- 12,085
- 2,096
Can you post that into a blog for evaluation???
-
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.
MCU: Age Of CRT
- Status
- 20,549
- 17,462
When I get back from work tomorrow, yeah.
- 11,099
- 4,323
What calc is that?
- 3,738
- 1,735
- Thread starter
- #45
So far, we're still deciding on the meteor feat, but besides that, I think everyone has agreed to the High 7-A calc for Thor, especially since the feat has been evaluated and accepted, and since Surtur also has a High 7-A feat, so it makes it consistent. So I think starting off by putting everyone who scales to Thor should be upgraded to High 7-A. However, if Cal can explain why they are 6-C, then they would be upgraded to that instead. So we might have to wait for his input.
- 12,085
- 2,096
I think we need at least 1 or more staff members to evaluate the storm feat for it to be accepted
- 12,085
- 2,096
Last edited:
- 20,549
- 17,462
Meteor feat if Surface Area is included in transferred energy.
- 12,085
- 2,096
Thoughts on the storm feat????
(We need a bit more staff input)
- 20,549
- 17,462
Its bare bones but it has been accepted. So I'm fine with that for Awakened Thor. Someone should also recalc the Neutron Star thing with the canon temp of 50,000k as well.
- 12,085
- 2,096
Where is 50,000 K come from???
iirc I don't think the neutron star can be used, something about luminosity being unknown
- 2,336
- 1,442
Thor literally opened a window in the metallic shell covering the star; with his limited surface area that is low-level Tier 8 stuff at best if we are being realistic. And this is most likely inapplicable for normal AP/durability after the heat revisions.
- 32,835
- 38,108
It can't be used in any shape or form due to what Blue said. Something to do with luminosity being an unknown number.
- 12,085
- 2,096
So yea......
Let's drop the nidallevir topic since it is useless to anything in the discussion
Let's drop the nidallevir topic since it is useless to anything in the discussion
- 20,549
- 17,462
MCU guidebook gave that as the melting point for Uru.
- 12,085
- 2,096
Okay, but it still cannot be used due to the luminosity being unknown.
No point in going further I guess
- 20,549
- 17,462
- 12,085
- 2,096
- 20,549
- 17,462
Tis been calced my friend. Unless you meant him blowing up the Royal Palace, which wouldn't be better than the cloud movements or the Asgard bust.
- 12,085
- 2,096
????
Where has the feat I linked been calced???
Are you confusing it with the other shockwave 1 second before Asgard got blown to bits???
- 20,549
- 17,462
- Surtur parts clouds (1.29 gigatons, Large Mountain level)
- Surtur burns Asgard (31.22 megatons, City level)
- 12,085
- 2,096
Wrong feat, that calc is for this
We need the value for this shockwave now it seems, I think it can give us a good feat since some clouds seem to have been moved
- 11,099
- 4,323
Don't we ignore surface area on VSBW?
- 11,099
- 4,323
Also in response to the criticisms regarding the Endgame Captain America rock thing, the calc was made with very poor footage at the time so it might not be fully accurate. I was also originally planning to get the calculations gradually looked over and evaluated, so they are not necessarily accurate either.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I'll try to slowly read (last day of my assessment week tomorrow so I'll be more free) the comments regarding my calculation compilation, but do note that it's merely a collection of feats that are not necessarily applicable.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Also I was planning to downgrade Deathlok anyway, fyi.
- 31,401
- 27,693
I don't think so. In some cases like durability from explosions calcs, we need to take surface area into account.
- 3,738
- 1,735
- Thread starter
- #71
Great, so the only thing left to discuss is who all will get the High 7-A upgrade.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Yeah see but our current durability calculations only consider the less energy tanked when you are farther from the centre, but not necessarily the surface area difference between the whole blast and the character.
In real life even if you are in exactly the centre you still don't tank it fully, but on our wiki we don't consider that factor.
- 31,401
- 27,693
I'm 90% sure that we do take it into account, or at least we're supposed to.
- 11,099
- 4,323
It's not on the guideline page of explosions, because we have never done it and only accounted for the Inverse Square Law distance thingy. Our durability system is inherently flawed as durability in real life isn't linear, and also ridiculously, ridiculously oversimplified, which is why we don't do surface area, piercing, hardness/softness and all that fun stuff, it would be wack to cherrypick which feats we decide to when more knowledgeable calc group members than me in the past have stated that it would require to literally start the wiki from scratch. So unless we're deciding a massive systematic revision I find it problematic to only apply certain standards to feats when they are too high and not apply so when it's "eh, reasonable".
If a feat is ridiculously inflated compared to other feats in the verse due to area (for example the Superman Apokolips feat, or Captain America tanking explosions in comics) we should simply disregard the feat as being an outlier.
From Assaltwaffle in one of the older threads:
An equal amount of energy put onto a significantly smaller surface area is going to deal more damage than if it's against a larger surface area. 3,000 joules spread across your body is going to hurt, but it's not going to kill you. 3,000 joules imparted from a .308 round will detonate your skull like a watermelon.
