- 24,974
- 26,821
The 6-C meteor feat is wrongKind of weird for it to be that low 6-C considering we have the 6-C meteor feat and the 6-A moon feat. Plus the fact an eternal is stronger than the infinity gauntlet itself
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 6-C meteor feat is wrongKind of weird for it to be that low 6-C considering we have the 6-C meteor feat and the 6-A moon feat. Plus the fact an eternal is stronger than the infinity gauntlet itself
The 6-C feat is higher than the current one that the Gauntlet scales toWhere did u get that from??? U mean without Stones right
Yeah I misunderstood when I first read it and respondedThe 6-C feat is higher than the current one that the Gauntlet scales to
It's really not, on the OG Tier 6 Thread back in 2020, we agreed it would translate to tier 6 but we thought it to be an outlierThe 6-C meteor feat is wrong
It is as it didn't Iron Man's surface area into account. The correct result was 7-BIt's really not, on the OG Tier 6 Thread back in 2020, we agreed it would translate to tier 6 but we thought it to be an outlier
I found the thread in which it was discussed.It is as it didn't Iron Man's surface area into account. The correct result was 7-B
Same here. It honestly makes no sense that Rocket has this thing that puts it a 6-C. Yet he's also calling it like, the most powerful energy surge he's ever seen. Despite he himself easily making moon busting weapons from scrap.I feel like the power surge should scale above Thanos’s 6-A Power Stone feat
Even if we decided to do that, it would still be completely overshadowed by Surtur getting whacked by a 6-B explosion. It would also be an astronomical outlier.I feel like the power surge should scale above Thanos’s 6-A Power Stone feat
Honestly that 6-B explosion is complete bs. We don't have any concrete confirmation on how big Asgard is. And Asgard itself is MASSIVELY inconsistent in size. Pretty much every calc gives a different size. Making any calc for it basically unusable. Not to mention Surtur mentioning the Ragnarok prophecy. Stating he can't die, not until Ragnarok is complete. To me, his death is simply P.I.S. at worst, and due to the prophecy at best. Especially considering weaker characters have better feats (which is the whole point of this thread).Even if we decided to do that, it would still be completely overshadowed by Surtur getting whacked by a 6-B explosion. It would also be an astronomical outlier.
I don't quite get it? Are you saying he committed suicide and then Asgard died for did the Asgard explosion kill him?Surtur gas such a small amount of showings that you can't call his death PIS. It's just him Killin himself to level Asgard
When he stabbed the crystal structure under Asgard and it exploded Surtur died.did the Asgard explosion kill him?
Yes you can. When there are several feats from canonical weaker characters that give higher results. And again, Asgard is INCREDIBLY inconsistent in size. Hell, for a while the explosion was High 7-A because of one calc. Then another size was used to get 6-C. Then finally the one you're bringing up now. All these calcs getting vastly different numbers, make this feat incalculable unless there's an official Canon statement regarding Asgards size.When he stabbed the crystal structure under Asgard and it exploded Surtur died.
You can't call that showing PIS when that's all he has.
What feats?When there are several feats from canonical weaker characters that give higher results.
There's honestly a lot. So I'll just refer you to this thread. Since it's, you know, the whole point of it. Main examples would be the bifrost destroying Jotunheim.What feats?
If its this thread then I went over why the majority of the proposed 6-A ratings are either non-feats or not useable.There's honestly a lot. So I'll just refer you to this thread
Something no one really scales to on a planet mostly composed of ice that's dying anyways.Main examples would be the bifrost destroying Jotunheim.
The feat Pre-Ragnarok Thor performed casually, which scales to a whole bunch of people. Which shook the planet itself. On a planet of Ice that was still capable of holding up a massive frost beast. Not to mention the frost giants themselves. And is likely far stronger than regular ice.If its this thread then I went over why the majority of the proposed 6-A ratings are either non-feats or not useable.
Something no one really scales to on a planet mostly composed of ice that's dying anyways.
Ah okay, I remember that calc now. Still, don't know why it's being brought up when it's not even used in his profile. Also, that calc was a recalc, and used a different size to the original. Because yeah, Asgards very inconsistent.
I don't think any of you said shows itself to be higher than 6-BThe feat Pre-Ragnarok Thor performed casually, which scales to a whole bunch of people. Which shook the planet itself. On a planet of Ice that was still capable of holding up a massive frost beast. Not to mention the frost giants themselves. And is likely far stronger than regular ice. So no, every word you just said is completely false.
Yeah, earthquakes on our much heavier planet are Low 6-BI don't think any of you said shows itself to be higher than 6-B
Oh shit hold up. I had the wrong feat in my head. Although technically I think if you highballed Thor's feat then you would likely get into 6-B.I don't think any of you said shows itself to be higher than 6-B
Okay, how do you know Jotunheimen is lighter than Earth? Is it, probably, but there's no proof so we generally consider it to be earth sized.Yeah, earthquakes on our much heavier planet are Low 6-B
It's made of Ice, while our planet is made of much harder materialsOkay, how do you know Jotunheimen is lighter than Earth? Is it, probably, but there's no proof so we generally consider it to be earth sized.
I just showed in the post that the ice is clearly stronger than normal Ice. So again, it's likely, but not provable without direct confirmation.It's made of Ice, while our planet is made of much harder materials
Jotunheim is hollow.Okay, how do you know Jotunheimen is lighter than Earth? Is it, probably, but there's no proof so we generally consider it to be earth sized.
Is there proof for that?Jotunheim is hollow.
It was stated in one of the guidebooks iirc. I'll try find the scan.Is there proof for that?
I remember the conversation in the thread earlier. I remember the statement people kept clinging to was that Jotunheim was the size of Europa. But no one could find the scan. So it was agreed that with no further evidence to the contrary, we should just consider it the size of Earth.It was stated in one of the guidebooks iirc. I'll try find the scan.
That and I think there was an old calc that shaking Jotunheim would only be 7-A. I don't think even think we use Jotunheim as earth sized
Thr bridge wasn't what was channeling the energy, but the observatory. Destroying power capables to a nuclear reactor does not mean you scale to the nuclear reactors' output.Thor destroyed the Bifrost bridge as it was channeling the energy needed to destroy Jotunheim.
No, they rely on tectonic plate activity and seismic waves. Earthquakes cannot happen on objects without those features. If something lacks tectonic plates it can't produce a earthquake.Earthquake calcs don't even rely on the weight of the planet, they rely on the radius of the earthquake
That's probably something you've gotta ping a calc member about because that's the first I've heard of thatI thought we weren't allowed to use curvature calcs anymore unless we had a solid image of the Earth to go from.
I remembered rightThat's probably something you've gotta ping a calc member about because that's the first I've heard of that
The above scaling method can only be used if the object being scaled is close to or behind the horizon. Since objects closer to the point of view appear larger than objects further away, scaling without correction for that would inflate the size of the scaled object.