-
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.
Project - Attack Potency revision
- Thread starter Kavpeny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- attack potency
- Status
- 11,582
- 549
That's a good plan to do, Ant.
- 11,582
- 549
Also Kavpeny, does the original note about a character having more than one tier still applies now?
- 11,582
- 549
Note: If a character has more than 1 tier, the team with the higher tier will deal with it.Lord Kavpeny said:
You literally wrote that at the top in the op here.
- 11,582
- 549
You could have simply said yes, dude. But very well, i just wanted to know if it still applies even now.Lord Kavpeny said:
- 15,614
- 7,054
Thanks, Kav. I'll get to work.
- 11,582
- 549
Dude Kavpeny, shouldn't you change the old AP chart with the new one by now?
- 167,692
- 76,282
@Lord Kavpeny If possible, I think that it may be a good idea to place the two charts beside each other in the blog post, so it will be easier for the staff to compare the values when they convert one category to another.
@CrossverseCrisis We should provably wait until the new chart has been finished. Categories 4-B to 3-B have not quite been hammered out yet.
@CrossverseCrisis We should provably wait until the new chart has been finished. Categories 4-B to 3-B have not quite been hammered out yet.
- 11,582
- 549
Oh okay. Well it's because someone wondered why we're still using the old one even though we have the new one made here. But very well.Antvasima said:
- 718
- 20
I have class in the morning and afternoon, so I will not be available until at least after 3 PM.
- 718
- 20
Well, it doesn't quite matter now, does it?
But for future reference, I go by the Eastern Time Zone in the United States.
But for future reference, I go by the Eastern Time Zone in the United States.
- 718
- 20
So, what do I do?
It was suggested that a general purpose thread for communication be created on a team member's wall, but I searched through the walls of the team for tier 3 and 4 and found no such thing.
Do I simply proceed uncoordinated? I know I arrived late, but it would be a massive pain to check through all of the pages' histories to find out which ones have already been edited.
It was suggested that a general purpose thread for communication be created on a team member's wall, but I searched through the walls of the team for tier 3 and 4 and found no such thing.
Do I simply proceed uncoordinated? I know I arrived late, but it would be a massive pain to check through all of the pages' histories to find out which ones have already been edited.
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #258
Noted.Unclechairman said:
Actually, Unclechairma, revision for Tier 3 and 4 has not begun yet, so I would suggest that you create a co-ordination thread for you team. Also, A6colute will be late to the party, so begin editing without him.
As for when the revision begins, it will begin on Jan 7 in all likelihood.
- 4,268
- 284
@ kavpeny: as for the upper limit of 3-B, should it be universe level, with upper limit of 3-B touching 3-A?
if so, for that scenario, should we use a massive nuetron tar at the edge of the observable universe, and use the energy of destruction method as shown here (by that i mean both formulas: 0.6G(M^2)/R, and the other proportionality one ---> 4(pi)((a/R)^2), where a is distance from center of explosion (radiu of observable universe) to calculate energy needed?
if so, for that scenario, should we use a massive nuetron tar at the edge of the observable universe, and use the energy of destruction method as shown here (by that i mean both formulas: 0.6G(M^2)/R, and the other proportionality one ---> 4(pi)((a/R)^2), where a is distance from center of explosion (radiu of observable universe) to calculate energy needed?
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #260
3-B => (calc value) to Undefined
A fair method, with a few flaws.
A fair method, with a few flaws.
- Observable universe =/= Universe. In fact, universe >> observable universe.
- The universe is ever-expanding.
- Why a massive neutron star in particular?
- 4,268
- 284
1- i kknow, its not exact universe level, but observable universe can be a high end for 3-B
2- i know it is, but we are using the current values of the observable universe for this (high end 3-B)
3- a massive neutron star has a greater gbe than any normal star, a neutron star of 2 solar masses and a 13 km radius has a gbe of 487 foes (well beyond even large star level), so that gives us a high end value for destroying the observable universe (iirc doing so was originally proposed by donttalk)
what i am propising here, is observable universe to be the high end value for multi galaxy level, and the nuetron star provides a high end for that, if u want, we can use a normal star instead
2- i know it is, but we are using the current values of the observable universe for this (high end 3-B)
3- a massive neutron star has a greater gbe than any normal star, a neutron star of 2 solar masses and a 13 km radius has a gbe of 487 foes (well beyond even large star level), so that gives us a high end value for destroying the observable universe (iirc doing so was originally proposed by donttalk)
what i am propising here, is observable universe to be the high end value for multi galaxy level, and the nuetron star provides a high end for that, if u want, we can use a normal star instead
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #262
Again, all decent points.
