that, I'm just saying that our method of calculating durability from explosives shouldn't be noted as a "durability feat" added to the profiles. We don't mark the durability of an entire object, only parts of it to pass by it.

Nope, we don't do that either. That's why the M1 Abrams tank no longer has the "Complete destruction energy" value anymore, like a lot of other vehicles on our site. If they do, they should be removed ASAP. The only durability rating they would have is the strongest thing they can tank before they become inoperable or fail, as we did with our M1 Abrams tank. So the belief that we only have durability for "damaging a portion" of it is wrong, we have durability for "highest joule value it can take before it becomes inoperable".

This calculates the surface of the whole body. There is no reason for a person to scale to the surface of the whole body by damaging a small portion of it.

The point of the thread isn't solely to change how we calculate the feats. It's how we scale them

I'm afraid fiction isn't even remotely coherent enough to abide to that. So no, I agree with DT and Bambu.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm referencing the attack potency needed to damage part of the tank vs damaging the entirety of the tank, so we note the value to do both in the tank's durability section

Pretty sure it was agreed energy required to destroy the entire tank was to be removed from durability section a long time ago and moved to foot note and/or common feats in fiction. Preferably the latter, and based on what KLOL said it was already done.

 

[KLOL506]

Pretty sure it was agreed energy required to destroy the entire tank was to be removed from durability section a long time ago and moved to foot note and/or common feats in fiction. Preferably the latter, and based on what KLOL said it was already done.

Seems like not all of the vehicles had it carried out to them.

 

[KingTempest]

Nope, we don't do that either. That's why the M1 Abrams tank no longer has the "Complete destruction energy" value anymore, like a lot of other vehicles on our site. If they do, they should be removed ASAP. The only durability rating they would have is the strongest thing they can tank before they become inoperable or fail, as we did with our M1 Abrams tank.

Pretty sure it was agreed energy required to destroy the entire tank was to be removed from durability section a long time ago and moved to foot note and/or common feats in fiction. Preferably the latter, and based on what KLOL said it was already done.

M1 Abrams

The M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank designed by General Dynamics Land Systems (formerly Chrysler Defense) and named after General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare, it introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine...

vsbattles.fandom.com

At most Building level in terms of total destruction

M4 Sherman

The M4 Sherman, officially “Medium Tank, M4” and named by the British for the American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, was the most widely used medium tank by the United States and Western Allies in World War II. It is one of the few really iconic fighting vehicles of the Allies...

vsbattles.fandom.com

at most Building level to Building level+ in terms of total destruction (Comprised of up to 30,840–38,100 kilograms of cast and rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) with a fragmentation energy of 3.71–6.74 gigajoules)

Panzer VI Tiger

The Panzer VI Tiger or Tiger I was a German heavy tank of World War II deployed from 1942 in Africa and Europe usually in independent heavy tank battalions. During the war, the Tiger earned a fearsome reputation for its extreme durability and firepower when compared to its contemporaries. Tier...

vsbattles.fandom.com

higher in terms of total destruction (Superior to the M4 Sherman)

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) is a fighting vehicle platform of the United States manufactured by BAE Systems Land & Armaments, formerly United Defense. It was named after U.S. General Omar Bradley. The M2 Bradley is designed for reconnaissance and to transport a squad of infantry...

vsbattles.fandom.com

at most Building level in terms of total destruction (comprised of up to 30,400 kilograms of 7039 aluminium armor with a fragmentation energy of 3.73 gigajoules), likely higher (Modern variants have additional composite armor, which should be stronger than the base aluminium alloy. The additional armor protects against 30mm armor-piercing rounds). In addition, spaced armor and explosive reactive armor can mitigate or even negate otherwise deadly attacks from kinetic penetrator rounds and anti-armor rockets/missiles

And these are just the land vehicles

I'm afraid fiction isn't even remotely coherent enough to abide to that. So no, I agree with DT and Bambu.

Umm yes it is. Just like how a person can get hit with the same amount of an attack from a further distance and withstand it but take the same yield closer and be badly hurt, that's not a rare thing

Seems like not all of the vehicles had it carried out to them.

Most of them didn't, and I don't see why they should

 

[KLOL506]

M1 Abrams

The M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank designed by General Dynamics Land Systems (formerly Chrysler Defense) and named after General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare, it introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine...

vsbattles.fandom.com

M4 Sherman

The M4 Sherman, officially “Medium Tank, M4” and named by the British for the American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, was the most widely used medium tank by the United States and Western Allies in World War II. It is one of the few really iconic fighting vehicles of the Allies...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Panzer VI Tiger

The Panzer VI Tiger or Tiger I was a German heavy tank of World War II deployed from 1942 in Africa and Europe usually in independent heavy tank battalions. During the war, the Tiger earned a fearsome reputation for its extreme durability and firepower when compared to its contemporaries. Tier...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) is a fighting vehicle platform of the United States manufactured by BAE Systems Land & Armaments, formerly United Defense. It was named after U.S. General Omar Bradley. The M2 Bradley is designed for reconnaissance and to transport a squad of infantry...

vsbattles.fandom.com

And these are just the land vehicles

Yeah they should all be edited then. No way in hell should you get durability for something that literally blew you the **** apart.

