• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Possible Overwatch Downgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Weekly Doomfist's crater is not pulverization though

Yeah, there's some dust, but you can clearly see big chunks of concrete flying. Frag is safer, but V.Frag is debatable
 
Hate to break it to you but that result isnt accurate. Cutting the pulverization valut in half would bring it to over 1 ton, not into 9-A.

I did not cut in half though, i used the Concrete vallues for it, wich the highest is like, Almost baseline 8-C for that feat
 
@Aiden, V. Frag seems good enough, but just in case, the Frag Vallue is 0,0695268642447 Tons of TNT or 9-A
 
As I said before, we've done more than enough debating on this thread. If we keep up this back and forth, we're going to get nowhere.

So, by show of hands (or something), how many of us agree that the current ratings, calcs and scaling are wrong, and that we shouldn't be using gameplay to justify any of these things?
 
In addition to what Mr King said, I already pointed out that it's already a very common issue to be giving every single weapon, vehicle, and character all the same tier based on gameplay. There's also a big difference between feats and non feats (Note, the term Anti-feat is a taboo word around here so I'll use non feat). If a character has their own feat that reaches a certain level and other characters are consistently shown to be capable of trading blows in hand to hand, then sure; making those characters the same tier is fine.

But the problem often comes from making weapons or vehicles the same tier just because, "They do more gameplay damage" rather than from their calculations and/or determining details in what's actually combat applicable. The Freeze ray as King mentioned isn't exactly something that does much damage despite the energy yield. In scenario in which a character is Tier 8 via surviving a giant explosion, and same character has consistently been knocked around and killed by generic bullets and car crashes, and then you decided to make every single weapon or vehicle in the verse that same tier; it just doesn't work and is the definition of reverse power scaling. Either surviving the big explosion is an outlier, or getting injured or killed by weaker stuff is PIS; it can't go both ways to just use an non feat to upgrade every single fodder weapon/vehicle. It's cut and paste that basic firearms should inherently be much weaker big explosives, but a scaling tree like that gives the impression that the opposite is true.

And same with vehicles, then have very nonlinear durability ratings. It's pretty common knowledge that in terms of resisting attacks that are pure, it would inherently take a good Tier 8 weapon to melt/vaporize a jeep, a Wall level fragmentation weapon completely ***** that same jeep. That Jeep shouldn't normally have Tier 8 durability to begin with for surviving Tier 8 heat weapons but just that those weapons aren't really meant for causing mechanical damage the same way rockets and grenades are.

In other words, I'm still with Mr King.
 
That calc isn't even 100% valid as it is, as I mentioned before:

"Excuse me? If that's the case, how did you get High 8-C KE from the original pod moving at "catching on fire" speeds when the current, upgraded pod moving at similar speed only resulted in 8-C+ numbers?

...Unless you went with the velocity mentioned here, which is around 7,800 m/s? Just going by the context of the article, that's a typical re-entry speed for low-orbit satellites, which are generally much larger than Hammond's space pod. And that matters, because size and weight affect re-entry speed drastically.

You'd have been much better off using the minimum speed required to catch fire while moving. Of course that would never give you High 8-C numbers, but oh well.

That said...On one hand, even if a recalc did get like High 8-C or something, that's pretty out-of-standard with several of the other heroes' showings. On the other hand, I'm positive Wrecking Ball hasn't actually directly fought any of the named characters outside of gameplay, so I have no clue how we would even treat scaling for him at that point.
 
Using the speed to catch on fire is not really usable, re-entering the atmosphere requires alot more than that
 
Drite77 said:
Using the speed to catch on fire is not really usable, re-entering the atmosphere requires alot more than that
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Still, using the above speed value I sourced is wrong for the reasons I gave.

All of these weigh immensely more than what Hammond's pod was calc'd to be. To give you an idea just how much of a weight difference we're talking about here and what that means for the calc, Hammond's pod was found to be 280.398822 kg in the calc blog. Apollo 7 (the one with the slowest maximum entry velocity in that above chart) had a landing mass of 5,175 kg, over 18x heavier than what Hammond's pod was found to be, and it entered at a maximum velocity of 25,955 feet per second. (read: around 7911.084 m/s, not even 112 m/s faster than the value used in a calc)

That's a major point against using the sourced speed to calc KE for Hammond's pod. Something that weighs little over 280 kg would not and should not be falling to Earth anywhere near as fast as a spacecraft over 18x heavier.
 
Maybe not a pod per se, but far smaller things re-enter the Earth's atmosphere from space all the time. They simply break apart and burn up mid-fall because they're not designed to survive re-entry.

Hell, going by this (the people on it appear to be legitimate experts on this sort of thing), something as small as a Tungsten block weighing a few kg has raised concerns in regards to it falling back to Earth and potentially hurting or killing someone.

