Deleted member 11410
Guest
woah page 11
We need another thread due to this being extended to much or nah?
We need another thread due to this being extended to much or nah?
-
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 Big Animals CRT
- Thread starter H3110l12345I20
- Start date
- Status
- 10,541
- 12,348
Well, the conversation is leaning to a more generalized revision of the standards for real life profiles, so that would indeed merit a new thread imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 7,358
- 2,068
I don’t see how the increase resilience against pulling stress, or being stretched, would mean anything here at all. As just generally shown by the real injuries all these ‘9-B’ animals receive all the time that increased stress resistance isn’t a resistance against damage. Even if it was it’s by such a small amount that it definitely isn’t bumping them into 9-B.
Again, humans aren’t rated 9-C for their bones, animals shouldn’t be rated 9-B for theirs. Especially considering how insignificant bones would be 90% of the time. As shown by pretty much every creature dying ever. Your important parts of the body are all super squishy and weak bits of flesh and meat.
I figured since this thread exist on big animals I probably shouldn’t make a new thread. But if it would be better to make a new one I can after work today.
Again, humans aren’t rated 9-C for their bones, animals shouldn’t be rated 9-B for theirs. Especially considering how insignificant bones would be 90% of the time. As shown by pretty much every creature dying ever. Your important parts of the body are all super squishy and weak bits of flesh and meat.
I figured since this thread exist on big animals I probably shouldn’t make a new thread. But if it would be better to make a new one I can after work today.
- 10,541
- 12,348
The threads purpose was to fix animal profiles based on the standards already accepted.What you are proposing changes the standards of how we profile said animals in the first place. It's a different thing altogether (with quite far reaching implications and revisions, to add, from what I'm gathering; though admit I'm mostly sight-reading).
- 7,358
- 2,068
Ah, so the site’s standards changed and thus animals changed with it.
Though I don’t think saying “I’m changing standards” is really accurate. The real world is quite a bit different than how our site generally works. I’m just bring up that real world profiles don’t make much real world sense.
I’ll definitely make a thread on it.
Though I don’t think saying “I’m changing standards” is really accurate. The real world is quite a bit different than how our site generally works. I’m just bring up that real world profiles don’t make much real world sense.
I’ll definitely make a thread on it.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,006
The reason why people aren't 9-C for their bones is because of the oversimplified tiering system at tiers 10 to 9-C, making it so we shrug this off. Most of the 9-B animals aren't invertebrates. Without bones how are the animals' vitals protected & how can they stand & do the things they do? Can you really punch without rigid organs that can give stability to a body?
- 11,099
- 4,323
Tbh it's more so about how do we find the middle ground between portraying a degree of real life accuracy and adhering to the tier systems of our site, so I do welcome such discussions personally.
Probably sound like the annoying centrist friend right now but there's really no perfect solution and it's more about what we choose to do. Would obviously not find it optimal for every real world profile to have far lower durability than our usual profiles
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,008
I mean, with the unavoidable accuracies noted here, I think we'll eventually have to be forced to shrug them off unless we can find a middle ground here.
I was going to reluctantly go the significantly lower durabilty route for more possible & funny match ups, but you said that we can't have dura being significantly lower than the animal's AP.
I think the best choice here would be to just state/note that the animal's durabilty scales lower than their attack potency on the official IRL verse page or its profiles (since the animals on-site use AP as physical attacks, Striking Strength & in-turn, durabilty would be affected).
This suggestion would effect a lot of the profiles on site (more notably, the IRL (verse)), but it seems simplistic to me.
Edit: for most profiles, we could do a "lower via dispersal of striking strength energy" in their durabilty sections. Though with profiles that have a "possibly higher" rating or anything similar on their durabilty sections like on the spotted hyena, we could remove the modifier since all the energy from an attack doesn't 100% transfer to the victim (like for how humans survive getting sent flying by cars). This should be like a verse exclusive rule for IRL.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,010
Cool! Where can I find it? We had an incredible debate!
- 7,358
- 2,068
I haven’t made it yet, specifically because I was either going to be working today, or taking my grandma to doctors. And since I’m taking my grandma to the doctors instead I’m going to have plenty of time to type the thread out. I’ll link it once I’m done.
- 7,358
- 2,068
So my grandma’s x-rays took less time than I thought, so I had to drive back home before I could finish making my thread. But now that I am home, here’s the thread. https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-durability-of-real-world-animals.151164/
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
Aight
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,014
Shouldn't we continue this thread in order to continue the durability of IRL animals? We can continue with our suggestions here & take into account the energy dispersion part.
