Potential Warframe Upgrade or Supporting Feat

[Rocker1189]

I dont know if there are any specifics so Fire would have to do that himself. I am just adding the general stuff.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I dont know if there are any specifics so Fire would have to do that himself. I am just adding the general stuff.

Just overall compare Loki to anything you wanna fix. And add the abilities for each of their 4 powers if they don't already have them via other means.

 

[Antvasima]

Again, please make an effort to edit properly though. You need to update all of the statistics, and the tier categories at the bottom of the pages as well.

 

[Rocker1189]

ah yeah the categories

 

[Abstractions]

While I agree with the notion that Atlas' feat is being blown out of proportion, I think there is still something to be gathered from this.

(To clarify, I believe that Atlas' natural affinity for stone helped him with this feat, but only because it allowed him to target a weak point)

"The stone shall shatter all!"

There are multiple pages out there that are able to provide an estimate for this and how large a meteorite would have to be to achieve a life-wiping effect, such as here:

https://www.popsci.com/how-big-would-meteorite-have-be-wipe-out-all-human-life/

If we consider the impact of Atlas' rumblers, my answer is that they were insignificant, Earth was already on approach and there's nothing to suggest the two rumblers Atlas can summon would have covered much ground to weaken the meteor significantly, along with the fact that they themselves never actually compare to Atlas' strength in-game.

I'd also like to comment in case it comes up that Atlas is never stated to summon more than two rumblers, all we see is that there are plural, assuming there is only two requires less assumptions because that is the in-game amount he will summon.

Also, the notion that we don't know Atlas had punched the meteorite is sort of shot when that is what Atlas' kit is centered around, Landslide is a punch and he is called a brawler, there's also nothing to suggest he did anything else? So I'm unsure why that is brought up, especially with the language associated with Atlas' strike was beating.

All in all, this is not a 5-B feat, no, but it is something worth further calculation.

I don't think I missed anything but please let me know if I did.

 

[Rocker1189]

You missed a large fact that it also depend son the speed of the meteor. Also we don't know how many rumblers there are and game mechanics mean nothing compared to the lore. We don't even know the strength of the rumblers compared to Atlas. And we know he did not punch it, It said he struck the final cord. The cords are meant to be earth quake tremors. Finally even in all this we would never get something accurate because the rumblers massively weakness the meteorite by affecting it's fault lines and so did Atlas with his last punch. Calculating the destruction of a large meteor and applying it to him would be massively disingenuous.

 

[Rocker1189]

Oh and finally pulverising a 60 mile wide meteor without considering all those things would be like 6-B.

 

[Abstractions]

"We don't know how many rumblers."

Atlas has only ever known how to summon two, why make the assumptio that there is any more? Inaros' feat involved a singular larger sandstorm, Limbo's involved his Rift Walk. These frames have never shown to create multiple of these compared to their in-game abilities.

"And we know he did not punch it, It said he struck the final cord. The cords are meant to be earth quake tremors."

Atlas has no such ability and has never demonstrated an ability to cause earth quake tremors and that's not what the quote said. Warframe is all about its symbolism and the quote could very easily just be referring to a musical chord. Why does it take assumptions to assume he punched it when that's literally the main thing he does?

"Finally even in all this we would never get something accurate because the rumblers massively weakness the meteorite by affecting it's fault lines and so did Atlas with his last punch."

Like I said already, two rumblers would not have been able to cover much ground when the size and timeframe of the meteorite is considered, you also overestimate rumblers? Never have they ever compared to Atlas' full strength, so why are you treating it as if the human sized rock monsters with no other feats did more than him?

"Calculating the destruction of a large meteor and applying it to him would be massively disingenuous."

You haven't fully explained how, Atlas still pulverized this meteorite with only some assistance (again, their input was minor), by hitting it in one spot. Regardless of it being a weak point, you don't just pulverize rocks.

"Oh and finally pulverising a 60 mile wide meteor without considering all those things would be like 6-B."

Huh, a Tier higher than what he's currently at, that's still an upgrade.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The idea is. Was Atlas on the asteroid?

If yes, then it's above 6-B.

If no, it's 5-B.

