The durability of real world animals

[Keeweed]

So this is going to be pretty hard to resolve problem, but oh well.

Also this thread is about real animals durability, thus to prove points real animals need to be shown getting hurt. Massive graphic warnings and read this thread at your own risk. I do not condone violence against real animals and nobody else should either.

Currently right now a large chunk of animals have extremely unrealistic durability, durability that really misses how real life animal’s actually survive the damage they receive.

Note: This revision is more so for 9-B animals, but I think all animals have this problem to a lesser extent.

All animals are generally made out of the same material as each other. They use the same biological material to form their flesh, meat, bones, and often skin. Now there are a few exceptions to a creature’s external armors, such as armadillos and elephant hide, but generally everything has normal skin, with fur adding a bit of resistance to some forms of damage.

This flesh would universally have the same required amount of energy to destroy, with it only being harder to damage larger and larger animals due to the amount of material you actually need to destroy to cause significant damage. But that bulk doesn’t matter depending on where you actually hit or how you attack the creature.

Bugs can also consistently borrow and damage even the largest of animals’ flesh, with only specifically resilient skin being used to block them out. (I would link things like hookworms, but I’m about to puke thinking about them, so look up at your own risk).

Some people have said that we should still have creatures still keep their durability within the same tier as their ap, but this just can’t be the case (graphic warning, honestly I know where to get more examples, but showcasing animals murder each other is really bad. I’ll just show more only if needed (like I have one where a smaller horse instantly killed a larger one in a single hit)). Animals can easily tear members of their own species apart, or at least beat the crap out of each other.

Bugs and other below average animals do too, but below average human is a large enough tier for it to only matter for the 10-C+ animals.

Specifically Elephants can consistently be harm and slain by 9-C weapons all the time, and these weapon go through the parts of flesh they hit with particularly no difficulty. And a leopard had its tongue ripped out by a 73 year old man. Showcasing that the material that makes up these creatures body can be fatally damaged by a 10-B. Additionally Orcas prey on blue whales, according to the blue whales kinetic energy, and the actual power a orcas’ jaws have, this should be impossible. But it’s not orcas rip and tear away at blue whales just fine. Giant squids can also tear away and harm whales despite the massive difference in power between the two. Wolves can also tear up and eat bison, lions can bite into hippos (their hide is actually resistant to damage yet the lion can still damage the parts it actually manages to bite), and snakes can bite lions and other large animals (graphic warnings for all, especially the kion.

When it comes to piercing weapons, since I know people will bring it up: piercing weapons don’t ignore durability in any way, they just allow you to put more energy into a smaller spot. A bullet has enough energy to destroy elephant flesh with ease, without piercing it just doesn’t have enough power to destroy large amount of it, or if the same amount of energy was delivered extremely bluntly it would disperse, dealing the same damage, just in way that injuries the animals less over a wider area.

In a previous thread I was discussing this Newton’s third law was brought up. If everything has an equal and opposite reaction then surely everything should scale to it’s ap. However for extremely low tiers like 9-B and lower this law doesn’t work as a durability feat at all. Punch and kick into the air, do you feel any push back, you shouldn’t (ignoring small amounts of air friction). Now try to punch a brick wall as hard as you can, that’s going to hurt like hell and could even break your hand. The energy of newtons law disperse across your arm and body. It doesn’t directly hit you, when it does it causes damage.

So in general, our real world profiles have a problem, and we need to decide how we should rate their durability. Either we should be simplistic with it and use the overall amount of energy that would be required to deal mass amounts of damage to them, or be realistic and have it that the overall energy needed to actually hurt and kill them isn’t all that high, it’s just is hard to kill them for a ton of different factors (from predators having skin that doesn’t get torn up as much from slashes, general bulk of some creatures, fur, the angles they are hit at, the general amount of energy required to destroy large amount of their body, generally whether they actually get hit in a fatal spot or not, few adaptations some creatures to actually increase their durability such as armor or resistance to blunt force trauma (goats), and etc.)

