MCU: Age Of CRT

[KLOL506]

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.

What about people using the "surface area" argument that people wouldn't scale to the explosion even if they were dead center in it in real life? Why are they using that for explosion feats when we use cross-sectional area instead? Shouldn't that be addressed in the Inverse-Square law page as well?

 

[M3X_2.0]

So, is the formula from Qwa's calc is the correct way to calc surviving the impact of a meteor?

 

[DontTalkDT]

What about people using the "surface area" argument that people wouldn't scale to the explosion even if they were dead center in it in real life? Why are they using that for explosion feats when we use cross-sectional area instead? Shouldn't that be addressed as well?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. Do you mean why we usually don't use inverse square law when a character tanks a bomb exploding directly into their face, but instead give them full durability?

 

[KLOL506]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. Do you mean why we usually don't use inverse square law when a character tanks a bomb exploding directly into their face, but instead give them full durability?

That and the meteor-impact-related stuff where we don't scale characters to the full KE of the meteor or planet colliding into them due to size disparity or something.

Well, not exactly why we "don't use inverse square law when a character tanks a bomb exploding directly into their face, but instead give them full durability?" but about why are people doing it now (as in, using inverse square law and surface area with impact-related feats involving asteroids and planets and so on) even though this was rejected, as we ultimately chose to discard impact feats and 'splosion feats if they were not consistent with the other feats.

Spino basically talked about it one page before this, you can check his comments there.

 

[KieranH10]

Come to think of it. Couldn't we calc the Snap?
Thanos mentioned when he destroyed the stones they were reduced to atoms, which I believe has been said to be what happened to the victims of the first snap, and we know from Heimdall that there are at least 10 Trillion souls in the universe. So surely Atomization of 5 Trillion humanoids would result in some decent results.

 

[Newendigo]

That snap was already calced at 5000 Megatons in universe by the computers before going to look for Thanos.

 

[KLOL506]

That snap was already calced at 5000 Megatons in universe by the computers before going to look for Thanos.

Yeah, found it, here it is

 

[KieranH10]

Really quick:
Atomization value for humans is 72416.33j/cc
the average human is 62,000cc
Which gives an energy value of 4489812460 Joules
or 1.073090932122 Tons of tnt, per person

1.073090932122 * 5,000,000,000,000 = 5.3654547e+12 Tons
or 5.3654547 Teratons, Low 6-B!

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Come to think of it. Couldn't we calc the Snap?
Thanos mentioned when he destroyed the stones they were reduced to atoms, which I believe has been said to be what happened to the victims of the first snap, and we know from Heimdall that there are at least 10 Trillion souls in the universe. So surely Atomization of 5 Trillion humanoids would result in some decent results.

The snap was durability negating hax, not actual AP. so I don't think we could measure it as AP

 

[KieranH10]

But it'd still require a certain amount of energy to do though wouldn't it? So wouldn't the energy output still be applicable?

 

[KLOL506]

But it'd still require a certain amount of energy to do though wouldn't it? So wouldn't the energy output still be applicable?

Even if it doesn't scale to Thanos's physicals it'd still scale to the snap

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

But it'd still require a certain amount of energy to do though wouldn't it? So wouldn't the energy output still be applicable?

I don't think IRL energy would apply to supernatural abilities

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

If I may ask, why is Surtur's feat of destroying Asgard not applicable for his AP? I understand that he didn't survive the destruction of Asgard, but that only means it doesn't scale to his durability, but it's still a level of destruction he's capable of dishing out. Shouldn't it be reflected on his AP somehow? Even if just as an Environmental Destruction statistic or something.

Looking at his current stats just made me scratch my head if I'm being honest. A character who's larger than mountains being 7-B is just weird no matter how you look at it lol. Hopefully this revision fixes that to an extent.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

If I may ask, why is Surtur's feat of destroying Asgard not applicable for his AP? I understand that he didn't survive the destruction of Asgard, but that only means it doesn't scale to his durability, but it's still a level of destruction he's capable of dishing out. Shouldn't it be reflected on his AP somehow? Even if just as an Environmental Destruction statistic or something.

Looking at his current stats just made me scratch my head if I'm being honest. A character who's larger than mountains being 7-B is just weird no matter how you look at it lol. Hopefully this revision fixes that to an extent.

The explosion happened because surtur destabilized the core

 

[KLOL506]

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

Yeah, Qaws's formula is different from the one in the Inverse Square Law page. My bad.

 

[Newendigo]

The snap was durability negating hax, not actual AP. so I don't think we could measure it as AP

Considering the fact the snap can cause actual physical damage to the gauntlet, and user, it fair to assume it generates a certain amount of energy to perform different things.