I can also provide links to the most popular & known animals since that's likely correlated to their appearance in fiction. With that in mind those pages should be prioritized first before we move on to other pages. Plus, we should also follow this page to prevent more editing mistakes.
Sources for the most popular/charismatic animals.
List of animals in alphabetical order, usually on-site unless stated otherwise:
-Bears
--Polar Bear
-Birds (popular birds list)
--Ducks (world's most popular game bird)
--Toucan (on of the world's most popular birds)
--Various others on the list
-Cheetah
-Chicken
-Dogs
--Bulldog (is the most popular breed of dog searched on google)
--Husky (the 2nd dog on this list that's the most popular dog on google trends that's on-site)
--Labrador Retriever (Oddly enough, it's the world's most popular dog, who's going to make an official profile on it?)
-Domestic Cat
-Elephant
-Fish
--Sharks
---Great White Shark (the most popular shark in IRL)
--Tuna (it's the most consumed fish, do we need a profile on it?)
-Horse
-Giant Panda
-Giraffe
-Gorilla
-Gray Wolf/Canis Lupus
-Leopard
-Lion (Real World)
-Monkeys
--None of these animals here are on-site
-Tiger
-Triceratops (one of the most recognizable dinosaurs)
-Tyrannosaurus Rex (Real World) (most famous & recognizable dinosaur, one of the most famous dino fossils is a T. Rex)
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,015
Updated.
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
Tbh, I actually don’t get how energy dispersion can prevent the actual amount of damage to said material, can someone explain this? Plus we can’t really calc the non-dispersed energy because energy disperses all the time when transferred to another object, because if it doesn’t disperse, that just violates the law of conservation of energy.
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,017
I'll answer this after martial arts class.
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
Aight
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,019
I believe part of Keeweed's suggestion of "energy disperses in an attack" actually effects how we scale IRL animals as an in verse rule.
With the conservation of energy being a factor here & the fact that animals like humans absorb each other's energy from their punches, any animal surviving an attack is going to absorb the attack's energy.
As pressure = force/unit area, the more force &/or less area the force is being concentrated at, the more pressure & potential damage you can do.
I just realized my side in the IRL animals durability was arguing about paper mache. Durability means this, & withstand means this. This means that if an animal absorbs the energy of an attack with no change/damage, then they can withstand that amount of energy. However, while attacks can be multiple "a certain amount of force," durability by this site's standards is "a," not multiple "a certain amount of force." Interestingly, many of the methods of scaling durability state that you can scale durability if an attack leaves little damage on an opponent's body, implying we can downscale the energy withstood from that attack.
I actually have an idea on how we can change how we do durability of animals, it's just that I need to kickstart this thread first. Right after we address the ELEPHANT in the room:
"An elephant's skull is resilient enough to withstand the forces generated by the leverage of the tusks and head-to-head collisions. The back of the skull is flattened and spread out, creating arches that protect the brain in every direction." (wikipedia has a standard of making sure much of it's info is referenced from a reliable source & the link for the quote has a reference supporting this, giving us more reason to trust the quote)
Looks like the Elephant can absorb the full kinetic energy from each other. If injury is a problem, we can downscale from the kinetic energy of the smallest elephants & assume the larger ones can absorb more energy than them.
KE: 0.5(1800)((6.8)^2) = 41,616 J
Note: This elephant was from Asia Since it's smaller & in the same species as other elephants, it's speed should be comparable or faster to the low-ball estimate of 6.8 m/s or 25 km/h rather than African Elephants' faster speed due to it's small size.
Last edited:
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,021
bump.
Who's going to do the analysis for IRL animals durability too based off this new scaling rule stuff? Me, someone else or Deleted Username?
Don't you have changes you want make, or nah?
Who's going to do the analysis for IRL animals durability too based off this new scaling rule stuff? Me, someone else or Deleted Username?
Last edited by a moderator:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,023
I'm trying to reevaluate the durability of real world animals, the elephant should stay 9-B since blunt attacks from each other without tusks make them absorb each other's energy due to low pressure from high surface area. Though I'll try to find a decent source about concussions being a potential weakness of them universally.
I'm waiting for Keeweed since I would like to talk to him about the limits of his conclusion. Like even though blunt force attacks over a wide area makes an attack less deadly, it doesn't stop the energy from being transferred.
So far, I'm just getting started on evaluating this list for the durability of major IRL animals vvv. Give me a bit more time.