TLDR for my opinions on animal durability:
If you tried to punch or stab through 9-C steel you would likely break your hand, destroy your weapon, and do very little damage.
Yet if you jab a knife into supposedly 9-B animals you would just stab it. And if you punched the large majority of them you would somewhat hurt them (their general bulk means you don’t do much overall damage, but the part you hit would be bruised and take damage and that’s all that matters).
Real animals aren’t invulnerable to 10-B damage, take damage from 10-B to low 9-C sources all the time, and just straight die to 10-B and 9-C sources every day of the week.
They are made out of same materials humans are made out of, and that material is broken, destroyed, and injuried by energy that’s not even 9-C (including even 10-C damage but 10-B is kinda a weird tier since it should be defined by what humans can tank, but it really is only defined by human ap instead, which humans can’t tank since humans can easily punch each other, even to death).

Final note, I’m terribly sorry for having to post videos of animals getting hurt. It’s kinda impossible to talk about animals not being 9-B without showing examples of non 9-B damage (or hilariously low 9-B damage versus creatures that are apparently far higher into the tier) actually hurting these creatures.

 

[Keeweed]

I feel like I can explain my point a bit better in a thread format rather than as the op of a thread. So for what I’m trying to say in a bit of a clearer way, and to provide context to this thread. Here’s the thread that spawned this thread. Read from my post to the next page for full context.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I feel like I can explain my point a bit better in a thread format rather than as the op of a thread. So for what I’m trying to say in a bit of a clearer way, and to provide context to this thread. Here’s the thread that spawned this thread. Read from my post to the next page for full context.

Edit: I tried to link directly to when I posted, but it wasn’t working, so sorry for the inconvenience of needing to scroll down if you do decide to read the other thread. If someone knows how to link directly to my post let me know (on my wall preferably).

You mean this one? Each reply in a thread has a reply number. Right click/tap & hold on it & copy the link. The reply number is at the top right corner of a post.

I mean, Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan has stated that IRL durabilty is nonlinear. You could always ask them or me to dig up his reply. Imma gonna nap & hope that camels can get one-shotted by 9-C street fighters in the near future lol.

 

[Keeweed]

Thanks, that’ll come in handy later (how to link directly to post).

He also agreed with me that how we currently rate it isn’t really all that correct. And it’s more a patchwork solution (probably not the right word, but it generally is a simple solution to try and fix the problem). I don’t think our current solution even works in that light though.

(The rest of this post is just me musing, being within the thread rather than trying to write out an op is really making it much more easy for me to type)
It generally just doesn’t follow what happens in real life, in some cases is purely contradicted (crocodiles shouldn’t scale to their own ap as shown above), and it especially doesn’t match this site. According to how 9-B works with this site, you are supposed to be able to withstand 9-B damage to have it not effect you (or be clear that lower 9-B damage won’t if character A scales to being somewhat damaged by the 9-B feat they scale to). Animal flesh and skin doesn’t withstand 9-B damage, it is destroy, damaged, or torn apart. The damage just doesn’t hit enough to be fatal.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We already know durability isn't a linear concept since things like penetration factor exists and what not.

 

[Keeweed]

It’s late where I live, so this will be my last post for the night. But I really don’t get what you guys are trying to say with durability being nonlinear. What does that actually mean in the context of this thread.

My main point is that the material that makes up animals flesh has a destruction yield, like how steel and other materials do (like it takes 8 joules per square centimeter to fragment some materials).

So saying animals would have durability higher than that wouldn’t make any sense.

It would be like saying the durability of a massive steel cube would be the overall energy required to fragment all of it. That’s just completely wrong. It’s durability would be the minimum amount of energy to fragment any amount of steel, since that would be able to damage and eventually destroy any amount of steel you combine together.

Animals are the same, it doesn’t matter how massive and bulky they get, they are made of the same organic materials all animals use. As consistently shown many times in nature, animals can really easily die from extremely minor damage (both tier and injury wise) if something of significance is hit. Specifically because they aren’t actually tanky, there is just a ton of variables in play.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

We already know durability isn't a linear concept since things like penetration factor exists and what not.

What about the dispersion of energy? IRL isn't fiction, so do we have any way of determining the durability of things based off of the non-dispersed? Is it possible to take the energy dispersion stuff for IRL exclusively?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

But I really don’t get what you guys are trying to say with durability being nonlinear

I'll pull up Spino's claim if I have the time.

 

[Keeweed]

You know what, since I know for a fact people are just to continuously hyper focus on the piercing part of my examples: here’s an example that is 100% per blunt force. A smaller horse can straight up instantly kill a larger horse with a single kick (Major graphic warning, which is why I didn’t post this earlier).

