- 31,459
- 34,319
Yeah, I just watched the movie Tusk about a month ago in case anyone wondering why I brought up the Walrus example. But anyway, what Crimson linked will suffice on that point.
-
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.
Real life animals CRT
- Thread starter Armorchompy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the real world
- Status
- 3,464
- 891
Opening Paragraph
This is all I'm gonna cover for now. I'll write another comment covering my opinions on monke and the pages identified for deletion tomorrow, as well as respond to any debate about my points.
- Natural weaponry - I agree, to an extent. Not all animals have natural weaponry, an Ocean Sunfish is one that springs to mind.
- Fungus Manipulation - To quote from the Fungus Manipulation page: "Users can create, shape and manipulate fungi including yeasts and molds, as well as the mushrooms". I agree with the proposed change.
- Disease Manipulation - Not hard here. I agree. But I do disagree with the earlier consensus that animals such as the mosquito should keep it. Mosquitos only give malaria because of the nature of the disease, they don't actually control the disease, which should be a requirement for Disease Manipulation. Add to that that not all mosquitos actually transmit malaria.
- Reaction Speed - I agree. This can be a separate statistic under speed. For real life battles, it would be very useful to know the speed at which an animal can react to stimuli.
- Lifting Strength - Lifting Strength is a pretty significant kettle of fish being discussed right now. Needless to say, I agree with the points put forward in the OP.
- Stamina - Ya boi is a big fan of more detail in our profiles. I agree.
- Enhanced Senses - Extra senses is a subcategory of Enhanced Senses. I agree.
- Anomalocaris
- Attack Potency - I don't agree with 10-C. Anomalocaris is able to create bite marks in the shells of trilobites, the link in the OP clearly states this. While it is not able to actually crack them, nor does it do it often, it's clearly able to break them. Also, meter-long sea creatures are often considered to be equal to humans in terms of strength. 10-B honestly sounds good to me though, 10-A is clearly wrong.
- Enhanced Senses - This is good. TBH, most sea creatures will end up getting this.
- Arthropleura
- Firstly, this profile is actually garbage. Sorry creator.
- Attack Potency / Durability- 10-C with 9-C durability honestly sounds good. Arthropleura was a herbivore, and lacked developed mandibles and mouth parts. I can find no evidence for competing with animals larger than crocodiles, the 9-B probably comes from scaling to a crocodile, which is fallacious as heck. I went for 9-C durability due to the hard exoskeleton.
- Resistance - The resistance to emotions needs to be drop-kicked. First of all, the article linked actually states a possibility, not a fact. Secondly, pain is evolutionarily evolved depending on how useful it is to a particular animal. A larger creature like Arthropleura would be more likely to need pain, not reject it. Thirdly, the article doesn't even mention fear or any emotion aside from pain.
- Jaekelopterus
- Attack Potency - It's claws were able to puncture bone. While the justification we have now for 9-B is incorrect, I'm not 100% convinced that the rating is wrong.
- Resistance to Disease Manipulation - I say get rid of it. I couldn't actually locate any evidence for it scavenging, and Wikipedia says that it was likely an apex predator in its environment, not a scavenger.
- Resistance to Heat Manipulation - Jaekelopterus (410.8 -> 402.5 MYA) didn't even exist in the Silurian Period (443 -> 416 MYA). I agree. Get rid of it.
- Eurypterus
- Attack Potency - We should honestly just use average sizes for creatures. Yes Eurypterus got that big, but that is a rare specimen. Even so, I'm not convinced by 130cm. I've caught fish that are bigger than that, and they couldn't square up to me. I agree with 10-C.
- Argentinosaurus
- This profile made me wanna do grammar work on the Real World. These profiles are really shoddy quality across the board.
- Tail - I agree. Needs to change.
- Archaeopteryx
- Water Walking - The study is here. It just needs to get linked.
