Steven Universe 7-A"+" Problem

[WeeklyBattles]

Yes, just apply it

 

[Cropfist]

I agree with this.

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

Can and will Jasper tanking the core of the ship explosion be calced?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

It was, its >>> 300 megatons

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

It was, its >>> 300 megatons

Found the calc, but what was it about? What's this ancient Gem transport ship?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Found the calc, but what was it about? What's this ancient Gem transport ship?

Some obscure canon-confirmed comic mentioned a vague beam of energy would destroy beach city, and the argument is that a more advanced combat warship exploding would produce a higher yield than that for... reasons.

I personally don't buy the "combat ship scales above noncombat ship" as there's nothing directly indicating that the explosion of a hand-ship is higher than the comics-thing, and the argument for it indirectly scaling since "one is combat and the other is noncombat" doesn't really say anything, as that's like arguing a gun produces as much kinetic energy as a nuclear reactor produces heat energy since "a nuclear reactor is noncombat and a gun is combat".

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I personally see Dargoo's point...begrudgingly.

 

[Cropfist]

I would agree with scaling a weapon above a non-weapon, but not its explosion scaling to the laser.

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

So to be clear we're comparing a ship exploding to an energy weapon? I have some issues with this.

 

[Soupywolf5]

Well if we just used the mass-energy conversion feats

 

[WeeklyBattles]

So to be clear we're comparing a ship exploding to an energy weapon? I have some issues with this.

No, we're comparing the core of one ship to the core of another ship

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The point is that the core of the ancient Gem transport ship, which isnt meant for direct combat, is capable of producing 7-A levels of energy, so the Gem Warship, a modern ship several thousand years more advanced and actually meant for direct combat, should have a core capable of producing at least as much if not vastly more energy

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Jesus. The OBD would be fuming right now if it saw all of this.

I think there was another feat shown in the comics that resulted in Tier 7 or maybe MCB results from the SU thread on NF but I can't be bothered to check atm. I remember it had to do with a corrupted Gem's blizzard and then a giant centipede-ish Gem that was bigger than a good portion of Beach City IIRC.

 

[Damage3245]

> Some obscure canon-confirmed comic mentioned a vague beam of energy would destroy beach city, and the argument is that a more advanced combat warship exploding would produce a higher yield than that for... reasons.

I'm not sure why we need to scale the cores of the ships in the first place when we can see the visible explosion and presumably could calc a result from that.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Because it simultaneously yielded tier 8 results and would be a tier 6 feat from the ship itself having tier 6 durability feats

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Also i really dont appreciate you trying to downplay the feat itself as being 'vague' and 'obscure' Dargoo

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm not sure why we need to scale the cores of the ships in the first place when we can see the visible explosion and presumably could calc a result from that.

It was, actually, and at OOMs less than it's trying to be scaled to for no objective reason.

The point is that the core of the ancient Gem transport ship, which isnt meant for direct combat, is capable of producing 7-A levels of energy, so the Gem Warship, a modern ship several thousand years more advanced and actually meant for direct combat, should have a core capable of producing at least as much if not vastly more energy

I mean, it could just be that it takes more energy to transport stuff around at the radius of a city than it does to power a building-sized warship.

Unless you have objective evidence comparing these two ships then any comparisons you draw is meaningless, as there's no metric to compare these two entirely different technologies. And the "more modern" arguement is kind of silly too, as they could have developed more energy efficient technology even if we were comparing transport ships to transport ships, which we're not doing.

Also i really dont appreciate you trying to downplay the feat itself as being 'vague' and 'obscure' Dargoo

For it being obscure, while I can't do tally of how many Steven Universe watchers are even aware that comic exists, I'm willing to bet that number doubled since it's somehow become relevant to VS debating.

For it being vague, I urge other users to look up "Steven Universe Vol. 2: Anti-Gravity" and buy or pirate the comic. The artstyle leaves a lot to the imagination.

I'm not using those words for the heck of it, Weekly.

 

[The_Calaca]

Okay, leaving the calc discussion aside, we need to do what's on the OP now that the calc that made the 548MT number exists is no longer valid.

What are the profiles that need to be edited?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

TFW this thread was invalidated by the recent thread regarding the + in profiles

 

[The_Calaca]

What thread?

 

[Soupywolf5]

I think This one