Real Life Big Animals CRT

[Antvasima]

What currently needs to be evaluated here?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

What currently needs to be evaluated here?

This:

I especially hope that the number of joules is possible to determine for their kicks.

As for @Ser_Hakim_Dayne,
We do know that the horse's psi is superior to a heavyweight boxer's punch & should be stronger than an ostrich's kick psi. Their kicks can even reach 200 mph if that can be added to their profiles & can fracture people's bones & cause severe damage to human intestines.

Fortunately we do have an example of these feats despite @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan saying we can't from IRL not being fiction. A supporter of IRL animals & major contributor to this thread calced the J for many IRL animals using the "Force x Displacement (N*m)" formula & used pixel scaling the distance of said attacks.

If you assume the distance of a foot or can most accurately scale the distance of a kick then you can use the 10000 N+ force figure to figure out the joules. For assuming the distance as a ft, use this formula (Nm = J btw).

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

This:

As for @Ser_Hakim_Dayne,
We do know that the horse's psi is superior to a heavyweight boxer's punch & should be stronger than an ostrich's kick psi. Their kicks can even reach 200 mph if that can be added to their profiles & can fracture people's bones & cause severe damage to human intestines.

Fortunately we do have an example of these feats despite @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan saying we can't from IRL not being fiction. A supporter of IRL animals & major contributor to this thread calced the J for many IRL animals using the "Force x Displacement (N*m)" formula & used pixel scaling the distance of said attacks.

If you assume the distance of a foot or can most accurately scale the distance of a kick then you can use the 10000 N+ force figure to figure out the joules. For assuming the distance as a ft, use this formula (Nm = J btw).

Thank you, but I don't have a good knowledge of mathematics to calculate all that XD

But otherwise I find it weird that the kicks of horses are determined in PSI and Newtons as are those of the bites of other animals

 

[Deleted member 11410]

Thank you, but I don't have a good knowledge of mathematics to calculate all that XD

But otherwise I find it weird that the kicks of horses are determined in PSI and Newtons as are those of the bites of other animals

Newtons is force... it's a value like an explosion is joules but the KE of an person is also in joules... it doesn't matter haha...

 

[Antvasima]

So what do you want to do here more specifically?

 

[Deleted member 11410]

So what do you want to do here more specifically?

I suggest the removal of the 10000 lbf of tiger profile due to unreliable sources and just that;;

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is probably fine then.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Some revisions that I think should be applied

Manatee​

This isn't really an upgrade to it's AP but just it's durability. A manatee weighs almost 450 kg, heavier than a human. So 9-C durability, AP stays unknown.

Leopard Seal​

Why is it 10-A? A leopard seal weighs 200 - 600 kg, way too heavy to be considered 10-A. Stats should be 9-C.

Llama​

Same reason for the Leopard Seal, way to heavy to be 10-A because they're 200 kg. Also should be 9-C

Dunkleosteus​

So there's a new study, using a more accurate method of estimating it's size than other studies. They conclude that Dunkleosteus was 950 - 1200 kg, meaning it was weaker than a Great White Shark. I guess still in 9-B(?) but weaker than a Great White Shark.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

Some revisions that I think should be applied

Manatee​

This isn't really an upgrade to it's AP but just it's durability. A manatee weighs almost 450 kg, heavier than a human. So 9-C durability, AP stays unknown.

It's fine, but they should've overall 9-C.

Leopard Seal​

Why is it 10-A? A leopard seal weighs 200 - 600 kg, way too heavy to be considered 10-A. Stats should be 9-C.

True, but an pretty high 9-C for sure.

Llama
Same reason for the Leopard Seal, way to heavy to be 10-A because they're 200 kg. Also should be 9-C

Yeah okay, but pretty baseline since Llamas are not impressive at all.

Dunkleosteus
So there's a new study, using a more accurate method of estimating it's size than other studies. They conclude that Dunkleosteus was 950 - 1200 kg, meaning it was weaker than a Great White Shark. I guess still in 9-B(?) but weaker than a Great White Shark.