- Spinosaurus
- Enhanced Senses - Study is here. Again, just needs to be linked to the profile.
- Troodon
- Attack Potency - 10-B implies that a normal human can take this thing bare-handed, which I don't agree with. 9-C might be too high, but I would be in favor of 10-A.
- Mosasaurus
- Reaction Speed - I agree. Needs to go.
- Movement Speed - As a predator, Mosasaurus should be at least comparable to large sea organisms of modern times, such as whales. They could easily reach 14 m/s over short bursts. This is actually Superhuman. Therefore, I disagree.
- Ornithomimus
- Attack Potency - I'd compare this thing to an ostrich due to it's similar shape and size, which is actually 9-C. So, I disagree with a downgrade.
- T-Rex
- Attack Potency - I actually disagree with this. It could be reworded, but the gist of the profile is meant to explain that T-Rex is superior to the Great White Shark and Saltwater Crocodile, both of whom are 9-B, possibly higher.
- Vibration Manipulation - By roaring? Absolutely not. Vibration Manipulation needs to go. Every single creature on Earth or fiction can create vibrations with its mouth. It's how sound works.
- Titanoboa
- Attack Potency - I disagree. Seeing as an Anaconda is also 9-B, either we downgrade both, or neither
- Dodo
- Attack Potency - I agree
- Tree Weta
- Ice Manipulation - As a lad that actually lives in the same country as these fellas, I can say right off the bat that weta don't deserve Ice Manipulation. I agree.
- Termite
- Self-Destruction - I agree. Pretty cut and dry
- Duplication - I agree. Duplication is instantaneous. I've killed a queen termite before, they didn't instantly spawn a new one from nothing.
- Mantis Shrimp
- Durability - I agree. Based on sheer size, I'd be more in favor of 10-C
- Coconut Crab
- Attack Potency - I agree. Even 10-A seems a bit high t- oh they're a meter wide. Thanks for the nightmares, and 10-A sounds good.
- Durability - I agree. Obviously.
- Lobster
- Attack Potency - I agree. Lobster should be in line for an upgrade. I read through the article, and the general consensus was that the lobster very easily could break someone's arm.
- Driver Ant
- Attack Potency - Someone didn't read their feats properly. I agree, that should go.
- Staghorn Coral
- Movement Speed - I disagree. They capture fish that actually touch them, then drain nutrients in a similar fashion to sea sponges. They are still technically immobile, as they are ambush predators and filter feeders by nature.
- Turritopsis Dohrnii
- Surface Scaling - I agree. It doesn't count
- Poison Manipulation - I disagree. These jellies are not poisonous.
- A larger issue is that the picture shown is actually not the right type of jelly. This is what the Turritopsis Dohrnii actually looks like
- Portuguese Man O' War
- Attack Potency - I agree
- Speed - I agree
- Crown-of-thorns Sea Star
- Duplication - At the moment, I'm gonna disagree. A quick google didn't tell me anything about CoT sea stars duplicating. I know some stars can do it, but I need evidence for this guy in particular before I'm convinced.
- Blue Glaucus
- Absorption - I disagree. This is textbook power absorption, the blue boy literally only has poison manipulation through stealing it from the man o'war.
- Colossal Squid / Giant Squid
- Attack Potency - We actually already discussed this in an earlier thread. I agree with them going down to 9-C.
- Large Size - I disagree. The tentacles count as part of it's size
- Surface Scaling - I agree. Why tf is that there
- Reaction Speed - I agree
- Planarian
- Underwater Breathing - I agree. Probably Type 2.
- Piranaha
- Attack Potency - The justification can be changed from capybara to cow, piranhas can mess those up too. I agree with the order change though
- Axolotl
- Enhanced Senses - I agree
- Komodo Dragon
- Attack Potency - I agree. These things are considered to be stronger than crocodiles for goodness sake. They are definitely 9-B.
