• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Btw @Regis didn't you say earlier that they should be 9-B in physical strength (you even said they should scale to Paul Blofis in the other thread) and only 7-C in powers? Contradicting yourself as usual again? (I am only talking to Regis, not other people. I have to make this clear because last time people thought I was talking to everyone in general)
 
The sky feat is not legit. This was explained several times why. Tge calc itself is flawed as hell, and it's continously repeated that neither should have had the power to lift it.

And Kaltias explained rather well why your extremes don't work.
 
I replied that Kaltias is talking about mathematical outliers, not vs debating outliers. I guess everyone missed that? Not surprised.

The calc is probably slightly flawed, but it can be fixed. And it is explicitly stated by Poseidon strength is needed to lift the Sky, but only when the hero chooses by free will.
 
After reading that the strength appears to be related to strength of mind to attempt lifting it as well. Not physical strength. Honestly lifting the sky seems to be a feeat of free will. You have to be willing to carry the burden of the world essentially.
 
Rocker1189 said:
After reading that the strength appears to be related to strength of mind to attempt lifting it as well. Not physical strength. Honestly lifting the sky seems to be a feeat of free will. You have to be willing to carry the burden of the world essentially.
Lifting the Sky is indeed a job of free will, and strength. Even monsters cannot be forced onto the Sky because they don't want to. If it only requires free will to lift the Sky, then some random weak child could just go over and say "Hey, I want to lift the Sky" and lift it.
 
GilgaArcuied said:
um, "debating outliers" is not a thing. a outlier is what kaltias said.
That Wikipedia article Kaltias linked to is talking about a mathematical outlier, I repeat. IIRC Antvasima and an admin both said there is no definition for an outlier.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Nice job twisting the facts the book said.

Lifting the Sky is indeed a job of free will, and strength. Even monsters cannot be forced onto the Sky because they don't want to. If it only requires free will to lift the Sky, then some random weak child could just go over and say "Hey, I want to lift the Sky" and lift it.
I am not twisting it I am reading it as it says. Poseidon is literally telling us about the courage, strength and free will to lift the sky. He literally implies that some weak monster could do it if they ever had the will to, but they dont. And yes I do believe that if a human child had the will (obviously not just "I want to be able to lift the sky" it is clearly more than that) then they can. Dont strawman me.
 
It takes courage, strength and free will to lift the Sky. e things. Not just 1. You still have to be strong enough to have the free will to lift the Sky. He literally said it required strength. He said no one in Kronos's army would be willing to bear that weight because they wouldn't dare, even they are strong enough.

I love it when people just simply accuse me of strawmaning them when I am just replying to what you said. Apparently disagreeing = straw man.
 
oh boy.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
GilgaArcuied said:
um, "debating outliers" is not a thing. a outlier is what kaltias said.
That Wikipedia article Kaltias linked to is talking about a mathematical outlier, I repeat. IIRC Antvasima and an admin both said there is no definition for an outlier.
It's mathematical because it mathematically takes into account how much of something occurs for it to be inconsistent and a outlier. it is literally the most accurate and unbiased way of determining outliers.
 
Mathematical errors are a completely different thing compared to fiction/debating outliers.

I believe it is said by multiple staff members that there is no actual definition of an outlier.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
It takes courage, strength and free will to lift the Sky. e things. Not just 1. You still have to be strong enough to have the free will to lift the Sky. He literally said it required strength. He said no one in Kronos's army would be willing to bear that weight because they wouldn't dare, even they are strong enough.
He states even upon pain of death they would not attempt to lift it, he never states even if they are strong enough. And he says:

"Only a hero, someone with strength, a true heart and great courage, would do such a thing." This is literally referring to attempting to lift the sky.
 
He states even upon pain of death they would not attempt to lift it, he never states even if they are strong enough. And he says:

"Only a hero, someone with strength, a true heart and great courage, would do such a thing." This is literally referring to attempting to lift the sky.

If a hero only had a true heart and great courage, he cannot lift the Sky. Poseidon is saying that he needs all these 3 things to lift it. Otherwise he would have just said "someone with a true heart".
 
@Spinosaurus

Then why did he mention courage a true heart is basically the same thing.

