Our lightning standards (Staff only)

[Antvasima]

Hello.

This is a continuation of the following thread, in which the staff (particularly the calc group members) are supposed to discuss how to practically apply any potential sensible and workable improvements to our lightning standards, preferably in collaboration with DontTalkDT.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1574626

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if somebody could inform all of the calc group members, along with DontTalkDT and Kaltias, about this thread.

 

[ThePerpetual]

I have nothing new to offer as of now, but I've been following this... so, no need, for me. Let's try to keep things a bit calmer than last time, shall we?

I'll check back up on this in the morning.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I agree that we should do our best to remain polite, patient, and reasonable.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Thermal speed of a current can be similar to lightning. At ~26 Celsius, for example, the speed can be as high as 70km/s, or lower. Which proves perfectly that conducting on water or, worse, causing muscle contraction = \ = being Mach 1300

Thermal speed has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of lightning, as far as I am aware. (it measures the back and forth bouncing speed of the particles, which isn't in any particular direction)

And why do you repeat the "conducting on water Ôëá Mach 1300" point? As I said twice now this criteria are not supposed to proof speed, they are supposed to proof scientific nature.

Because everyone uses these vague "conducts on water and metal" criteria as proof that the lightning the fire is MHS without any further proof whatsoever, such as the AP one you mentioned? It's definitely a non-sequitur to say "real electricity conducts on water and looks like lightning, therefore any electric current that conducts on water travels at the speed of lightning".
I agree with the fact that just conducting through water isn't sufficient, without the AP criteria.

But... if people actually claim that they are going against the current rules.

It is required to show that the electricity carries an energy of at least 5 billion joules or a voltage of around 100 million volts in order to qualify.
	~ The Rules​

As I thought I made sure you understood priorly the AP critera is obligatory. It is absolutely necessary for it to be fulfilled for anything that isn't cloud to ground lightning. Just "lightning conducts to water" would at the current state of the rules not be accepted.

The minimum requirement involving conduction would be "conducts through water/metal + one other criteria + the AP criteria".


If the formulation on that page doesn't get that across it is, from my side, no problem to change it to an equivalent formulation that is more clear.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out DontTalk.

 

[Kepekley23]

Thermal speed has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of lightning, as far as I am aware. (it measures the back and forth bouncing speed of the particles, which isn't in any particular direction)

Depends. Thermal speed is the speed of the average KE of the atoms in a system, in a certain temperature. Plus, I didn't say anything about lightning speed, my point was that an electric current could be far slower than lightning even with all these criteria.

As I thought I made sure you understood priorly the AP critera is obligatory. It is absolutely necessary for it to be fulfilled for anything that isn't cloud to ground lightning. Just "lightning conducts to water" would at the current state of the rules not be accepted.

If that was your intention, it seems a little poorly-worded. It implies that it can be already recognized as real lightning if it has one of the criteria I mentioned:

"Lightning directly produced by a character is only considered as real lightning if it has demonstrated some properties that real lightning has. Some examples are:"

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, I can agree that it might be a bit unclear. (Probably because the AP criteria was an addition later on)

It was the intended result of the thread where that was decided on, though.


If someone unlocks the page I can fix that much right away.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will unlock the page for you. Tell me here when you are done.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Done. Everyone ok with how it is written now?

 

[Kepekley23]

It looks god, but what about what Azathoth, Matt and I said on the thread? That harming a character with a certain level of durability shouldn't automatically make the electricity that fast, because low-ends are a thing?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, as I said before in my opinion that is just an issue of determining outliers.

One should be as careful with it as with to the same degree as if one uses the fact that A harmed B for powerscaling A to B.


As such a don't think that an extra rule for that is required, given that outliers are a consideration for every feat and criteria.

 

[Antvasima]

I have locked the page, but if you wish to make a note that our members should take care to not include outliers in their evaluations, I can unlock it again.

 

[Antoniofer]

I think that the main problem is that people were giving that speed to electric attacks just based in previous calcs/feats rather than the nature of the attack itself. When we added the 5 billion joules, people considered that a replacement of the previous rules rather than a addition, bumping anything whose appearance come close to electricity to MHS levels. Don't think that outliers is the issue here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Do you wish to make a note of that within the page?

 

[Antoniofer]

I'm not good doing notes, not the best redacting them; the rules before that revision were good (not counting the ones being developed in the current discussion), but when adding the energy part we gotta make sure that we are acually being "stricter" and still has to follow the previous requeriments.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Does somebody else want to write such a note?