Large Mountain Level Issues

[Flashlight237]

This had been brought up last year, but to no merit. See, the issue is we have basically pulled 1 gigaton for Large Mountain level out of our butts. There's no basis for the value. Why not use Mt. Fuji as a baseline for Large Mountain level?: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/vois/data/tokyo/STOCK/souran_eng/volcanoes/055_fujisan.pdf

Mt. Fuji is one of the most highly-regarded large mountains in both real life and fiction (in fact, I think Mt. Fuji is mentioned more often than all other notable mountains in fictional works), and we literally use Mt. Fuji in our Mountain and Island level requirements article, not to mention Mt. Fuji is probably the only mountain with an actual, reliable volume estimate: 400 km³ according to the Japan Meteorological Agency (an actual Japanese government agency similar to the United States' EPA and NOAA). Using the rock generalization value of 8 j/cm³ for destroying Mt. Fuji (as using basalt would probably remove High 7-A entirely), we can give a fair estimate of 3.2*10^18 joules, equivalent to 764.8183556 megatons of TNT. It may make things a bit more finicky, but it provides a more reliable baseline for High 7-A than 1 gigaton from literally out of thin air.

 

[Psychomaster35]

So that would just be 764.8 megatons as the new baseline?

By the way, I agree with this.

 

[ElajRuengies]

This had been brought up last year, but to no merit. See, the issue is we have basically pulled 1 gigaton for Large Mountain level out of our butts. There's no basis for the value. Why not use Mt. Fuji as a baseline for Large Mountain level?: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/vois/data/tokyo/STOCK/souran_eng/volcanoes/055_fujisan.pdf

Mt. Fuji is one of the most highly-regarded large mountains in both real life and fiction (in fact, I think Mt. Fuji is mentioned more often than all other notable mountains in fictional works), and we literally use Mt. Fuji in our Mountain and Island level requirements article, not to mention Mt. Fuji is probably the only mountain with an actual, reliable volume estimate: 400 km³ according to the Japan Meteorological Agency (an actual Japanese government agency similar to the United States' EPA and NOAA). Using the rock generalization value of 8 j/cm³ for destroying Mt. Fuji (as using basalt would probably remove High 7-A entirely), we can give a fair estimate of 3.2*10^18 joules, equivalent to 764.8183556 megatons of TNT. It may make things a bit more finicky, but it provides a more reliable baseline for High 7-A than 1 gigaton from literally out of thin air.

Not a Calc Group member, but 764.8 Megatons of TNT is basically the same as 1,000 Megatons / 1 Gigaton as far as orders of magnitude are concerned. Plus, most other borders for tiers are equally as arbitrary, so it's not like Large Mountain level is unique in that regard.

 

[Arkenis]

What rank is Fuji in for the biggest mountains?

 

[KLOL506]

Not a Calc Group member, but 764.8 Megatons of TNT is basically the same as 1,000 Megatons / 1 Gigaton as far as orders of magnitude are concerned. Plus, most other borders for tiers are equally as arbitrary, so it's not like Large Mountain level is unique in that regard.

I agree with this sentiment.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Not a Calc Group member, but 764.8 Megatons of TNT is basically the same as 1,000 Megatons / 1 Gigaton as far as orders of magnitude are concerned. Plus, most other borders for tiers are equally as arbitrary, so it's not like Large Mountain level is unique in that regard.

I also agree with this as well.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think our tier borders being completely arbitrary despite being named after real life things that people might think they correspond to IS an issue, I'm not sure if it's feasible to fix it but it is one for sure. So, I guess neutral, but possibly favorable depending on the amount of effort it'd take

 

[KingTempest]

I'm fine with it, but now we gotta scan for what calcs fit under what

On top of that, we have shit like 6.3 megatons, 7 teratons, and even 4.3 gigatons being tier splitters. I'm fine with this

 

[Therefir]

Not a Calc Group member, but 764.8 Megatons of TNT is basically the same as 1,000 Megatons / 1 Gigaton as far as orders of magnitude are concerned. Plus, most other borders for tiers are equally as arbitrary, so it's not like Large Mountain level is unique in that regard.

I share the same sentiment, our tiers don't have to perfectly match the things they are named after, as long as they are in a similar ballpark.

Also, I think 1 Gigaton was probably chosen because it looked nice for a tier split.

 

[DontTalkDT]

1 Gigaton is in the general range of a large moutain. You could probably find an actual mountain that has pretty much that value.

Basically, there is no point to change the value. It is lots of work and holds no advantage. One could still not assume that any large mountain in fiction matches the revised criteria by default. Unless it would literally be Mt. Fuji, but then just having a calc for Mt. Fuji available (which we do) accomplishes the same. So ultimately all the same consideration we have now would still apply. It's not like planet level, where a good boundary lets you assign values to feats without needing calcs.

Basically, lots of effort for no payoff whatsoever.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Ngl, I don't see the point of this

 

[KingTempest]

1 Gigaton is in the general range of a large moutain. You could probably find an actual mountain that has pretty much that value.

Basically, there is no point to change the value. It is lots of work and holds no advantage. One could still not assume that any large mountain in fiction matches the revised criteria by default. Unless it would literally be Mt. Fuji, but then just having a calc for Mt. Fuji available (which we do) accomplishes the same. So ultimately all the same consideration we have now would still apply. It's not like planet level, where a good boundary lets you assign values to feats without needing calcs.