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,025
I have an idea on how we can scale the durability of real world animals.
- 168,514
- 77,227
Please elaborate.
@H3110l12345I20 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Keeweed @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deleted Username
@H3110l12345I20 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Keeweed @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deleted Username
Last edited by a moderator:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,027
This post here. Keeweed pointed out that much/most of our durability feats were just injury stamina feats.
Unfortunately the fact that my side was in the moment despite our ability to read & Keeweed not presenting a solution that wouldn't cause just as many problems as this contradiction just resulted in literally no changes at all. I'll repost my suggestions from my post there since the OP of the durability IRL animals is focused more on their personal life vvv.
I’m going to follow the principle of relying on the definition of durability (beating someone up isn’t the same thing as a single strike, the durability page states that it’s a property to withstand a certain force. This implies the capacity to be unaffected/damaged by a strike, not multiple strikes). If “X” animal gets little to no harm from an attack, then it wouldn’t be damaged from a slightly weaker attack of similar surface area.
If it’s an attack of little surface area that does little to no damage to “X” animal, then it would be reasonable to assume that a similar attack of a wider surface area would do little to no harm.
For animals & feats that mostly rely on surviving bites/cutting attacks, if the bite/cut does little to no damage, then it would be reasonable to get “X animal” the tier of the animal biter’s attack potency. However, blunt force attacks should be more prioritized since linearizing piercing attacks with blunt force attacks would cause cases of inconsistencies. This is more of a “don’t use it unless you have to” thing since there are animals that have mostly biting durability feats more than blunt force feats.
The Sperm Whale is one of many. While they can harm each other with their KE, they have their Spermeti organ, which is a soft organ that allows the whale to absorb each other’s KE. As bulls charging at each other is a normal behavior & it’s shown that animals designed to absorb each other’s KE, evolution would have made it so a bull wouldn’t get harmed from a basic baseline 9-B charge or get little harm from ramming into each other (15 KJ is significantly lower than the bulls’ KE of 3,917 KJ). This is from the significantly reduced acceleration translating into less newtons & the wide surface area of the whale making it so a basic 9-B charge at each other’s heads would do no damage to it’s internal organs or skin. Linearizing this with the feat of being able to cut through the whale’ head via spears would be inconsistent since the whale should logically no-sell the spears or instantly die from their full charges.
Simply, lining up an animal with higher blunt durability & taking that same energy they usually casually absorb into a significantly smaller area would get inconsistent results.
As IRL doesn’t have the blanket durability fiction has & the sperm whale’s vital organs can be one-shotted by a spear, the head of the whale should be more durable collectively & giving 10-C, 10-B or 9-C blanket durability based off of it’s weakly vitals & the fact that things don’t matter if the vitals are hit contradicts the whale’s capacity to be unaffected by a basic 9-B baseline charge or thousands of joules lower than their AP.
I predict there would be many more cases of inconsistencies like this.
An animal’s normal behavior, evolution & design is also a factor. Evolution only encourages the evolution of things that would be an advantage & increase the things’ evolutionary fitness, not the other way around. This causes traits that are beneficial to the organism to be enhanced or possibly to their fullest potential over the course of countless generations. If an animal for example, like an Orca is shown to routinely ram into things as a benefit to itself & has been around for (edit: a while to perfect its evolution), it would be reasonable to assume that their body is built to withstand it's charges even towards each other. (edit: Orcas have been around for) 11 million years, an Orca’s charge is an advantage to it since it allows them to kill it’s prey or even disable it, going as far as to harm Blue Whales by this tactic. Since they’ve been around for a long time with this in mind, their bodies would adapt into battering rams & maximize it’s KE potential over the generations) This should imply that if 2 Orcas of similar size rammed into each other at full speed, they would take little to no damage. The high surface area of the Orca would also make it so they would take little to no damage from charging into each other.
edit: Hippo's a more tricky case since their skull is more focused on being dense enough to stay underwater, but it doesn't routinely charge at stuff. It's not my priority right now tbh since it's not one of the popular animals.
edit 2: As for animals like the Beluga Whale, during the Walter White vs Chimpanzee match, injury tolerance is a valid form of reasoning when enduring attacks higher than your durability. Like bro, the profile I made for it literally states that their heads aren't designed for ramming & they would be still ok at 9-C durability since they're not closely related to bears, higher surface area & the stamina stuff should cover the 9-B attacks. We could always make a note on it's durability area based off of this reasoning.
