Piercing & Cutting Damage | Attack Potency Revision

[DemiiPowa]

Pre-note: Don't worry, this isn't some mass, site-wide revision.
Now, onto the subject.​

Adding Piercing and Cutting to the current Attack Potency page:​

---

There are many instances in fiction where a character is seen tanking or just outright shrugging off massive scale attacks, or stuff like explosions or just blowing up buildings etc.
But then these characters, in their own verse, are susceptible to being cut, or stabbed/impaled. I don't think it does much harm to differentiate the types of damage in profiles (when its applicable).

Like, for instance, how we have 5 different types of speed: Combat, Reaction, Travel, Flight, and Attack.

I really want to highlight Travel Speed and Flight Speed particularly because not every profile has these, and rightfully so, this isn't applicable to every single character in fiction (since every character cannot fly for example), therefore we only apply it when the character has a visibly and drastically different Travel, or Flight speed in comparison to their normal combat speed or reactions.

This is also because piercing and cutting damage is significantly more potent than just blunt force (since piercing is just the application of the same amount of force focused in a small area instead of being spread out), which is what our current standards only really document for the Destructive Capability.

For example:
A 10-B character would be able to withstand as many 10-B level attacks as they're able to, however if they get stabbed with a knife, it completely ignores that, given that the knife-weilder is strong enough.

---

​

Proposal:​

Simply, I'm just proposing doing a small revision to the aforementioned Attack Potency page, and that characters that have notably different Piercing or Cutting AP/Durability be able to list it, if the page calls for it.

This isn't necessary similarly to Travel Speed or Flight Speed, and does not apply to every single character, nor does it need to. This is also notable in matchups where both participants have relative durability and attack potency but one of them is capable of piercing the other with a sword or a blade of some sort.

A few examples of what pages could look like are:
Small Building level Cutting (Capable of cutting a small meteor the size of [...])
Human level physically, Wall level Piercing (Fought Justin in an afterschool fight, Is normally equipped with, and has caused Justin to bleed, from stabbing him with a knife when his punches did no damage)

For the revision, under the "Destructive Capacity" section, it could look like:

Destructive Capacity​

---

Destructive Capacity is the term used to determine the amount of damage a character can produce. It is normally the deciding factor of VS matches along with Speed. There are three types of Destructive Capacity used for VS purposes: Piercing, Cutting, and Blunt force. The term "Destructive Capacity" normally refer to conventional forms of damage and aren't specified. It is measured in units of energy.

Destructive Capacity
The amount of damage a character is normally capable of producing, be it though physical attacks or some other supernatural means. This is simply the amount of destruction this character is usually capable of outputting.

Piercing
The amount of damage a character can produce by piercing something.

Cutting
Cutting is the damage a character can output by shearing, cutting, slicing, etcetera. This can be produced by a blade or any capable sharp object, or the user if they're physically able.

 

[DemiiPowa]

@Abstractions @Agnaa @AKM sama @Antvasima @Armorchompy @Crazylatin77 @Damage3245 @DMUA @Dereck03 @DontTalkDT @ElixirBlue

 

[DemiiPowa]

@Firestorm808 @Jaften @Jasonsith @Just_a_Random_Butler @KLOL506 @LordGriffin1000 @Maverick_Zero_X @Moritzva @Mr._Bambu @Phoenks @QrowBarr @Rendynoc0unter @Shadowbokunohero @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Tllmbrg @Wokistan @Zaratthustra

 

[Antvasima]

I am pretty sure that DontTalk has rejected this type of revision several times already.

 

[DemiiPowa]

How come? This seems pretty reasonable

 

[DemiiPowa]

Id also like to point out another thread(s) similar to this topic was created some time ago and it seems we already do a sub-component of this.
• https://vsbattles.com/threads/guns-ap-and-pircing-damage.155214/#post-5847947
• https://vsbattles.com/threads/real-life-crt-guns-blades-and-spears-piercing-damage.155246

It would make more sense to just allow characters with it to officially list it in their pages.

 

[Firestorm808]

What is our stance on wolverine claws?

 

[Jasonsith]

What is our stance on wolverine claws?

Wolverine claws are special:
The adamantium claws mean Wolverine's claws have their own special durability negation methods aside from the traditional piercing damage.


I am neutral so far - but if such addition of "ability" is accepted, I am wondering if this worth noting:
There is a "converse" of piercing attack: the area-of-effect attack. An attack that does a big area of attack, and characters need some travel speed to dodge such attack depending on the blast radius. The drawback is that small-sized characters may survive such attacks due to their smaller surface area in touch or easy access to find cover to shelter out damage. (Why we can step cockroaches to death with one stomp but sometimes not for the ants.)

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Isn't it because it acts similar to dura neg? The better, more precise and more accurately you cut or pierce the more you'll negate the durability in some way

Which is why characters can get hurt by them from for example weaker characters as it doesn't acquire you to use as much force as a blunt attack... So I think it being an attack potency doesn't make sense as it's not actually changing anything from your regular blunt attack potency

That's kinda what I think, don't think I explained it well tho

 

[Propellus]

I'm pretty sure that piercing/slashing damage are meant to determine on how much you can resist those, considering that they can ignore durability

 

[Firestorm808]

Wolverine claws are special:
The adamantium claws mean Wolverine's claws have their own special durability negation methods aside from the traditional piercing damage.


I am neutral so far - but if such addition of "ability" is accepted, I am wondering if this worth noting:
There is a "converse" of piercing attack: the area-of-effect attack. An attack that does a big area of attack, and characters need some travel speed to dodge such attack depending on the blast radius. The drawback is that small-sized characters may survive such attacks due to their smaller surface area in touch or easy access to find cover to shelter out damage. (Why we can step cockroaches to death with one stomp but sometimes not for the ants.)

