MCU Tier 6 Upgrades?

[Tllmbrg]

We should get more people staff included to give more input here namely

@Qawsedf234 @KLOL506 @M3X @Colonel_Krukov @RanaProGamer @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan off the top of my head and probably @The_Impress as well


Actually I'll ask them to give input

Only staff can ping so
@Qawsedf234 @KLOL506 @M3X @Colonel_Krukov @RanaProGamer @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @The_Impress

 

[Hellbeast]

@ThanatosX made the original draft. I made a few changes and additions

---

In this revision, we will talk about all the feats that scales far above the current statistics of the Top Tiers of the MCU to see if all of them can still be considered outliers or not.

Previously, the older feats that we will talk about in this revision were deemed as outliers and as such unusable. However, I think that with the new feats and all of the new informations that were discovered or came out recently the probability of them not being outliers are much higher than before.

Why 6-C is an extreme lowball

At the moment, the Top Tier characters scales to Thanos tanking the snap, which according to a screen shown by Rocket it's around 5.836 gigatons.

However, the number that represented the energy released by the Snap was still rising when Rocket changed the screen, meaning that in reality the tons released are much higher than what was shown in that picture.

On top of this, the numbers are inconsistent with the claim of Rocket that no one ever saw such an high energetic output, and the figure doesn’t even take into account the radiations released by the Snap itself, which is what might have actually harmed Thanos more than the energy released.

It also doesn’t make sense under a narrative point of view. Ikaris released 41.5 gigatons just by flying, a number far higher than the 5.836 which would make Ikaris himself stronger than the Snap, something that wouldn’t make sense even in the story.

For all this reasons, while the 5.836 is a good indication as a minimum AP for the Top Tier characters, it shouldn’t be treated as the only thing that they scales to.

I can live with this reasoning.
While I'm not sure where exactly Thanos scales relative to the Eternals (especially with the rumours he may have been adopted)

Thanos destroys the Tesseract

This feat is quite simple: Thanos casually destroy the Tesseract, which according to the Mid-End of this calculation would be equal to 208 Teratons. Why this scales to Thanos is quite obvious since he directly performed the feat, and those that are able to match him would be of the same rating.

Some people did have issues with the calc, though, and it was requested multiple times for the feat to be recalculated

Yeh I'd have this recalculated/re-evaluated before bringing this up

The Casket of Ancient Winters brings a new Ice Age

This calculation is for the Casket of Ancient Winters, which is able to bring the entire Earth into a new Ice Age, a feat that was calculated as 49.2 Teratons and is also supported by a statement from Loki in the 3rd episode of What If (timestamp 0:57). Despite this, Hela considered this object to be extremely weak, meaning that her power is far superior than it.

For this reason, she should scale massively above it.

The problem I have here is there's no timeframe listed and the wiki seems to have issues with the creation of ice or cold spells like this and converting it to AP.
Considering how contentious that is rn I'd avoid using it for now and that's ignoring the issue of timeframe since that would affect the result significantly (especially since it took several seconds to freeze a comparatively smaller area)

Captain Marvel impacts against Xandar’s core

Skip
We've long agreed to not use anything from What If? for scaling since it also implies Phase I/II Thor is = Captain Marvel and other such nuggets that just flat out don't work (Like Thanos being infected by the Quantum Zombies when they couldn't even hurt Hulk)

Ikaris cloud split

This is fine; I don't know about basing a full rating on WOG but until we get a crossover this definitely supports an upgrade or at the very least a possibly higher rating
I'd note Thena is explicitly inferior to Ikaris but she can backscale

Bifrost AP

Phase I Thor could also bust up the Bifrost like this in 10 hits so your arguing that Phase 1 is 17 Teratons based off this alone and I'd have to question that much hitting the Bifrost all at once considering the feat is over a noted period of time
Your also ignoring Jotunheim isn't a planet in the traditional sense and is seemingly hollow which should impact the ratings

Abilisk creates a giant storm

I'd have this evaluated first but the High 6-C does seem fairly consistent since it's a fairly higher showing for someone who's already > most of the verse

Thanos destroys Titan's moon

Eh Rocket wasn't there for this and it's unlikely anyone had any measuring instruments for this feat since only Iron Man had tech capable of it]
It's also wayyyy out there

Nukes

Yeah nah I wouldn't use this since, again, we're ignoring What If? scaling and I'm unsure if this wouldn't just be dodgy visuals since this is a much earlier MCU in the timeline right?

- Thor shakes Jotunheim with one of his attacks

This assumes Jotunheim has the properties of our own earth and isn't a seemingly hollow world of indeterminate size.
I'd also note the actual feat (the crater he makes) only comes out to 7-A

and is called a “planet shaker” by a writer of the MCU.

Yeah this is a pretty regular turn of phrase and we don't even have any real context behind it
Also shaking the planet is baseline Low 6-B

- The SHIELD needed nukes amped by the Tesseract to fight Thor

Yeah this is solid since it'd imply he easily upscales from middle Megaton values which is consistent

but even 0.1 kilotons could destroy Eastern United States, meaning that Thor is far stronger than that.

1) That number makes no sense since, while devastating, it's a candle next to even earlier nuclear weaponry like the Lil Boy nuke which is by my memory about 150 times this value
Like 100 tons of explosives is easily achievable by the modern US via weapons like the MOAB and that's not devastating a huge portion of a country by itself
2) This is an offhand calculation by Cap in the heat of the moment that may or may not be accurate
3) The statement isn't that it can destroy the Eastern United States, the statement is that it can lay waste to much of the Eastern US.
While you can say that refers to utterly destroy it's a generous reading considering it seemingly implies tectonic damage and not just something that could easily wipe out cities (which you could say fits that)

- In a canon storybook, Captain Marvel was capable of tanking and surviving a cannon that is able to destabilise the core of a planet, which even by lowballing it should be at the very least Country level or Large Country level, consistent with the rating.