- Loggerhead Sea Turtle
- Resistance to Pain Manipulation - I agree. That is actually ridiculous
- Alligator Snapping Turtle
- Attack Potency - I agree. That's 9-C if the finger amputation is correct, but there is no link, and the turtle seems more consistent at 10-A, so I'd put it there.
- Anaconda
- Attack Potency - It's enough to actually crush bones and ribs, and crack a femur. This is why I refuse at the Titanoboa being downgraded, as it is almost 4.5 stronger than this
- Golden Eagle
- Attack Potency - Ah yes, an attack potency stronger than durability. There's a reason we don't normally do that. That profile needs an overhaul
- Snowy Owl
- Stealth Mastery - I agree. If we have other owl profiles on the wiki, it should also be added to those
- Bulldog
- Attack Potency - I spat out my drink when I read 9-C. I agree. Due to bulldogs having the capacity to kill young children, they should probably get 10-A, but that's just my opinion and I will accept 10-B. My main justification is that they are comparable to pit bulls, who are definitely 10-A.
- Pit Bull
- Attack Potency - I agree.
- Kangal Dog
- Attack Potency - I agree. As Kangals are superior to pit bulls, 9-C is perfectly acceptable
- Cheetah
- Attack Potency - They are often considered comparable to large dogs strength-wise. I agree with 10-A
- Red Kangaroo
- Attack Potency - Kangaroos don't bodyslam. Disembowling is also a 9-C feat at best. I would support a downgrade of the Kangaroo to 9-C. Also who allowed this man to write out the kinetic energy formula in a profile?
- Tasmanian Devil
- Attack Potency - Human level is very iffy for a creature that weighs less than my arm. I agree with a downgrade to 10-C.
- Honey Badger
- Attack Potency - Yes, we are scared of them because they are super aggressive, but their bites also can break bones. Pretty sure that's an upgrade to 10-A/9-C, not a downgrade to 10-C. I disagree with the downgrade.
- Otter
- Attack Potency - I would support 10-B, as not many animals can screw with a jaguar.
- Mouse/Rat
- Surface Scaling - "They can't Spider-Man their way up walls" Are you sure about that? I don't accept this.
- Reaction Speed - I can accept this though. We should always go with a scientific study over a grainy YouTube video.
- Aardvark
- Attack Potency - 9-C the aardvark aint, but I can't accept 10-C when we are dealing with a creature up to 1.3 meters long and weighing in at up to 65kg. That would put it below the Peregrine Falcon
- Walrus
- Attack Potency - Walruses can't challenge polar bears. Here is a video of walruses not giving a damn about a polar bear literally on top of them. I don't agree with a downgrade.
- Elephant Seal
- Attack Potency - Elephant Seals are twice the weight and slightly longer than walruses, who we already covered. And when your only real predator is the orca, you're doing pretty well. I disagree with a downgrade.
This is all I'm gonna cover for now. I'll write another comment covering my opinions on monke and the pages identified for deletion tomorrow, as well as respond to any debate about my points.
- 31,459
- 34,319
I'm worried people are going to tell me to shut up about Walruses, but the Walrus usually win against Polar Bears given they're bigger, tougher, and their tusk hurt Polar Bear a lot more than the tooth and claw of Bears hurt Walruses. It's mostly just baby Walruses that are in danger of Polar Bears.
Last edited:
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #44
Thank you, I know you made a lot of these pages, so it must be hard. If you want you can copy/paste them into a sandbox if you don't wanna lose them.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #45
Wouldn't that be piercing damage? That said, the way I see it, the strongest Anomalocaris is on this wiki the better, so if any of you has an argument for tier 1, I'll accept it.
Isn't that 9-C and piercing damage? Besides, it doesn't really say it punctured bone, just that it punctured.
Well, every time I think something is just an idiot's ramblings, it turns out it's a professional idiot's ramblings, huh.