So energy yields being treated as universal is definitely an issue. It's a massive and systemtic issue. One so large that you pretty much have to understand that our system of VS matches is just for fun and should never be taken seriously. Someone who is 7-C for tanking an explosion of that magnitude is not actually that strong. Even at point blank, unless your body is curled ontop of whatever the explosive device is, you're going to eat less than 10% of that energy at absolute maximum. On the other hand, if you're 7-C from tanking a punch that has that energy, you've eaten almost the entire energy yield of that punch over a smaller surface area. So not only did one tank 10% of the energy yield, one tanked it over a surface area of about 1.7m^2, while the other tanked it over a surface area of a couple square centimeters.
The divide I just described to you gives durability difference of up to 100,000x or more, depending on the context and exact numbers, yet we treat them as equals. But we overlook that because we literally have to without uprooting the entirety of the system.
If a feat is ridiculously inflated compared to other feats in the verse due to area (for example the Superman Apokolips feat, or Captain America tanking explosions in comics) we should simply disregard the feat as being an outlier.
From Assaltwaffle in one of the older threads:
An equal amount of energy put onto a significantly smaller surface area is going to deal more damage than if it's against a larger surface area. 3,000 joules spread across your body is going to hurt, but it's not going to kill you. 3,000 joules imparted from a .308 round will detonate your skull like a watermelon.
So energy yields being treated as universal is definitely an issue. It's a massive and systemtic issue. One so large that you pretty much have to understand that our system of VS matches is just for fun and should never be taken seriously. Someone who is 7-C for tanking an explosion of that magnitude is not actually that strong. Even at point blank, unless your body is curled ontop of whatever the explosive device is, you're going to eat less than 10% of that energy at absolute maximum. On the other hand, if you're 7-C from tanking a punch that has that energy, you've eaten almost the entire energy yield of that punch over a smaller surface area. So not only did one tank 10% of the energy yield, one tanked it over a surface area of about 1.7m^2, while the other tanked it over a surface area of a couple square centimeters.
The divide I just described to you gives durability difference of up to 100,000x or more, depending on the context and exact numbers, yet we treat them as equals. But we overlook that because we literally have to without uprooting the entirety of the system.
- 31,401
- 27,693
@Spino; except it is mentioned on the explosions page. Look under here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Explosion_Yield_Calculations#Durability_From_Tanking_an_explosion
Surface area of an average human is used in the given example.
Surface area of an average human is used in the given example.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Yeah no that's just the cross-sectional area from tanking an expanding explosion when you're not in the centre.
"Let's say an explosion occurs and a character endures the explosion. If that explosion doesn't occur close to the character the amount of energy that hits it will be significantly lower than the full energy of the explosion. To find the actual amount of the energy from the explosion that he/she tanks one first applies the inverse square law."
This is just finding the energy decrease when it spreads out and how much it is hit on the cross-sectional area. Which is still a vast overestimation irl. It also implies that "if the character isn't close he tanks nearly all the energy", which is blatantly false in real life too, but we do that on our wiki (if a character is in the centre he tanks all).
You still have to account for the surface area difference between the entire blast and the human's surface area if we were to be fully accurate.
"Let's say an explosion occurs and a character endures the explosion. If that explosion doesn't occur close to the character the amount of energy that hits it will be significantly lower than the full energy of the explosion. To find the actual amount of the energy from the explosion that he/she tanks one first applies the inverse square law."
This is just finding the energy decrease when it spreads out and how much it is hit on the cross-sectional area. Which is still a vast overestimation irl. It also implies that "if the character isn't close he tanks nearly all the energy", which is blatantly false in real life too, but we do that on our wiki (if a character is in the centre he tanks all).
You still have to account for the surface area difference between the entire blast and the human's surface area if we were to be fully accurate.
- 31,401
- 27,693
I'm confused, how is using the cross-sectional area of a person being hit by an explosion, not taking into account the difference between an explosion's surface area and the person's surface area.
- 11,099
- 4,323
With that formula, if you're in the exact centre you tank the whole blast, and if you're near it, nearly all of the energy yield.
But you don't unless the bomb is literally inside you in real life. Or else there wouldn't even be a blast cuz you took it all.
It only accounts for the energy decrease when further from the centre but not what I mentioned above.
But you don't unless the bomb is literally inside you in real life. Or else there wouldn't even be a blast cuz you took it all.
It only accounts for the energy decrease when further from the centre but not what I mentioned above.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I have an idea on the meteor calc though, let me try it out.
edit: nvm, results are meh
edit: nvm, results are meh
Last edited:
- 167,863
- 76,487
I thought that you were talking about the inverse square law distance effect.
Anyway, if a very large asteroid hits a very small person standing on a planet, for example, we should obviously use the proportionate impact area, or we end up with extremely exaggerated results.
Anyway, if a very large asteroid hits a very small person standing on a planet, for example, we should obviously use the proportionate impact area, or we end up with extremely exaggerated results.
- Status
Similar threads