We could do the same for the animal profiles since some of the animals I've tiered have lower durability than their AP. The official part of the stamina page even says that injury tolerance is a valid method of measuring stamina.
Edit: I think I meant to say fully linearizing blunt with piercing attacks. The OP seems to think that we should. Like I get that this is IRL, but we should make the distinction via surface area rather than trying to fully mis-mush cut & blunt attacks. & FYI, harpoons are spears, so the statements of the Sperm Whale being able to have the stamina to endure multiple harpoon wounds on it's profile are equal to enduring multiple 9-C spear wounds.
If it’s an attack of little surface area that does little to no damage to “X” animal, then it would be reasonable to assume that a similar attack of a wider surface area would do little to no harm.
For animals & feats that mostly rely on surviving bites/cutting attacks, if the bite/cut does little to no damage, then it would be reasonable to get “X animal” the tier of the animal biter’s attack potency. However, blunt force attacks should be more prioritized since linearizing piercing attacks with blunt force attacks would cause cases of inconsistencies. This is more of a “don’t use it unless you have to” thing since there are animals that have mostly biting durability feats more than blunt force feats.
The Sperm Whale is one of many. While they can harm each other with their KE, they have their Spermeti organ, which is a soft organ that allows the whale to absorb each other’s KE. As bulls charging at each other is a normal behavior & it’s shown that animals designed to absorb each other’s KE, evolution would have made it so a bull wouldn’t get harmed from a basic baseline 9-B charge or get little harm from ramming into each other (15 KJ is significantly lower than the bulls’ KE of 3,917 KJ). This is from the significantly reduced acceleration translating into less newtons & the wide surface area of the whale making it so a basic 9-B charge at each other’s heads would do no damage to it’s internal organs or skin. Linearizing this with the feat of being able to cut through the whale’ head via spears would be inconsistent since the whale should logically no-sell the spears or instantly die from their full charges.
Simply, lining up an animal with higher blunt durability & taking that same energy they usually casually absorb into a significantly smaller area would get inconsistent results.
As IRL doesn’t have the blanket durability fiction has & the sperm whale’s vital organs can be one-shotted by a spear, the head of the whale should be more durable collectively & giving 10-C, 10-B or 9-C blanket durability based off of it’s weakly vitals & the fact that things don’t matter if the vitals are hit contradicts the whale’s capacity to be unaffected by a basic 9-B baseline charge or thousands of joules lower than their AP.
I predict there would be many more cases of inconsistencies like this.
An animal’s normal behavior, evolution & design is also a factor. Evolution only encourages the evolution of things that would be an advantage & increase the things’ evolutionary fitness, not the other way around. This causes traits that are beneficial to the organism to be enhanced or possibly to their fullest potential over the course of countless generations. If an animal for example, like an Orca is shown to routinely ram into things as a benefit to itself & has been around for (edit: a while to perfect its evolution), it would be reasonable to assume that their body is built to withstand it's charges even towards each other. (edit: Orcas have been around for) 11 million years, an Orca’s charge is an advantage to it since it allows them to kill it’s prey or even disable it, going as far as to harm Blue Whales by this tactic. Since they’ve been around for a long time with this in mind, their bodies would adapt into battering rams & maximize it’s KE potential over the generations) This should imply that if 2 Orcas of similar size rammed into each other at full speed, they would take little to no damage. The high surface area of the Orca would also make it so they would take little to no damage from charging into each other.
edit: Hippo's a more tricky case since their skull is more focused on being dense enough to stay underwater, but it doesn't routinely charge at stuff. It's not my priority right now tbh since it's not one of the popular animals.
edit 2: As for animals like the Beluga Whale, during the Walter White vs Chimpanzee match, injury tolerance is a valid form of reasoning when enduring attacks higher than your durability. Like bro, the profile I made for it literally states that their heads aren't designed for ramming & they would be still ok at 9-C durability since they're not closely related to bears, higher surface area & the stamina stuff should cover the 9-B attacks. We could always make a note on it's durability area based off of this reasoning.
We could do the same for the animal profiles since some of the animals I've tiered have lower durability than their AP. The official part of the stamina page even says that injury tolerance is a valid method of measuring stamina.
Edit: I think I meant to say fully linearizing blunt with piercing attacks. The OP seems to think that we should. Like I get that this is IRL, but we should make the distinction via surface area rather than trying to fully mis-mush cut & blunt attacks. & FYI, harpoons are spears, so the statements of the Sperm Whale being able to have the stamina to endure multiple harpoon wounds on it's profile are equal to enduring multiple 9-C spear wounds.
