Planetary KE feats REDUX

[KLOL506]

Continuation of this thread.

So basically in the original thread from what I can gather, based on these four comments on the thread, the conditions were made as such that for KE to be usable for these feats, we would need proof that ALL of the debris travelled the same distance at the same time at the same speed, or all the debris had completely left the screen.

However, this really wasn't given much thought after this thread or the implications this would result in for planetary feats that didn't have all of their remains completely obliterated or had the debris completely vanish from view. This was made evident as seen in this thread.

As such, I would like further evaluations on this ruling before any action is taken on whether to include it in our standards or reject it.

TL; DR: The proposal from the above comments is that Planetary KE feats of dispersion are only valid if we can prove that ALL the debris were blasted the same distance at the same time at the same speed (The debris completely vanishing from view or leaving the screen being two ways of determining as such).

Sorry if I worded anything incorrectly, I'm not good with typing out CRTs.

Agree: 1 - @M3X_2.0,

Disagree: 3 - @Armorchompy, @Damage3245, @Psychomaster35,

Neutral:

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Armorchompy @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @M3X_2.0 @Ugarik @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @Agnaa @Wokistan @Psychomaster35 @TheRustyOne @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Aguywhodoesthings @Flashlight237 @Jasonsith @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment Your evaluation here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm in disagreement with this. Unless there's a massive difference shown between how different pieces travel, the default assumption should be that they're all moving at a roughly equivalent pace. The explosion for these feats happens within the planet, it makes no sense for its insides, which withstood the majority of the energy, to move slower than the parts more distant from the blast. It's going to be nigh-impossible to prove it because there's always going to be something in the way of POV, but basic logic says it'd work that way, and that's the assumption unless otherwise shown.

If it is otherwise shown, then honestly you'd probably still try to calculate the KE of the pieces, rather than abandon the feat. Regardless this doesn't need to be a stated rule, "do not calculate something that visibly isn't happening" isn't something that needs to be stated.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm in disagreement with this. Unless there's a massive difference shown between how different pieces travel, the default assumption should be that they're all moving at a roughly equivalent pace. The explosion for these feats happens within the planet, it makes no sense for its insides, which withstood the majority of the energy, to move slower than the parts more distant from the blast. It's going to be nigh-impossible to prove it because there's always going to be something in the way of POV, but basic logic says it'd work that way, and that's the assumption unless otherwise shown.

If it is otherwise shown, then honestly you'd probably still try to calculate the KE of the pieces, rather than abandon the feat. Regardless this doesn't need to be a stated rule, "do not calculate something that visibly isn't happening" isn't something that needs to be stated.

Vote counted.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm in the same boat as Armorchompy.

 

[Dalesean027]

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11176/111760692/9065828-ezgif-3-ce028a11fe.gif

If I'm understanding correctly then something like the above feat would be completely invalid for calculations rather than just my being able to calc individually how far the majority of the debris went and how far the furthest pieces went seperately.

Because if that's the case then we lose a shit ton of feats that either don't reach fully off the screen or feats you can calcualte in individual segments for pieces that traveled further than the majority mass in the same timeframe

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm in disagreement with this. Unless there's a massive difference shown between how different pieces travel, the default assumption should be that they're all moving at a roughly equivalent pace. The explosion for these feats happens within the planet, it makes no sense for its insides, which withstood the majority of the energy, to move slower than the parts more distant from the blast. It's going to be nigh-impossible to prove it because there's always going to be something in the way of POV, but basic logic says it'd work that way, and that's the assumption unless otherwise shown.

If it is otherwise shown, then honestly you'd probably still try to calculate the KE of the pieces, rather than abandon the feat. Regardless this doesn't need to be a stated rule, "do not calculate something that visibly isn't happening" isn't something that needs to be stated.

That is assuming that the explosion does happen in the planet. A stipulation to be kept in mind. (Another stipulation to be kept in mind is that speed of a shockwave isn't speed of things propelled by it, but that's not the topic of the thread)

And there are some reasons particularly fast outliers might exist. Like elastic collision of inner and outer parts and varying gravitational forces. I think we should at least go by major pieces while discounting rather small ones and, of course, by the slowest piece we see if we see multiple ones.

 

[Damage3245]

And there are some reasons particularly fast outliers might exist. Like elastic collision of inner and outer parts and varying gravitational forces. I think we should at least go by major pieces while discounting rather small ones and, of course, by the slowest piece we see if we see multiple ones.

So you don't think we necessarily need to see the entire mass go off-screen in order to calc an average speed for the debris from these types of feats?

