Planet destruction via statement, how do I go about it?

[W0NDER3X]

What the title says. I would say assuming destruction of the surface is more appropriate than destruction of the planet itself, because of this. Do I have to post the statement in the Calculation Request Thread, or is there a set standard/AP when it comes to such statements, because I'm 100% sure they are rather common.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Yeah I want to know as well

 

[Dust_Collector]

This calc is commonly used for world destroying statements

 

[Bernkastelll]

This calc is commonly used for world destroying statements

Me on my way to try to understand how in the hell World Destroy statement is High 6-A

 

[AKUTO123]

Me on my way to try to understand how in the hell World Destroy statement is High 6-A

states that it destroyed the surface, not the whole, this calc is not the same as the completely destroyed world

 

[Bernkastelll]

states that it destroyed the surface, not the whole, this calc is not the same as the completely destroyed world

Look what Dust said
''This calc is commonly used for world destroying statements''

 

[Dust_Collector]

Yeah if a world destroying statement has no context besides just destroying the world the site just goes with surface busting.

If the statement is more clear like using planet instead of world then it's different, but normally this kinda stuff just gets shoved into Multi-Continent level.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Yeah if a world destroying statement has no context besides just destroying the world the site just goes with surface busting.

How do u get ''I will destroy the world'' to ''I will destroy the planet surface''?

 

[Dust_Collector]

I dunno, it's just how this site treats these statements. Something about being conservative I think? I don't remember the exact reasons why generic world destroying statements are treated as surface destruction.

 

[Bernkastelll]

I bet that there are no reason except headcanon

 

[Metalballrun]

How do u get ''I will destroy the world'' to ''I will destroy the planet surface''?

Entirely dependent on specific scenarios.
Though generally it's weighing the context of whether or not it refers to the actual destruction of the planet or just destroying the planet's surface which is, generally, what is known as the "world".

I've read a number of stories that has "destroy the world" statements and a lot of them aren't even surface-wiping when it happens, just life-wiping or causing irreparable property destruction, not even actual vaporization or pulverization of everything in the surface of the planet.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Entirely dependent on specific scenarios.
Though generally it's weighing the context of whether or not it refers to the actual destruction of the planet or just destroying the planet's surface which is, generally, what is known as the "world".

"Planet surface" is not even the first thing that people thinks when we talk about World, why is it "generally"? It makes no sense

 

[W0NDER3X]

Well, in the case of the character I'm having trouble with it's likely that it's actually pulverization of the surface since a weaker character is capable of blasting nearly an entire continent and the shockwaves of the blast traveled at at least 10s of kilometers per second. That same character is also capable of summoning a moon and shoving it up the planet.

 

[Loyd]

pretty sure rpgs do this alot, "some unknown date in the past X and Y had a clash that destroyed the world" when the feat really showed a ravaged and scarred planet.
It sounds better to just say destroy the world, i think people generally point to planet surface cause if it was literally destroy the world, the rpg protagonist would have no place to start.

 

[Bernkastelll]

pretty sure rpgs do this alot, "some unknown date in the past X and Y had a clash that destroyed the world" when the feat really showed a ravaged and scarred planet.
It sounds better to just say destroy the world, i think people generally point to planet surface cause if it was literally destroy the world, the rpg protagonist would have no place to start.

Thats a RPG problem then

 

[First_Witch]

Thats a RPG problem then

2 of the 3 most common definition of the word world are about civilization. The most common definition includes the planet, but a huge number of definitions dont.

 

[Loyd]

It might have become an assumption/stereotype? because of old jrpg/novels everytime ive noticed the phrase "the world was destroyed" it always shows a feat of a massive area in ruins or aflamed.

 

[Bernkastelll]

2 of the 3 most common definition of the word world are about civilization. The most common definition includes the planet, but a huge number of definitions dont.

?

It appeared more things related to earth than everything

 

[First_Witch]

Definition ansehen in = Looking up definition in categories.

Ähnlich = Similar

 

[Bernkastelll]

I dont see how " i will destroy the world" is related with "social interaction", "most common language", "a period of history", "all people", "stage of life" and others things that appeared there

 

[First_Witch]

No one says that it has to mean any of the lower definition? Like, literally the second most common definition per google is the denoution of specific regions that can be named by the word world. The human world refers to earth but it can likewise refer to civilization. Its context based, like so many things in the language. There is no single right definition of any word, in a subject like language. Especially not when language evolves and changes faster than Jeff bezos earning money.

 

[Bernkastelll]

No one says that it has to mean any of the lower definition? Like, literally the second most common definition per google is the denoution of specific regions that can be named by the word world. The human world refers to earth but it can likewise refer to civilization. Its context based, like so many things in the language. There is no single right definition of any word, in a subject like language. Especially not when language evolves and changes faster than Jeff bezos earning money.

Then why people always assume that its not planet? I saw that in a lot of threads, thats assuming the worst case despite planet being the most common

 

[First_Witch]

Then why people always assume that its not planet? I saw that in a lot of threads, thats assuming the worst case despite planet being the most common

Because there is precident for both. Not only that, destroying the world, assuming it actually means planet, isn't 100% planet level in the first place. Fragmenting the planet, cutting it in half, destroying big chunk of it etc, are all common planet destruction feats but they woudnt yield planet level. You said it yourself, its an assumption. Its the baseline assumption and not a guaranteed rule. If context points towards total planet destruction then that takes precedent.