I'm reading the current wolverine profile, and we do not provide notes regarding any durability negation properties.

 

[DemiiPowa]

I'm pretty sure that piercing/slashing damage are meant to determine on how much you can resist those, considering that they can ignore durability

In the case of characters who have piercing/slashing damage, they logically should be able to "ignore durability" against characters who have no feats of resisting anything similar.

 

[DemiiPowa]

Wolverine claws are special:
The adamantium claws mean Wolverine's claws have their own special durability negation methods aside from the traditional piercing damage.


I am neutral so far - but if such addition of "ability" is accepted, I am wondering if this worth noting:
There is a "converse" of piercing attack: the area-of-effect attack. An attack that does a big area of attack, and characters need some travel speed to dodge such attack depending on the blast radius. The drawback is that small-sized characters may survive such attacks due to their smaller surface area in touch or easy access to find cover to shelter out damage. (Why we can step cockroaches to death with one stomp but sometimes not for the ants.)

I think this is already a thing with Small Size, but im not sure.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think we already have a different thread talking about this. And while it is agreed piercing and cutting attacks can harm characters of higher tier, it was also rejected to give higher ratings via cutting/piercing. But I think a proposal to simply add "Higher via cutting/piercing" to our various Real World guns similar to our animal profiles having it via sharp claws and teeth was being okay.

 

[Agnaa]

The issue, as I see it, is that they shouldn't be treated completely differently. A character who can withstand 3-A blunt force attacks won't be injured by 8-C piercing attacks. But to properly index both of them under the same system would require massive restructuring of our tiering system, and a redo of almost all AP/dura calcs.

Heat, and particularly cold, has far better reason for splitting durability, and can be done far more feasibly, but we've dragged out implementing even that.

Maybe your suggestion could work as a half-measure for distinguishing attacks with smaller surface areas, but idk how much benefit there would be compared to the tradeoffs. How many characters actually have significantly different piercing/blunt AP/dura, in a way that isn't done through equipment/skills that are already indexed separately? Note that for this to happen, they would have to fight someone and have only one of those two types of attack work, without it being done through equipment or an ability.

Also, if this change is made, it should absolutely not go into the destructive capacity section. That pretty much just exists to point out a term we don't really care about for indexing.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah this idea has been rejected repeatedly numerous times. DontTalkDT was very adamant that shit like this should never pass through.

Wolverine's claws are adamantium, which is a fictional metal and does not follow IRL principles. A lot of other fictional weapons also do not follow this principle.

 

[KLOL506]

Piercing damage isn't necessarily indicative of higher AP, it is just your own strength transferred more efficiently and thus can't be designated as dura neg either way, as under normal circumstances with a normal ordinary blade there is no way in hell you yourself can be 10-B and 9-B with a sword, it would still require impossible levels of strength on your front, else you risk damaging the blade itself or yourself.

Guns are guns, no point in going the roundabout way with that.

 

[Firestorm808]

Yeah this idea has been rejected repeatedly numerous times. DontTalkDT was very adamant that shit like this should never pass through.

Wolverine's claws are adamantium, which is a fictional metal and does not follow IRL principles. A lot of other fictional weapons also do not follow this principle.

Regarding Adamantium, do we have an in-verse reason regarding its cutting power? Is it true durability negation or just generically stronger?

 

[KLOL506]

Regarding Adamantium, do we have an in-verse reason regarding its cutting power? Is it true durability negation or just generically stronger?

It's the latter. It is considered to be a "virtually indestructible" steel alloy as per the official Marvel page.

EDIT: The claws are also stated to be capable of piercing almost anything solely due to its strength.

 

[Damage3245]

How would this factor into scaling a character's durability from their AP? Would we avoid doing it in these cases?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Usually blades and stuff scale to about the same tier (downscale to the durability they overcome by some unquantified extent).
However, if there are sufficiently good in-universe evidence that a blade has a higher tier than the wielder usually has (this can be sharpness, but also anything else, like magic) I'm fine with giving it a separate tier.

However, I don't think we need an extra section of the AP page for that. It's just one of many ways a character can have a separate AP rating. We already give out separate ratings for special techniques or separate durability statistics for things like resistances. This is just one of many mechanisms by which such separate ratings could be produced. I don't think it's really a special case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Technically speaking, a metal as sharp/durable as Adamantium supposedly if it existed would also require excess levels of molecular fusion energy to even be that durable/sharp in the first place thus would result pressure resistance, specific heat capacity, and possibly its density would be in extraordinary levels. But obviously, it would be impossible to study that without abusing calc stacking. And iirc, last I checked; Adamantium is part of a Tier 2 scaling chain which make the idea of calculating anything even more unquantifiable. But either way, Adamantium blades being X tier via cutting is the way to go. Durability Negation by definition means it ignores durability by default and we only give that if the precision is on an atomic level, or spatial level and wouldn't really work for "Super metals that are just really sharp."

 

[Antvasima]

Usually blades and stuff scale to about the same tier (downscale to the durability they overcome by some unquantified extent).
However, if there are sufficiently good in-universe evidence that a blade has a higher tier than the wielder usually has (this can be sharpness, but also anything else, like magic) I'm fine with giving it a separate tier.

However, I don't think we need an extra section of the AP page for that. It's just one of many ways a character can have a separate AP rating. We already give out separate ratings for special techniques or separate durability statistics for things like resistances. This is just one of many mechanisms by which such separate ratings could be produced. I don't think it's really a special case.

I agree with this.

 

[KLOL506]

Seems like this thread has been rejected based on DT's reasonings.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[Antvasima]

I think so, yes. I will handle it.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.