Second22
They/Them- 1,553
- 875
After DMUA accepted the issue of using Pulverization, who initiated the discussion on this? Ask yourself.
-
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.
Lookism small building+ downgrade
- Thread starter Vapourrrrr
- Start date
- Status
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
@RemainsAE Dude probably didn't find the thread.
- 3,249
- 4,269
No it absolutely isn't. Steam effects alone are not enough to prove vaporization, and especially not when the material is something like metal.
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
I seriously thought you were already here and then I realized you weren't.
- 3,249
- 4,269
How are bees being shredded by a shockwave prove that the safe is partially vaporized?
Your argument boils down to "Since Jichang's supposed to be one of the strongest characters introduced, his Safe Destruction feat should be one of the best feats in terms in energy, therefore we should use vaporization since that gets the highest results."
But that doesn't change how chopping open a safe is still visually much less impressive than Vasco destroying a whole-ass wrecking ball, or Hudson caving in a boulder.
- 20,547
- 16,369
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
It would be better if you show the condition of the safe after a few manhwa pages if it's drawn.
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
In which chapter does this feat take place?
- 3,249
- 4,269
It's only in one shot
- 20,547
- 16,369
436 as said above, i found no vaporization evidence there
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
- 352
- 141
How does my argument boil down to that? I can see that you are very emotional to this for some reason, but there is clear smoke vapor covering the entire safe. Now, I wanna hear what the argument for why the smoke vapor is there. My point wasn't that "since he is the strongest yadayada"? It was that attacks in lookism show vaporization, and that jichangs chop is a special attack. Also, vasco's attack was much different and Hudson's feat also shows smoke of some sort
- 3,249
- 4,269
A puff from a cigarette would make more smoke than what's coming off of the safe- a bit of steam is used to indicate power frequently without implying vaporization. Not to mention it's a metal safe- the rimm surrounding the destroyed part would've been at least glowing red if the volume effected was actually vaporized.
None of the panels there showed vaporization. The first was some wisps of smoke over a dent on a sandbag, the second were bees being purified by a shockwave, the third was just a shockwave, and the fourth was the Safe Destruction.
- 352
- 141
How is that relevant or helps your argument in any way (We don't even know the timeframe). The assumption you are making that the author is drawing vapor around a destroyed safe to indicated POWER? No, no, no, let's not assume that he vaporized it but that the author decided to draw vapor around it so he looked "powerful". You are just assuming author intent without evidence. You also said that the edges should be glowing red, doesn't that defeat the purpose of how accurate his chop is, and also that is expecting the author ptj, who is known to forget to draw even important things. to do that How is the punching bag feat not vaporization, it leaves a scorch mark and left a vapor trail. The punching bag feat was showcasing how kinetic energy is used.
Last edited:
- 352
- 141
You keep on mentioning how since the safe is metal it isn't vaporization and wouldn't work like that. Well ptj argues otherwise
- 3,249
- 4,269
Was rebutting how you said the safe was covered in smoke, when there wasn't much smoke
When vapor is the only evidence of vaporization, and there are several previous feats with vapor coming off of the damaged objects that are not vaporization- such as Hudson's boulder feat- then Occam's Razor is not in your favor.
Doesn't matter how accurate your strike is, if it makes steel vaporize upon impact, whatever's left of the target is still gonna be insanely hot.
Because there's literally no volume destroyed. There's steam coming off of a dent in the punching bag- what got vaporized there?
You measured the scorched area, assumed a depth of 1 cm, got the energy for melting the volume and the energy for boiling the volume, and then added them together despite how something being boiled would melt it by default.
This scene's better than the safe destruction since there's more evidence of it being affected by heat, but assuming it was melted/vaporized is still a stretch. Shipping Container walls are only 0.075 inches- or 0.1905 centimeters thick, so if it was melted/boiled to a depth of 1cm, then you'd literally be able to see through the door as nothing would be there anymore. The dark spot means the layer of paint got vaporized, at most- more likely it was just burnt.
