Newer SU continuation revision

[WeeklyBattles]

Why is it so hard to believe a ship can be a stone wall? Seriously explain your thought process to me im genuinely curious

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

And the ship's AP scale to that since you gave no reason for it not to, and this wiki assumes Durablity and AP are the same unless proven not to be; you point is?

 

[Damage3245]

Technically AP doesn't automatically scale to Durability.

It's just that often Durability must scale to AP in a lot of cases, but not every case.

Anyway - I think the main issue here is that this calc is being used to support every characters ratings instead of looking at what the characters should be rated at.

What would the ratings be if it was accepted?

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Yeah, it's not every case, that's what the "unless proven not to be" is there for, its just that no actual proof was shown in this case.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

And the ship's AP scale to that since you gave no reason for it not to, and this wiki assumes Durablity and AP are the same unless proven not to be; you point is?

That's only as a baseline, if there is evidence against it, such as a scaling chain that makes sense, that chain takes presedent.

 

[Antoniofer]

Why so much discussion about the Warship? No one scale to it anyway, we already discussed it; it also produce some possitive feedback scaling.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

We already have a scaling chain that makes sense: Jasper = Garnet < Opal < Ship.

 

[Damage3245]

Why so much discussion about the Warship? No one scale to it anyway, we already discussed it; it also produce some possitive feedback scaling.

Weekly is suggesting we scale Jasper to the ship.

I personally disagree with it.

I think we could start to get better scaling if we calced Sunstone's durability feat.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Im not suggesting Jasper scales to the ship, im suggesting she scales to its AP

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Ship AP < Jasper = Garnet < Opal < Ship durability

This is the scaling chain. Consistent and logical.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

There is no reason for the ship's AP to be lower than its Durability, or at least you've not given any.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo And why is that? You have yet to give a reason

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

And the ship's AP scale to that since you gave no reason for it not to, and this wiki assumes Durablity and AP are the same unless proven not to be; you point is?

 

[Damage3245]

> Im not suggesting Jasper scales to the ship, im suggesting she scales to its AP

That is essentially what I meant.

And the AP of the ship would be what? The ship itself has no incredible feats aside from an ineffectual explosion against Steven's shield and a wide-spread barrage that didn't even poof Amethyst and Pearl.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Even in verses like Star Wars ships have dura that is higher than their AP 99% of the time

 

[Darkmon_cns]

@Paulo And why is that? You have yet to give a reaso

Ya... he's given his reason 3 times now...

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Damage Upscaling from the ship in the comics

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Darkmon No he really hasnt

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

That's Star Wars' problem. We're talking about Steven Universe, completely different verse which has nothing to do with Star Wars.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo Yes and in this case it is consistently proven to have a lower AP than tis durability, your point?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo How about sto using double standards and accept facts. The ship here has lower AP than its durability. Spaceships in fiction in general almost always have dura higher than their ap

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

No, it isn't, since you've given no proof, unless you count "Jasper tanked it", but its much simpler to just assume its an outlier.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo Im not the one who has to give proof, you do in this case. All youve done is say ;yeah its equal because why not' with nothing to back it up

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The fact that its core didnt kill jasper immediately is more than enough proof that its AP is lower than its durability

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I'm not the one who has to give proof, you do in this case. All youve done is say ;yeah its a stone wall because why not' with nothing to back it up

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Also the ship let off lasers close to amethyst and pearl and all they did was get knocked away, not instantly poofed

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The fact that its core didnt kill jasper immediately is more than enough proof that its AP is lower than its durability

Also the ship let off lasers close to amethyst and pearl and all they did was get knocked away, not instantly poofed

THERE is your proof. Now its your turn. Prove me wrong.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

First one is an outlier, second one was because it didn't hit them, it hit the ground near them.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Jasper was point blank and it didnt kill her

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Not really, the ship being a stone wall really isn't suggested unless we start using your assumptions, instead of just using Occam's razor and going for the simple answer that the writers simply don't care about the powerscaling of the show being consistent.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Or, hear me out on this, or, you can stop acting like its inconsistent when its not and stop appealing to authorial intent

 

[Antoniofer]

I doubt that the core explosion is above the Warship fall itself, that completely destroyed the ship. Also, take into account that we do not scale with the rasoning of "not dying", the core still caused considerable more damage than any Garnet attack, rating her as such, would mean that any power attack of the same AP would cause great damage, Durability is for moderate damage.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Basically, the reason you're giving to assume the ship is a stone wall is Jasper's feat, but that requires way too many assumptions (that being that the ship's durability is massively above its AP with no other proof in order for Jasper's feat to be consistent), so it's easier to just say it's an outlier; the answer with less assumptions is the one you should generally pick.

 

[AidenBrooks999]

I think we could start to get better scaling if we calced Sunstone's durability feat.

Hardly doubt that would bring any relevant results.

In "not-rejected-calcs-yet" lists from the previous thread IIRC, there was:

• Eyeballs' durability at 4-5 Megatons (I saw other at 200 MT, but I don't know if it was accepted.. Is linked in Pearl's profile as her speed rating)
• Peridot's Escaped Pod at 84 Megatons (Pearl pierced it twice and Garnet broke it like an egg)
• 500+ Megatons Monster's blizzard (Though I have no idea where the feat came from)
• Small Town durability for Steven in S1-2, as well as for the Gem Drill
• Sapphire's 8-A casual baseball feat

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo what im saying not only requires no assumptions whatsoever, but unlike you ive actually given feats and evidence to back up my claims, somthing you have yet to do

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Antonio Jasper tanked the ship's core exploding and was ready to fight immediately after the ship landed on earth. She didnt just not die from it she tanked it.

Also Garnet visibly damaged Jasper multiple times although yes Jasper would be stronger than Garnet.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Basically, the reason you're giving to assume the ship is a stone wall is Jasper's feat, but that requires way too many assumptions (that being that the ship's durability is massively above its AP with no other proof in order for Jasper's feat to be consistent), so it's easier to just say it's an outlier; the answer with less assumptions is the one you should generally pick.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo Cool, keep repeating yourself instead of showing any shred of evidence to back your claims, thats how you win an argument here

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Aiden Sapphire has a tier 6 feat that ive been waiting for someone to calc, and the 500+ Megatons Monster's blizzard is from the comic

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

> Says there is no assumption whatsoever.

> I show the assumption.

> Tries to change the subject instead of responding to my point.