This is actually really good but we'd need to go through and make sure the book isn't contradicted somehow (since Thanos' novel was intended as canon but then got nuked from continuity). I'd also have to ask about the timeframe here because that's something very key to this

There's a lot of solid stuff here but I also have to question a lot here but I can be swayed either way

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Skip
We've long agreed to not use anything from What If? for scaling since it also implies Phase I/II Thor is = Captain Marvel and other such nuggets that just flat out don't work (Like Thanos being infected by the Quantum Zombies when they couldn't even hurt Hulk)

Fair I suppose, but wouldn't it be more fair if it was a case by case basis?

Also again, the tesseract shattering feat is our best and most solid bet at an upgrade, and still no one wants to give that a shot

 

[Hellbeast]

You could say case by case but it's definitely iffy and opens up huge cans of worms when deciding what is and isn't consistent.
We also tend not to use these kinds of elseworlds for anything but the story itself and I'd have to question the MCU being treated differently.

The Tesseract feat is dope ngl but again we need it recalculated first

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Skip
We've long agreed to not use anything from What If? for scaling since it also implies Phase I/II Thor is = Captain Marvel and other such nuggets that just flat out don't work (Like Thanos being infected by the Quantum Zombies when they couldn't even hurt Hulk)

I don't remember when it was agreed not to use anything from What If?, but Cull Obsidian's profile uses a justification that came from What If?, so if this is true, that should be removed

Eh Rocket wasn't there for this and it's unlikely anyone had any measuring instruments for this feat since only Iron Man had tech capable of it]

That may be true, but I also said this:

the Gauntlet could channel this level of power without damage, whereas the power surge damaged Thanos and the Gauntlet

 

[Hellbeast]

I don't remember when it was agreed not to use anything from What If?, but Cull Obsidian's profile uses a justification that came from What If?, so if this is true, that should be removed

I believe we came to that conclusion in the discusion thread and the Obsidian stuff was earlier on iirc

That's true, but I also said this:

the Gauntlet could channel this level of power without damage, whereas the power surge damaged Thanos and the Gauntlet

That is true but I'd still have to question using a 6-A feat this way considering it is magnitudes above the next best stuff the verse consistently has

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

I believe we came to that conclusion in the discusion thread and the Obsidian stuff was earlier on iirc

Really? I didn't see that. The Cull Obsidian justification was only a month ago tho

That is true but I'd still have to question using a 6-A feat this way considering it is magnitudes above the next best stuff the verse consistently has

Alright

 

[Hellbeast]

Really? I didn't see that. The Cull Obsidian justification was only a month ago tho

Wait WTF
Spino might be able to illuminate

As for the decision I believe Qaw came to that conlcusion and I've been under the impression we've operated within that

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

We should create a separate CRT (potentially a staff thread even) to clearly lay out our rules on what if scaling.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Huh because when I asked people they said What If? scaling counts, so I added a supporting feat.

Anyway I'm really sick atm and I'll check this thread asap.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I'm completely fine with Captain Marvel feat from a different timeline scaling to the main one. She is literally the same character and the only thing that changed was Ultron.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Thanos destroys the Tesseract

This feat is quite simple: Thanos casually destroy the Tesseract, which according to the Mid-End of this calculation would be equal to 208 Teratons. Why this scales to Thanos is quite obvious since he directly performed the feat, and those that are able to match him would be of the same rating.

Some people did have issues with the calc, though, and it was requested multiple times for the feat to be recalculated

As mentioned the calc has issues

Major problem with this calculation is that you're getting an answer in Watts and displaying the result in Joules. This feat isn't quantifiable without more information on the Tesseract.

As an example, if we assume the Tesseract is as dense as granite and has a specific heat coefficient of water (one of the highest materials in this category) then this would calculate out like this:

1. The Tesseract has a volume of 0.002 m^3 (0.12 m x 0.12 m x 0.12 m)

2. The Tesseract has a mass of 5.5 kg (0.002 m^3 x 2750 kg/m^3)

3. Water has a specific heat coefficient of 4.186 J/g K, meaning it'd take about 2.7e+12 J or 660 Tons of TNT to heat the Tesseract to this temperature, not teratons

The emissivity just tells you how fast the Tesseract will lose this temperature, not how much energy it's tanking or emitting. You can't know that without a timeframe.

Its calcing how it emits heat then scaling it to durability.

The Casket of Ancient Winters brings a new Ice Age

This calculation is for the Casket of Ancient Winters, which is able to bring the entire Earth into a new Ice Age, a feat that was calculated as 49.2 Teratons and is also supported by a statement from Loki in the 3rd episode of What If (timestamp 0:57). Despite this, Hela considered this object to be extremely weak, meaning that her power is far superior than it.

For this reason, she should scale massively above it.

The reason this calc doesn't work is that it assumes an instant world wide temperature drop. There's nothing backing it.

Also considering a weapon weak has nothing to do with scaling to it. A musket is an inferior weak weapon, that doesn't stop it from killing people if the shot hits them.

Captain Marvel impacts against Xandar’s core

This feat was performed by the Captain Marvel from a different timeline, but I will explain later why it should be taken into consideration as a supporting evidence for the new rating.

