(NEW CALCULATION) Changing Baseline 10-B and 10-A (TIERING SYSTEM CHANGE)

[Armorchompy]

Unless there's some issues I'm not aware of I wouldn't oppose allowing characters to be rated off being fully bulletproof, as long as the rating doesn't end up being unbelievably high. That said, we've strayed very far away from what the thread is actually about.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Unless there's some issues I'm not aware of I wouldn't oppose allowing characters to be rated off being fully bulletproof, as long as the rating doesn't end up being unbelievably high.

I mean...again, this caps at 8-B at the highest using the most powerful firearm caliber that's not a frickin' tank or battleship projectile.
And it's still pretty low into 8-B too: 18.7 Tons

 

[KLOL506]

I have a minor disagreement with the calc to be bulletproof, in the case of of it using the difference between the surface area of a human with the contact area of a bullet tip.

I believe simply using 1 m² would be much better to use than the surface area of a person, which would actually downgrade the durability by a decent bit; almost half. (it would also make it not reliant on the size of a creature, as larger creatures would actually inflate the surface area difference)

Technically that's cross-sectional area, not surface area. Cross-sectional area is around 40-50% total surface area, and we use cross-sectional area as that is orthogonal to the direction where the bullet impacts. So it would be less than 1 m^2. You'd be using 0.68 m^2

Using 1m² and pixel scaling a 9mm bullet tip, I found the contact area to be like 14.7mm². That's an area difference of around 67,910, now using 481 joules for a 9mm, that comes to around being able to endure 33,530,510 joules to become bulletproof to 9mm. (9-A)

Now note: This isn't just tanking 9mm, but outright being bulletproof to them.

BTW, @DontTalkDT straight up rejected the entire premise of the calc as we don't calculate durability from piercing like this at all.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean...again, this caps at 8-B at the highest using the most powerful firearm caliber that's not a frickin' tank or battleship projectile.
And it's still pretty low into 8-B too: 18.7 Tons

And I'm pretty sure we still rejected it outright because our tiering system doesn't work with finding durability from piercing damage like this, as they can't account for force or perforative powers.

 

[KLOL506]

Unless there's some issues I'm not aware of I wouldn't oppose allowing characters to be rated off being fully bulletproof, as long as the rating doesn't end up being unbelievably high. That said, we've strayed very far away from what the thread is actually about.

Pretty much never going to happen as our tiering system is already incredibly linear due to being solely energy-based, and thus cannot account for piercing damage like this due to being unable to account for force or perforation. So I'd suggest it be dropped regardless.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Technically that's cross-sectional area, not surface area. Cross-sectional area is around 40-50% total surface area, and we use cross-sectional area as that is orthogonal to the direction where the bullet impacts. So it would be less than 1 m^2. You'd be using 0.68 m^2


BTW, @DontTalkDT straight up rejected this method as we don't calculate durability from piercing like this at all.

Eh, makes completely sense actually.
And not like I see any other method available.

Simply being 9-B isn't enough to completely tank 9-C bullets as even 9mm can eventually kill a grizzly bear. "Pressure" is a huge contributor, the energy of a bullet is negligible compared to what actually causes bullets to be so damn lethal in the first place; applying that energy over a very small surface area.

So if someone is baseline 9-B...and someone else is 9-C because they have a 9mm gun?

Realistically, a single bullet could actually outright kill that baseline 9-B, especially with a vital shot. They won't be able exactly tank it with ease.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

So while a 9mm "may have 9-C kinetic energy", that doesn't change the fact it can, in fact, REPORTED ON THE NEWS, kill 9-B creatures.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

With a single shot, may I add.
9mm may take some time, but a .44 Magnum has reported outright killed a grizzly before.

 

[KLOL506]

So while a 9mm "may have 9-C kinetic energy", that doesn't change the fact it can, in fact, REPORTED ON THE NEWS, kill 9-B creatures.

