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

[DontTalkDT]

I would prefer if most guns would stay out of Tier 10. Both because it would be a huge revision and because anyone not deep in our system would consider those ratings tremendously stupid. (with lots of comments about it probably following) "Street level", which could really include anything involved in street fights as far as the name goes, is a much nicer term for it IMO. Have less of an issue with some strong human being 9-C than with most guns being 10-A tbh.

Although, the main proposal in the OP seems to not really influence the upper borders of 10-A. One could consider raising the level if the sourcing issue is solved. Or one could leave it as it is. Humans vary tremendously enough that a 50J margin of error probably doesn't ruin things either.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk.

Are you able to figure out a workable solution for what I requested earlier in this thread?

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Humans vary tremendously enough that a 50J margin of error probably doesn't ruin things either.

Human level+ .22 LR, lesgo.

 

[Pikaman]

Human level+ .22 LR, lesgo.

This is a staff discussion thread, it isn’t the place to make memes about the potential consequences of any changes being considered

 

[Jasonsith]

After all the talks... What even are the exact reason for change in borders of Tiers 10-B, 10-A and 9-C again?

Alternatively, do we have something to explore on striking strength to take into account the attack potency over volume or striking force over surface area?

 

[KLOL506]

After all the talks... What even are the exact reason for change in borders of Tiers 10-B, 10-A and 9-C again?

New values found.

That's it. That's the joke.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk.

Are you able to figure out a workable solution for what I requested earlier in this thread?

@DontTalkDT

 

[Pikaman]

Bump

 

[DontTalkDT]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk.

Are you able to figure out a workable solution for what I requested earlier in this thread?

You mean defining durability values to be bulletproof for some firearm?
Well, by our usual practices it's unquantifiably above the muzzle energy of the bullet (which one can usually look up on wikipedia for whichever gun in question).

 

[KLOL506]

Alternatively, do we have something to explore on striking strength to take into account the attack potency over volume or striking force over surface area?

Not really, no.

 

[Antvasima]

You mean defining durability values to be bulletproof for some firearm?

Yes.

Well, by our usual practices it's unquantifiably above the muzzle energy of the bullet (which one can usually look up on wikipedia for whichever gun in question).

So we cannot adjust our usual practices to the energy resistance per area of impact in this particular case?

 

[InfiniteDay]

So we cannot adjust our usual practices to the energy resistance per area of impact in this particular case?

I don't see any reason why we can't do this.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that it would be very useful for us at least.

 

[Pikaman]

I just want to remind those in this thread that the point of this thread at no point was about finding a value for “bulletproof” durability or anything gun related at all. It was to find the energy of an average human punch in joules and use that as baseline 10-A instead of our current value, alongside a few other issues to be potentially discussed, with guns and how we treat them being one of them. This thread has violently derailed and if there is such a lengthy discussion around guns to be had I’d greatly appreciate it if we left discussion around them for possibly another thread

 

[KLOL506]

So we cannot adjust our usual practices to the energy resistance per area of impact in this particular case?

'Fraid not.

Not that this is the point of this thread anyway.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't see any reason why we can't do this.

Because it doesn't line up with how our Tiering System operates.

The best we can do is a "higher with piercing damage" rating.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, I think that it would be very useful for us at least.

Again, it is not compatible with our Tiering System in the least bit, and multiple threads have been made on the topic in the past before for many years and all were rejected, with regards to bite force and bullets and other stuff like swords, spears, etc. As stated before the best we can possibly muster is "higher with piercing damage".

 

[Antvasima]

I just want to remind those in this thread that the point of this thread at no point was about finding a value for “bulletproof” durability or anything gun related at all. It was to find the energy of an average human punch in joules and use that as baseline 10-A instead of our current value, alongside a few other issues to be potentially discussed, with guns and how we treat them being one of them. This thread has violently derailed and if there is such a lengthy discussion around guns to be had I’d greatly appreciate it if we left discussion around them for possibly another thread

'Fraid not.

Not that this is the point of this thread anyway.

Okay. I will drop this subject now then. My apologies for derailing. It seemed like something important to mention at the time.

Please carry on with your previous discussion.

 

[KLOL506]

'Kay, so as per DontTalk's consensus, if someone can properly source the article's 135-150 J value from peer-reviewed scientific journals and documents, the starting boundary for Athlete level AKA max cap for Human level would be updated to 150 J. If you can't tho, this entire CRT is completely useless and we'd end up going back to the way things were.

And yeah, the naming change for 9-C has been thoroughly rejected, it will remain Street level as per DT's instructions.

