MHA Class K Lifting Strength Issue.

[Slacjow]

Why is this feat cosidered as a lifting strength?

She didn't lift anything or push anything,she literally kicked metal doors and they flew away,that is a blatant AP feat.These doors are even damaged from the kick which we can see.

 

[Damage3245]

I'll be following this, because I do agree that this seems like a much clearer example of Striking Strength over Lifting Strength, and our page on Lifting Strength very clearly states that we treat the two of them separately.

 

[I_am_myself_You_are_you]

also, other similar calculations have been rejected, so a type of this lifting cannot be used than

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...sends_Raku_to_fly_several_meters_with_a_punch

 

[Rocker1189]

I kinda agree with this tbh, pretty sure most of the time this is rejected.

 

[Therefir]

also, other similar calculations have been rejected, so a type of this lifting cannot be used than

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...sends_Raku_to_fly_several_meters_with_a_punch

Your calc is fine, the fact that a few series makes this kind of feats contradictory doesn't mean the whole fiction has to follow the same rules. I don't know why DMUA or Antvasima keep forgetting this, we have been using this feats for over a year, and the formula itself was accepted by veteran calc group members.

 

[Damage3245]

@Therefir; I don't think that it can be considered just Lifting Strength. It's not like she stood in front of the door and then punch/kicked it open. She was charging down the hallway to it, meaning that the kinetic energy of her running towards it contributed to moving door as well as her kick.

 

[Therefir]

According to the trace of her leg, she kicked the door after making the charge, and that's what actually sends the door flying.

 

[Therefir]

Regardless, we should agree that feats like this require much more energy than simply lifting, that's why other calc group members think it can be used for Lifting Strength.

 

[Damage3245]

> Regardless, we should agree that feats like this require much more energy than simply lifting

But the Lifting Strength page notes that characters can have vastly higher striking strength than lifting strength.

 

[Therefir]

And that would be correct in some way, destroying a mere brick for example, would technically require dozens of tons of energy, but in cases like this, where heavy things are simply sent flying, it should be okay.

 

[KLOL506]

> Regardless, we should agree that feats like this require much more energy than simply lifting
But the Lifting Strength page notes that characters can have vastly higher striking strength than lifting strength.

That's for the energy part, where the energy of striking strength is greater than the potential energy of lifting, however, rapidly lifting things (For example, within a second) counts as AP, says so on the page

 

[Therefir]

Feats like this depends on case-by-case. The Lifting Strength page is worded in such a way that it refers to things like this as always outliers, but this shouldn't be the standard.

In the case of Miruko in particular, her feat is actually quite consistent with the feat of someone weaker (20% Deku).

 

[KLOL506]

I was referring to Damage, Therefir.

 

[Andytrenom]

This definitely seems like a striking strength feat as opposed to a lifting strength one

 

[Therefir]

I was referring to Damage, Therefir.

My intention was to expand on my earlier comment, but I sent my comment after yours and we got confused.

This definitely seems like a striking strength feat as opposed to a lifting strength one

I disagree, the formula doesn't lie, that's truly the force it would require to send that door flying with a kick.

Whether it's an outlier or not, whether it's inconsistent or contradictory as the Lifting Strength page seems to be implying, is a completely different matter.

 

[Antvasima]

And that would be correct in some way, destroying a mere brick for example, would technically require dozens of tons of energy, but in cases like this, where heavy things are simply sent flying, it should be okay.

This is a good point. Perhaps we need to slightly revise our definition to allow for cases such as this?

 

[Slacjow]

^I am not 100% sure but that will inflate actual lifting strength of some characters.

Some characters can send big things flying with their punches yet can't lift such weights.

 

[Therefir]

@Slacjow Then such feats are outliers for those characters, it's as simple as that.

 

[Therefir]

This is a good point. Perhaps we need to slightly revise our definition to allow for cases such as this?

Well, the Lifting Strength page already mentions "Likewise throwing or punching an object a certain height upwards can be used as lifting feats, as these would require greater strength then just lifting the object."

But there is a part in the second paragraph that I think it needs to be changed like this: "Furthermore it can't be assumed that a character that can physically produce the amount of energy used in lifting an object by a certain height can also lift it, if they have failed to demonstrate the ability to produce that level of Lifting Strength. It is a common trait within fiction to feature characters capable of vastly greater physical striking strength energy outputs than what would be required to lift weights that they are repeatedly shown to struggle with, but this should be treated differently on a case-by-case basis, as a trait like this does not necessarily apply to all work of fiction."

The last paragraph of the page should probably be deleted.

 

[Antvasima]

What paragraph do you wish to remove? After checking through the Lifting Strength page, I think that all of them seem important to keep.

 

[Antvasima]

Isn't this phrasing enough for allowing this particular case?

 

[Therefir]

What paragraph do you wish to remove? After checking through the Lifting Strength page, I think that all of them seem important to keep.

The one that says "Hence Lifting Strength and Striking Strength are in general not comparable and should be evaluated separately.", though it could be changed to "Lifting Strength and Striking Strength are in general not comparable and should be evaluated separately in most cases".

Isn't this phrasing enough for allowing this particular case?

That's what I thought too, but it wasn't enough to avoid cases like this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that seems reasonable to change. It doesn't seem to cause any harm.