- 3,682
- 1,722
- Thread starter
- #81
Btw, which version of Thor will have the High 7-A rating? Will it be Post-Awakening or Endgame Thor? Since the WoG said that Endgame Thor was far stronger than he's ever been?
-
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
- 11,099
- 4,323
Well that's contradicted by Thanos overpowering him.
- 3,682
- 1,722
- Thread starter
- #83
So I guess we're sticking with the old stats. So I'm guessing High 7-A in his Endgame state and stronger as Awakened Thor.
Btw, if Thanos gets upgraded to High 7-A from scaling to Thor, wouldn't that make Mjolnir High 7-A since it harmed Thanos?
Cuz it makes no sense for Mjolnir to be High 7-C in Phase 1 and Phase 2, and High 7-A in Phase 3, especially considering that the Mjolnir was from Phase 2 timeline. I feel like this would become an upgrade for not just Phase 3 characters, but even Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Btw, if Thanos gets upgraded to High 7-A from scaling to Thor, wouldn't that make Mjolnir High 7-A since it harmed Thanos?
Cuz it makes no sense for Mjolnir to be High 7-C in Phase 1 and Phase 2, and High 7-A in Phase 3, especially considering that the Mjolnir was from Phase 2 timeline. I feel like this would become an upgrade for not just Phase 3 characters, but even Phase 1 and Phase 2.
- 167,325
- 75,825
- 1,160
- 186
I'm confused how that's a contradiction. Wasn't Thor Awakened when he got beat by Thanos offscreen?
- 11,238
- 15,140
Pretty sure he means Awakened Thor w/Stormbreaker.
- 20,391
- 17,253
I thought Spino already calced Asgard being destroyed and got a Tier 6 figure.
- 32,835
- 38,077
No, we shouldn't. We should actually avoid using such feats in the first place when possible.
Like Spino said and like we concluded on the Apokolips thread, if there are no other comparable feats on this level, we discard the feat entirely as an outlier, specifically for Marvel and DC, and also for other verses if the conditions for the feat being an outlier are met.
As for explosion feats we only take cross-sectional area into account, not surface area (Even then we still need to figure out the distance the character was from the explosion). And even then it has to be consistent with the other feats.
Last edited:
- 32,835
- 38,077
Yeah, and Jasonsith later redid it and got similar results, but I lost the calc link.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I mean Endgame Thor isn't overwhelmingly more powerful than Infinity War Thor, if anything he feels kinda a bit weaker ngl
- 167,325
- 75,825
Well, I agree about that outliers should be part of the evaluations, but strongly disagree about that surface area shouldn't factor in as well in such extreme cases as I mentioned.
- 32,835
- 38,077
In that case, we should only apply surface area to impact-related feats with massive objects like planets, asteroids and the like, but like Spino said, explosions have their own different formula which makes use of cross-sectional area (As surface area doesn't account for the decrease in the explosive energy the farther you are from the center, but cross-sectional area does and is thus more accurate). We should prolly note it down in the Inverse Square law page.
The explosions yield page also doesn't specify the area as "cross-sectional area" more thoroughly, which resulted in this confusion, this needs to be fixed as well (Though it won't affect anything, it's merely a better-worded sentence).
And even then, if it isn't consistent with the other feats, it's an outlier.
Last edited:
- 167,325
- 75,825
KLOL506:
I think that your analysis seems to make sense.
@DontTalkDT
Would you be willing to help us out with updating the instruction pages?
I think that your analysis seems to make sense.
@DontTalkDT
Would you be willing to help us out with updating the instruction pages?
- 32,835
- 38,077
In the case of "Explosion Yield Calculations" it's really nothing more than a better-worded sentence
But in the case of Inverse Square Law page, while it does have the Cross-Sectional Area formula for explosions when you tank them from a distance which already takes care of inverse-square law by default, I think the "Dealing with Explosions" section is a bit more complicated than what I usually handle (It shouldn't be the "Dealing with Explosions" section anyway because it's literally taken care of with the Cross-sectional area formula, it should prolly be replaced with "Dealing with large-scale physical impacts" or something else instead. I believe Spino and DT can figure something out for this tho.
Last edited:
- 1,160
- 186
I do agree with the idea that I feel like he should be weaker, but other than body appearance I haven't seen any real contradiction to the WoG.
The only time Thor post-Stormbreaker ever fought Thanos was when he three stormbreaker when he caught Thanos off guard, and when he chopped Thanos's arm and head off, again off guard. Thanos never had the proper chance to fight back until Endgame.