And a 60 mile asteroid would bring extintion, not earth shattering. It would need to be far bigger to cause shattering. I can do the calc later to see how big it would have to be.

 

[Abstractions]

The idea is. Was Atlas on the asteroid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04c

He had to feel it up some how, Earl.

 

[Schnee_One]

Even assuming the absolute weakest meteorite ever to life wipe is still High 6B

 

[Rocker1189]

Even assuming the absolute weakest meteorite ever to life wipe is still High 6B

I am saying the destruction of the meteor is 6-B not the level of destruction is would cause, since Atlas was already on the meteor before he attacked it.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The idea is. Was Atlas on the asteroid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04c
He had to feel it up some how, Earl.

Ok but:

Atlas kneeled down, head and hands pressed to the ground in apparent defeat

It seems to be implying he was on earth. And the asteroid was approaching.

 

[Rocker1189]

The idea is. Was Atlas on the asteroid?
If yes, then it's above 6-B.

If no, it's 5-B.

The fact is he was on the meteor, that is the only way he ca feel it's faults and summon Rymblers on it, his rumblers dont come out of thin air.

Again, he did not face it head on, that is another reason it can never be a 5-B feat for him. You would need proof that he appeared in it's way and then destroyed it. If he did it from the side of the meteor for example, it wont be 5-B regardless.

Another thing is, he had to attack it's fault lines, massively reducing the force needed.

And finally he did not even do it in a single atack it was mssively weakened.

All of this means that even assuming that he somehow sclaes to the destruction of the planet is a massive fallacy.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I will get back to you on those points later.

 

[Abstractions]

Ok but:

Atlas kneeled down, head and hands pressed to the ground in apparent defeat

It seems to be implying he was on earth. And the asteroid was approaching.

No, Earl.

Atlas' affinity is for stone, he was feeling up the asteroid to target the faults.

 

[Rocker1189]

Atlas has only ever known how to summon two, why make the assumptio that there is any more? Inaros' feat involved a singular larger sandstorm, Limbo's involved his Rift Walk. These frames have never shown to create multiple of these compared to their in-game abilities.

Atlas has no such ability and has never demonstrated an ability to cause earth quake tremors and that's not what the quote said. Warframe is all about its symbolism and the quote could very easily just be referring to a musical chord. Why does it take assumptions to assume he punched it when that's literally the main thing he does?

Like I said already, two rumblers would not have been able to cover much ground when the size and timeframe of the meteorite is considered, you also overestimate rumblers? Never have they ever compared to Atlas' full strength, so why are you treating it as if the human sized rock monsters with no other feats did more than him?

You haven't fully explained how, Atlas still pulverized this meteorite with only some assistance (again, their input was minor), by hitting it in one spot. Regardless of it being a weak point, you don't just pulverize rocks.

Huh, a Tier higher than what he's currently at, that's still an upgrade.

Because gameplay is not accurate to lore potrayal? Else warframes wont even be tier 8.

He is an earth based frame but regardless there is 0 proof he punched it, saying either is wrong.

It does not matter abotu gorund covered, what matters is that they did several attacks oin the meteor to weaken it an unknown amount before he did the final attack. Their size does not matter and I did not say they did more than him, I said they contributed enough for it to matter that the meteor was weakened making him scale to its full destruction is 100 percent wrong.

He pulverizd it by hitting it at a weak point which is another reason you cant scale it's full destruction to him, it would reduce the power by an unknown amount and makes scaling him to others frames even more unlikely.

If he scales to others in the first place, another problem I have with warframe apart fro the horrible use of mods and sentinels and stuff to scale their abilities is the horrible scaling across frames.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Oh and btw.

A 60 mile wide asteroid wouldn't shatter earth. It is apparently somewhere in the 10'000km wide to shatter. Earth. 60 mile just causes extintion.

 

[Abstractions]

The fact is he was on the meteor, that is the only way he ca feel it's faults and summon Rymblers on it, his rumblers dont come out of thin air.

Again, he did not face it head on, that is another reason it can never be a 5-B feat for him. You would need proof that he appeared in it's wait and then destroyed it. If he did it from the side of th emeteir for example, it wont be 5-B regardless.

Another thing is, he had to attack it's fault lines, massively reducing the force needed.