As above
It's like, small, though. 50 kg, and very lanky. I bet you could mess one up with a good kick. It could only really kill a human with teeth, and even then they were adapted for small prey. I'm not saying it couldn't kill a human, mind you, a 10-B animal can totally do that, but you understand that "Athletic Human (Could probably kill a human)" isn't very good justification.
Fair 'nuff
Yeah, they were probably a bit larger than ostrichs actually.
Eh, fair.
I mean, that was what I was saying, yeah. Eyeballing it, it's totally 9-B, but pressure is weird so I wasn't so sure before your anaconda justification.
Cool crab friend : )
To be fair, that was a particularly huge lobster, so maybe we should have the profile say "10-A, up to 9-C in particularly large specimens" or something
Fair
Huh
Y-yeah that oughta get fixed
For what little it matters, I do remember hearing that in a documentary.
Fair
A'ight, that was the kinda thing I wanted to point out and have discussed more than just remove it without a talk
Fair enough, that oughta be mentioned in both profiles then.
I can kill young children too, though, and I'm 10-B. er, anyways, aren't bulldogs a bit lighter than pitbulls, usually?
Maybe we should count that as piercing damage? There's no way their physical strength is 9-C, size considered.
Meh, it's more of an intimidation thing than a straight-up fight, but fair enough.
Holy ****. That said, it's kind of similar to how goats climb, it's not climbing off of anything like Spider-Man does, it's just using (very small) steps
Fair enough.
Fair and fair, I was mostly looking for justifications.
The day I dreaded finally arrives
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #46
Yeah, makes sense. Though, I feel like without their tusks Polar Bears would definitely have a chance of preying on adult Walruses.
- 4,922
- 2,329
Tier 1 animals yes, because my house door cat sure be able to preform 1-As feats
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #48
Sounds good to me!
- 3,707
- 2,720
I will never shut up about Walruses. I'd sooner die.
- 3,464
- 891
I am back. I'll respond to Armourchompy in this comment, then crack into monke and deletion. Just by the way, Armourchompy, make sure you keep a record somewhere of what changes have been accepted so that could be posted all at once to assist with streamlining the actual changing process. Otherwise, people wanting to assist with changes will have to trawl through a massive thread to find what they need to change.
Extinct Animals
Invertebrates
Extinct Animals
- Anomalocaris
- Just realized that I say meter long sea creatures are 10-B here, then proceed to absolutely reverse my argument later. Due to the inconsistencies surrounding what Anomalocaris actually ate, I would be willing to take the path of least resistance and accept 10-C.
- Jaekelopterus
- When fossils have puncture wounds, that tends to mean that the tooth of the animal punctured the flesh and made a mark in the bone. 9-C piercing damage does sound good, but we will also need a tier for the rest of the creature.
- Troodon
- More research told me that they are in fact pack animals, so a normal human actually could have a go at one alone. I accept 10-B.
Invertebrates
- Lobster
- I agree with 10-A to 9-C
- Crown-of-thorns Sea Star
- Couldn't find any justification for the crown of thorns, but there are a whole load of studies saying that sea stars can duplicate themselves. I'm hesitant, but I'm willing to accept this. Would be a lot happier if I saw the exact justification for this type of star though.
- Honey Badger
- I think I actually overestimated the size of a honey badger. I would be happy with placing their physical strength at between 10-B and 10-C, depends how far below a human you place them. 9-C piercing damage also sounds good.
- Otter
- Yes, it is intimidation, but intimidation normally has something behind it. I would agree with 10-C for most species of otter though, with the giant otters being placed at 10-B (they are the ones with the jaguar).
- Mouse/Rat
- While it is not true surface scaling, it is limited, as the mouse does use its claws on the wall to maintain its position rather than the deformities in the wall itself (though those do play a part). I would accept limited surface scaling on the profile
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #52
I'm fine with basically all you're proposing, but we don't really tier piercing damage, we just say it's higher. I'd put Honey Badgers in 10-C+, yeah.