Everything he mentions is basically the same thing.

This is literally a writing technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

Annabeth lifting the sky despite several times being stated to not be very strong at all aligns with it being rather than an outlier something that ca be done based on the courage of the character which Annabeth is stated to have in spades.

Strength is never even mentioned to mean physical strength. Strength of character is a thing which again Annabeth has in spades.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Btw @Regis didn't you say earlier that they should be 9-B in physical strength (you even said they should scale to Paul Blofis in the other thread) and only 7-C in powers? Contradicting yourself as usual again? (I am only talking to Regis, not other people. I have to make this clear because last time people thought I was talking to everyone in general)
This was based off your faulty logic of accepting 6-C Annabeth. This means 6-C monsters and Paul Blofis and Sally Jackson were capable of hurting said monsters with CB weapons. Paul isn't destroyed in sword fights so logically that would mean 6-C Paul. Is this not enough to show how dumb both the 6-C feat is and how non Big 3 demigods aren't that impressive physically? Even the Minotaur, who got punked by 12 year old Percy was killing demigods with ease, collecting camp beads from each one until he got punked again by Percy.

While I'm not sure of the new ratings you seem to be pushing in my mouth, hence why I made this thread, I would definetely support clarifications in their profiles indicating which were done with/without powers and that powers shouldn't scale to their inferior physical stats.

But sure, keep ignoring valid reasons as to why 6-C based off the sky feat isn't acceptable just because you like it. Unlike you, the rest of us have actually given evidence to support our thoughts.
 
Rocker1189 said:
@Spinosaurus

Then why did he mention courage a true heart is basically the same thing.

Everything he mentions is basically the same thing.

This is literally a writing technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

Annabeth lifting the sky despite several times being stated to not be very strong at all aligns with it being rather than an outlier something that ca be done based on the courage of the character which Annabeth is stated to have in spades.

Strength is never even mentioned to mean physical strength. Strength of character is a thing which again Annabeth has in spades.
True heart and courage are two slightly different concepts as well. He also mentioned strength is needed. And if he never mentioned whether strength is needed or not, then why assume it isn't?
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
I love it when people just simply accuse me of strawmaning them when I am just replying to what you said. Apparently disagreeing = straw man.
"You are saying a weak child can do it".

Putting words in someone's mouth with a ridiculous assumption to downplay thier point is strawmanning.
 
RegisNex1232 said:
You should have specified earlier. Anyway, the same can be said to any other feat. We can use Paul Blofis to debunk the 7-C feat, 8-C feat, or whatever as well. You seem to only target 6-C because you hate it. (Appeal of Motive fallacy, but Regis has already thrown like 10 of them at me)

While your "evidence" is indeed true, the anti-feats you mentioned are all Tier 9 feats. It is either 9-B or 6-C. Yes, I am indeed repeating the same thing, because I see no valid argument against it yet.

But sure, keep ignoring evidence that proves your evidence isn't evidence. Because all your evidence either is PIS or proves that Percy is 9-B (yes, this is an unproved accusation, but who cares? Regis threw at least 10 of them at me).
 
"You are saying a weak child can do it".

Putting words in someone's mouth with a ridiculous assumption to downplay thier point is strawmanning.

I apologise if that made you feel uncomfortable, but I meant that you are saying a weak child can do it if he wanted to, which you admitted it is what you are saying.
 
I did say that because of what you said, it was not a real point but yeah np. My entire point is demigods with high courage like Percy and Annabeth are clearly going to be able to lift it regardless of their physical strength.

" True heart and courage are two slightly different concepts as well. He also mentioned strength is needed. And if he never mentioned whether strength is needed or not, then why assume it isn't? "

They really are not, they both essentially mean being brave and confident in yourself.

He simply mentioned strength just like he mentioned courage and true heart, like I said strength of character is also a strength, he does not specify physical strength. I am saying strength is needed just not the physical one you belive is needed.
 
Again, Tier 7 feats are only done by the Big 3 demigods, so why would you scale anyone to them? This is just blatant strawmanning and fallacy spouting without adhering to the topic at hand.

You keep saying so without actually demonstrating it by calcs and such. Given your previous posts, I'm highly sceptical of accepting what you say without any support.