And finally he did not even do it in a single atack it was mssively weakened.

All of this means that even assuming that he somehow sclaes to the destruction of the planet is a massive fallacy.

Please stop saying massively weakened when I had already refuted this.

Also, striking a fault doesn't just allow you to dust a life-wiping meteor.

Please actually address the points I made and not just reiterate what you have already stated.

 

[Rocker1189]

Ok but:

Atlas kneeled down, head and hands pressed to the ground in apparent defeat

It seems to be implying he was on earth. And the asteroid was approaching.

The ground is the ground regardless of if you are standing on a ship, an asteroid, on earth or on the sun.

That makes no sense at all, how can he feel the faults of an object he is not on by pressing his ground on the earth.

How can he summon objects on another thing thousands of km away when he has never been shwon to do so.

And there is no mention of him jumping up to hit said meteor.

Finally the very first sentence of the earth being on the horizon completely negates everything you say.

Sorry but this just sounds like willful ignorance.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Actually yeah, he's on the asteroid my bad. It says "he tore appart the thrusters".

Anyway back to the point. Just for context. Not even something as big as the moon would shatter earth. So 60 miles is outta the question.

 

[Rocker1189]

Please stop saying massively weakened when I had already refuted this.

Also, striking a fault doesn't just allow you to dust a life-wiping meteor.

Please actually address the points I made and not just reiterate what you have already stated.

You did not refute anything, all you said is that you dont know, it would be weakned by an unknown amount and that is fact and why he can never scale to the full value.

Yes, yes it does, striking a fault would mean that the force needed is reduced.

I have adressed every point just because you are reiterating your points does not make my points wrong.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Abstraction is correct.

No matter whether you attack a weak point, you don't turn something to dust. That's like saying, "if i poke your eyeball it'll be easier to pulverize you".

 

[Rocker1189]

Oh and btw.
A 60 mile wide asteroid wouldn't shatter earth. It is apparently somewhere in the 10'000km wide to shatter. Earth. 60 mile just causes extintion.

That depends wholely on the meteor's speed, there is not set size required to shatter the earth, it is based on minimum and maximum speed due to the meteor's KE mattering. I would need to know where you got that 10,000km wide from. The moon is much smaller than that and is capable of shatering the earth at certain speeds.

Also why are we assuming that shattering the earth means the overcoming of it's GBE? 5-C to Low 5-B levels of damage can count as shattering as the planet would literally shatter, it just wont have its GBE overwhelmed.

 

[Rocker1189]

Abstraction is correct.
No matter whether you attack a weak point, you don't turn something to dust. That's like saying, "if i poke your eyeball it'll be easier to pulverize you".

You cant compare the human body to an asteroid, and you are still forggeting that said meteor was weakned by the rumblers.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Rocker

Yes, but there is something called "average". The average speed of an asteroid is 25'000 km/s. Even if we assume peak which iirc is something like 72km/s, the result would still be in the 3'000km wide.

We don't go and say "well a rock will be capable of shattering earth if thrown at the speed of light". And the moon thing, if the moon came crashing down on earth, it would only cause extintion. And the moon is 1.74km in radius.

 

[Abstractions]

Anyway back to the point. Just for context. Not even something as big as the moon would shatter earth. So 60 miles is outta the question.

Again with WF's symbolism, the Telamon sought to begin anew following the meteorite, a rebirth. The implication could be that the stone was going to instantly wipe all life out, not just blow up the planet.

 

[Rocker1189]

Anyway back to the point. Just for context. Not even something as big as the moon would shatter earth. So 60 miles is outta the question.

This is incorrect, the moon can in fact shatter the earth. where are you getting your info from?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

You cant compare the human body to an asteroid, and you are still forggeting that said meteor was weakned by the rumblers.

That's what you're doing "striking a weak point means pulverization is possible".

No, a weak point is literally just "a spot with less durability than the rest". No matter how weak the weak point, it just means you destroy the weak point, not the rest of the body too.

And weakened, again no. A bunch of cracks literally do not contribute to the feat. You can crack the asteroid all you want. Pulverizing it would still yield the same. Because same mass.

 

[Abstractions]

You did not refute anything, all you said is that you dont know, it would be weakned by an unknown amount and that is fact and why he can never scale to the full value.