A lot of these 9-B creatures are actually being downgraded to below that (Bears too I reckon), as it was found out that most of these animals can often at times, kill themselves with their own tackles, as durability isn't linear IRL unlike in fiction.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Eh, still much durable than what .44 Magnum can yield still.

 

[KLOL506]

Where the animal was shot also plays a factor. Especially when you take into account internal organ damage, broken bones and stuff.

 

[Pikaman]

Can we get back on topic please?

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, might as well.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

One question...

What takes priority:
The actual energy value, or "being able to harm characters who can withstand such forces". AKA "being able to harm someone/thing with a specific durability".

If the latter, then I see absolute zero problems with standard humans being 10-A+ or 9-C, as people endure 9-C things all the time?

You know jumping off that one 0.5m ledge? Yeah, that's 10-A+ to 9-C kinetic energy on impact. Standing? Also 9-C potential energy typically.

And yes, I do mean a mere half-meter ledge. Most people would hit the ground with 9-C kinetic energy on impact, and since you'd most likely be completely to a complete halt on concrete...all the energy/force, is going back into your body according to Newton's Third Law. And yet, people are completely fine after that, even children can do that with zero problems; though it would be less KE due to children having lower masses than adults.

 

[KLOL506]

One question...

What takes priority:
The actual energy value, or "being able to harm characters who can withstand such forces". AKA "being able to harm someone/thing with a specific durability".

If the latter, then I see absolute zero problems with standard humans being 10-A+ or 9-C, as people endure 9-C things all the time?

You know jumping off that one 0.5m ledge? Yeah, that's 10-A+ to 9-C kinetic energy on impact. Standing? Also 9-C potential energy typically.

And yes, I do mean a mere half-meter ledge. Most people would hit the ground with 9-C kinetic energy on impact, and since you'd most likely be completely to a complete halt on concrete...all the energy/force, is going back into your body according to Newton's Third Law. And yet, people are completely fine after that, even children can do that with zero problems; though it would be less KE due to children having lower masses than adults.

The thing is tho, Ugarik just stated why that doesn't work for IRL humans.

Explanation:

It actually has little to do with surface area. Human fist is made of relatively soft and weak tissue. So when you land a punch more than 50% of impact energy goes back into your arm.

This issue can be fixed with brass knuckles

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Then, where does the remaining energy go?
It cannot violate Newton's Third Law, especially since this is an IRL case.

Where...does the remaining 50% go to? As every force has a equal opposing force.

 

[KLOL506]

Then, where does the remaining energy go?
It cannot violate Newton's Third Law, especially since this is an IRL case.

Where...does the remaining 50% go to? As every force has a equal opposing force.

That's what I'm wondering myself.

@Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @DontTalkDT Help?

 

[ElajRuengies]

One question...

What takes priority:
The actual energy value, or "being able to harm characters who can withstand such forces". AKA "being able to harm someone/thing with a specific durability".

If the latter, then I see absolute zero problems with standard humans being 10-A+ or 9-C, as people endure 9-C things all the time?

You know jumping off that one 0.5m ledge? Yeah, that's 10-A+ to 9-C kinetic energy on impact. Standing? Also 9-C potential energy typically.

And yes, I do mean a mere half-meter ledge. Most people would hit the ground with 9-C kinetic energy on impact, and since you'd most likely be completely to a complete halt on concrete...all the energy/force, is going back into your body according to Newton's Third Law. And yet, people are completely fine after that, even children can do that with zero problems; though it would be less KE due to children having lower masses than adults.

When you fall from half a meter though- there are two relevant scenarios to consider force/durability wise.

1. You're standing upright and land feet-first- in which case, your body does not come to a dead halt upon hitting the ground, because upon landing, your knees bend forward and your core to upper body continues to fall downward after your feet stop / hit the ground, decelerating gradually to zero as your legs straighten themselves out again. So you don't take the entire impact at once.