- 12,085
- 2,096
The tier 6 feat was Asgard being blown up completely, which came right after (And killed him). The feat I am talking about was a shockwave right before the explosion which moved asgards clouds
- 32,835
- 38,077
IIRC the Tier 6 limit was to be used as the highest the feats can go in the MCU before we hit outlier territory.
- 12,085
- 2,096
I know, the explosion itself can't be used in any way, but I think the shockwave may be used since it didn't seem to kill surtur
- 32,835
- 38,077
Can I see the link for the calc for the shockwaves?
- 12,085
- 2,096
play it on .25 speed
- 32,835
- 38,077
Thanks, I'll use Watchframebyframe to slowly see it in its full glory.
Now all I need is the values for Asgard's diameter and Surtur's height.
- 12,085
- 2,096
Surtur is 4,000 meters.
Asgards diameter is 14592.59259 meters (These values were found by Spino and Jasonith)
- 32,344
- 20,283
The problem is that A LOT of these calcs have inflated results. All of the Storm Calcs and the Iron Man meteor tanking specifically.
- 12,085
- 2,096
Reasons???
- 32,835
- 38,077
IIRC Qawsedf resolved the meteor issue with surface area regarding big objects impacting small characters (as in, he fixed the size disparity between IM and the meteor), but I still don't think it should be used regardless due to so many variables surrounding it.
As for the cloud feats, I don't know what issues are present.
Last edited:
- 32,835
- 38,077
Speaking of the meteor feat:
Our Inverse-Square Law page states the following formula:
area of the larger object or explosion
However, in Qawsedf234's calc, he seems to have reversed the formula and this is how he did it:
area of the object/area of the larger object or explosion x the initial value
Either someone screwed up during the editing of the Inverse-Square Law page or Qawsedf234's calc has an error that needs fixing. Or I'm missing something.
Our Inverse-Square Law page states the following formula:
area of the larger object or explosion
However, in Qawsedf234's calc, he seems to have reversed the formula and this is how he did it:
area of the object/area of the larger object or explosion x the initial value
Either someone screwed up during the editing of the Inverse-Square Law page or Qawsedf234's calc has an error that needs fixing. Or I'm missing something.
- 10,764
- 12,093
I don't really know the iron man meteor feat people are talking about, so I'm not 100% sure I correctly understand what was supposed to be changed.
In my understanding, it is not that the pages say something wrong, but some addition regarding meteors and surface area should be made?
- 32,835
- 38,077
Yeah, the addition regarding meteors, planets and surface area should be made.
Also basically people are confusing cross-sectional area used in explosions with surface area used in feats involving massive objects crashing into people, this is where people got confused about inverse square law.
Basically, they're talking about this meteor feat in Infinity War, one of the meteors slam into Iron Man here
Also there's this issue with Qawsedf's calc regarding the meteor.
Last edited:
- 10,764
- 12,093
Oh ok. So the meteor feat doesn't really play into what should be clarified then, but I should just add a better explanation for what the cross-sectional area is on the explosion page?
Sure, that's easy enough. I will take care of it.
- 32,835
- 38,077
Thanks. Hopefully people won't get confused about explosion calcs anymore and will now know what to use.
- 12,085
- 2,096
After donttalk is finished with updating the explosion page, can he please give input on the problems with the meteor calc that KLOL brought up???
- 32,835
- 38,077
You would prolly want to add a better explanation on the Inverse-Square law page as well if people get confused about using surface area in explosion calcs instead of cross-sectional area which we generally use when the person is far away from the epicenter of the explosion.
- 32,835
- 38,077
Yeah, this too.
EDIT: NVM, I'm a forkin' idiot, the actual formula is (Iron Man's Surface Area * Asteroid Energy Yield) / Asteroid's frontal impact surface area
But the inverse square law page says this formula: Area of explosion or impact / Surface area of person getting hit * Energy yield of explosion or impact
But Qawsedf used this instead: (Surface area of Person / Area of asteroid impact) * Asteroid energy yield
Last edited:
- 10,764
- 12,093
I made an edit. I hope that made it clearer. It is somewhat hard to describe precisely.
I also felt like it would probably be a good idea to mention that using the crossectional area is technically just a good approximation. So I did that.
I also felt like it would probably be a good idea to mention that using the crossectional area is technically just a good approximation. So I did that.
- 12,085
- 2,096
I tried to recalculate the meteor feat with the correct version of inverse square law and the results were pretty much the same as Qawsed's
- Status
Similar threads