Either way, my point still stands. We shouldn't use entry speeds that are normally attached to full-size spacecraft to calc the KE of a small spacepod falling to the ground. It's illogical.
 
That would be more reasonable, yes. Although I have to wonder whether or not that would exceed the minimum speed required to catch fire, which is absolutely what the pod does in the animation.

Realistically, if the terminal velocity found doesn't meet or exceed the minimum "catching fire" speed, I'd recommend we use the latter instead. To do otherwise would be unnecessary lowball imo.
 
It did not even exceed Mach 1...

If you really want to use the velocity to catch on fire thing, the vallue is 0,09855593035814412539 Tons of TNT or 9-A

Still, i don't know if we should use that low for Speed
 
It's the most reasonable thing we can do at this point. The pod clearly catches fire, so it would be ridiculous to use anything lower than that. But assuming that Hammond's pod re-entered the Earth's atmosphere at speed comparable to a falling spacecraft 18x heavier than it would be equally illogical, if not more so.
 
Yeah, freefalling feats are another thing that's often exaggerated and not as impressive as the concept. DonTalk has made it clear not to assume escape velocity feats just because someone falls from orbit unless there's context (Such as flying through space at great speeds before reaching the orbit or being a giant meteor). But simply jumping of an orbital space station towards and accelerated to Earth has Terminal velocity speeds. There is a Terminal Velocity calculator, but the terminal velocity of an average human is like 53 m/s; which is only Subsonic.
 
That's...weird....

Also, while I'd normally agree with using Terminal Velocity, what should we make of the pod catching fire as it fell? Is it an unrealistic detail we should just ignore, or should we treat it as how it's shown and ignore the Terminal Velocity in favor of the minimum speed required to catch fire?
 
I'll be honest, I don't find it reasonable to have to wait for him to pull together another response if it's going to take this long for him to "debunk everything when I get home". Especially when he's already had several days to make a convincing and reasonable argument for why the tiering shouldn't change and hasn't managed to do so.

Just looking back through the thread, several people besides myself agree with the verse needing a downgrade, with some even putting their own reasons for why into the thread. It seems counterintuitive to keep waiting for a response that may or may not change anything (or even arrive to begin with) when we could be making headway with this revision that everyone-sans-one is in full agreement with.
 
So the verse now has 1 8-C feat (2 if the Doomfist one gets Pulv) and 2 9-A feats (1 if the Doomfist one is consodered pulv). How the scaling and tiers would be like?
 
Wouldn't Overwatch guns upscales from the ice gun Mei used in the trailer, since that gun was basically made out of random tech she found in the lab ?
 
Not really, for example, the Master/Mistress from Doctor Who can make a Ray gun out of leaves, yet we wouldn't upscale any other Gun to the Leaf Gun
 
@Drite

Which 8-C feat are you referring to?

If you're talking about D.Va's self-destruct, that doesn't really scale to anyone else's raw AP or dura. Both her mech and the mech attacking/ripping pieces off hers were obliterated by the explosion, and Hana herself nearly died from the shockwave even though she was nowhere near the epicenter.

Other than that though, there should be a lot of Tier 9 feats in the series to scale low tiers and mid tiers to. Soldier 76 tanking the grenade explosion is a perfectly valid Tier 9 feat, as are Bob ripping a sign out of the ground, Widowmaker's armor letting her tank a sniper round to the head, Genji slicing a car in half, and Winston tanking grenade launcher fire in base, among others.
 
Udlmaster said:
Not really, for example, the Master/Mistress from Doctor Who can make a Ray gun out of leaves, yet we wouldn't upscale any other Gun to the Leaf Gu
Click to expand...
That leaf gun it's not created trought tecnology tho

so it's not the same
 
Mei's ice gun's main application is producing ice. Even if you were to want to scale every gun in OW to that, the weapon's one High 8-C feat (which comes from gameplay, again) involves producing a ton of ice in basically an instant. Which is an Environmental Destruction feat that doesn't have evidence of scaling to the gun's normal AP when it's just shooting small projectiles.

...Of course, scaling literally every gun in the game to one weapon is a majorly problematic approach anyway, for what I would assume to be obvious reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LRQZ
overwatch sigma scaling update
Replies
18
Views
1K
LRQZ
LRQZ
DaReaperMan
Overwatch: I missed something on Moira
Replies
0
Views
491
DaReaperMan
DaReaperMan
DimeUhDozen
Ice Climber CRT
Replies
4
Views
407
Apex_Predator_GX
Apex_Predator_GX
DaReaperMan
Reinhardt Glow-up and Torbjörn Prep
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
XXBenShapiroXx
XXBenShapiroXx
DimeUhDozen
Invader Zim Downgrade
Replies
4
Views
519
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top