Basically, lots of effort for no payoff whatsoever.

This is fair

 

[Flashlight237]

1 Gigaton is in the general range of a large moutain. You could probably find an actual mountain that has pretty much that value.

Basically, there is no point to change the value. It is lots of work and holds no advantage. One could still not assume that any large mountain in fiction matches the revised criteria by default. Unless it would literally be Mt. Fuji, but then just having a calc for Mt. Fuji available (which we do) accomplishes the same. So ultimately all the same consideration we have now would still apply. It's not like planet level, where a good boundary lets you assign values to feats without needing calcs.

Basically, lots of effort for no payoff whatsoever.

Dude, a lot of large mountains fall under Island level as opposed to the basis-less 1-gigaton deal we have on the wiki. For example, Kilimanjaro sits at 1150 cubic miles, which puts destroying it well above baseline Island Level just from using our generalization for rock fragmentation: https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/kilimanjaro

Mauna Loa, which is less than half as tall as Mt. Everest (which the OBD literally used as their baseline for Island Level) and is also even smaller than the halfway point from the 2000-foot rule of thumb and Mt. Everest and it's doing 10000 cubic miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains_on_Earth

Olympus teeters dangerously close to our current High 7-A thing. Plugging the thing's listed radius and elevation gave me a volume of 516.37 km³, which is around 987.3 megatons based on rock generalization fragmentation. It ain't a large mountain statistically speaking; in fact, it's pretty close to the 25% quartile of mountains size-wide (which caps at 2669.4 meters). If mid-sized mountains start at 33% of the range from 609.6 m to Mt. Everest (around 3356 meters), I'm pretty sure Olympus would be considered a higher-end small mountain.

Bear in mind, I just used rock generalization here; using their proper materials (basalt for Fuji, basalt and andesite for Kilimanjaro, basalt for Mauna Loa, limestone for Mt. Olympus, etc) would make the picture a lot bigger.

We're a lot better off basing High-7A off Mount Fuji than keeping some unreliable generalization that hardly represents large mountains. I'm trying to make things reliable here, which I was told explicitly to do; do you want me to make things reliable or not?

 

[ElajRuengies]

I think you're making a large mountain out of a molehill here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think you're making a large mountain out of a molehill here.

I hate you for this

 

[KLOL506]

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @DemonGodMitchAubin @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Dalesean027 @Migue79 @M3X_2.0 @DemiiPowa Thoughts?

 

[DMUA]

This had been brought up last year, but to no merit. See, the issue is we have basically pulled 1 gigaton for Large Mountain level out of our butts.

Yeah

The name's in the same boat of misnomer as Mountain level before it, where it's baseline isn't based on any mountain (and a mountain's destruction starts at Low 7-B), we just kinda put the name on what was otherwise just a static value for the sake of having a tiering system

Editing everything above 700 megatons to now be in this tier is a bunch of work for a concern ultimately as arbitrary as having the tier start at a Gigaton rather than some very specific "large" enough mountain being destroyed to begin with

 

[DontTalkDT]

Dude, a lot of large mountains fall under Island level as opposed to the basis-less 1-gigaton deal we have on the wiki. For example, Kilimanjaro sits at 1150 cubic miles, which puts destroying it well above baseline Island Level just from using our generalization for rock fragmentation: https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/kilimanjaro

Mauna Loa, which is less than half as tall as Mt. Everest (which the OBD literally used as their baseline for Island Level) and is also even smaller than the halfway point from the 2000-foot rule of thumb and Mt. Everest and it's doing 10000 cubic miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains_on_Earth

Olympus teeters dangerously close to our current High 7-A thing. Plugging the thing's listed radius and elevation gave me a volume of 516.37 km³, which is around 987.3 megatons based on rock generalization fragmentation. It ain't a large mountain statistically speaking; in fact, it's pretty close to the 25% quartile of mountains size-wide (which caps at 2669.4 meters). If mid-sized mountains start at 33% of the range from 609.6 m to Mt. Everest (around 3356 meters), I'm pretty sure Olympus would be considered a higher-end small mountain.

Bear in mind, I just used rock generalization here; using their proper materials (basalt for Fuji, basalt and andesite for Kilimanjaro, basalt for Mauna Loa, limestone for Mt. Olympus, etc) would make the picture a lot bigger.

We're a lot better off basing High-7A off Mount Fuji than keeping some unreliable generalization that hardly represents large mountains. I'm trying to make things reliable here, which I was told explicitly to do; do you want me to make things reliable or not?

It's really not more "reliable" in any tangible way. Reliable would imply that there is a margin of error or something that could fail... but that's not the case here.

What a "large" mountain even is, is already so incredibly subjective that there is no actually meaningful borderline. (And no idea where you get the idea from that most mountains are larger than 2600m. That sounds very wrong to me.)

You're not making things reliable or easier to use. You just replace a random value with what ultimately is just another random value. Because your choice of the mountain to be the baseline is entirely random.

And some mountains being island level isn't really an issue either. Mountains and islands aren't mutually exclusive in size. You can't expect them to not intersect. (Not to mention that size of an island varies just as massively as mountains)