- 165,111
- 72,023
Also, do we need to update the Lifting Strength description, and if so, how?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Lifting Energy to Get Attack Potency (Staff Only)
- Thread starter XING06
- Start date
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #42
Yeah I know we'll get to the PJO universe edits later but anyway the point of this thread is that generally lifting feats aren't good for AP or durability calculations.
No we don't need to edit the lifting page; I don't think we actually ever specified we could use lifting strength as an attack potnecy calculation so we might want to put that in the calculations page or notify the calc group about it instead.
No we don't need to edit the lifting page; I don't think we actually ever specified we could use lifting strength as an attack potnecy calculation so we might want to put that in the calculations page or notify the calc group about it instead.
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #43
Nvm I just remembered that the lifting page might need a little edit b/c we included tearing under the definition.
Actually, tearing is a bit of an odd point b/c we currently include it under lifting strength but it is also applicable as an attack. Not quite sure what to do with that. Most of the time though the energy to tear is much lower than a lift b/c a tear uses much fewer muscle groups and is an awkward application of energy so I suggest just taking that out of the lifting category and just regard it as an attack.
Actually, tearing is a bit of an odd point b/c we currently include it under lifting strength but it is also applicable as an attack. Not quite sure what to do with that. Most of the time though the energy to tear is much lower than a lift b/c a tear uses much fewer muscle groups and is an awkward application of energy so I suggest just taking that out of the lifting category and just regard it as an attack.
- 11,095
- 4,317
@XING06 Nah. The PJ calc is ok.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 149
- 16
How will this affect characters who use telekinesis to do lifting? For example, Eleven's numerous telekinetic lifting feats (the toy Millenium Falcon (which she refused use her powers on it when Dustin estatically threw it into the air, making Star Wars fans cringe), the Chevy "Hawkins Power and Lights" van made in between 1978-1984, etc.), would they be changed?
- 5,814
- 702
Eleven chucked the van overhead with her teleknesis, so its fine. Besides, she's also got better feats she can scale to anyways.
- 9,960
- 1,999
Characters that levitated certain object to certain height shouldn't use PE unless they used TK to launch it.
- 149
- 16
Okay.
- 10,500
- 11,568
Eh, if it was done over a reasonably short timeframe it should be fine. Applying the same force in the horizontal instead of the vertical direction would result in a projectile with KE equal to the PE through the TK, after all.Antoniofer said:
- 9,960
- 1,999
If there's a timeframe then the calc will turn in a simple KE, but PE assume either a vertical balistic launch or a that the object fell from that height, since PE use initial/final velocity.
- 10,500
- 11,568
Nah, often manga and the like aren't as nice as to give you any specific timeframe, but it is clear that the TK lifting happened pretty fast. In those cases using PE instead of randomly assuming something like 1 second to slap KE on it is often the better way.
In the first place the effort would be final KE + PE, not just final KE alone.
(Edit: Unless final KE is 0 because the final velocity at peak height is 0 of course)
(Edit 2: PE doesn't really use initial/final velocity, both could be 0. ÔêåPE is the effort necessary to invest to overcome an opposing force (gravity) over a certain distance)
(Edit 3: I mean launching something with 1 second acceleration 1000 meter high and lifting it 1000 m high in 1 second will, if the same force is applied in vertical instead of horizontal direction (that is in a direction without the opposing force of gravity), leave you with two projectiles that after 1 second of acceleration have the same Kinetic Energy)
In the first place the effort would be final KE + PE, not just final KE alone.
(Edit: Unless final KE is 0 because the final velocity at peak height is 0 of course)
(Edit 2: PE doesn't really use initial/final velocity, both could be 0. ÔêåPE is the effort necessary to invest to overcome an opposing force (gravity) over a certain distance)
(Edit 3: I mean launching something with 1 second acceleration 1000 meter high and lifting it 1000 m high in 1 second will, if the same force is applied in vertical instead of horizontal direction (that is in a direction without the opposing force of gravity), leave you with two projectiles that after 1 second of acceleration have the same Kinetic Energy)
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #53
@Spino
Er no its not. Me and Kepekely just explained why that specific feat can't be used to justify 6C. They're applying an opposing force otherwise they would be smashed flat so their durability isn't quite as high as they're only tanking a fraction of the energy.
