Potential Large Size Type 1 mistake, and/or new Small Building Type? CRT

[StretchSebe]

Hello there.

I've discussed this with others already, and it was suggested that I make a CRT.

While determining heights for characters in the game Pizza Tower, I found that the starting height for a 'building' on the Large Size page was really tall. Much taller than a small building would be at least. Even though the Pizza Tower characters heights I calculated were at least over a meter larger than a small building in game, they would still not even be half the size needed to be 'building sized' according to the page.

Notably, the Large Size page says characters need to be at least 13-14 meters tall in order to be considered Type 1 (Building-sized). In searching for the average height of a small building/story, I have commonly found the average height is 13-14 feet tall, and not 13-14 meters. The lower end of average small building/story height (indoors) is 9-10 feet, which would be about 3 meters, and 13-14 feet would be about 4.3 meters (4.27 meters).

It is possible Type 1 was designed only for 'average' buildings, and intentionally excludes small buildings. I think that would still be kind of an issue. The way the scale currently works means characters the size of a small-building do not have their height meaningfully recognized. They are roughly twice as large as Type 0 (Supersize) characters at 5-6m on average, yet are lumped in with them as merely 'giants' compared to humans despite well exceeding the tallest human in recorded history (2.72m).

inb4: This thread is only about the in-between of Type 0 and 1.

Type 2 (Skyscraper-sized) and onwards seem to have appropriate heights, ranges, and real life examples (i.e. for Type 2, Big Ben). The gap between supersize and building appears to either be based on a mistake, or otherwise is an odd gap in recognized character sizing. This thread is also not about changing Large Size Calculations, as those calculations are far more dependent on mass.

Tl;dr: The height requirement for Type 1 (Building-sized) on the Large Size page seems to be due to an error or oversight: The 13-14 meters listed on page corresponds to 13-14 feet that most sources I could find state is the average height of a small building or story (indoors at least). I think there should either be a correction, or if it is intentional, another Type should be added to properly categorize characters the size of small-buildings.

 

[Dalesean027]

Gonna speed this along since this should probably be more staff related, sorry to bother yall for this

@Antvasima @Agnaa @Sir_Ovens @Mr._Bambu @KLOL506 @Damage3245 @Dark-Carioca @Therefir

This should be enough to get traction I think

 

[Greatsage13th]

Hmm

 

[Ped2018]

Greatsage FRA

 

[Agnaa]

Gonna speed this along since this should probably be more staff related, sorry to bother yall for this

@Agnaa

This should be enough to get traction I think

I currently have 25 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

 

[Dalesean027]

I currently have 25 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

Understood sorry

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think about this?

 

[Crabwhale]

This thread has a fair enough premise, though I would say that there's enough profiles with this ability that just going through them all to change something so relatively minor would be a nuisance. One alternative would be to simply rename Type 0 and Type 1.

 

[SamanPatou]

Renaming seems fine, after all "building size" is pretty much indicative and approximate to convey the idea, not to make an exact comparison, pretty much like our tiers.

Tbh the name can even remain the same, it's true that there are small buildings, but that's simply because constructions vary in size according to intention and purpose.

All in all, being as tall as some kind of building doesn't make you "building size" to our standards, but it's just about semantics rather than accuracy, pretty much like destroying a city doesn't necessarily make you city level, or a mountain mountain level and so on.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread has a fair enough premise, though I would say that there's enough profiles with this ability that just going through them all to change something so relatively minor would be a nuisance. One alternative would be to simply rename Type 0 and Type 1.

Yes, it seems like an unnecessarily major revision for a comparatively minor concern, but it depends on if somebody would actually be willing to go through ALL of our character profile pages that link to the "Large Size" page and then adjust them when necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Here they are btw:

Pages that link to "Large Size" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[SamanPatou]

Tbh I think it's really just pointless workload.
We have mountain size starting from 1km, but there are mountains that are 300 or 600 m tall.
Even mountain to global is pretty much a gray area, since you can be much bigger than even the Everest and still be a speck when viewed from space, let alone the fact that the latter spans across immense values.

We aren't talking about calculations or types of powers for which we need to be as accurate as possible with what we write, we can be lax with the naming of large size types honestly.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, agreed. Thank you for your input.

 

[StretchSebe]

Understandable.

All in all, being as tall as some kind of building doesn't make you "building size" to our standards, but it's just about semantics rather than accuracy, pretty much like destroying a city doesn't necessarily make you city level, or a mountain mountain level and so on.

I didn't intend semantics, and really thought it was an issue of accuracy: It was odd to find 13-14 feet across many websites and articles discussing the average size of an average building/story considering the Large Size page lists these exact numbers, but in metric. It gave me the impression that it might have been a mistake.

It's why I said that it could be intended too, and that it is still a little steep. It wasn't just 'being as tall as some kind of building,' it was being taller than an average building that I thought was worth bringing up.

We have mountain size starting from 1km, but there are mountains that are 300 or 600 m tall.
Even mountain to global is pretty much a gray area, since you can be much bigger than even the Everest and still be a speck when viewed from space, let alone the fact that the latter spans across immense values.

With the example of mountain size considered, maybe there could at least be a note in Summary indicating that the types do have relative acceptable ranges below the exact number?

The aforementioned characters in the blog have been changed accordingly to Type 0 regardless.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Large Size type 1 only says "Building-sized", which is rather unspecified/diffuse regarding how large a regular building is supposed to be, so perhaps we are making a big deal over an insignificant problem here?

 

[SamanPatou]

Absolutely, we are not talking about being super precise with the minimum or average height of buildings.

Take even simple figure of speeches, if you say "as big/large/tall" as a building, your imagination pictures something giant, like an multi-apartments building or such.
This really is a non problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your input.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay. Thank you for your input.

Should we close this thread then?

Sure.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.