In the 8th episode of “What if…?” Captain Marvel drags Infinity Ultron to the core of Xandar, causing a massive impact against it that was calculated as around 17 Teratons.

Changes that happen in What If can have massively different canons even if the nexus event is right in modern times. Ultron's timeline had Thanos gather five of the infinity stones, one of which was the soul stone before ever meeting Ultron and without killing Gamora. A massive difference in that universe alone.

We would need to change our What If scaling for this to be valid and I'm still not for back scaling it to people since you get incredibly weird scaling base Thor 1 vs 1 Captain Marvel.

Ikaris cloud split

During the Eternals movie, Ikaris fly away from Earth to go throw himself into the Sun. While doing so, he pushes away a huge amount of clouds just by flying which was equal to 41.5 gigatons, the value he scales to. The feat was performed ridiculously casually, so Ikaris himself scales much higher than that.

Thena, another character from that movie, was able to fight against him equally, which would make her scale to him too. From WoG, a producer of the MCU, Captain Marvel would give many troubles to Thena, saying that it would be tough to know who would win. This means that Captain Marvel herself should scale to this feat in some capacity.

The movie has the following producers

• Kevin Feige
• Nate Moore
• Louis D'Esposito
• Victoria Alonso
• Kevin De La Noy
• Mitchell Bell

The person who made that quote, Nate Moore doesn't have any indication of actually having massive canon input outside of helping fund the film. Of the films he also funded

He was a co-producer on Captain America: The Winter Soldier, an executive producer on Captain America: Civil War, Black Panther, The Falcon and The Winter Soldier and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and a producer on Eternals.

None of them had Captain Marvel in it. If it came from Feige or Moore I would probably be much harder canon, but from him its more of a secondary source.

The feat itself is fine of course.

But this calculation can still be used indicatively, considering that the size of Europa should be an extreme lowball since usually the size of the Earth is usually assumed for planets of unknown size. This calculation, while still indicative, can be used to support the proposed ratings, considering that according to this scan the Bifrost is powered by Odin, which would make him scale to its destructive powers.

Its not powered by Odin, but the Allfathers of past and Dark Energy. Plus read the scan

Use its power instead of the All-Father's to restore what I destroyed

Heimdall: Allfathers... let the dark magic flow through me one last... time.

They just used the tesseract to fix the bridge. Heimdall and Stormbreaker can both freely summon the bifrost so its not related to the bridge, Odin can also summon the Bifrost by channeling Dark Energy, which notably left him rather weak.

No one should scale to the overtime output of the bridge. Snapping a power cord doesn't mean you scale to the power plant the energy draws from.

Abilisk creates a giant storm

This is another supporting feat to further prove the consistency of the rating and at the same time the inconsistency of the value given to the Snap.

In the beginning of the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 we can see a view of Sovereign, where a giant storm have covered part of the planet. This storm was caused by the Abilisk that was about to attack the planet, which is proven when after his death the storm disappear. The storm was calculated to be around 63.17 teratons (6-B+) and 111.57 gigatons (High 6-C).

Obviously the Abilisk himself doesn't scale and it would be considered only Environmental Destruction, however it’s interesting feat because Rocket clearly saw the storm that the creature created (he was at the center of it) and yet he still said without the shadow of a doubt that the Snap was the highest energetic output ever saw.

This means that the Snap itself is extremely higher than the storm created by the Abilisk and the value on screen would have risen far higher than it was shown, which is once again consistent, which would be far higher than the 6-B+ end of the calculation.

Thanos destroys Titan's moon

This is one I pointed out in the draft thread. Via Rocket's statement, the power surge of Thanos' Snap should scale far above this feat, which was calculated at 2.44 petatons (6-A), especially since the Gauntlet could channel this level of power without damage, whereas the power surge damaged Thanos and the Gauntlet.

This is the highest that the current 6-C characters can scale to in this CRT.

For reference of the statement

ROCKET: When Thanos snapped his fingers, Earth became ground zero for a power surge of ridiculously cosmic proportions. No one's ever seen anything like it... Until two days ago. [A hologram of a planet pops up, with a shockwave visibly traversing the surface.] On this planet.

I can sorta see how the High 6-C rating works, but the Titan moon thing is just ignoring what happened. Thanos used the space stone to transport a power stone wave to the moon, which reacted to the objects based on their size. There's no one to scale to the latter.

Nukes

The nuclear bombs sent by Ultron create explosions seen from space, which are calculated to be 68.5 Gigatons (6-C+) or 120.9 Gigatons (High 6-C). While this is an alternate timeline, the comments on the original calc state that the Nexus Events that separate the timelines don't affect Earth's nukes and suggest scaling Captain Marvel to 10x this value by Maria Hill's statement. On top of that, it wouldn't make sense how nuclear bombs on Earth have a higher output than the power surge of the Snap.

The calc has multiple issues with it in my view

• The images for the scaling are literally so small you cannot see anything
• Explosions like this must be taken from the horizon for the most accurate number, not just the biggest explosion

Also this goes into not using What If stuff to scale to the main timeline. Large nuke explosions are just a general end of the world scene and may not always be indicative of casual Cuba busting nuclear bombs military tech not that much different from our own most of the time.

- The SHIELD needed nukes amped by the Tesseract to fight Thor, but even 0.1 kilotons could destroy Eastern United States, meaning that Thor is far stronger than that.