Obviously, that's pretty much big. Some of 9-C should've 9-C+ but that needs a calc for it—

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Obviously, that's pretty much big. Some of 9-C should've 9-C+ but that needs a calc for it—

I mean, earlier studies had estimated it’s weight as being heavier than a Great White Shark (2500 kg at most), using a less accurate method.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So I guess for the stats of Dunkleosteus:

Tier: At least 9-C+, likely 9-B

Thoughts?

My calc on the Great White hasn't been evaluated, though GWS are capable of jumping out of the water & animals class 5 in LS are generally considered 9-B.

TL; DR. I agree.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

My calc on the Great White hasn't been evaluated, though GWS are capable of jumping out of the water & animals class 5 in LS are generally considered 9-B.

TL; DR. I agree.

k

 

[Antvasima]

What was accepted above can probably be applied.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

It's fine, but they should've overall 9-C.

True, but an pretty high 9-C for sure.

Yeah okay, but pretty baseline since Llamas are not impressive at all.

Obviously, that's pretty much big. Some of 9-C should've 9-C+ but that needs a calc for it—

I’d agree.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Also why is a Camel considered 9-B?

The reasons that I’ve seen at its have no basis for 9-B as it would seem to me because:
1. That feat of a Camel being unfazed by horse kicks wasn’t hit directly by them. Also that was a bactrian camel in that vid, way heavier than a dromedary camel.
2. Trampling or suffocating a human just seem like 9-C feats, including throwing a human.
3. It also doesn’t make any sense if a camel would struggle against a cow which are considered to be 9-C.
4. Overpowering a horse also seems like 9-C as horses are considered 9-C in the wiki.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also why is a Camel considered 9-B?

The reasons that I’ve seen at its have no basis for 9-B as it would seem to me because:
1. That feat of a Camel being unfazed by horse kicks wasn’t hit directly by them. Also that was a bactrian camel in that vid, way heavier than a dromedary camel.
2. Trampling or suffocating a human just seem like 9-C feats, including throwing a human.
3. It also doesn’t make any sense if a camel would struggle against a cow which are considered to be 9-C.
4. Overpowering a horse also seems like 9-C as horses are considered 9-C in the wiki.

Ask DarlingAurora. They said it was via size.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Ask Deleted Username. They said it was via size.

Although, yeah that.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Also why is a Camel considered 9-B?

The reasons that I’ve seen at its have no basis for 9-B as it would seem to me because:
1. That feat of a Camel being unfazed by horse kicks wasn’t hit directly by them. Also that was a bactrian camel in that vid, way heavier than a dromedary camel.
2. Trampling or suffocating a human just seem like 9-C feats, including throwing a human.
3. It also doesn’t make any sense if a camel would struggle against a cow which are considered to be 9-C.
4. Overpowering a horse also seems like 9-C as horses are considered 9-C in the wiki.

Looking at the vid again of the Camel being kicked by a Horse, I see that it did take a direct hit near the beginning of the vid so yeah I guess it does stay in 9-B.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

After some consideration, I think Dunkleosteus should be back to 9-B since it is heavier than other 9-B tier sharks that have a lower weight than 950 - 1200 kg like the Goblin Shark.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Also idk why a Tiger Shark’s durability is listed 9-C+ while their AP is 9-B on its page, plus they should be superior to a Goblin Shark as they’re heavier than it.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

Also idk why a Tiger Shark’s durability is listed 9-C+ while their AP is 9-B on its page, plus they should be superior to a Goblin Shark as they’re heavier than it.

Agreed
Not even a calc for it..

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also idk why a Tiger Shark’s durability is listed 9-C+ while their AP is 9-B on its page, plus they should be superior to a Goblin Shark as they’re heavier than it.

Agreed
Not even a calc for it..

? The Bottlenose Dolphin is preyed on such sharks & usually charges at them nonlethally in self defense in the wikipedia's predator section of the thing, if I have the time after vacation I could calc the energy transfered via the site's conservation of momentum equation.