(Go ahead and jump 1.5 feet / 0.5 meters in the air, but keep your knees locked and legs completely straightened pencil-style when you land. Be as rigid as possible- make sure you land heels first, so your toes don't act as a break, and also that your knees do not bend At All when you land.

You'll feel the recoil go straight up your legs, and chances are your core/torso/back will bend or throw itself forward anyway when taking the impact, regardless of how rigid you try to be.)


2. You belly-flop from 0.5 meters above the ground. The impact on your body will be overall less intense due to the greater surface area that it's spread across. Additionally, the body still does not take the whole force at once, only instead of absorbing the shock by [some part bending so the rest of the body decelerates instead of coming to an immediate stop] like before, here the body itself squishes/flattens a bit so every part does not come to an immediate stop. Even then, it'll hurt and you could break your nose. (Ever belly-flop into a pool?)

Also, plenty of people have died from literally just falling over from standing height on to a hard surface.

Then, where does the remaining energy go?
It cannot violate Newton's Third Law, especially since this is an IRL case.

Where...does the remaining 50% go to? As every force has a equal opposing force.

That's what I'm wondering myself.

@Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @DontTalkDT Help?

Newton's Third Law is not being violated.

The fist doesn't take 50% of its force back, it takes 50% of it's energy. While Momentum must be conserved, Kinetic Energy can go a ton of places if the collision isn't "perfectly elastic."

Explanation:

It actually has little to do with surface area. Human fist is made of relatively soft and weak tissue. So when you land a punch more than 50% of impact energy goes back into your arm.

This issue can be fixed with brass knuckles

(I'd like to add that a lot of that comes from the fist/fingers crumpling, which is where the whole [roll of quarters in the hand] trick is for. Aside from the extra weight, it keeps the fist "solid" by preventing the fingers from crumpling inward during the collision, making a far greater impact.)

 

[KLOL506]

When you fall from half a meter though- there are two relevant scenarios to consider force/durability wise.

1. You're standing upright and land feet-first- in which case, your body does not come to a dead halt upon hitting the ground, because upon landing, your knees bend forward and your core to upper body continues to fall downward after your feet stop / hit the ground, decelerating gradually to zero as your legs straighten themselves out again. So you don't take the entire impact at once.

(Go ahead and jump 1.5 feet / 0.5 meters in the air, but keep your knees locked and legs completely straightened pencil-style when you land. Be as rigid as possible- make sure you land heels first, so your toes don't act as a break, and also that your knees do not bend At All when you land.

You'll feel the recoil go straight up your legs, and chances are your core/torso/back will bend or throw itself forward anyway when taking the impact, regardless of how rigid you try to be.)

Oh shit I completely forgot the legs and the spine.

 

[KLOL506]

I wonder what would happen if you try landing while curled up as a ball.

 

[ElajRuengies]

I wonder what would happen if you try landing while curled up as a ball.

I assume the butt would do the shock absorbing.

That's the problem with trying to use a simplified system meant for fictional characters on real life organisms.

In a lot of combat fiction, characters can be thought of as action figures of mostly-uniform composition, with stat tags that apply to the entire solid equally.

Real Life folk are a bundle of trillions of squishy things which exert and recieve different amounts of forces and energy depending on a crap ton of different variables.

 

[Antvasima]

We don't, it wielded 8-B to 8-A last I remember, but that was rejected.

I think that we genuinely need this information easily available though.

Waaaaaaaaaay too many firearms in the world for that to happen. You'd have to account for every variant as well.

I think that generalisations for the most common types should be sufficient. Would you be willing to handle it or collaborate with some other current or retired calc group member, such as @Executor_N0 , @Therefir , @Jasonsith , @Mr._Bambu , @Ugarik , or @AlexSoloVaAlFuturo ?

 

[Antvasima]

Just do the most typical/common ones then.

The chart for destroying material doesn't list every single material that exists now, does it? So what's the problem with listing the most typical bullets? Also, something is still better than nothing anyways.

Ageeed.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT straight up rejected the entire premise of the calc as we don't calculate durability from piercing like this at all.