TBH, I know that biting lays over to cutting stuff, but what else are we going to do against animals with biting as primary durability feats?
Last edited by a moderator:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,029
I know right? I didn't intend to mean that much of the animals we have should be 9-C in durability based off the fact that they have stronger bones. Evolutionary design is also a factor.
At most, a normal person should be at least 1.5 times as stronger than usual since they usually use 67% of their strength. & at that strength, basic injuries would occur. Rating much of the 9-B animals as 10-B or 10-C in durability ignores common sense & the design of the animals. The 9-B animals would die/get incapacitated/(edit: severely) injured instantly if they charged/striked at something or each other if they were at that durability. An increase in size translates not just surface area, but more mass & in-turn, more N & more pressure too.
Things get more complicated at tiers 10-B to 9-C for IRL animals but if my suggestions ever get accepted, my durability retiers for major animals will come out in a couple of days.
edit: this also applies to animals that are claimed to be 9-C by a high surface area. But that would also support 9-B ratings if a 9-B animal was unaffected by a 9-B attack over a wide surface area.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,031
Just to clarify a couple of things before I go out on my day. If I misremember/misinterpreted Keeweed's arguments, they have every right to defend themself from getting words put in their mouth.
& it's not just KE, it's also blunt strikes that aren't charges usually.
& on Keeweed's durability for IRL animals thread, he's more willing to continue it if the KE durability of IRL animals are finished, & I'm the only one here doing contributions so far. Thank you & you're welcome Ant!
& it's not just KE, it's also blunt strikes that aren't charges usually.
& on Keeweed's durability for IRL animals thread, he's more willing to continue it if the KE durability of IRL animals are finished, & I'm the only one here doing contributions so far. Thank you & you're welcome Ant!
Last edited:
Deleted member 11410
Guest
what happened?
Last edited by a moderator:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,033
My side lost to a surprisingly reasonable person that claims that a majority of the 9-B animals should be 10-B in durability for their flesh & that we can literally beat them up if the 9-B animals didn't. (& no, I'm not intending to be ironic. I've seen Keeweed be reasonable in a vs thread while waltzing through the wiki. With George against someone who can do marital arts & their argument of "George can't beat someone with marital arts" actually good. Same thing applies for their durability for IRL animals thread.)
& for context, durability is the capacity to be unaffected/undamaged by a certain amount of force (not multiple strikes). If an animal can't be undamaged by 10-B attacks, saying flesh is 10-B for convenience isn't a good argument. The flesh should be 10-C by that logic.
Also, I'm trying to bring IRL animal durability standards to a wiki that counts surviving getting shot by a bullet as durability. Even though that should be a stamina feat via injury tolerance.
For the suggestions:
"
I’m going to follow the principle of relying on the definition of durability (beating someone up isn’t the same thing as a single strike, the durability page states that it’s a property to withstand a certain force. This implies the capacity to be unaffected/damaged by a strike, not multiple strikes). If “X” animal gets little to no harm from an attack, then it wouldn’t be damaged from a slightly weaker attack of similar surface area.
If it’s an attack of little surface area that does little to no damage to “X” animal, then it would be reasonable to assume that a similar attack of a wider surface area would do little to no harm.
For animals & feats that mostly rely on surviving bites/cutting attacks, if the bite/cut does little to no damage, then it would be reasonable to get “X animal” the tier of the animal biter’s attack potency. However, blunt force attacks should be more prioritized since linearizing piercing attacks with blunt force attacks would cause cases of inconsistencies. This is more of a “don’t use it unless you have to” thing since there are animals that have mostly biting durability feats more than blunt force feats.
The Sperm Whale is one of many. While they can harm each other with their KE, they have their Spermeti organ, which is a soft organ that allows the whale to absorb each other’s KE. As bulls charging at each other is a normal behavior & it’s shown that animals designed to absorb each other’s KE, evolution would have made it so a bull wouldn’t get harmed from a basic baseline 9-B charge or get little harm from ramming into each other (15 KJ is significantly lower than the bulls’ KE of 3,917 KJ). This is from the significantly reduced acceleration translating into less newtons & the wide surface area of the whale making it so a basic 9-B charge at each other’s heads would do no damage to it’s internal organs or skin. Linearizing this with the feat of being able to cut through the whale’ head via spears would be inconsistent since the whale should logically no-sell the spears or instantly die from their full charges.
Simply, lining up an animal with higher blunt durability & taking that same energy they usually casually absorb into a significantly smaller area would get inconsistent results.
