• 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.

Problem with cooling feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaakubb

Jaakubb

648
97
Why do we scale based on cooling feats, such as this one and this one? In these cases, aren't they just making heat go out from the object and into the environment using magic, and not actually providing their own energy? The closest example I can think of is conduction, where energy moves on its own from one object to another without an outside energy source (ex. thermal energy naturally transferred from a drink into an ice cube). An example of this not being valid for AP is with volts (makes electricity move from one place to another with potential energy) because taking 10000 volts isn't much worse than 100 volts. Because of Occam's razor, we shouldn't make the assumption that they do some complicated process where they put their own energy into it, but that they just sort of change the nature of the energy so that it "wants" (for the lack of a better word) to go out into the surrounding environment.

Also, wouldn't the q value for q=mcdeltat be negative for one of these feats?
 
We have been having numerous discussions about this, and it was agreed to treat cooling feats and heating feats equally. Plus we already have like two currently active discussions talking about heating and cooling feats in general. And that's also not counting the fact that much of the staff are currently busy with a lot of other stuff such as the Tier 1/dimensional tiering clarifications and the forum migration part. Yes, there is a case by case scenario, but freezers do require electricity which would still be generating said levels of energy.

Anyway, as for the example feats; of course using a freeze ray that generates its own energy may or may not always scale to a character's durability depending on the context. Surviving precise cold would still be impressive; though surviving a blizzard doesn't always equate much. I mean a normal guy carrying a bunch of gadgets where one gadget happens to be a freeze ray; I wouldn't quite assume all their gadgets are the same tier. However, Sub-Zero from Mortal Kombat legit uses his own energy for all his freezing feats; and would scale from his feats in all statistics. I noticed Samus' Ice Beam was one example in the OP. All of her weapons are powered by her own essence and thus, she's legit the one actively performing the feat of her freezing the sun; so her feat is definitely legit.

If anything, freezing and heating feats that are performed my magic and/or their own energy manipulation have more reason to scale to their stats then a one that uses a tool. Also, bending energy still requires similar levels of Attack Potency as generating or absorbing energy. So characters from Avatar for instance also scale from the freezing calculations.
 
Goddamn it there's already 2 threads like this. And now that I look at it, it seems that this has already been done to death now.
 
Oops. Could you link to the threads? I was worried about this being done already so I message antivasima first. Guess he didn't know.
 
Anyways, the metroid feat shouldn't scale because it doesn't generate it's own energy. The only energy the beam produces propels the ice beam towards the star. Everything else is conduction (natural reactions), so samus doesn't scale.

Also, we shouldn't assume that magic users use complicated proccesses like refrigerators do to cool stuff because of Occam's razor. It's all potential energy. If you were to put energy into a system, the heat will rise, not decrease. Yes, they do use energy to perform these processes, but we can't just assume that their magic powers work exactly like refrigerators. The magic probably just changes up potential energy, making the heat "want" to go to its surroundings. Just because someone can make a certain amount of energy move, doesn't mean they can actually produce it or tank it themselves.
 
I'd say my argument is more like the former thread than the latter thread (not even 100% sure what firephoenix is trying to argue). I do think that heating feats should scale to AP, but why is removing energy from a system considered to be just as impressive as adding it. The whole point of damaging someone is that you transfer kinetic energy TO them, right? Sure, you could kill someone by absorbing the energy out of them, but that's completely different and doesn't scale to any of your attacks. Also, refrigerators don't work by "counteracting" heat using electricity. It's more complex than that.
 
Also did Dargoo lose the argument? I'm confused how it's going right now? They seem to be arguing about a specific character's ap.
 
Jaakubb said:
Also did Dargoo lose the argument? I'm confused how it's going right now? They seem to be arguing about a specific character's ap.
Click to expand...
No idea about that, but several notable calc members like DT, Bambu and DMUA have already given their responses.
 
We can't just ignore cooling feats; especially if we accept heating feats. First of all, Attack Potency is energy in general being transferred, harnessed, or bended in a single move. Fiction especially very commonly treats freezing and cooling feats equally. Especially when someone uses an ice attack to clash with a heat attack with equal power. It's not much different than a punch or sword strike clashing with equal power. They're not chain reactions if an Ice Technique is actually being performed.