 

[Armorchompy]

And there are some reasons particularly fast outliers might exist. Like elastic collision of inner and outer parts and varying gravitational forces. I think we should at least go by major pieces while discounting rather small ones and, of course, by the slowest piece we see if we see multiple ones.

I would agree unless the slowest piece is one of the "small ones", it should be case by case as with everything

 

[Deagonx]

Unless there's a massive difference shown between how different pieces travel, the default assumption should be that they're all moving at a roughly equivalent pace.

Question. Do you believe there should be a minimum amount of pieces calculated? Or is one single piece enough.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So you don't think we necessarily need to see the entire mass go off-screen in order to calc an average speed for the debris from these types of feats?

I don't see the need to see anything go off-screen as long as you can determine the KE.

 

[Armorchompy]

Question. Do you believe there should be a minimum amount of pieces calculated? Or is one single piece enough.

Calculate what about the pieces, speed, mass?

 

[Deagonx]

Calculate what about the pieces, speed, mass?

Speed

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Wow another thread based on someone trying to change the standards of how one calcs works because it makes other characters "Too Strong"

Real shocker there

 

[Deagonx]

Man it's really not helpful to cast those kind of aspersions.

 

[Damage3245]

Man it's really not helpful to cast those kind of aspersions.

Yeah, I have to second this. Let's not poison the argument.

 

[Armorchompy]

Speed

Uhh, if they're all roughly uniform I think one is fine, just try to not pick the fastest or slowest one. I guess ideally you'd want to do all of the notable ones but I wouldn't consider that a requirement to approve a calc, especially since it's not going to be possible in some cases.

If they're wildly different then you'd probably just do KE of every individual piece.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I am against using KE for these feats in general.

 

[M3X_2.0]

But regarding the proposal, I agree.

 

[Armorchompy]

I am against using KE for these feats in general.

 

[Psychomaster35]

I'm in agreement with Armor.

Also, in the case the debris is travelling at different speeds, just use the average speed if you're going to use all the mass.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't see the need to see anything go off-screen as long as you can determine the KE.

What do you think about the point about all the debris needing to travel at the same speed and covering the same distance? The off-screen thing is just one way to determine that.

 

[KingTempest]

Sorry but huh

Can't we just use the cloud calculation omnidirectional (1/12)*m*v2 instead of... this?

 

[M3X_2.0]

huh, now that you mention it.... yeah

 

[KLOL506]

Sorry but huh

Can't we just use the cloud calculation omnidirectional (1/12)*m*v2 instead of... this?

I mean, that still doesn't answer the dilemma of needing majority of the debris at the same speed.

Also how do you account for feats like this where it is 1% SoL and above?

 

[KingTempest]

I mean, that still doesn't answer the dilemma of needing majority of the debris at the same speed.

Also how do you account for feats like this where it is 1% SoL and above?

(KE calc)/6
Just calc the different distances at that point then? Shouldn't be that hard to say "this much travelled this much, this much travelled this much, etc. all in the same timeframe

 

[M3X_2.0]

I mean, that still doesn't answer the dilemma of needing majority of the debris at the same speed.

It does, because now they don't need to be on the same speed.

 

[M3X_2.0]

The formula directly addresses this issue.

The only issue is that I don't know if it compensates for a 360 degree angle like a planet busting feat.

 

[KingTempest]

The formula directly addresses this issue.

The only issue is that I don't know if it compensates for a 360 degree angle like a planet busting feat.

Probably, it's just that on a bunch of different degrees

 

[KLOL506]

I see. Then only one issue remains.

How do you account for relativity with this formula?

 

[KingTempest]

I see. Then only one issue remains.

How do you account for relativity with this formula?

"KE / 6"?

 

[M3X_2.0]

Okay so, the formula has to be changed to a sphere, the current one is for a cylinder.

For the Rel KE, I guess you could just change the number being divided.

 

[KLOL506]

"KE / 6"?

What exactly is this based on, if I might inquire?

 

[KingTempest]

What exactly is this based on, if I might inquire?

Same division of KE from the regular KE formula, going from (1/2) to (1/12) being 1/6

 

[KLOL506]

Same division of KE from the regular KE formula, going from (1/2) to (1/12) being 1/6

@DontTalkDT

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

bump

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[GarrixianXD]

Can we use the relativistic kinetic energy formula?

KE = m0 * c^2 * (√(1 - v^2/c^2)-1)

Considering all of those feats are explosions done by energy blasts.

 

[KLOL506]

Can we use the relativistic kinetic energy formula?

KE = m0 * c^2 * (√(1 - v^2/c^2)-1)

Considering all of those feats are explosions done by energy blasts.

There's already a calculator to get the yields easy peasy.

But they only work if you're at 1% SoL or above.

And DT has yet to check KingTempest's solution to get this through.