As IRL doesn’t have the blanket durability fiction has & the sperm whale’s vital organs can be one-shotted by a spear, the head of the whale should be more durable collectively & giving 10-C, 10-B or 9-C blanket durability based off of it’s weakly vitals & the fact that things don’t matter if the vitals are hit contradicts the whale’s capacity to be unaffected by a basic 9-B baseline charge or thousands of joules lower than their AP.
I predict there would be many more cases of inconsistencies like this.
An animal’s normal behavior, evolution & design is also a factor. Evolution only encourages the evolution of things that would be an advantage & increase the things’ evolutionary fitness, not the other way around. This causes traits that are beneficial to the organism to be enhanced or possibly to their fullest potential over the course of countless generations. If an animal for example, like an Orca is shown to routinely ram into things as a benefit to itself & has been around for (edit: a while to perfect its evolution), it would be reasonable to assume that their body is built to withstand it's charges even towards each other. (edit: Orcas have been around for) 11 million years, an Orca’s charge is an advantage to it since it allows them to kill it’s prey or even disable it, going as far as to harm Blue Whales by this tactic. Since they’ve been around for a long time with this in mind, their bodies would adapt into battering rams & maximize it’s KE potential over the generations) This should imply that if 2 Orcas of similar size rammed into each other at full speed, they would take little to no damage. The high surface area of the Orca would also make it so they would take little to no damage from charging into each other.
edit: Hippo's a more tricky case since their skull is more focused on being dense enough to stay underwater, but it doesn't routinely charge at stuff. It's not my priority right now tbh since it's not one of the popular animals.
edit 2: As for animals like the Beluga Whale, during the Walter White vs Chimpanzee match, injury tolerance is a valid form of reasoning when enduring attacks higher than your durability. Like bro, the profile I made for it literally states that their heads aren't designed for ramming & they would be still ok at 9-C durability since they're not closely related to bears, higher surface area & the stamina stuff should cover the 9-B attacks. We could always make a note on it's durability area based off of this reasoning.
We could do the same for the animal profiles since some of the animals I've tiered have lower durability than their AP. The official part of the stamina page even says that injury tolerance is a valid method of measuring stamina.
Edit: I think I meant to say fully linearizing blunt with piercing attacks. The OP seems to think that we should. Like I get that this is IRL, but we should make the distinction via surface area rather than trying to fully mis-mush cut & blunt attacks. & FYI, harpoons are spears, so the statements of the Sperm Whale being able to have the stamina to endure multiple harpoon wounds on it's profile are equal to enduring multiple 9-C spear wounds.
If it’s an attack of little surface area that does little to no damage to “X” animal, then it would be reasonable to assume that a similar attack of a wider surface area would do little to no harm.
For animals & feats that mostly rely on surviving bites/cutting attacks, if the bite/cut does little to no damage, then it would be reasonable to get “X animal” the tier of the animal biter’s attack potency. However, blunt force attacks should be more prioritized since linearizing piercing attacks with blunt force attacks would cause cases of inconsistencies. This is more of a “don’t use it unless you have to” thing since there are animals that have mostly biting durability feats more than blunt force feats.
The Sperm Whale is one of many. While they can harm each other with their KE, they have their Spermeti organ, which is a soft organ that allows the whale to absorb each other’s KE. As bulls charging at each other is a normal behavior & it’s shown that animals designed to absorb each other’s KE, evolution would have made it so a bull wouldn’t get harmed from a basic baseline 9-B charge or get little harm from ramming into each other (15 KJ is significantly lower than the bulls’ KE of 3,917 KJ). This is from the significantly reduced acceleration translating into less newtons & the wide surface area of the whale making it so a basic 9-B charge at each other’s heads would do no damage to it’s internal organs or skin. Linearizing this with the feat of being able to cut through the whale’ head via spears would be inconsistent since the whale should logically no-sell the spears or instantly die from their full charges.
Simply, lining up an animal with higher blunt durability & taking that same energy they usually casually absorb into a significantly smaller area would get inconsistent results.
As IRL doesn’t have the blanket durability fiction has & the sperm whale’s vital organs can be one-shotted by a spear, the head of the whale should be more durable collectively & giving 10-C, 10-B or 9-C blanket durability based off of it’s weakly vitals & the fact that things don’t matter if the vitals are hit contradicts the whale’s capacity to be unaffected by a basic 9-B baseline charge or thousands of joules lower than their AP.
I predict there would be many more cases of inconsistencies like this.