Yes, yes it does, striking a fault would mean that the force needed is reduced.

I have adressed every point just because you are reiterating your points does not make my points wrong.

"Weakened by unknown value" Then divide the resulting value then, Atlas still easily contributed to more than half the effort, stop boosting up the rumblers.

Missed the point here.

Mmm, not true, but okay.

 

[Rocker1189]

That's what you're doing "striking a weak point means pulverization is possible".

No, a weak point is literally just "a spot with less durability than the rest". No matter how weak the weak point, it just means you destroy the weak point, not the rest of the body too.

And weakened, again no. A bunch of cracks literally do not contribute to the feat. You can crack the asteroid all you want. Pulverizing it would still yield the same. Because same mass.

Except is is more like a body made up of eyes, there were several weakpoints not just one.

 

[Rocker1189]

Also the moon being unable to destroy the Earth is wrong, If you crash the moon into the planet at 82,263 m/s, the planet would shatter.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Also the moon being unable to destroy the Earth is wrong, If you crash the moon into the planet at 82,263 m/s, the planet would shatter.

Which is an unrealistic speed. It won't reach that much if it ever fell on earth.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Anyway back to the point. Just for context. Not even something as big as the moon would shatter earth. So 60 miles is outta the question.

This is incorrect, the moon can in fact shatter the earth. where are you getting your info from?

Im actually curious as to where you got "the moon crashing will shatter the earth". Any link? Because everything says it won't. Also even calc, the moon crashing is Low 5-B. Shattering earth at the very least would be baseline 5-B.

@Abstraction

Well even then, it would take a long time for it to even be inhabitable again. So it's not like either of us is going by pure facts here. Both are implied. But i guess we can decide that later.

 

[Rocker1189]

@Rocker
Yes, but there is something called "average". The average speed of an asteroid is 25'000 km/s. Even if we assume peak which iirc is something like 72km/s, the result would still be in the 3'000km wide.

We don't go and say "well a rock will be capable of shattering earth if thrown at the speed of light". And the moon thing, if the moon came crashing down on earth, it would only cause extintion. And the moon is 1.74km in radius.

why are you assuming that they are throiwing the meteor at normal meteor speeds? Just to inflate the result of his destroying the asteroid, it is moving at an unknown speed and has an unknown mass as long as it is moving below light speeds it is valid to be of any size and I also disagree that it would have overcome th eplnet's GBE in the first place.

 

[Rocker1189]

Which is an unrealistic speed. It won't reach that much if it ever fell on earth.

Low 5-B is more than enough for what is implied.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

why are you assuming that they are throiwing the meteor at normal meteor speeds? Just to inflate the result of his destroying the asteroid, it is moving at an unknown speed and has an unknown mass as long as it is moving below light speeds it is valid to be of any size and I also disagree that it would have overcome th eplnet's GBE in the first place.

Why would we assume anything else?

So if we had something like "that human was running straight at them". Would we go like "well he could be moving at relativistic speed, we don't know for sure"? We do take realistic assumptions in calcs.

The average asteroid density is like 2 - 5 g/cm^3. That's what we're gonna assume too, not say "well it could be like 300 g/cm^3 we don't know for sure".

So in the realm of assumption, you're saying "a completely unrealistic assumption is better than a realistic one".

 

[Rocker1189]

Why would we assume anything else?

So if we had something like "that human was running straight at them". Would we go like "well he could be moving at relativistic speed, we don't know for sure"? We do take realistic assumptions in calcs.

The average asteroid density is like 2 - 5 g/cm^3. That's what we're gonna assume too, not say "well it could be like 300 g/cm^3 we don't know for sure".

So in the realm of assumption, you're saying "a completely unrealistic assumption is better than a realistic one".

I am saying that we do not have proof that the the planet's GBE would be breached in the first placem even High 6-A is enough for what they are calling a rebirth and that is fully within the realms of a meteor not even in the 1000km diameter range.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well since both "shatter" and "extintion" are applicable. We can just settle by votes or "at least, likely". I don't mind either way. The only problem is that anything from a 60miles wide asteroid to the moon. Both would bring extintion without shattering it? Should we just go for the 60miles one?