You haven't proven anything beyond the fact that your phrase of the day is "9-B anti-feat". Maybe actually get evidence that shows a consistent 6-C rating and we might have something to discuss.
 
The evidence is Annabeth herself. Literally everytime she is mentioned they talk about how she is not a great fighter or strong physically but her intellect, strategy and courage is far and above other demigods. You would have a point (albeit a small one considering anti feats) if it was just Percy.
 
Anyway we already spammed like a hundred messages, it is already at night for me as well and I have stuff to do, so I'm leaving for now. Please don't take it as me "unable to respond to your points" because that is what some people I met before think.
 
RegisNex1232 said:
Again, Tier 7 feats are only done by the Big 3 demigods, so why would you scale anyone to them? This is just blatant strawmanning and fallacy spouting without adhering to the topic at hand.

You keep saying so without actually demonstrating it by calcs and such. Given your previous posts, I'm highly sceptical of accepting what you say without any support.

You haven't proven anything beyond the fact that your phrase of the day is "9-B anti-feat". Maybe actually get evidence that shows a consistent 6-C rating and we might have something to discuss.
Did I say that regular demigods should scale to the Big Three? Don't strawman me.

You didn't demonstrate any stuff by calcs as well, unless I missed something. Anyway I really need to go now. Will be back tmr.
 
It has been the current standard so far by way off assuming that the Seven of HOO's prophecy are all close to each other in physical capabilities which is clearly not true. Either way most demigods, and Annabeth is one of them, are not superhuman freaks, and seem to be fine with taking down monsters, usually through tactics than raw strength.

Debunking the sky feat and trying to discuss with you some of tge flaws in your reasoning is why.

Would you like a list of feats done by each person involved and see how we go from there?
 
1. Responding to Rocker: It seems like Poseidon is talking about physical strength, but let's say he wasn't for the sake of ending this argument. Doesn't change anything. In this case, he never mentioned strength is needed or not. He is talking about free will only. So why would we assume no? We might as well as downgrade everyone in this wiki because it was never mentioned strength is needed when performing their feats.

2. Responding to Regis

"It has been the current standard so far by way off assuming that the Seven of HOO's prophecy are all close to each other in physical capabilities which is clearly not true."

You know what? I agree with you. Which is the exact reason why I made a ******* CRT, but was interrupted by you.

"Debunking the sky feat and trying to discuss with you some of the flaws in your reasoning is why."

Why what?

"Would you like a list of feats done by each person involved and see how we go from there?"

No, but I don't mind one either. Nearly every character in this wiki scale to their highest feat and has a lot of other lower feats. Captain America usually just smashes trees or breaks necks, does that mean he should be downgraded to 9-C? No.

My problem with the downgrades is that people's main argument is either "6-C is too high compared to Tier 7" or "They are harmed by smaller things like high falls or daggers".

The first argument is merely incredibility that 6-C is higher than Tier 7. A high feat is not necessarily an outlier. For the second argument, the same argument can be used to debunk Tier 7, Tier 8 or whatever you want to downgrade them to as well. We might as well as downgrade them to 9-B. And before anyone say I am "strawmaning", I am not accusing any of you saying this. I am merely saying this is what will happen if the 9-B anti-feats are valid.
 
A single high tier feat, which is then never replicated nor indicated by fights anywhere, along with several lower showings that are meant to be impressive, would mean that high tier feat is an outlier.

You have to show why we should use 6-C when not only do the characters not show off such strength in desperate situations, they show off far weaker stuff meant to be impressive. You also keep harping on and on about 9-B or 6-C, when absolutely no one has collected and actually analysed all the feats, not just the highly suspect 6-C one.

I don't care about scaling problems in other verses. As far this verse goes, there is a massive one, which involves reliance on a feat involving some X factors to scale it to everyone notable while stronger, minor characters are left 2 tiers below.
 
It is said by multiple staff members that there is no actual definition of an outlier, so idk where you got that idea from, but usually an outlier is when itis contradicted by multiple lower feats.

In this case, the anti-feats are 9-B, as a fall from high heights can only be 9-B at most due to terminal velocity. Either we downgrade them to 9-B or consider the anto feats invalid
 
Assumption? No. Go Google terminal velocity. A fall cannot exceed 53 m/s. You can check out the falling from high heights calculation on my Reference For Common Feats blog.
 