An animal’s normal behavior, evolution & design is also a factor. Evolution only encourages the evolution of things that would be an advantage & increase the things’ evolutionary fitness, not the other way around. This causes traits that are beneficial to the organism to be enhanced or possibly to their fullest potential over the course of countless generations. If an animal for example, like an Orca is shown to routinely ram into things as a benefit to itself & has been around for (edit: a while to perfect its evolution), it would be reasonable to assume that their body is built to withstand it's charges even towards each other. (edit: Orcas have been around for) 11 million years, an Orca’s charge is an advantage to it since it allows them to kill it’s prey or even disable it, going as far as to harm Blue Whales by this tactic. Since they’ve been around for a long time with this in mind, their bodies would adapt into battering rams & maximize it’s KE potential over the generations) This should imply that if 2 Orcas of similar size rammed into each other at full speed, they would take little to no damage. The high surface area of the Orca would also make it so they would take little to no damage from charging into each other.
edit: Hippo's a more tricky case since their skull is more focused on being dense enough to stay underwater, but it doesn't routinely charge at stuff. It's not my priority right now tbh since it's not one of the popular animals.
edit 2: As for animals like the Beluga Whale, during the Walter White vs Chimpanzee match, injury tolerance is a valid form of reasoning when enduring attacks higher than your durability. Like bro, the profile I made for it literally states that their heads aren't designed for ramming & they would be still ok at 9-C durability since they're not closely related to bears, higher surface area & the stamina stuff should cover the 9-B attacks. We could always make a note on it's durability area based off of this reasoning.
We could do the same for the animal profiles since some of the animals I've tiered have lower durability than their AP. The official part of the stamina page even says that injury tolerance is a valid method of measuring stamina.
Edit: I think I meant to say fully linearizing blunt with piercing attacks. The OP seems to think that we should. Like I get that this is IRL, but we should make the distinction via surface area rather than trying to fully mis-mush cut & blunt attacks. & FYI, harpoons are spears, so the statements of the Sperm Whale being able to have the stamina to endure multiple harpoon wounds on it's profile are equal to enduring multiple 9-C spear wounds.
TBH, I know that biting lays over to cutting stuff, but what else are we going to do against animals with biting as primary durability feats?"
If my standards get refined & accepted, I'll refine & introduce new durability ratings & other details for this list of major animals.
Also, Keeweed stated that they're willing to continue on the thread for the durability of IRL animals if we finish judging the KE AP & durability of major animals. So do you know anyone else who can help on this? Will you help on this?
We could always skim this page for IRL animals too for this task.
Last edited by a moderator:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,034
Yo, are you going to help me in evaluating the KE of all IRL animals & whether their AP/Durability scales to their KE? Deleted Username claims to have retired in the PM to each other.
You can search, skim & make a list for the animals that still have KE as their primary justification for their AP here & I'll search for the context behind their AP/build.
Last edited by a moderator:
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
Yeah sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
I won't just be evaluating the KE of charging animals but also other animal's AP and durability feats.
Attack Potency: Street level (Capable of overpowering and mauling humans.), Wall level KE (A charging moose has a KE of 46513.8682 to 85683.4415 joules)
Speed: Superhuman (A charging moose can run up to 35 mph)
Lifting Strength: At least Class 1, possibly Class 5 (Elks, which should be comparable in size to moose, can easily wrestle with bisons, which should be comparable to bulls in strength and can have body weights reaching one tonne. Can easily handle their average body weights of over 500 kg)
Striking Strength: Street level
Durability: Street level (Bull moose fight each other during mating season; the only time they're known to herd.)
Stamina: Peak Human (Moose can also survive hunting wounds)
Durability: Street level+ (Lions can survive paw swipes from other lions but are injured from biting each other.)
Stamina: High (Can hunt and fight with grueling injuries such as a broken jaw or fractured skull, and being impaled or gored by horns. Male lions can fight for a long time. Lions have been known to survive being shot by high-calibre rifles and spears. Lionesses can survive being gored by buffalos and attacks by other lions.)
Attack Potency: Street level (Some cows have been recorded to kill or injure humans; Polled cows were able to deal with a black bear), Wall level via charging (Their weight and speed should generate this much energy while running), higher via piercing damage (Can easily dent cars at top speed) | Street level+ (Can easily gore and disembowel horses and humans, and send them flying in the air. A bull made a starved adult male lion flee. Killed bears and lions in cage fights via charging), Wall level via piercing damage (Can easily damage cars, wooden establishments and dry stone walls)
Durability: At least Street level (Generally fine after being hit by a car) | Street level+ (Very robust and thick bodies.)