The Hazel calc could be used to justify 6C but its a pretty small island the book states its an "acre" of trees and stone, but I suppose since she was pulling up metals and other stuff to keep building in it could be more metal than stone. Plus there was no trace of it left so maybe vaporization would work especially b/c the oil starts bubbling so there was heat? If it was just pulverization of the stone area, with no metals/trees involved then it's around 7C but we can shoot for a high end and see how it works out.
Edit: I've made a blog about it
Er no its not. Me and Kepekely just explained why that specific feat can't be used to justify 6C. They're applying an opposing force otherwise they would be smashed flat so their durability isn't quite as high as they're only tanking a fraction of the energy.
The Hazel calc could be used to justify 6C but its a pretty small island the book states its an "acre" of trees and stone, but I suppose since she was pulling up metals and other stuff to keep building in it could be more metal than stone. Plus there was no trace of it left so maybe vaporization would work especially b/c the oil starts bubbling so there was heat? If it was just pulverization of the stone area, with no metals/trees involved then it's around 7C but we can shoot for a high end and see how it works out.
Edit: I've made a blog about it
- 9,960
- 1,999
But a projectile would't reach 1000 m height in 1 second (realistically), if timeframe is given then we just use KE; we use a similar principle in escape velocity, if you can fly you can leave the planet at any speed, 1 m/s or 1000 m/s, not necesary 11175 m/s
If you lift something gradually, yeah, it accumulate PE, but is unrelated to the force that someone apply on it, and as much the object is elevated, it wouldn't become more difficult to lift. PE takes into account initial/final speed (hypotetic if final), so not sure if it possible to calculate it without taking those into account.
If you lift something gradually, yeah, it accumulate PE, but is unrelated to the force that someone apply on it, and as much the object is elevated, it wouldn't become more difficult to lift. PE takes into account initial/final speed (hypotetic if final), so not sure if it possible to calculate it without taking those into account.
- 11,095
- 4,317
@XING06 The mere weight of the sky was able to crush the mountain and everything in 10 leagues, that's 6-C.
- 5,814
- 702
Ah that's right. I re-read that section and found that statement. Since it has this statement backing it up, it's fine. However the justification on Percy's profile should be changed.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #57
@Spino
Yes again but like me and Kepekley explained this still doesn't constitute an exact durability cuz he's not tanking it in its entirety. He's tanking a significant fraction of the weight - we just don't know how much. Like I can squat over 250 lbs but if I allowed that weight to fall onto me from the same height I supported it at without bracing, it would crush my bones. We can't know for sure exactly how much he's tanking using this method. Also, like Antonifier says "PE is the potential energy, the energy that would have if it left in a free fall...it doesn't work if the object is static."
Edit: Actually though maybe we could make a case for Percy having 6-C durability by scaling from Atlas who did have the sky literally fall on him. Percy initially started supporting the sky with Artemis, so it didn't really move and he had time to brace against it. However, he had to roll out when Atlas was lured back, which means the sky was in motion at that point when he's not supporting it, before Atlas caught it. So Atlas did tank the energy and he fought against Atlas decently, so it could be used to scale (but again god like entities generally hold back). So it wouldn't be b/c Percy held the sky it would be b/c he fought Atlas who survived having the sky drop on him.
Yes again but like me and Kepekley explained this still doesn't constitute an exact durability cuz he's not tanking it in its entirety. He's tanking a significant fraction of the weight - we just don't know how much. Like I can squat over 250 lbs but if I allowed that weight to fall onto me from the same height I supported it at without bracing, it would crush my bones. We can't know for sure exactly how much he's tanking using this method. Also, like Antonifier says "PE is the potential energy, the energy that would have if it left in a free fall...it doesn't work if the object is static."
Edit: Actually though maybe we could make a case for Percy having 6-C durability by scaling from Atlas who did have the sky literally fall on him. Percy initially started supporting the sky with Artemis, so it didn't really move and he had time to brace against it. However, he had to roll out when Atlas was lured back, which means the sky was in motion at that point when he's not supporting it, before Atlas caught it. So Atlas did tank the energy and he fought against Atlas decently, so it could be used to scale (but again god like entities generally hold back). So it wouldn't be b/c Percy held the sky it would be b/c he fought Atlas who survived having the sky drop on him.