 

[KieranH10]

I can make a blog for a full calc if we want.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Since we got nothing else to discuss for now, what would the tiering be for the IG then if we decide to tier the snap??

Would this AP work??

At least Low 6-B with the snap (Capable of atomizing half of life in the universe, which was stated to be in the trillions. The power surge from the snap was shown to be 5 gigatons), possibly far higher (Threatened to tear apart the universe to Atoms). Durability negation with abilities such as deconstruction and reality warping

 

[KLOL506]

Since we got nothing else to discuss for now, what would the tiering be for the IG then if we decide to tier the snap??

Would this AP work??

At least Low 6-B with the snap (Capable of atomizing half of life in the universe. Which was stated to be in the trillions) Possibly far higher (Threatened to tear apart the universe to Atoms). Durability negation with abilities such as deconstruction and reality warping

Why not use the 5 gigaton energy surge shown in the in-universe computer that Thanos took to his entire arm

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Why not use the 5 gigaton energy surge shown in the in-universe computer that Thanos took to his entire arm

That can be a supporting feat for Low 6-B

 

[KLOL506]

That can be a supporting feat for Low 6-B

I'd say the 5 gigaton surge should scale to Thanos's physicals, he managed to take it twice, and in the final snap he was already badly wounded.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

It's kinda funny how the power stone alone is capable of razing a planet's surface, but the Full IG's "Ultimate Move" so to speak is only High 7-A to Low 6-B lol. Movie logic is wack.

 

[KieranH10]

I'll make a full blog for it.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I'd say the 5 gigaton surge should scale to Thanos's physicals, he managed to take it twice, and in the final snap he was already badly wounded.

2 snaps put Thanos near death, I don't think that could count for durability due to how severe it impacted Thanos. Plus it would scale to other characters like hulk and iron man, who got permanentely wounded and killed respectively

 

[Abstractions]

Also I was planning to downgrade Deathlok anyway, fyi.

The surface area argument is only a secondary one, the main issue is that it's not singular explosion and we are scaling this man to something that nearly killed him and left him without a leg.

But I'm glad we agree that he and those scaling to it need to be downgraded.

 

[KLOL506]

The surface area argument is only a secondary one, the main issue is that it's not singular explosion and we are scaling this man to something that nearly killed him and left him without a leg.

But I'm glad we agree that he and those scaling to it need to be downgraded.

Surface area argument shouldn't even come into play regarding explosions as it was rejected (We use cross-sectional area for explosions instead if the character is not near the center of the explosion), but the other issues with Deathlok's calc seem sound.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

2 snaps put Thanos near death, I don't think that could count for durability due to how severe it impacted Thanos. Plus it would scale to other characters like hulk and iron man, who got permanentely wounded and killed respectively

The first snap wasn't that bad tbh, especially when you consider there was a giant axe planted in his chest.
As for IM and Hulk, we know they're both weaker than base Thanos anyway, so it should be fine imo.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That and the meteor-impact-related stuff where we don't scale characters to the full KE of the meteor or planet colliding into them due to size disparity or something.

Spino basically talked about it one page before this, you can check his comments there.

I mean, on the stuff exploding directly into ones face thing I can't say anything helpful and not really put anything helpful on the page either.
That is a decision so ancient that even I barely remember.
Guess it goes in the same vein of us not really subtracting environmental damage from the power of an attack when we determine durability and that it is not too far of the actual result anyways. Basically another simplification for scaling.

As for the meteor thing... it kinda depends IMO.
If the meteor breaks apart on impacting the character and the parts that don't hit the character aren't slowed then yes.
If the meteor hits the character and its KE is mostly cancelled out on impact then the entire meteor should scale on the other hand.

In a case where the meteor stays intact on impact and the KE doesn't visibly get cancelled out things get difficult. In that case, the surface area isn't really what matters IMO. The impact energy isn't really "missing" the character, which is the idea we usually use for inverse-square rulings. Like, in an idealized scenario where the character stands on an indestructible floor it would need to take 100% of the impact, as the parts of the meteor that don't hit the character can't fly past it without the meteor breaking apart.
With a destructible floor, things get more difficult. The impact would press the character into the earth and then the impact is split between it and the earth that gets hit. If this were real-life physics I would say calculate the energy to cause the displayed amount of destruction to the floor, subtract it from the meteors KE and the result is the difference that the character being there made. However, in fiction, we have the trouble with the AoE not reflecting power.
So that makes that difficult. Personally, I would say that by The Rules of Fiction™ the character is probably comparable to the attack's power. Similar to how we would scale a character that gets hit by an energy beam and flung out of its path without absorbing 100% of the beam to the attackers AP. Maybe err on the side of caution and downscale a character by a tier if the AP was close to baseline.
That's my take at least.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, on the stuff exploding directly into ones face thing I can't say anything helpful and not really put anything helpful on the page either.
That is a decision so ancient that even I barely remember.
Guess it goes in the same vein of us not really subtracting environmental damage from the power of an attack when we determine durability and that it is not too far of the actual result anyways. Basically another simplification for scaling.