However, in all tiers of our AP chart, whenever we utilize a "Hgih" segregation within a tier, it is easily understood that the regular tier will be incontrovertibly smaller than the "High" tier object.
For example, Large Planet (5-A) was segregated, with Brown Dwarf acting as High 5-A. However, it was universally true that the energy output for a Brown Dwarf would be higher than any large-sized planet.
It is that very premise which allowed for the tier of High 5-A to exist, and be separate from 5-A.
In this case however, the same cannot be said. While the energy output of the Observable Universe is large, can it be said for certain that it will always be >> than Multi-Galaxy? After all, what fraction of the universe is observable in the first place?
It is almost certain that there will be a wide range of Multi-Galaxy level energy output, well exceeding that of the energy output for Observable Universe. Pray tell, how can a tier be listed as high end if it may not be high end in the first place?
The very premise is flawed.
A better solution would be to: instead of deliberately trying to assimilate the energy output for Observable Universe (and causing a fundamental AP indexing error), we can instead list the energy output fot the Observable Universe, using the very same method, under a trivia section on the Attack Potency page. That would serve as a useful tid-bit of information for those interested, while not messing with our AP chart either.
However, in all tiers of our AP chart, whenever we utilize a "Hgih" segregation within a tier, it is easily understood that the regular tier will be incontrovertibly smaller than the "High" tier object.
For example, Large Planet (5-A) was segregated, with Brown Dwarf acting as High 5-A. However, it was universally true that the energy output for a Brown Dwarf would be higher than any large-sized planet.
It is that very premise which allowed for the tier of High 5-A to exist, and be separate from 5-A.
In this case however, the same cannot be said. While the energy output of the Observable Universe is large, can it be said for certain that it will always be >> than Multi-Galaxy? After all, what fraction of the universe is observable in the first place?
It is almost certain that there will be a wide range of Multi-Galaxy level energy output, well exceeding that of the energy output for Observable Universe. Pray tell, how can a tier be listed as high end if it may not be high end in the first place?
The very premise is flawed.
A better solution would be to: instead of deliberately trying to assimilate the energy output for Observable Universe (and causing a fundamental AP indexing error), we can instead list the energy output fot the Observable Universe, using the very same method, under a trivia section on the Attack Potency page. That would serve as a useful tid-bit of information for those interested, while not messing with our AP chart either.
- 4,268
- 284
ok, agreed with the listing
but then 3-A is completely unknown right, along with 3-B?
anyway, for that trivia value, do u want me to use the neutron star along with the method in that link? i think it works fine
but then 3-A is completely unknown right, along with 3-B?
anyway, for that trivia value, do u want me to use the neutron star along with the method in that link? i think it works fine
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #264
I prefer the term "undefined". But yes, in terms of energy, 3-A is not quantifiable. Again, it's not as much of an issue, given that universe-level feats are mostly self-evident.
By all means, go ahead with your suggested method. A dedicated blog post for the calc would be preferable.
By all means, go ahead with your suggested method. A dedicated blog post for the calc would be preferable.
- 4,268
- 284
ok, oh one more thing, are you ok with me using a neutron star instead of a regular sun like star?
- 973
- 44
i wont be around on Jan 7 but i will be able to edit on jan 8Lord Kavpeny said:
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #267
@The Living Tribunal1: Hmm...well, if you are doing a proper calc, then the best method would be to calculate the energy output for both scenarios, so that both low end and high end values are obtained, as is the proper course for most calcs.
@Darkness552: Hmm...okay.
@Darkness552: Hmm...okay.
- 973
- 44
sorry about the late notice
- 4,268
- 284
- 11,582
- 549
You could have at least Linked it to him too, Tribunal.
- 815
- 570
- Thread starter
- #271
@The Living Tribunal1: I'll look into it. Thanks for edit-adding a link.
- Status
Similar threads