You're reading this statement wrong. They wouldn't destroy the Eastern United States with one nuke. Just devastate it with a ton of bombs and over time (also it was an entire bomber fleet not one plane). Something they mention in the movie

He gets across the Atlantic, he will wipe out the entire Eastern Seaboard in an hour.

The nuke is just a single explosive amped by the Tesseract, its not hundreds and hundreds of explosives amped by the Tesseract

- Thor shakes Jotunheim with one of his attacks and is called a “planet shaker” by a writer of the MCU. I can see this being interpreted as flowery language, but I think it's still an interesting point considering that according to our standards for global earthquakes by lowballing the feat with lower magnitudes it would still be impressive and consistent with the High 6-B rating.

Shaking the planet is flowerily language, especially since the glacier he hit just stopped falling apart after enough time.

But for your rating, you're massively highballing the amount of energy it requires to shake the planet. The 50 Megaton Tsar Bomba generated global earthquakes and produced a shockwaves that lapped the planet three times before stopping. Shaking the planet is only relevant if the planet notably shook over the entirety of its surface.

Also if the planet is hollow it lacks tectonic plates, which means the Earthquake stuff quite literally cannot be applied as the math would be wrong.

- In a canon storybook, Captain Marvel was capable of tanking and surviving a cannon that is able to destabilise the core of a planet, which even by lowballing it should be at the very least Country level or Large Country level, consistent with the rating.

That thread takes the scan massively out of context. The weapon works overtime rather than a single powerful shot. They also left out a later statement that just nullifies any hard scaling to the original statement

Kaal nodded slowly. “What you see on Sy’gyl is a direct result of the axiom cannon. Before the cannon, this planet was a paradise. Lush, dense forestry, plants and flowers of all kinds thriving, growing, taking root—and now? The earthquakes. The fire. The lava flows. All of it.”

“The axiom cannon did all this?” Vers said in disbelief.

“It is a terrible weapon,” Kaal replied. “It destroys slowly, decimating a planet, until there’s nothing left. Any greenery or plant life you see that’s still surviving—if you were to return to Sy’gyl in a year, maybe less, there’d be nothing left.”

The energy blast causes the planet to slowly get worse over time. Captain Marvel was never exposed to 6-B or 6-A levels of energy.

To go over the final list

- Thanos casually crushes the Tesseract (High 6-B [requested for recalculation]) <- Needs a recalc as stated

- Hela consider the Casket weak (>>> 6-B) <- Not evidence

- Captain Marvel impacts against the Xandar’s core (6-B, feat performed by the version of a different timeline identical to the original one up until that point) <- What If feats don't scale to main universe baring a policy change

- Ikaris casually parts the clouds (>>>>> 6-C, indirectly scales to Captain Marvel for WoG) <- WoG is not good WoG

- Bifrost destroys Jotunheim (High 6-B, feat lowballed and used only indicatively) <- No one scales to this

- The Abilisk creating a storm (between High 6-C and 6-B+, supporting feat to which the Snap scales far higher according to Rocket) <- Fine

- Thanos destroys Titan's moon (6-A, supporting feat to which the Snap scales far higher according to Rocket) <- No one scales to this

- Nuclear Explosions (6-C+ or High 6-C, supporting feat to which the Snap scales far higher according to Rocket) <- What If feats don't scale to main universe baring a policy change

- Multiple supporting statements or feats that further evidences that the current rating is an extreme lowball. <- Not really

Some of these may actually affect the current 7-A characters, but we can probably discuss that another time

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Changes that happen in What If can have massively different canons even if the nexus event is right in modern times. Ultron's timeline had Thanos gather five of the infinity stones, one of which was the soul stone before ever meeting Ultron and without killing Gamora. A massive difference in that universe alone.

We would need to change our What If scaling for this to be valid and I'm still not for back scaling it to people since you get incredibly weird scaling base Thor 1 vs 1 Captain Marvel.

For reference of the statement

I can sorta see how the High 6-C rating works, but the Titan moon thing is just ignoring what happened. Thanos used the space stone to transport a power stone wave to the moon, which reacted to the objects based on their size. There's no one to scale to the latter.

The calc has multiple issues with it in my view

• The images for the scaling are literally so small you cannot see anything
• Explosions like this must be taken from the horizon for the most accurate number, not just the biggest explosion

Also this goes into not using What If stuff to scale to the main timeline. Large nuke explosions are just a general end of the world scene and may not always be indicative of casual Cuba busting nuclear bombs military tech not that much different from our own most of the time.

To go over the final list

It's still a shockwave, Rocket said The Snap the most powerful power surge at that time. That's still grasping at straws

Why would the What If Timeline not be considered canon?? Especially since we have Doctor Strange getting some of his abilities from What If.

Also, Nukes being used for an "end of the world" effect is irrelevant, Ultron's nukes came from the earth's arsenal, it would still scale

 

[KLOL506]

As mentioned the calc has issues

Its calcing how it emits heat then scaling it to durability.

The reason this calc doesn't work is that it assumes an instant world wide temperature drop. There's nothing backing it.

Also considering a weapon weak has nothing to do with scaling to it. A musket is an inferior weak weapon, that doesn't stop it from killing people if the shot hits them.

Changes that happen in What If can have massively different canons even if the nexus event is right in modern times. Ultron's timeline had Thanos gather five of the infinity stones, one of which was the soul stone before ever meeting Ultron and without killing Gamora. A massive difference in that universe alone.

We would need to change our What If scaling for this to be valid and I'm still not for back scaling it to people since you get incredibly weird scaling base Thor 1 vs 1 Captain Marvel.