Outliers aren't just defined by contradictions. They are defined by how far apart the feats are. A universe shaking feat might not directly contradict any other feats, but if the next best feat is destroying a planet then it's a massive outlier no matter what.

The volcano feat isn't a 9-B anti-feat. That's rather faulty reasoning (no offense to you). Percy was blasted apart by the volcano and he lost consciousness before he could hit the ground - he did survive the volcano, but taking the blast head-on made him so weak that eve a fall would have killed him.

Again; it is not that Percy tanked the blast and he was only severely wounded because of the fall, which is what would make it a 9-B anti-feat. It is that the blast made him extremely close to death; so close that even a pathetic fall would have killed him on impact.
 
Your universe shaking feat is probably too far apart with the planet-busting feat, but it cannot be compared to this case, where the gap is not that far. There is no actual definition for an outlier in this wiki. It is completely arbitrary. It merely depends on context of the feat and knowledge of the verse.

The narrative suggests that Percy witnessed himself flying and falling towards the ground.
 
Also it should be noted that 7-B is in fact a low-ball. The figure is based on one of the volcano's eruptions, which in the Percy Jackson series, are caused by the raw power Typhon who is sealed inside. These eruptions aren't enough to weaken the magic. However, Percy's blast actually caused Typhon to stir in his sleep. It should be much higher than 7-B, but unfortunately it cannot be quantified.
 
This is the source for the volcano being 7-B. It reads:

But if we look at a well-known major volcanic eruption, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, we find that: "In all, Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima".
The 24-megaton figure is based on the 1980 eruption of St Helens, and according to my calculations here, the Titan's Curse occurred in 2008. It is not the same eruption, nor is the volcano feat "calculated" to be 7-B.

Now let's see what else the article says.

But Mount St. Helens wasn't even at the top of the scale of Volcanic Explosivity Index. It was a class 5, and the scale goes up all the way to 8, which are called "mega-colossal" eruptions. These class 8 super-volcanos erupt extremely rarely (otherwise we wouldn't be here), but when they do, more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash are ejected, the climate of the whole planet is affected for extended periods of time, and mass-extinctions can be expected. Now that is powerful! To get anywhere close to that kind of energy release, the U.S. and Russia would have to use their entire nuclear arsenals simultaneously, and even that might not be enough to compare depending on how long the volcanic eruption lasts.
7-B isn't the top of the scale. Those "supercolossal" eruptions causes the planet to be affected for a period of time. Obviously, Percy's volcano eruption is not that powerful, but it is obviously more than the 24-megaton figure. If you read Percy Jackson's Greek Gods, you know that when Typhon used to be imprisoned in Mount Etna and kept on causing the volcano to erupt. We can assume the same case for Mount Saint Helens. So Percy must have to produced an unknown amount more than 24 megatons to stir Typhon in his sleep.

It should also be noted that until the Last Olympian, the volcano kept on erupting until completely destroyed. In the 1980 eruption, Mount Saint Helens was nearly, but not, destroyed. Another evidence that Percy's volcano eruption is more than 24 megatons.

The above source states that all the weapons USA and Russia combined. We can do a rough calculation on that. According to this source, that is 6550+6850 nuclear weapons, or 13 400 nukes. Assuming each nuke is at least 50 kilotons (most efficient design according to Wikipedia), that's 670 000 000 tons in total or 670 megatons. But I'm pretty sure many nukes are far more powerful than that. Tsar Bomba is 50 megatons.

tl;dr All of the weapons USA and USSR combined = supercolossal volcano eruptions > Percy Jackson's volcano eruption > Typhon's raw power while sealed inside the volcano = 24 megatons
 
More than 24, sure, but it definitely wasn't a type 6 eruption.

This is a type 6 eruption, and it lowered temperatures on a planetary scale.

The last type 7 eruption caused the Year without Summer, and a type 8 eruption would cause mass extinction across the planet.
 
The numbers the article pulled seems random as well, and it just randomly said "USA and Russia bombs combined". Are you sure it is a reliable source?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top