Second, Samus definitely scales from her own feat. It's no different than Superman's Heat Vision/Freeze Breath types of attacks as it's her own power. It's also similar to Ki users in Dragon Ball or Cosmos users from Saint Seiya; she's just as capable of precision shots as she is massive Area of Effect blasts. And her freezing the surface of the sun is a legit impressive feat. Her Ice Beam like the rest of her power ups and her Power Suit are all parts of her. Her Power Suit is a holy relic much like the Master Sword. She's also consistently absorbs energy and redirects it.

And as for magic users, I also said it depends on context. But once again, magic feats are far too consistently treated as feats of great power for them to just be ignored. I mean if some novel character that has a shaman type character who's portrayed as being not very strong physically, then his magic of causing storms would probably be treated as just environmental destrution and not quite durability or striking strength. However, most if not all JRPG characters very consistently treat physical and magical powers as being interchangeable. For example, in Final Fantasy, we got characters who can summon powerful planet busting monsters or generate massive blizzards. And those same Mages can use the same level of MP into a single attack. And they can also use that same amount of MP to enhance their own, or another character's striking strength, speed, and durability. Those same black mages also trade blows with their spells and can trade blows with non magic users in the same verse so they scale. Same with Fire Emblem. A bunch of characters can trade blows with meteors, volcanic eruptions, blizzards, thunder storms, and swords, axes, and bows. Blizzards still require the same amount of mastery as the other spells and do similar levels of damage; so it's still powerful attack magic. All in lore, narratives, and in game play.

Anyway, the second law of thermodynamics also treats heating and cooling feats equally as well. Keep in mind that it's similar to the concepts of positive energy and negative energy. Heat could be considered positive thermal energy while cold can be considered negative thermal energy. Negative energy is also treated equally to positive energy when the same amounts are being harnessed. So in other words, cooling feats are just as legit as heat feats. Otherwise, Sub-Zero would be considered way weaker than Scorpion rather than them being equals. And Glacius would also be considered way weaker than Cinder despite once again being equals. It's also important to note that stuff like Absolute Zero is considered much harder to do then even generating thousands of degrees of heating.

So in other words, cooling calculations are still applicable. And those other three calc group members already gave their input.
 
Also, cold isn't "negative energy". It is just the absence of heat. An ice cube doesn't transfer "coldness" into a drink, it absorbs heat from the drink because of the nature of heat. I thought you'd know this.

The second law of thermodynamics does not treat heating and cooling feats equally either. In fact, they produce opposite results. Sure, it could be argued that AP is based off of absolute values but that's another mini-discussion.

Characters with cooling feats scale to other characters in their verse not because of their cooling feats, but because they are physically comparable. For example, sub zero can punch scorpion and harm him.

Yes, magic is often treated as requiring massive amounts of power, but we can't just assume that it takes the exact amount of energy as the absolute value of the energy lost during cooling. Magic is usually based off something like mana, not joules. Of course, the feats themselves can be measured in joules; I'm not suggesting we discard feats just because they involve magic.
 
Also, while some calc group members have given their input, it's not like the thread is closed or anything. I'm pretty sure they're still arguing that cooling feats are invalid.
 
I do know that. IRL, an object being frozen of absolute zero temperatures is the absence of thermal energy, but an "super cooled plasma" in fiction is often described as negative thermal energy. But still, it doesn't equate to the ice cube example. Also, freezing something in an instant is definitely a feat much like plenty of powerful characters on the wiki.

Electricity can be used to produce negative energy and that's how it cools things. It requires just as much energy to lower the temperature of a room with air conditioning as it does to heat up the room. Creating Ice Burgs and Blizzard is still a common feat in fiction that's often considered just as impressive as fire-bending. And scaling comes from multiple sources actually.

Energy/power are pretty much the same thing though. And Magic while not the same thing, is still not that much different that Ki manipulation. But still, the same amounts of magic that's being used in a storm also having the exact same amount of magic/power/energy being harness into a single punch or sword strike is still Attack Potency case and point.