Hmm. It would be very useful for us to have such information available though.

@DontTalkDT

Do you have any ideas for how acceptable versions of such calculations can be crafted?

 

[KLOL506]

Hmm. It would be very useful for us to have such information available though.

@DontTalkDT

Do you have any ideas for how acceptable versions of such calculations can be crafted?

Technically this is derailing from the main point of the subject at hand, so it'd be best to ask them on PM as said topic has been rejected many countless times before.

 

[KLOL506]

Just do the most typical/common ones then.

The chart for destroying material doesn't list every single material that exists now, does it? So what's the problem with listing the most typical bullets? Also, something is still better than nothing anyways.

Again, if the entire premise behind the calc is rejected, it'd be pointless to make variants of the other guns. We'd just need the main calibers used in modern militaries but again, given that our Tiering System is this simplified to account for fictional characters, it just can't happen.

 

[KLOL506]

I think that we genuinely need this information easily available though.

Except you can't use it, it doesn't work with our overtly-simplified Tiering System and it never will due to the countless inconsistencies this would result in.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Yet we still have real life animals and weapons in the system-

 

[Therefir]

I really don't see what we gain from this.

 

[KLOL506]

Yet we still have real life animals and weapons in the system-

That basically have their own rules to follow

 

[Antvasima]

Technically this is derailing from the main point of the subject at hand, so it'd be best to ask them on PM as said topic has been rejected many countless times before.

Except you can't use it, it doesn't work with our overtly-simplified Tiering System and it never will due to the countless inconsistencies this would result in.

Hmm. That is very unfortunate.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

That basically have their own rules to follow

Yet doesn't follow actual physics.

Also, I'm still waiting on an answer:

"What takes priority, the energy value, or the ability to harm something with a specified durability?"

As AP isn't all just "it has this much energy", it's also "it can harm something with this much durability "

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that we should return to the main topic here then, but if DontTalk or any of the calc group members that I called for earlier have workable ideas for defining the durability levels required to be bulletproof against different types of firearms, please send me a PM about it.

 

[KLOL506]

Yet doesn't follow actual physics.

Not true, KE works 100% in real life.

What does not work IRL however, is assuming the entire body is of linear durability on all parts of the body.

Also, I'm still waiting on an answer:

"What takes priority, the energy value, or the ability to harm something with a specified durability?"

As AP isn't all just "it has this much energy", it's also "it can harm something with this much durability "

AP is primarily about the energy yield of an attack.

Durability is primarily about the energy yield an object can take without any long-term damage.

Being able to harm something with a specified durability is part of the equation to get AP, but only because its durability is found to be at a certain energy yield.

So in the end, it all comes down to the energy yield involved.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Yet things IRL can harm things with a lot more durability due to the sheer number of different physics at play, including pressure.

You cannot find how "lethal" something is with just kinetic energy, especially irl.

 

[KLOL506]

Yet things IRL can harm things with a lot more durability due to the sheer number of different physics at play, including pressure.

You cannot find how "lethal" something is with just kinetic energy, especially irl.

Again, our tiering system is too linear to account for all these physics to apply to something as inconsistent as fiction, and we are not going to change that. My apologies.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Then how about the irl pages?
That's not fiction.

 

[KLOL506]

Then how about the irl pages?
That's not fiction.

Majority of the IRL animal profiles have already been given a "Higher with piercing damage" rating and have had their AP and durability ratings nerfed to a certain degree, guns and bullets will soon follow this premise I'd reckon.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Though I wonder how this would work with pretty realistic, low-tier verses.

Would they be like "10-A physically. 9-C to 9-B, far higher with piercing damage with firearms" or something?

 

[KLOL506]

Though I wonder how this would work with pretty realistic, low-tier verses.

Would they be like "10-A physically. 9-C, far higher with piercing damage with firearms" or something?

Case-by-case basis. Plus the CRT for the firearms have yet to be made.