As for the meteor thing... it kinda depends IMO.
If the meteor breaks apart on impacting the character and the parts that don't hit the character aren't slowed then yes.
If the meteor hits the character and its KE is mostly cancelled out on impact then the entire meteor should scale on the other hand.

In a case where the meteor stays intact on impact and the KE doesn't visibly get cancelled out things get difficult. In that case, the surface area isn't really what matters IMO. The impact energy isn't really "missing" the character, which is the idea we usually use for inverse-square rulings. Like, in an idealized scenario where the character stands on an indestructible floor it would need to take 100% of the impact, as the parts of the meteor that don't hit the character can't fly past it without the meteor breaking apart.
With a destructible floor, things get more difficult. The impact would press the character into the earth and then the impact is split between it and the earth that gets hit. If this were real-life physics I would say calculate the energy to cause the displayed amount of destruction to the floor, subtract it from the meteors KE and the result is the difference that the character being there made. However, in fiction, we have the trouble with the AoE not reflecting power.
So that makes that difficult. Personally, I would say that by The Rules of Fiction™ the character is probably comparable to the attack's power. Similar to how we would scale a character that gets hit by an energy beam and flung out of its path without absorbing 100% of the beam to the attackers AP. Maybe err on the side of caution and downscale a character by a tier if the AP was close to baseline.
That's my take at least.

Thanks for the input.

So, based on what you saw with Iron Man's feat (The meteor didn't break apart on hitting Iron Man, it was mostly intact when it slammed Iron Man into the ground and stopped only after hitting the ground), how should we treat it, in your opinion?

But what do we do with planetary collisions? Like in the case of Superman. Not saying that the Apokolips and Genesis feat are legit since they're not legit due to canonicity issues, but suppose it was some other verse.

 

[Abstractions]

Surface area argument in general shouldn't even come into play as it was rejected

I did state it wasn't the core issue, my comment wasn't made to continue to validate it.

 

[KLOL506]

I did state it wasn't the core issue, my comment wasn't made to continue to validate it.

Oh. Alright then.

Could you show me the exact link of the video if its multiple explosions? The link is dead everywhere I look for it.

 

[Newendigo]

Since we got nothing else to discuss for now, what would the tiering be for the IG then if we decide to tier the snap??

Actually, we should ger rid Iron Man's 8-C and High 8-C tiering as power sources =/= AP.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually, we should ger rid Iron Man's 8-C and High 8-C tiering as power sources =/= AP.

Should we tho? He could easily destroy tanks with Mark 3 alone.

 

[Abstractions]

Oh. Alright then.

Could you show me the exact link of the video if its multiple explosions? The link is dead everywhere I look for it.

This is the episode it comes from, and this image should show the two different explosions. (Let me know if the links are broken)

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT:

The issue that I have been concerned about is not when a character actually shatters a large meteorite, cancels out its impact, or similar, but when they are simply hit with it while standing on the Earth, and the surrounding surface area withstands most of the energy involved.

 

[KLOL506]

This is the episode it comes from, and this image should show the two different explosions. (Let me know if the links are broken)

Found it, and yeah, Deathlok doesn't even seem to be anywhere near the epicenter of the explosions. If anything, he seems to be an arm's distance away from the one on his right and quite a distance away from the one on his left (The left explosion doesn't even seem to touch him). Plus, the explosions don't happen at the same time and doesn't cause parts of the bridge to be blown up either.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Actually, we should ger rid Iron Man's 8-C and High 8-C tiering as power sources =/= AP.

Can we wait until at least one of the other topics is done??? (Infinity Gauntlet/Snap, Meteor impact, Thor's endgame storm feat)

 

[KieranH10]

Made the blog for the Snap...

 

[Newendigo]

Thor's endgame feat was already accepted.

The snap can be used, you can scale feats to the characters as long it doesn't freaking obliterate their bodies or nearly kills thems, Thanos took the energy twice and it only burned half of his body. Professor Hulk and Mark 85 would downscale.

 

[KieranH10]

I brought up a scaling thing in the Blog, the beam that Thanos used against Stormbreaker in IW also used every stone, perhaps that beam would be somewhat comparable, granted obviously not as powerful since it didn't mangle his arm...