Also, much of our most reasonable people agree with DontTalk who is generally our most reasonable calc group member here. Though Ugarik and Executor N0 do come very close.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Electricity can be used to produce negative energy and that's how it cools things.
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about refrigerators and air conditioners? The electricity that the refrigerator uses doesn't actually negate the heat inside the fridge. All it does is pump refrigerant through a tube and power some fans. The cooling process is a natural process where heat goes from the higher energy air inside the refrigerator to the refrigerant because of the nature of energy. The heat absorbed by the refrigerant is later released behind the fridge (doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics). Here are some sources. Also, negative energy PROBABLY exists, but it is something completely different.

How does it not equate to the ice cube example? I didn't mean "absence of heat" as in "TOTAL absence" of heat but relative absence of heat. For example, the aforementioned ice cube has a sort of relative absence of heat when compared to the drink.
 
All of the other arguments seem like weird appeals to authority though. Aren't we supposed to use science unless virtually every verse ignores a scientific concept?
 
That's also not really the best example though. Another note I forgot to mention is that air conditioners and fans are rather slow cooling movement. Freezing something almost instantly is a pretty cut an paste feat. And it's especially making ice out of thin air that's often quite impressive. Especially if someone literally makes oxygen become solid.

DontTalk is still one of the most knowledgeable people on these topics, he's just often busy. However, I still trust him over most people regarding this. They're not "Inflated", they're accurate feats of power. Freezing a star/sun is also a blatant feat that cannot be ignored. And once again, dispersing energy with a single attack is still an Attack Potency generation feat. Not in every instance is surviving a dispersed energy attack durability feat. But simply generating one is still an AP feat. And in some cases such as having energy control, it can still scale to striking strength and durability.
 
Also what I meant by mana is that it functions kind of like a currency. You can sort of "buy" spells from the "source" (Ex. the Force, although the force doesn't make use of mana). The amount of mana use doesn't necessarily have any correlation with quantities of energy. For example, healing, which doesn't involve AP at all and an attack spell both use mana and in some cases may even require the exact same amount of mana.
 
You could theoretically accelerate the cooling process by using a colder refrigerant. I don't know, maybe something like liquid nitrogen? The cooling process would probably be nearly instant if you used that. No change in electricity needed, just a different refrigerant.

Sure, making ice out of thin air is impressive, but for different reasons. "Impressive" is not a justification for inflated results.
 
Yes, freezing a star is impressive but you don't actually have to put that much energy into it. I'm not saying we blatantly ignore it, I just think this is the wrong approach to take. All you need to freeze a star is an impossibly cold material with a really high specific heat capacity and physics will do all the work because energy "wants" to transfer from a high energy place to a low energy place. The only energy you need to put into it is the energy that propels the material.
 
How does harnessing energy scale to AP? A nuclear reactor can harness large amounts of power, but can't actually use it in an offensive way. Doesn't an energy feat only scale to AP if the character can consistently produce that much energy? Magic users who freeze things do not produce the energy that they harness on their own (it has to already exist), therefore their other attacks don't scale to it and we can't even assume that they can control how they do it unless we see them do it.
 
You would still need to disperse a lot of energy. That's another thing, large scale freezing feats are not that much different from nuclear explosion feats. Stars have massive volumes and are already extremely hot; was calculated that it still requires 7 Exatons of energy to freeze the surface of the sun. If the core was included it would be a Low 4-C feat.

Also, magic users very consistently have been shown to control their energy. And utilize the same energy into their attacks. Even non combat related spells do often translate to magical attack potency.
 
Also, AP is not just controlling energy, it is specifically the ability to control energy so that you can damage an opponent according to the Attack Potency article. If all a character can do is harness large amounts of energy, we have no reason to believe that any of their other attacks produce the same amount of energy.
 
The difference between cooling feats and a nuke is that nukes produce their own energy while cooling feats rely on energy that is already there.

Also, don't take the calcs too literally. The energy they calculated is the amount of energy that was transferred from the star to the beam (like from a drink to an ice cube). And no, we have no reason to believe that the process was instant.
 