The movie has the following producers

• Kevin Feige
• Nate Moore
• Louis D'Esposito
• Victoria Alonso
• Kevin De La Noy
• Mitchell Bell

The person who made that quote, Nate Moore doesn't have any indication of actually having massive canon input outside of helping fund the film. Of the films he also funded

None of them had Captain Marvel in it. If it came from Feige or Moore I would probably be much harder canon, but from him its more of a secondary source.

The feat itself is fine of course.

Its not powered by Odin, but the Allfathers of past and Dark Energy. Plus read the scan


They just used the tesseract to fix the bridge. Heimdall and Stormbreaker can both freely summon the bifrost so its not related to the bridge, Odin can also summon the Bifrost by channeling Dark Energy, which notably left him rather weak.

No one should scale to the overtime output of the bridge. Snapping a power cord doesn't mean you scale to the power plant the energy draws from.

For reference of the statement

I can sorta see how the High 6-C rating works, but the Titan moon thing is just ignoring what happened. Thanos used the space stone to transport a power stone wave to the moon, which reacted to the objects based on their size. There's no one to scale to the latter.

The calc has multiple issues with it in my view

• The images for the scaling are literally so small you cannot see anything
• Explosions like this must be taken from the horizon for the most accurate number, not just the biggest explosion

Also this goes into not using What If stuff to scale to the main timeline. Large nuke explosions are just a general end of the world scene and may not always be indicative of casual Cuba busting nuclear bombs military tech not that much different from our own most of the time.

You're reading this statement wrong. They wouldn't destroy the Eastern United States with one nuke. Just devastate it with a ton of bombs and over time (also it was an entire bomber fleet not one plane). Something they mention in the movie

The nuke is just a single explosive amped by the Tesseract, its not hundreds and hundreds of explosives amped by the Tesseract

Shaking the planet is flowerily language, especially since the glacier he hit just stopped falling apart after enough time.

But for your rating, you're massively highballing the amount of energy it requires to shake the planet. The 50 Megaton Tsar Bomba generated global earthquakes and produced a shockwaves that lapped the planet three times before stopping. Shaking the planet is only relevant if the planet notably shook over the entirety of its surface.

Also if the planet is hollow it lacks tectonic plates, which means the Earthquake stuff quite literally cannot be applied as the math would be wrong.

That thread takes the scan massively out of context. The weapon works overtime rather than a single powerful shot. They also left out a later statement that just nullifies any hard scaling to the original statement

The energy blast causes the planet to slowly get worse over time. Captain Marvel was never exposed to 6-B or 6-A levels of energy.

To go over the final list

Basically my issues with the above calcs. Minus the ones that got accepted already (The Eternals stuff I believe).

That being said, was it actually stated that Thanos didn't kill Gamora in the What If Timeline?

 

[Qawsedf234]

It's still a shockwave, Rocket said The Snap the most powerful power surge at that time. That's still grasping at straws

Rocket also saw the power surge of the Power Stone leveling a planet, so why aren't we scaling them to 5-A?

The power stone generates a larger reaction based on material present. No one scales to it unless they're a planet sized Celestial.

Why would the What If Timeline not be considered canon?

I didn't say they were non-canon, just cannot be used to scale the main universe versions without more evidence. If Doctor Strange features What If characters and they interact normal then I can see the scaling being adjusted, but right now it just contradicts to much.

we have Doctor Strange getting some of his abilities from What If.

They should all be removed. Thanks for brining that up.

that Thanos didn't kill Gamora in the What If Timeline?

Yeah, we see Ultron's robot kill her

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, we see Ultron's robot kill her

Ah ****, you're right, prolly means Thanos would've sacrificed someone else to get the Stone. Since it requires a sacrifice in all known universes AFAIK.

 

[Dalesean027]

They should all be removed. Thanks for brining that up.

Nah because they literally established in that episode that he'd literally been the exact same all aside from how was his accident happened but other than that that everything else happened and played out exactly the same as his main timeline counterpart

So yeah some stuff is entirely case by case and in this case they flat out make it clear and say he's exactly the same aside from how his accident happened

 

[Z's_Universe]

Kaal nodded slowly. “What you see on Sy’gyl is a direct result of the axiom cannon. Before the cannon, this planet was a paradise. Lush, dense forestry, plants and flowers of all kinds thriving, growing, taking root—and now? The earthquakes. The fire. The lava flows. All of it.”

“The axiom cannon did all this?” Vers said in disbelief.

“It is a terrible weapon,” Kaal replied. “It destroys slowly, decimating a planet, until there’s nothing left. Any greenery or plant life you see that’s still surviving—if you were to return to Sy’gyl in a year, maybe less, there’d be nothing left.”

That's actually something I forgot about. So yeah, the feat definitely isn't usable. Although, would it be possible to calc the energy it produced per second. Then scale that to Vers'? That way the result would be far lower than 6-B, and maybe scale more to Vers' level. We know it would destroy its surface in a year. So that may be usable.

