• 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.

Steven Universe 7-A"+" Problem

Adem Warlock69 said:
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 pen or the sword said:
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
 
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
 
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.
 
> 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.
 
Because it simultaneously yielded tier 8 results and would be a tier 6 feat from the ship itself having tier 6 durability feats
 
Also i really dont appreciate you trying to downplay the feat itself as being 'vague' and 'obscure' Dargoo
 
Damage3245 said:
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.

WeeklyBattles said:
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.

WeeklyBattles said:
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top