It's also similar to cloud dispersion feats which is also combat applicable. Swinging their sword to split a cloud scales to AP, and freezing feats are also similar to this. Also, the fact that sometimes the air becoming much colder when there's still not heat in the surrounding area also indicates that they basically destroyed energy. Nukes actually cause global warming regularly, so it is noticeable.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Even non combat related spells do often translate to magical attack potency.
Click to expand...
Only in the sense that they use the same amount of mana. Mana =!= unit of energy. Attack spells and healing spells both use mana, but use entirely different processes.I doubt that healing in a city level verse specifically requires megatons of energy.
 
Game mechanics are another thing, but it's still common in lore that having more energy is often interchangeability an indicator of a character's superior power. So the healing thing isn't the best example. Though healing or undoing damage done by a powerful attack via reality warping is also often considered combat applicable, but that's often case by case as well. Fixing a shattered planet is a feat because it requires manipulating the GBE. That's why creating planets is considered equal to destroying planets. Creating/destroying pocket realities is also combat applicable.

Mana or MP is more so magical energy. Calling it currency is really weird and I think you mean "Ammunition"? And it normally wouldn't be assumed healing requires lots of energy, but there are times where some character attacks leave massive damage effects of wounds in which normal ways of healing wouldn't work. But those are iffy. However, using magic to effect environmental changes has often translate to combat applicable stuff.

Plenty of JRPG verses have something where the "Magical energy" exists in all living things. Such as Psynergy from Golden Sun.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Also, the fact that sometimes the air becoming much colder when there's still not heat in the surrounding area also indicates that they basically destroyed energy.
Click to expand...
If they really did disperse the energy into the environment, it would be so spread out (keep the inverse square/cube law [i forgot] in mind) that it would be hardly noticeable. After a nuke explosion ends, the heat dissipates into the environment and eventually becomes unnoticeable. Assuming they destroyed energy is such a big assumption and a violation of Occam's razor.
 
How is undoing damage considered combat applicable? I wasn't too fond of the whole creation=destruction idea anyways (but that's another discussion).
 
Mana isn't exclusive to game mechanics either. Someone could require a certain amount of mana to perform an action in a video game, anime, movie, etc. Mana is more of a sort of "currency" that you use to "buy" spells from the source of the magic than a measure of energy as I explained earlier.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Mana or MP is more so magical energy.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have? Considering my previous examples, the "currency" explanation seems more consistent.
 
Creation=Destruction has been done to death and isn't going away anytime soon with all the admins and mods having confirmed it several threads ago, if that's what you're planning
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Fixing a shattered planet is a feat because it requires manipulating the GBE. That's why creating planets is considered equal to destroying planets.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you fix the planet. If a planet's GBE were to be overcome and its pieces were flying away from each other, but then you made them move back to each other, yes, that would require a large amount of energy. However, if you were to simply make a planet pop into existence, you would not have to provide it's GBE. GBE is potential energy, not kinetic energy. Potential energy doesn't scale to AP (or am I wrong about that too?).
 
KLOL506 said:
Creation=Destruction has been done to death and isn't going away anytime soon with all the admins and mods having confirmed it several threads ago, if that's what you're planning
Click to expand...
Yes, but it has a lot to do with this discussion. Is there any harm in just discussing it? I don't think I really have a chance to undo the concept of creation=destruction.
 
Actually, some characters literally hold a planet together just by existing. Or hold the entire Universe just be existing. Especially if the character is a God. Then Potential energy like that is still Attack Potency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Napoleondevious
help with formula for Volcanos and tsunamis
Replies
0
Views
316
Napoleondevious
Napoleondevious
SpookyGunShip
Galaxy force megatron feats
Replies
2
Views
694
SpookyGunShip
SpookyGunShip
Floxy178
  • Locked
Clarification for a KE rule
Replies
30
Views
3K
Floxy178
Floxy178
Damage3245
  • Locked
Issues with Nichirin's Calculation (One-Punch Man)
Replies
6
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
CNBA3
Voltage with Fusion Power
Replies
26
Views
2K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Back
Top