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #58
Anyway, right now we mainly need to fix the lifting description and the calculations page. We also need to switch justifications for PJU and Attack on Titan universes, but those are for later (Weekly is already on it for AoT and we'll talk about Percy in a seperate thread)
We're still discussing the topic of TK lifting.
We're still discussing the topic of TK lifting.
- 11,095
- 4,317
"Then the darkness above Luke began to crumble, like a cavern roof in an earthquake. Huge chunks of black rock began falling. Annabeth rushed in just as a crack appeared, and the whole ceiling dropped. She held it somehow[...]"
Well it did drop on Annabeth, even if not Percy.
Well it did drop on Annabeth, even if not Percy.
- 11,095
- 4,317
Btw Atlas scaling to Percy is a no-no.
It should be an outlier Percy held his own against Atlas. Atlas was able to gain the upper hand against Artemis, who later created a constellation after fighting.
Unless you say Moon level Percy, then they shouldn't scale.
It should be an outlier Percy held his own against Atlas. Atlas was able to gain the upper hand against Artemis, who later created a constellation after fighting.
Unless you say Moon level Percy, then they shouldn't scale.
- 15,332
- 7,559
Percy only scales to a fraction of the 6-C feat, but I guess it's a support of sorts to Hazel's feat.
- 5,814
- 702
- 710
- 57
- Thread starter
- #63
Yeah we should move the discussion there. This thread is pretty much done, we just need to figure out how to deal with TK lifting though.
@Spino/Kepekley
I've addressed both of you in the PJO thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1557645
@Spino/Kepekley
I've addressed both of you in the PJO thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1557645
- 10,500
- 11,568
I am talking about cases where a timeframe isn't given, but we know it is so short that the action can be called 1 attack, instead of something like flight where you perform the energy investment over a longer time.Antoniofer said:
Because you do not know the timeframe guessing one to get KE is just a method which involves way more assumptions and should hence be avoided.
This is no rare case and not unique for lifting strength btw. If you calculate any beam attack you technically also have to ask yourself for timeframe, given that a weak attack sustained over a long time would also cause a lot of destruction. Thing is as long as what we talk about is a quick single attack beam we will still credit the beam with the entire destruction instead of saying that beams can generally not be used as AP feat because the destruction they generate is done over a slightly longer timeframe than a single energy bullet.
So in the end what is important isn't to be able to accelerate a projectile to a certain KE over a short distance, but being able to do so in a timeframe short enough to be used in battle.
That aside, should that not be clear, there is no denying that a character capable of bridging a x Joule PE gap in a single TK attack would be able to produce an attack with x Joules of KE if not shooting upwards.
That much is really a simple game of forces: Upwards the accelerating force is (Force of Telekinesis) - (Force of gravity)
If not performed upwards the (Force of gravity) = Fg(x) term opposing the (Force of TK) = Ftk(x) disappears.
You can calculate PE without initial/final speed. First and foremost PE is the integral of the force of gravity over the distance moved (in reference to a certain point where PE is assumed 0). Speed is something you can only derive with certain assumptions for it.
Now, because of conservation of energy, the energy invested via the TK has to be  the gain in PE the object experiences through being lifted. That means
$ PE = \int ^{d_2} _{d_1} F_g(x) dx \overset{(*)}{\le} \int ^{d_2} _{d_1} F_{tk}(x) dx = \text{Energy invested through TK} $
So while in the end of the lifting progress the KE of the object would be given as
$ \text{final KE} = \text{Energy invested through TK} - PE = \int ^{d_2} _{d_1} F_{tk}(x) - F_g(x) dx $
If shot in vertical direction instead the gravity force opposing the acceleration is 0, meaning
$ \text{final KE} = \text{Energy invested through TK} - 0 = \int ^{d_2} _{d_1} F_{tk}(x) dx \overset{(*)}{\ge} PE $
That means, in total, if the timeframe is "1 (quick) attack" then in that same timeframe a character can by all means create an attack with KE equal to the difference in PE he made when he TK lifted something in 1 attack.
Similar threads