- 31,459
- 34,319
Yeah, Crimson seems to be reasonable here.
@FinePoint I edited my post; I meant to see I'm worried people are going to tell me to shut up about walruses.
@FinePoint I edited my post; I meant to see I'm worried people are going to tell me to shut up about walruses.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #54
Hey, walruses are cool. Not axolotl or anomalocaris levels of cool, but they're pretty cool
- 31,459
- 34,319
I do agree Walruses are cool; probably my favorite arctic animals besides Orcas. But let's avoid more derailment.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #56
I was thinking, since lobsters are usually not big enough for 10-A at all, would it be better if we made it something like "From 10-C to 10-A, possibly 9-C for the largest specimens"?
- 3,464
- 891
10-C to 9-C sounds absolutely insane, but makes a bit more sense when American Lobsters range from 1 inch to 4 feet long. I do wonder though, even the smallest lobsters have an absolutely insane grip strength. Would that still restrict them to 10-C?
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #58
Without feats, I don't know if we could give 'em 10-B... but they are quite strong.
- 3,464
- 891
Personally I think when we are looking at an animal with a total body length of one inch, 10-C is probably safer, no matter how strong they are.
- 1,078
- 338
Ah this is interesting now I agree with most things but I disagree with cheetah being 10-A
I personally believe Cheetah can easily kill a 10-A human & the wild cheetah in the study went off the power Meter Charts, generating 120 watts per kilogram of body weight.
Cheetah varies from 20 kg to 71 kg
Easily 9-C possibly 9-C+
I personally believe Cheetah can easily kill a 10-A human & the wild cheetah in the study went off the power Meter Charts, generating 120 watts per kilogram of body weight.
Cheetah varies from 20 kg to 71 kg
Easily 9-C possibly 9-C+
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #61
That's... not really directly applicable to our tiering system. And "I think he could kill a human" isn't really an amazing argument.
- 1,078
- 338
I dont See Why not its creditable in valid Websites such as National Geographic also A charged cheetah's tackle can likely kill a human with peak durability
Also I said "easily" Kill a 10-A human I dont See any other 10-A human doing that in a bare fist fight killing another 10-A human "easily" Like a cheetah would do anyway if u Bolt tackled u while running in his top speed what do u think will happen?! Also it was stated cheetah is very dangerous even without its speed traits so i dont See anyone below 9-C physically combating a cheetah
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #63
We're no longer scaling KE to animals' physical stats. And while a Cheetah tackling you head-first would probably kill you, it would also kill the Cheetah.
Where's all that other stuff you're talking about? I wanna see studies, not baseless claims, this isn't an obscure character from a non-translated manga that people have read, prove your argument that cheetahs can easily kill humans in a direct fight with sources or drop the argument.
Where's all that other stuff you're talking about? I wanna see studies, not baseless claims, this isn't an obscure character from a non-translated manga that people have read, prove your argument that cheetahs can easily kill humans in a direct fight with sources or drop the argument.
- 1,078
- 338
Ok chill i didnt say i am not gonna provide sources lol
I know the KE energy thing but KE energy makes them Wall level not street lvl
Also cheetah wouldnt die so easily if it tackled u
Yeah full speed tackle can kill it but not normal speed tackle which could heavily even injure u
A Cheetah Can Get You Without Hitting Top Speed
Cheetahs can run faster than 60 mph, but to succeed at hunting, a new study shows that they rely instead on their ability to accelerate.
www.nationalgeographic.com
Also I will later show why my claims arent completely baseless as well
I know a few things about animals since I am a biology Student
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #65
Fair enough, but Cheetahs don't usually tackle targets directly, do they? I'm still very iffy on scaling that to their normal, non-running physical blows. As for converting watts to energy, a racehorse is obviously far stronger than a cheetah or a greyhound, they they produce more watts than him, you'll understand why I don't wanna use those to get ratings at all.