 

[Aguywhodoesthings]

Seems pretty easy, destroying Earth's surface is 183.24 Petatons and the planet should have a similar size to earth
1 year is roughly 31536000 seconds
183.24PT : 31536000s = 5.8105e-6 Petatons or 5.8105 Gigatons (Island level)
Destroying the Earth's surface could also be 646.57085 Petatons incase of it being on the ground, which is more likely
646.57085PT : 31536000s = 2.05026e-5 Petatons or 20.5026 Gigatons (Island level) but higher

 

[Z's_Universe]

Seems pretty easy, destroying Earth's surface is 183.24 Petatons and the planet should have a similar size to earth
1 year is roughly 31536000 seconds
183.24PT : 31536000s = 5.8105e-6 Petatons or 5.8105 Gigatons (Island level)
Destroying the Earth's surface could also be 646.57085 Petatons incase of it being on the ground, which is more likely
646.57085PT : 31536000s = 2.05026e-5 Petatons or 20.5026 Gigatons (Island level) but higher

So much for not being an outlier then. :/

 

[Newendigo]

Why 6-C is an extreme lowball​

I do rather not count Rocket's statement of the Snap's energy output reaching levels never seen before, considering that things such as supernovas should logically exist within the MCU, Rocket being an alien with decent amount of knowledge to what is a good "kaboom" should obviously be aware of that. So either the snap is around the foes range of energy or he is hyperboling, likely the latter considering he has this cocky attitute and often exaggerates to emphatize what he says, and the cast lacking feats remotely on that level.

This covers other arguments that rely on the statement.

Abilisk & The Casket of Ancient Winters, ​

I'm not a big fan of storm feats scaling to physical stats at all, not only the implications for such a scaling are vague at best and need a good amount of evidence to support, but they are also unreliable to showcase a character's abilities compared to much straightfoward "Destroy this thing" feats.

I automatically dismiss them.

Thanos destroys the Tesseract​

What are the criterias of the Tesseract crushing calc btw? My knowledge over material strength and thermodynamics is basic at best, but you guys are converting heat resistance (The amount of heat the cube can withstand before it forces a nuclear reaction) into kinetic energy when the destruction was done through compression force.

Those are not really translatable as far as I investigated, and breaking the tesseract like Thanos did doesn't necessarily mean he had to overcome atomic forces, he can just shatter it on a molecular level like how any solid matter breaks normally, which takes way less energy.

And the fact that the difference between what is happening in the scene (Thanos crushes the tesseract, producing a small shockwave in his hand) vs what has been calculated (200 teratons of tnt) being astronomical makes me really suspicious over the calc. Leaning towards not using it.

Ikaris cloud split​

I'm fine with with the Eternals scaling to the main cast characters, mostly because as pointed out in the OP, the snap's energy output was still increasing and Ikaris's feat is fairly close to the current tiers, and this is backed up by Thanos being half-eternal.

But I still prefer an actual fight between those characters to solify such a rating, Marvel Directors have done big statements like Captain Marvel being able to move planets with the force of her flight which just... Never happened.

Captain Marvel impacts against Xandar’s core​

I'm neutral on this for the reasons given by Qawsedr.

Same with the rest of things I didn't objected.

 

[KLOL506]

Abilisk & The Casket of Ancient Winters, ​

I'm not a big fan of storm feats scaling to physical stats at all, not only the implications for such a scaling are vague at best and need a good amount of evidence to support, but they are also unreliable to showcase a character's abilities compared to much straightfoward "Destroy this thing" feats.

I automatically dismiss them.

Universal Power Sources would generally take care of that but that's not the case here. Then again, those are not the reasons Qawsedf used to debunk the feat.

Thanos destroys the Tesseract​

What are the criterias of the Tesseract crushing calc btw? My knowledge over material strength and thermodynamics is basic at best, but you guys are converting heat resistance (The amount of heat the cube can withstand before it forces a nuclear reaction) into kinetic energy when the destruction was done through compression force.

Those are not really translatable as far as I investigated, and breaking the tesseract like Thanos did doesn't necessarily mean he had to overcome atomic forces, he can just shatter it on a molecular level like how any solid matter breaks normally, which takes way less energy.

And the fact that the difference between what is happening in the scene (Thanos crushes the tesseract, producing a small shockwave in his hand) vs what has been calculated (200 teratons of tnt) being astronomical makes me really suspicious over the calc. Leaning towards not using it.

Like everyone else said, this calc is on shaky grounds. Even I find it to be super weird.

 

[Newendigo]

Universal Power Sources would generally take care of that but that's not the case here. Then again, those are not the reasons Qawsedf used to debunk the feat.

Because I'm not using Qaw's reasoning, I'm using my own.

 

[Dalesean027]

Because I'm not using Qaw's reasoning, I'm using my own.

True you're using your own reasoning but in the case of rocket's word just dismissing what he's saying and the context of the events that had occured,had to live through, and and with that revelation of them potentially finding Thanos it didn't really seem like he was being cocky or especially quippy to the amount he usually is.

Also it just takes too many levels of assumptions to think he'd be saying no other source of energy in the universe period has had as high of a energy signature when it could also just be him saying no one's ever seen anyone(be it an individual or collective) wield that much energy own their own


Also considering that rocket had no idea about people or events on asguard it's not safe to assume he's all knowing when things like the Dark Elves using the convergence to destroy or rip apart the nine realms or even Thor having to tell him about the destruction of his planet, both are fairly big surges of energy(not comparing them to snap for obvious reason) that rocket had no knowledge of hell he's even only ever seen a celestial in a showing from the collector(aside from ego if we're counting him) so there's plenty of large energy sources I'd doubt rocket has seen an individual wield though from what he has seen he still thinks there's been nothing like it

 

[Bernkastelll]

s ignoring the issue of timeframe since that would affect the result significantly (especially since it took several seconds to freeze a comparatively smaller area)

Skip
We've long agreed to not use anything from What If? for scaling since it also implies Phase I/II Thor is = Captain Marvel and other such nuggets that just flat out don't work (Like Thanos being infected by the Quantum Zombies when they couldn't even hurt Hulk)

Wasnt the Infection due Spittle? If yes, they don't need to hurt

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Neutral.