Those are the conclusions ATM.

 

[Antvasima]

Is anybody here willing to help KLOL506 with this task please?

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

If you write down all of the staff and knowledgeable members who have helped out here previously, I can call for them again to help you out, if you wish.

 

[KLOL506]

If you write down all of the staff and knowledgeable members who have helped out here previously, I can call for them again to help you out, if you wish.

I mean, really the only thing left to do now is to find the scientific paper pdf source for the energy values.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. You can send a notification to some members that you think might be able to help you out with that then. DontTalk is likely far too busy though.

 

[AKM sama]

If the source is not available, I don't really think it's that big a deal and we can just leave it as it is.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

Is that fine with the rest of you?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

Is that fine with the rest of you?

I guess so.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we close this thread now then?

 

[Pikaman]

Are we confident we’ve done an adequate search for the possible source of the figure? It seems to be agreed upon by multiple articles, so I feel like it must have a root somewhere other than just fiction

 

[Pikaman]

A calculation finding the average human punch’s energy in joules has been accepted, stating that the average human punch is anywhere from 64.76993704 Joules to 99.55379212 Joules. Should those figures become our new baselines for 10-B and 10-A respectively? (Shoutout to @H3110l12345I20 for this)

 

[Pikaman]

In addition, should staff capable of evaluating the possibility of a tiering system change, as well as CGMs, be called here again now this thread has more reliable footing in terms of an accepted, backed up figure for an average human punch?

 

[Pikaman]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

A calculation finding the average human punch’s energy in joules has been accepted, stating that the average human punch is anywhere from 64.76993704 Joules to 99.55379212 Joules. Should those figures become our new baselines for 10-B and 10-A respectively? (Shoutout to @H3110l12345I20 for this)

Are these changes really that something groundbreaking? The 99.55 joules is literally close to the 10-A's starting cap.

 

[Pikaman]

Are these changes really that something groundbreaking? The 99.55 joules is literally close to the 10-A's starting cap.

I agree they’re very small changes, but they improve the accuracy of the tier’s boundaries. Considering our current boundaries are just based on approximating an arbitrary number from an article that mentions the joule output of different actions in sports, their closeness feels more coincidence than coinciding, and even if it wasn’t, it’s still better to be as close to accuracy as possible, even if it’s by literally 0.45 Joules

 

[KLOL506]

I agree they’re very small changes, but they improve the accuracy of the tier’s boundaries. Considering our current boundaries are just based on approximating an arbitrary number from an article that mentions the joule output of different actions in sports, their closeness feels more coincidence than coinciding, and even if it wasn’t, it’s still better to be as close to accuracy as possible, even if it’s by literally 0.45 Joules

0.45 joule difference isn't big enough to justify any kind of change to the energy values table at all, especially when this small of a difference is good enough to just then round it off to what we have right now.

However, you can use the calculations to support the borders instead. So while no value change would take place, a note in the Attack Potency page would certainly need to be added linking to the calculation that says "The reasonings for our Human level values" or somesuch". That I think is more than enough here TBF.

 

[Pikaman]

Ok, if we were to round out that value to 100 joules anyways, that’s fair enough. But there’s a whole 24.76 joules difference involved in baseline 10-B. That‘s too much to just round out

 

[KLOL506]

Ok, if we were to round out that value to 100 joules anyways, that’s fair enough. But there’s a whole 24.76 joules difference involved in baseline 10-B. That‘a too much to just round out

The absolute lowest values I see in the calc for both punches are 45 J. Which still falls within the 40-100 J borders.

 

[Pikaman]

The absolute lowest values I see in the calc for both punches are 45 J. Which still falls within the 40-100 J borders.

I’m looking at the “average human” tabber.

It falls into the border, but it’s still different than the current borders. If we re-calculated one of the feats we use for our borders in the stellar tiers, and the new figure was different to the current baseline, but still within the tier, we wouldn’t just keep the baseline the same, because it’s based on an inaccurate figure. Our 40 and 100 Joules figures are taken from an article than doesn’t even mention those numbers, surely this is better?

 

[Antvasima]

I personally wouldn't mind if we adjust the lower border for 10-B according to the relevant above-mentioned calculation.

However, if calculations are involved, our calc group members also have a say in such revisions.

 

[Antvasima]

A note in the Attack Potency page would certainly need to be added linking to the calculation that says "The reasonings for our Human level values" or somesuch". That I think is more than enough here TBF.

I think that this seems like a very good idea.