Last edited:
- 352
- 141
The calc is irrelevant. I was just linking it since that was the only image I had of that feat. Why did you just spend all that time to debunk a non-accepted calc.
Last edited:
- 352
- 141
Ok? Again that is irrelevant as we have 0 clue how long after he struck the safe it had been. Are you really arguing that since smoke isn't covering the entire panel that it isn't vaporization
What. If there is a scorch mark and vapor coming off then something is being burned......? What do you mean there is "no dent"? Could you see if the dent was millimeters deep? cause even if it was that small of volume destroyed it is still vaporization.
Last edited:
- 3,249
- 4,269
That is part of my argument yes-
Assumption 1: Jichang's chop vaporized the safe upon contact, while somehow leaving the paper money inside perfectly intact and not affecting any other part of the safe, and the reason why its only got a little bit of vapors coming off it is because the safe in the shot had been chopped open a while ago... Even though safes are broken into to so people can immedaitely take the money out of them, and Jichang still hadn't taken the money out of the safe yet.
Assumption 2: Given the jagged edges, lack of signs of the metal melting let alone boiling, and the lack of previous vaporization feats, Jichang merely cracked the safe open, and didn't boil the part that came into contact with his hand.
Read my message again- I didn't say there was "no dent." Additionally, do you not know how sandbags work? When a sandbag is dented, none of the sandbag gets destroyed, the sand inside of it is just beaten into a different shape. There's no volumetric destruction from denting a sandbag.
The paint got boiled, at best.
Just because both heat energy and kinetic energy use joules doesn't mean they're mechanically equivalent.
When a body in motion collides with another body, they exchange momentum and kinetic energy, and only a small amount of the kinetic energy becomes heat thanks to friction. The majority of it goes into moving the other body.
I'm not saying that physical attacks don't create heat, I'm saying that there's no vaporization going on.
Because you were using it as more evidence for vaporization, when it wasn't evidence at all.
Last edited:
- 25,375
- 6,748
Kinetic energy does generate friction, but definitely not to this extreme of a degree in the Tier 9 range. Most of it is just going to be the raw blunt force of an object moving at a speed.
- 21,522
- 36,093
Well as the others have stated I don't believe this is remotely vaporization as well
- 209
- 39
so you're just wrong probably @Vapourrrrr plus stop vandal without mods permission
- 800
- 147
- Thread starter
- #69
BRO I DIDNT VANDALISE IT WAS A SMALL MISTAKE, I still don't think the profiles should be changed though because even with vaporisation the result is small building level and not small building+
- 3,249
- 4,269
It's been cleared up here, don't worry about it.
- 209
- 39
Ok got it
- 209
- 39
Sorry for making you angry, Okay?
- 21,522
- 36,093
You're honestly good don't even trip this shouldn't have even big as big of a deal for the moment it was but its handled
RoggerReggor
He/Him- 2,444
- 959
Imagine being so powerful that you generate 1370 degree Celsius of temperature with a strike (melting point of steel), surely couldn't be me.
- 35,078
- 41,669
If this shit was vaporization I'd expect metal embers all over the place and charred remains of anything that skips the liquid stage right into the gas stage, none of that is in here. Hell, I'd even expect near smooth remains in that hole.
- 209
- 39
so what is the conclusion? keep kwak ji chang to small building level+? or building?
- 800
- 147
- Thread starter
- #77
Small building, there is no building level lookism
- 209
- 39
to be honest, lookism character can be up to building level they created the shockwave of a building too, energy wise it will be counted as Small building level+
- 800
- 147
- Thread starter
- #79
The building level scales were debunked and the small building scale + is also debunked
- 209
- 39
Oh ok, I see. Are you good in speed calc? Can you help me with that one, cause I'm bad at calcs. Go into my blog post and calc for me
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
- Status
Similar threads