 

[Loyd]

cause most cases with the statement "destroy the world" points to multi continental/surface destruction not literally like the Death star blowing up planets.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Because there is precident for both. Not only that, destroying the world, assuming it actually means planet, isn't 100% planet level in the first place. Fragmenting the planet, cutting it in half, destroying big chunk of it etc, are all common planet destruction feats but they woudnt yield planet level.

Ye it doesnt need to be planet lvl, just saying that almost never people accept it to be planet, which is weird

 

[Bernkastelll]

cause most cases with the statement "destroy the world" points to multi continental/surface destruction not literally like the Death star blowing up planets.

'kay, but its weird, it could accidently downplay verses that has it legit as planet but whatever

 

[First_Witch]

'kay, but its weird, it could accidently downplay verses that has it legit as planet but whatever

It would be in no way downplayed if the only statement of planet level destruction is just a vague one liner like this. A baseline assumption is just a assumption, not a hard rule. If context/proof exist that points towards planet destruction then that it planet destruction.

 

[Loyd]

hey at the end of the day every case just requires more context

 

[Bernkastelll]

hey at the end of the day every case just requires more context

Not bad as people arguing that saitama Earth Destroy statement be overtime

 

[Loyd]

now that you mention it, its pretty weird saitama is tier 6, his a gag character that can one shot anything he wants to he shouldn't be placed in a tier hierachy.

 

[Metalballrun]

World is very commonly used for the surface, or what's in the surface.

Think about things other than "destroy the world." When someone says to "rule the world" or "conquer the world", or "save the world", they're referring to what's in the surface of our world. Not the planet itself. You can exchange the word world for planet and the message is still the same.
Same thing with "destroy the world".

There are context like Dragon Ball busting planets with similar statements. Disaster films that refer to either exists, too. But these statements that refers to the surface or what's in the surface is very common in all forms of literature and media.

 

[Bernkastelll]

World is very commonly used for the surface, or what's in the surface.

Think about things other than "destroy the world." When someone says to "rule the world" or "conquer the world", or "save the world", they're referring to what's in the surface of our world. Not the planet itself. You can exchange the word world for planet and the message is still the same.
Same thing with "destroy the world".

I dont think that this is a good comparison, as it is 100% not literal

 

[Metalballrun]

I dont think that this is a good comparison, as it is 100% not literal

It is. It not being 100% literal is exactly the point, as most "destroy the world" statements out there aren't literally referring to planets as celestial bodies. Or destroying them meaning they're literally vaporizing whatever.

Though like I said, it's always the context behind the origin of these statements that matters the most in proving whether or not "destroy the world" is literal about planetary destruction, or whatever the most accurate meaning of it, really is.

 

[Bernkastelll]

It is. It not being 100% literal is exactly the point,

And I said that the point is not valid, as "destroy the world" usually is an attack that can destroy whatever, but things like "save the world", "rule the world" is completely not literal 99% of times doesnt matter what, the exception is a statement of "save the world" after a planet buster villain be defeated

 

[Slacjow]

If you are referring to Archedemon's World destruction, then no, he didn't explicitly bust the planet or even the surface.
From the intro it looks more like a minor surface destruction which was probably caused overtime.

 

[W0NDER3X]

Yeah, that's the statement I was referring to. It's clear it is not planet busting, that's for sure. I was thinking about Unknown, Possibly High 6-A
I'm trying to get Tenebria's potential moon drop calculated.

 

[Slacjow]

I doubt you will get High 6-A from Archedemon's feat because the statement doesn't refer to him destroying it in a single attack.
Tenebria's Moon feat might not be accepted due to its vagueness, she only ever performed it in a gameplay animation and the damage was minor compared to what an actual Moon collision would do.
Also, we have to consider that the feat might just be fake, she controls illusions after all.

 

[W0NDER3X]

Nah, I'm talking about the cutscene in Reingar. Marely summoning the moon caused damage to the surrounding buildings, so I doubt it was an illusion. IIRC she also wanted to destroy Reingar either way.

There's also that blast in the opening which busted half of Ritania (yes, I compared the continent from the opening to Ritania on the mini map and they are barely any different from one another). Ima ask here and there the lore peeps on Discord, but evidence points at either Specter Tenebria's S3 or Archdemon.

In Episode 3, Romann mentions that Eda has the power to destroy a city at least the size of Lefundos. I've calced roughly the destruction of South Lefundos with a crater and got large town level (crater being an assumption). However, even surface wiping if we include North Lefundos and use the mini map, the result will most likely jump astronomically.

And at the end of the day, all of this may be irrelevant. I might try to back scale Episode 2 Ras and make Episode 1 Ras 4-A as well.

 

[Slacjow]

Nah, I'm talking about the cutscene in Reingar. Marely summoning the moon caused damage to the surrounding buildings, so I doubt it was an illusion. IIRC she also wanted to destroy Reingar either way.

I don't think that was caused by the Moon, it looked like the blast from her S3. It looked like she summoned a Moon, but you will have to find its size.

There's also that blast in the opening which busted half of Ritania (yes, I compared the continent from the opening to Ritania on the mini map and they are barely any different from one another). Ima ask here and there the lore peeps on Discord, but evidence points at either Specter Tenebria's S3 or Archdemon.

If you are referring to this then we don't see the damage or what caused the blast.
And we still can't use it I believe, it's like an anime opening, we don't use those unless it happened in a cutscene of course.

And at the end of the day, all of this may be irrelevant. I might try to back scale Episode 2 Ras and make Episode 1 Ras 4-A as well.

You can't, E2 Ras had Ilryos's power and Diche's combined.

 

[W0NDER3X]

Oh, right. Forgot Ras had Ilryos's power as well.