We just have to be more explicit about this to make sure it's a supported rating.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Also idk why a Tiger Shark’s durability is listed 9-C+ while their AP is 9-B on its page, plus they should be superior to a Goblin Shark as they’re heavier than it.

Because most real life profiles are *****, pretty much. That's the purpose of this thread, to fix them.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

How much force is needed to do this ?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

How much force is needed to do this ?

Depends on if the verse has shown either person or boar to be stronger than their IRL counter parts.

Wild boars are considered to be 9-C on site though have been shown to have KE higher than its AP. As stated in the literally T. Rex vs Walter White thread by Moritzva, KE isn't really a reliable measure of AP usually & is used in the absence of other good feats, so the feat is likely around 9-C.

Though Joule wise, they should be superior to human backs, which require 3000 N to break at the neck. If you want to go to the less accurate KE method, keep in mind that entity charging has a higher durability than it’s KE charge, so put that its durability scales above its AP in the durability section. Though this doesn't mean that a thing’s KE is higher that it is due to it’s durability scaling above it in IRL.

As for LS, I have no idea on the method of breaking the neck so unless if have a good LS feat for either opponent, then the feat is primarily AP.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

After some consideration, I think Dunkleosteus should be back to 9-B since it is heavier than other 9-B tier sharks that have a lower weight than 950 - 1200 kg like the Goblin Shark.

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also idk why a Tiger Shark’s durability is listed 9-C+ while their AP is 9-B on its page, plus they should be superior to a Goblin Shark as they’re heavier than it.

Agreed
Not even a calc for it..

yeet! I'll put it in the calc evaluations thread eventually.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

yeet! I'll put it in the calc evaluations thread eventually.

aight

 

[Antvasima]

What changes do you all currently need to apply here?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

What changes do you all currently need to apply here?

vvv

After some consideration, I think Dunkleosteus should be back to 9-B since it is heavier than other 9-B tier sharks that have a lower weight than 950 - 1200 kg like the Goblin Shark.

plus, my calc concerning the durability of the Bottlenose Dolphin to it's predators on-site.
vvv

yeet! I'll put it in the calc evaluations thread eventually.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Some other revisions that might have to be applied.

Downgrades​

For the blue shark, swordfish, yellowfin tuna, goblin shark, mahi-mahi, Indo-pacific sailfish, and Atlantic blue marlin should all be downgraded to 9-C as KE shouldn't always be a reliable method of measuring its AP unless it charges against a surface and survives the impact. Same reason for the giant trevally and wahoo as it should be downgraded to 10-A via size while the blacktip reef shark should be 10-C since it weighs 13.6 kg. As for the manta ray, it would stay in 9-B but only by weight (3000 kg), not KE.

Upgrades​

I think the megamouth shark should be 9-B via weight as it's 1215 kg.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

Some revisions that I think should be applied

Manatee​

This isn't really an upgrade to it's AP but just it's durability. A manatee weighs almost 450 kg, heavier than a human. So 9-C durability, AP stays unknown.

Leopard Seal​

Why is it 10-A? A leopard seal weighs 200 - 600 kg, way too heavy to be considered 10-A. Stats should be 9-C.

Llama​

Same reason for the Leopard Seal, way to heavy to be 10-A because they're 200 kg. Also should be 9-C

Dunkleosteus​

So there's a new study, using a more accurate method of estimating it's size than other studies. They conclude that Dunkleosteus was 950 - 1200 kg, meaning it was weaker than a Great White Shark. I guess still in 9-B(?) but weaker than a Great White Shark.

Should Manatee be 9-B in durability?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Same reason for the giant trevally and wahoo as it should be downgraded to 10-A via size

hey, I was planning to do funny matches with that fish! Anyways, let's see if this is applicable.