 

[Newendigo]

Also it just takes too many levels of assumptions to think he'd be saying no other source of energy in the universe period has had as high of a energy signature when it could also just be him saying no one's ever seen anyone(be it an individual or collective) wield that much energy own their own.

He is just making a really general statement. "When Thanos snapped his fingers, earth became ground zero for a power surge of ridiculous cosmic proportions we've never seen anything like it."

It's by no means "Too many levels of assumptions" to say he is just saying that this was somethig else compared to the rest, specially when he uses the word "cosmic" which is always related to something universal in whatever measurement that fits the context. What is an assumption however is to say he can know the amount of energy produced by the storm of the Abilisk, or if he has any knowledge over atmospheric sciences, he is a weapons expert and a pilot, not a meteorologist.

Also considering that rocket had no idea about people or events on asguard it's not safe to assume he's all knowing when things like the Dark Elves using the convergence to destroy or rip apart the nine realms or even Thor having to tell him about the destruction of his planet, both are fairly big surges of energy(not comparing them to snap for obvious reason) that rocket had no knowledge of hell he's even only ever seen a celestial in a showing from the collector(aside from ego if we're counting him) so there's plenty of large energy sources I'd doubt rocket has seen an individual wield though from what he has seen he still thinks there's been nothing like it

Those are really specific, almost isolated events that he won't know obviously, while events like Supernovas hilariously happen more often just in our galaxy. Is not far fetched to assume that he would know such a natural event for a celestial object. He is again an alien that has a general knowledge of happens in the in the galaxy, not every specific thing, minor thing tho.

One of his weapons, the hadron collider can shatter moons, and he had the sovereing weird batteries destroy Ego's planet because he know how powerful they were, he obviously knows cosmic destroying crap.

 

[Dalesean027]

Supernovas hilariously happen more often just in our galaxy. Is not far fetched to assume that he would know such a natural event for a celestial object. He is again an alien that has a general knowledge of happens in the in the galaxy, not every specific thing, minor thing tho

I didn't say he wouldn't know as I agree he would seeing as he's well travelled across the galaxy that much should be common sense

One of his weapons, the hadron collider can shatter moons, and he had the sovereing weird batteries destroy Ego's planet because he know how powerful they were, he obviously knows cosmic destroying crap.

And that's exactly my point I've never downplayed his knowledge on such things just used some events as examples of other cosmic things he'd also have no knowledge of as a means to say he doesn't know everything and that there are some things that are just as up there in scale as say ego or his hadron collider that he has not seen as well but even then he can still make that call that Thanos's surge was something still above those experiences as well

It's by no means "Too many levels of assumptions" to say he is just saying that this was somethig else compared to the rest, specially when he uses the word "cosmic" which is always related to something universal in whatever measurement that fits the context

Fair enough no problem here

What is an assumption however is to say he can know the amount of energy produced by the storm of the Abilisk, or if he has any knowledge over atmospheric sciences, he is a weapons expert and a pilot, not a meteorologist.

True he's not though he also is not an idiot and can still make the judgement that a big raging storm that can be seen from space would require massive amounts of energy and that Thanos could still be above even that again as you've said we're talking about a guy who can make moonbusting weapons and devise a way to destroy Ego a celestial by attacking at his core.

 

[Dalesean027]

So what other than the tesseract needs recalcing to be applicable if anything? The nukes maybe since that seems to be a little contentious

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Still sick atm, but I guess I'll address the Tesseract feat.

The feat actually calculates the radiation from the heat source to the Tesseract per second, which is why there was a big fuss about what emissivity to be used since it's really just assuming as we don't know what the heat source is. So there isn't really an issue there.

The comment states that the problem with the calc is that the result is in Watts (being the rate of radiation rather than the energy it tanked), not Joules, and it isn't quantifiable without a timeframe. However, according to our Calculations page (Heat, Radiation and Nuclear-like Explosions) as well when I asked DontTalkDT a while ago, it is considered acceptable enough as an approximation, at least for the purposes of our wiki, so that shouldn't be an issue.

What intrigues me more is how he got 2.7e12 Joules only even though he high-balled with the density of water. That seems to be an issue with maximum internal energy intake, that the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source, which is the reason why surviving the core of the Sun is only 8-A on our wiki rather than the Low 6-B value calculated from radiation+conduction.

tl;dr The calc calculates the radiation energy from the heat source to the Tesseract (not the other way round), so that isn't an issue. The point made about it being in Watts rather than Joules is valid but is considered reliable enough for the purposes of our wiki. However, the point about how mcdeltat gets a far lower result is also valid since the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

I still think Thor's feat of surviving a neutron star needs re-evaluated due to it being entirely based on a single guidebook quote. Plus it contradicts tons of other statements on Nidavellir being called a star as well as invalidating Thor's current tier.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I still think Thor's feat of surviving a neutron star needs re-evaluated due to it being entirely based on a single guidebook quote. Plus it contradicts tons of other statements on Nidavellir being called a star as well as invalidating Thor's current tier.

I doesn't really contradict anything. The Neutron Star Thor was exposed to is just cold. The only Neutron stars that are super hot are "relatively" young ones. There's plenty of other colder Neutron Stars in the universe, they're just far harder to find because the light/X-Rays the emit are so much weaker.