Moose
The current AP is 46513.8682 to 85683.4415 j of KE (9-B) however I don't think they've been shown to survive the impact upon another surface. I've tried to search for a video of a moose surviving a collision against a certain surface but I remained empty handed. There are records that show moose being capable of mauling and overpowering humans. Also its stamina should be at Peak Human since they're able to survive bullets.Attack Potency: Street level (Capable of overpowering and mauling humans.), Wall level KE (A charging moose has a KE of 46513.8682 to 85683.4415 joules)
Speed: Superhuman (A charging moose can run up to 35 mph)
Lifting Strength: At least Class 1, possibly Class 5 (Elks, which should be comparable in size to moose, can easily wrestle with bisons, which should be comparable to bulls in strength and can have body weights reaching one tonne. Can easily handle their average body weights of over 500 kg)
Striking Strength: Street level
Durability: Street level (Bull moose fight each other during mating season; the only time they're known to herd.)
Stamina: Peak Human (Moose can also survive hunting wounds)
Lion
So going by the definition of durability, it must be able to withstand attack in order to grant a certain tier. Although lions have been recorded to survive spear and high-caliber rifles, this should be more of a stamina feat. Also I doubt a lioness can even survive being gored by hippo, these things can tear apart a Lion easily. Its shown that Lions can at least get minimum damage by hitting each other and a Lion is slightly weaker than a Tiger.Durability: Street level+ (Lions can survive paw swipes from other lions but are injured from biting each other.)
Stamina: High (Can hunt and fight with grueling injuries such as a broken jaw or fractured skull, and being impaled or gored by horns. Male lions can fight for a long time. Lions have been known to survive being shot by high-calibre rifles and spears. Lionesses can survive being gored by buffalos and attacks by other lions.)
Bull
One reason for their durability is that they can survive colliding with each other at top speed but this isn't true, one bull had died in a head on-collision and the KE of a bull is 61202.2553423 - 122404.510685 j given its weight and speed. Also a bull can't survive a car crash.Attack Potency: Street level (Some cows have been recorded to kill or injure humans; Polled cows were able to deal with a black bear), Wall level via charging (Their weight and speed should generate this much energy while running), higher via piercing damage (Can easily dent cars at top speed) | Street level+ (Can easily gore and disembowel horses and humans, and send them flying in the air. A bull made a starved adult male lion flee. Killed bears and lions in cage fights via charging), Wall level via piercing damage (Can easily damage cars, wooden establishments and dry stone walls)
Durability: At least Street level (Generally fine after being hit by a car) | Street level+ (Very robust and thick bodies.)
Grizzly bear, polar bear, and Kodiak bear
So because both the bull and moose have been downgraded to 9-C+, this will apply to a grizzly bear, a kodiak bear, and polar bear.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
Link pls?
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 5,098
- 2,515
- Thread starter
- #1,039
Funnily enough, I was trying to find good durability feats for the horse, but I ended up finding this:
"The savage stallion wheeled, slowly approached the bear, and then with a quick turn he landed his hind feet upon the grizzly's ribs...It was a surprise for the bear, but it did not disable him."
It's a stamina feat the more I read tho... Opps... misinterpretation...
Though on topic with the polar bear, I'll copy paste some scans here: "Polar Bear durability: 9-B (takes little damage after wrestling each other (Ar), big enough males with enough food can afford to casually spar with other males. Superior to Grizzlies, who can wrestle each other with little injury (Ar), & has a skull thick enough to deflect shotgun slugs & rifle shots (Ar), although at the right angle &/or spot, the bullets can shoot through the skull. A bear’s frontal bones of their skull can also stop arrows)"
Trivially, since horses can deliver over 10000 N with a kick...
(10000(4.448222))1*1.355818 = 60309.79456 J, a 200th of that is 301.5489728 J (lbf*ft -> Nm is (lbf*ft)1.355818 (pdf pg 65), N->lb = N*4.448222 (pdf pg 65))
R4ndomPlayer315
Username Only- 234
- 266
I don’t think a polar bear would be 9-B coming from the fact that they’re scaling from a Kodiak bear by weight which would make them 9-C as they’re capable of hurting a bull and a moose and shown to only have performed 9-C level feats (aside from KE)
There’s an error I see with the calc which is your doing a conversion from pound force-foot to joules, those are units of energy, not force.
Last edited:
- Status