These bois are longer than the height of an average male & are close to the high-end weight of one. (up to 2.5 m long, up to 83 kg vs 5 ft 7.5 in (1.7145 m), 84 kg). Though it should be noted that they grow commonly smaller, at 3.3-5.4 ft long (1.00584-1.64592 m long) from one source & 5 ft long (1.524 m long) from another source.

Seems like they're in range of 10-C to 10-A.

(primary source top speed: 47.9 mph)

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Should Manatee be 9-B in durability?

They get hit by boats that don't intend to hit them & get severely injured in the process, so no.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

They get hit by boats that don't intend to hit them & get severely injured in the process, so no.

I think that I see some claims about Alligator having hard time trying to hunting Manatee due to their skin/weight, but I don't find the sources at all

 

[Keeweed]

As far as I’m aware crocodiles just despise the taste of Manatee, they bite into them just fine.

Arguably I think the large majority of our current 9-B animals should be nuked and completely reevaluated. Nothing stops humans from punching the large majority of them to death (if they don’t fight back, but that’s their ap preventing it not durability). All creatures are made out of the same materials: flesh, meat, and bones which can all easily be damage, slashed, or broken by 10-B to 9-C stuff. Humans with regular spears literally drove mammoths into extinction, and can slay elephants, rhinos, and hippos.

 

[Keeweed]

To clarify, I think many animals should be rated like this: 10-B to 9-C normally (for their flesh and organs. 10-B for most, 9-C for creatures with extremely thick and tough hides), 9-C to 9-B for their skeletons (Honestly I’m kinda against this since humans aren’t rated this way, but many animals easily die from 10-B damage if it misses any of the creatures bones or other defenses, but if a very low 9-C attack hits a very thick bone then it would do much less to very little damage and that’s notable).

Most animals get their defense from stuff that doesn’t correlate with this site’s definition of durability. Like fur and predator animal’s skin don’t cut easily, but 9-C attacks can effortlessly cut through it if done correctly. It’s the same reason why the below average human honey badger is so survivable in real life.

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

hey, I was planning to do funny matches with that fish! Anyways, let's see if this is applicable.

These bois are longer than the height of an average male & are close to the high-end weight of one. (up to 2.5 m long, up to 83 kg vs 5 ft 7.5 in (1.7145 m), 84 kg). Though it should be noted that they grow commonly smaller, at 3.3-5.4 ft long (1.00584-1.64592 m long) from one source & 5 ft long (1.524 m long) from another source.

Seems like they're in range of 10-C to 10-A.

(primary source top speed: 47.9 mph)

aight

 

[R4ndomPlayer315]

Humans with regular spears literally drove mammoths into extinction, and can slay elephants, rhinos, and hippos.

I’d say this was by piercing its weak spots like the neck or was speared a ton of times to the point of blood loss.

 

[Keeweed]

Real animals don’t have ‘weak points’. Those points are the same as the rest of their body, flesh and meat. Their skin is 10-B (I would actually argue 10-C since bugs can destroy flesh, it’s like how a tanks overall destruction is much higher than the actual durablity of the metal), their organs are 10-B, and the meat is also 10-B it just takes higher energy to destroy a lot of it.

Only animals that actually have armored skin, like elephants and armadillos, have flesh with higher durability than normal. If you punched a lion or bear you would brush it, you would hurt it, you could even kill it if it didn’t fight back.

Our sites standard of durability doesn’t match reality at all. All creatures can be slain by 10-B amounts of damage, real life just often has many reasons why that 10-B damage fails (angles, amount of material destroyed at once, physics with slashing and bludgeoning attacks making it deal less damage than it could). Like most predators have flesh that doesn’t drag with slashes (like prey animals do), thus slashes cause less damage because the flesh doesn’t get dragged and shredded with the attack. The 9-C attack still cuts through practically all animals like wet paper, it just doesn’t cause massive damage. Currently with how we rate animals blue whales should be invincible, yet many animals can tear apart their flesh (including 10-Cs) and orcas straight up kill and eat them (with the only thing stopping them being the whale’s ap, not durability).

Edit: mixed up 10 and 11-C, I meant below average human (10-C)