 

[Dalesean027]

Still sick atm, but I guess I'll address the Tesseract feat.

The feat actually calculates the radiation from the heat source to the Tesseract per second, which is why there was a big fuss about what emissivity to be used since it's really just assuming as we don't know what the heat source is. So there isn't really an issue there.

The comment states that the problem with the calc is that the result is in Watts (being the rate of radiation rather than the energy it tanked), not Joules, and it isn't quantifiable without a timeframe. However, according to our Calculations page (Heat, Radiation and Nuclear-like Explosions) as well when I asked DontTalkDT a while ago, it is considered acceptable enough as an approximation, at least for the purposes of our wiki, so that shouldn't be an issue.

What intrigues me more is how he got 2.7e12 Joules only even though he high-balled with the density of water. That seems to be an issue with maximum internal energy intake, that the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source, which is the reason why surviving the core of the Sun is only 8-A on our wiki rather than the Low 6-B value calculated from radiation+conduction.

tl;dr The calc calculates the radiation energy from the heat source to the Tesseract (not the other way round), so that isn't an issue. The point made about it being in Watts rather than Joules is valid but is considered reliable enough for the purposes of our wiki. However, the point about how mcdeltat gets a far lower result is also valid since the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source.

Thanks for giving some input even though you aren't feeling your best, be sure to take a break to care for yourself. Feel better soon

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Still sick atm, but I guess I'll address the Tesseract feat.

The feat actually calculates the radiation from the heat source to the Tesseract per second, which is why there was a big fuss about what emissivity to be used since it's really just assuming as we don't know what the heat source is. So there isn't really an issue there.

The comment states that the problem with the calc is that the result is in Watts (being the rate of radiation rather than the energy it tanked), not Joules, and it isn't quantifiable without a timeframe. However, according to our Calculations page (Heat, Radiation and Nuclear-like Explosions) as well when I asked DontTalkDT a while ago, it is considered acceptable enough as an approximation, at least for the purposes of our wiki, so that shouldn't be an issue.

What intrigues me more is how he got 2.7e12 Joules only even though he high-balled with the density of water. That seems to be an issue with maximum internal energy intake, that the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source, which is the reason why surviving the core of the Sun is only 8-A on our wiki rather than the Low 6-B value calculated from radiation+conduction.

tl;dr The calc calculates the radiation energy from the heat source to the Tesseract (not the other way round), so that isn't an issue. The point made about it being in Watts rather than Joules is valid but is considered reliable enough for the purposes of our wiki. However, the point about how mcdeltat gets a far lower result is also valid since the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source.

So is the feat still valid or no?

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Neutral here but what Qaw and Wingo said here is make sense for me

 

[ArkhamDC06]

Still sick atm, but I guess I'll address the Tesseract feat.

The feat actually calculates the radiation from the heat source to the Tesseract per second, which is why there was a big fuss about what emissivity to be used since it's really just assuming as we don't know what the heat source is. So there isn't really an issue there.

The comment states that the problem with the calc is that the result is in Watts (being the rate of radiation rather than the energy it tanked), not Joules, and it isn't quantifiable without a timeframe. However, according to our Calculations page (Heat, Radiation and Nuclear-like Explosions) as well when I asked DontTalkDT a while ago, it is considered acceptable enough as an approximation, at least for the purposes of our wiki, so that shouldn't be an issue.

What intrigues me more is how he got 2.7e12 Joules only even though he high-balled with the density of water. That seems to be an issue with maximum internal energy intake, that the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source, which is the reason why surviving the core of the Sun is only 8-A on our wiki rather than the Low 6-B value calculated from radiation+conduction.

tl;dr The calc calculates the radiation energy from the heat source to the Tesseract (not the other way round), so that isn't an issue. The point made about it being in Watts rather than Joules is valid but is considered reliable enough for the purposes of our wiki. However, the point about how mcdeltat gets a far lower result is also valid since the temperature of the object cannot get higher than the temperature of the source.

Hope you'll get better as soon as possible

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

I doesn't really contradict anything. The Neutron Star Thor was exposed to is just cold. The only Neutron stars that are super hot are "relatively" young ones. There's plenty of other colder Neutron Stars in the universe, they're just far harder to find because the light/X-Rays the emit are so much weaker.

I'm saying that using the current calc Thor's durability would be 7-B which invalidates his current tiering as well as a majority of high tier MCU characters.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm saying that using the current calc Thor's durability would be 7-B which invalidates his current tiering as well as a majority of high tier MCU characters.

Why would it invalidate his current 6-C rating when feat's energy yield would only be the total amount of energy taken to the body in one single second (Due to the whole watts and joules/sec shenanigans surrounding the feat)? Thor survived being blasted by it for more than a few minutes before the actual damage started to kick in (One second would be literally a cakewalk for him). One second worth of the energy would be his durability, any longer and that's endurance.

Also Awakened Thor fought against Hela, who can shatter Uru, Uru itself being the sole metal used to forge Thanos's Infinity Gauntlet, which tanked the 5.836 gigaton (Island level) snap surge.

 

[KLOL506]

Heck, we discussed the Neutron Star feat in this very CRT where I calc'd it myself and Qawsedf gave me the scan.

 

[Dalesean027]

I'm saying that using the current calc Thor's durability would be 7-B which invalidates his current tiering as well as a majority of high tier MCU characters.

this also just ignores what Thor survived or dealt in his own destruction of sokovia and his other AP feats that he'd have to scale to in durability(i.e Jotunheim, bifrost bridge, etc.) so like I'm not sure where you're going with that