- 26,160
- 3,653
Probably, unless there is a problem I'm missing.Wrath Of Itachi said:So even if the bear wasn't running, we can calc the full running speed and scale it to sasuke for knocking it out? Should the calc be redone?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Probably, unless there is a problem I'm missing.Wrath Of Itachi said:So even if the bear wasn't running, we can calc the full running speed and scale it to sasuke for knocking it out? Should the calc be redone?
How big is it then??Damage3245 said:I'll check the bear calc tonight to see if it needs remaking. From what I can tell at first glance, the scaling puts the bear to be bigger than it actually is.
The recalc would be for that, I imagine.AstralKing7 said:How big is it then??
If I remember the comments, someone already brought this up. The rating is not because he stopped the bear, but because the bear should be able to produce that much energy using the normal top speed of a bear applied to it's size, which would obviously not hurt him unlike Sasuke's kick.Wrath Of Itachi said:The bear feat is not valid. The calc assumes the bear is running, when we can clearly see he isn't.
Again, why would we not assume a bear is capable of what normal bears are?Damage3245 said:I don't think that logic really works though.
Obviously just running normally isn't going to hurt you; but you ran head-first into a wall at top speed, you'd probably be knocked out.
So Sasuke kicking it in the head doesn't necessarily scale to the bear's hypothetical kinetic energy. Only to the amount of energy the bear had when he stopped it.
If you ran head-first into a spike in the wall, you'd die. So the argument of "We can scale Sasuke's AP by assuming the bear's running speed" isn't very convincing.UchihaSlayer96 said:I think Ricsi makes sense tbh. I mean Sasuke's kick has to be above the durability of the bear to knock him out right? That durability is enough for it not to die by running lol. So I think it makes sense tbh
Me, a feeble human? Of course. I'd get one shot by a wall or a spike or practically anything.Damage3245 said:I don't see what most of that has to actually do with my point. You can't get the durability of the bear just by assuming its running speed.
Someone running is not going to tell you their durability; they have to actually survive something or tank something. You do agree that there is a different between you running, and you running straight into a very small, narrow point, yes?
Not if said body part is tougher than the rest of the body.Damage3245 said:@Rocker1189; narrow in relation to the bear's body / huge size.
Means a lot less force is required to do damage.
I don't personally follow this.Damage3245 said:@Rocker1189; narrow in relation to the bear's body / huge size.
Means a lot less force is required to do damage.
Again, we assume the animal is equal in capabilities to its lesser and smaller equivalents. That automatically throws out "a person", because most animals have a thick enough skull, pelt and neck muscles to tank charging at something and other blunt trauma over they head.Damage3245 said:@LSirLancefulotDuLacl; I'll have to get into it more tomorrow after I've double-checked the calc, and possibly involve a few calc group members once I've gathered my points together but basically I don't think that the argument for kinetic energy of running = durability to carry much weight.
A person can be hurt by their own kinetic energy, meaning it can surpass their durability. Scaling their durability to just how quickly we assume them to be travel doesn't work unless there is support for it, and surface area is also important when considering the scaling of focused AP to durability.