Umm yes it is. Just like how a person can get hit with the same amount of an attack from a further distance and withstand it but take the same yield closer and be badly hurt, that's not a rare thing

Wrong comparison, attacks from a further distance lose energy and aren't anywhere near their original yield. Attacks closer up are much closer to the original energy yield. That's a distance factor. This isn't the same argument as your surface area argument, which would apply regardless of distance from the attack.

Also,

I will add that we scale by attack potency (the capacity to deal damage to x durability) rather than attack energy (the ability to produce x energy). Hax aside, our system doesn't really care which tricks you use to get more bang for your buck.

Basically, our AP system doesn't care how you do the damage. It's not designed to account for it in the first place.

Most of them didn't, and I don't see why they should

Because it's being overcome, we don't give durability for getting blown up, else characters who got critically injured but survived cough Deathlok MCU cough would scale.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

M1 Abrams

The M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank designed by General Dynamics Land Systems (formerly Chrysler Defense) and named after General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare, it introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine...

vsbattles.fandom.com

M4 Sherman

The M4 Sherman, officially “Medium Tank, M4” and named by the British for the American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, was the most widely used medium tank by the United States and Western Allies in World War II. It is one of the few really iconic fighting vehicles of the Allies...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Panzer VI Tiger

The Panzer VI Tiger or Tiger I was a German heavy tank of World War II deployed from 1942 in Africa and Europe usually in independent heavy tank battalions. During the war, the Tiger earned a fearsome reputation for its extreme durability and firepower when compared to its contemporaries. Tier...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) is a fighting vehicle platform of the United States manufactured by BAE Systems Land & Armaments, formerly United Defense. It was named after U.S. General Omar Bradley. The M2 Bradley is designed for reconnaissance and to transport a squad of infantry...

vsbattles.fandom.com

And these are just the land vehicles

Umm yes it is. Just like how a person can get hit with the same amount of an attack from a further distance and withstand it but take the same yield closer and be badly hurt, that's not a rare thing

Most of them didn't, and I don't see why they should

Yeah, those are all examples of just having those removed a long time ago.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, those are all examples of just having those removed a long time ago.

Submarines were supposed to have it removed as well but we forgot.

 

[KingTempest]

Yeah they should all be edited then. No way in hell should you get durability for something that literally blew you the **** apart.

This is not the damn point. The fact that we acknowledge that destroying more of an object provides a larger yield than destroying a small portion of it and it's ignored for people is the problem

Wrong comparison, attacks from a further distance lose energy and aren't anywhere near their original yield. Attacks closer up are much closer to the original energy yield. That's a distance factor. This isn't the same argument as your surface area argument, which would apply regardless of distance from the attack.

If you get hit with an attack that has 100 joules per cubic cm and it pushes out and now it has 100 joules per cubic meter, the damage is the same, it's just spread out

Also,

Basically, our AP system doesn't care how you do the damage. It's not designed to account for it in the first place.

That's stupid

Because it's being overcome, we don't give durability for getting blown up, else characters who got critically injured but survived cough Deathlok MCU cough would scale.

This is not the priority

 

[KLOL506]

This is not the damn point. The fact that we acknowledge that destroying more of an object provides a larger yield than destroying a small portion of it and it's ignored for people is the problem

Because it's irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is how much said object can take before failing.

If you get hit with an attack that has 100 joules per cubic cm and it pushes out and now it has 100 joules per cubic meter, the damage is the same, it's just spread out

Doesn't really matter how you obtain it.

That's stupid

It is what it is. Nothing can be done about it anymore.

This is not the priority

Doesn't matter really, it's still irrelevant because our AP system wasn't built to handle that in the first place.

 

[KingTempest]

Also

I will add that we scale by attack potency (the capacity to deal damage to x durability) rather than attack energy (the ability to produce x energy)

No we don't, cause we note environmental destruction and creation in our attack potency ratings

 

[KLOL506]

No we don't, cause we note environmental destruction and creation in our attack potency ratings

Those ratings are usually independent from power-scaling so I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[KingTempest]

Because it's irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is how much said object can take before failing.

Okay, whatever on that topic

Doesn't really matter how you obtain it.

Do you not know what the OP is entailing?

It is what it is. Nothing can be done about it anymore.

That's... dumb as shit

Doesn't matter really, it's still irrelevant because our AP system wasn't built to handle that in the first place.

Our AP system isn't handled to account for surface area? When half of the durability calcs we have involve surface area?

It looks like this was easily declined from quite literally every member who opened this thread save me so I'll just stop wasting everybody's time

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I think the main fundamental problem here is that we simply cannot redo many thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of our old calculation blogs in order to accommodate this type of revision. My apologies.