I do think I got too aggressive there though, apologies for that.
I do think I got too aggressive there though, apologies for that.
- 4,922
- 2,329
Actually I have a question:
"Coyote: “Human level (Can easily kill rabbits, Domestic Cats, Chickens, skunks , and human children, but have much harder times with teenage or adult humans)” That sounds like 10-C+ to me."
This and all others who you propose to get 10-C+ of similar reasons eh why, like sure they upscale but we don't have actual values for all the 10-C creatures and I fail to see how they upscale to a massive degree considering claws
"Coyote: “Human level (Can easily kill rabbits, Domestic Cats, Chickens, skunks , and human children, but have much harder times with teenage or adult humans)” That sounds like 10-C+ to me."
This and all others who you propose to get 10-C+ of similar reasons eh why, like sure they upscale but we don't have actual values for all the 10-C creatures and I fail to see how they upscale to a massive degree considering claws
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #67
It's mostly via size than actual scaling, they're fairly large animals and all. Honestly you could suggest 10-B for coyote, I'm not really knowledgeable on 'em.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #69
Imma be real here chief, I've just been eyeballing stuff and pretending I know what I'm talking about. Obviously anything as heavy as a human is 10-B, but even something that's in the 50-70 kg range is probably that level of strength since we're kinda mediocre fighters.
- 31,459
- 34,319
As far as GPE and body slamming are concerned; humans are technically 9-C. But we really shouldn't be mixing body slimmings with simply punching or kicking.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #71
I think we should keep GPE out of this discussion completely, after all we removed KE because most animals don't attack by tackling, this isn't any different.
- 4,922
- 2,329
So will bulls still have tackle AP?
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #73
Yeah, bulls, goats, animals that actually tackle should totally use KE. But this was agreed upon in a previous crt
- 31,459
- 34,319
I do agree with tackling animals that they're fine.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #75
- 3,464
- 891
The way I kind of figure tier by size in the real world with no other factor:
10-C: Weighing less than 10 kg. Birds, small mammals, basic fish, most snakes. Anything smaller than a domestic cat
10-B: Anything weighing between 10 and 40 kg. Medium-sized mammals, large lizards. A capybara is a good example
10-A: Weighing between 40 and 80 kg, about the size of an average human. Monkeys and small apes fit in here, as well as small dinosaurs.
9-C: Weighing between 80 and 200 kg. Large apes, sharks, big cats, etc.
9-B: The largest animals. Elephants, walruses, whales, large dinosaurs
Bear in mind that this is by size alone. I am aware that some sharks fit into 9-B, but that's due to other factors. But if we're looking at tier by sheer size, this is how I figure it
10-C: Weighing less than 10 kg. Birds, small mammals, basic fish, most snakes. Anything smaller than a domestic cat
10-B: Anything weighing between 10 and 40 kg. Medium-sized mammals, large lizards. A capybara is a good example
10-A: Weighing between 40 and 80 kg, about the size of an average human. Monkeys and small apes fit in here, as well as small dinosaurs.
9-C: Weighing between 80 and 200 kg. Large apes, sharks, big cats, etc.
9-B: The largest animals. Elephants, walruses, whales, large dinosaurs
Bear in mind that this is by size alone. I am aware that some sharks fit into 9-B, but that's due to other factors. But if we're looking at tier by sheer size, this is how I figure it
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #77
There's no way something that's 20 kg should be 10-B. Keep in mind 10-C is a relatively large tier, it doesn't necessarily have to be 3 kg animals and below.
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #78
Also, is that your stealthy way to say you agree with 10-A chimps?
- 4,922
- 2,329
But then wouldn't all humans be 10-A what?
- 16,118
- 12,615
- Thread starter
- #80
I think the reasoning behind that is that us humans are kinda wimps, our muscles are not for brute strength at all and we don't have good teeth or claws.
- Status
Similar threads