 

[H3110l12345I20]

You know what, since I know for a fact people are just to continuously hyper focus on the piercing part of my examples: here’s an example that is 100% per blunt force. A smaller horse can straight up instantly kill a larger horse with a single kick (Major graphic warning, which is why I didn’t post this earlier).

Hmmm... try using animals that in-character are more likely to use blunt attacks. Make sure there's context to where it’s like a feat of sheer raw physical strength if you're going to use piercing feats (example: how leopards are one of the notable animals able to take down Gorillas) . I'm sure if the latter is used in the context of durabilty, someone like DarlingAurora would be impressed.

Antifeats are important too. We just have to have the most consistent explanation behind all the info we have.

 

[Keeweed]

This is real life, there is literally no such things as anti feats for real life.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

This is real life, there is literally no such things as anti feats for real life.

Depending on the perspective it can be, like how your feats show that animals should have lower durability. They're technically anti-feats to their current durability on-site.

 

[Keeweed]

Plus I don’t need to find animals that don’t use piercing damage for reasons I stated in the op. Piercing damage isn’t a special magical thing that allows you to harm things you that would be invincible to you. If you swing a sword at 9-C metal it will bounce off (at 1:00), meanwhile if stabbed any animal in a fatal spot with a sword, it would die horribly.

 

[Keeweed]

Depending on the perspective it can be, like how your feats show that animals should have lower durability. They're technically anti-feats to their current durability on-site.

That’s not what an anti feat means, and again that’s not how real life works. Real life means these things actually really happened. There has to be a real explanation for it, it can’t be an outlier which is what anti feats apply to. You can’t outlier real life.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

There has to be a real explanation for it, it can’t be an outlier which is what anti feats apply to. You can’t outlier real life.

Oh. That makes more sense.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Plus I don’t need to find animals that don’t use piercing damage for reasons I stated in the op. Piercing damage isn’t a special magical thing that allows you to harm things you that would be invincible to you. If you swing a sword at 9-C metal it will bounce off (at 1:00), meanwhile if stabbed any animal in a fatal spot with a sword, it would die horribly.

I think the reason why people will nitpick on it is because on the official page for durabilty, surface area is a problem for scaling durabilty. Don't get me wrong, believe it or not I already knew how piercing damage works. You just need a counter argument that acknowledges the section I referred to in the official durabilty page on site.

 

[Keeweed]

For one it specific says “Even in real-life, a person can do a lot more damage to somebody else with a sword than they can with their bare hands.”

It references real life differently than how it references it to fiction. But do you notice how ridiculously vague it is as to why piercing attacks do more damage.

Piercing attacks do more damage, because you can put a lot more energy into a smaller area. Thus not having the energy of your attack disperse across the target’s surface. A piercing attack doesn’t give your attack power it won’t already have, it just condenses it into a smaller spot. As shown above even with a metal sword, humans can’t destroy 9-C metal and their blows bounce straight off it. Meanwhile humans can cut into supposedly 9-B animals just fine. Even very primitive spears were used to kill mammoths and modern spears can kill elephants. If they had the durability we claim they had, a sword or spear shouldn’t do anything to them.

 

[Keeweed]

I need to go to bed, and I have work tomorrow. So I will try to message back when I can but that’ll likely be a while.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

For one it specific says “Even in real-life, a person can do a lot more damage to somebody else with a sword than they can with their bare hands.”

It references real life differently than how it references it to fiction. But do you notice how ridiculously vague it is as to why piercing attacks do more damage.

Piercing attacks do more damage, because you can put a lot more energy into a smaller area. Thus not having the energy of your attack disperse across the target’s surface. A piercing attack doesn’t give your attack power it won’t already have, it just condenses it into a smaller spot. As shown above even with a metal sword, humans can’t destroy 9-C metal and their blows bounce straight off it. Meanwhile humans can cut into supposedly 9-B animals just fine. Even very primitive spears were used to kill mammoths and modern spears can kill elephants. If they had the durability we claim they had, a sword or spear shouldn’t do anything to them.

What the...I think you're right. I think we need advice of someone like a calc group member on this. It isn't really direct, but it does imply that sharp objects with lower AP shouldn't have AP equal to the durability of stuff that can tank more J.

Edit: I don't think that's what I intended to mean LOL. I think I was refering to how more energy in a smaller area = more damage, but arguing over if I knew this prior isn't the point of this thread lol.

I need to go to bed, and I have work tomorrow. So I will try to message back when I can but that’ll likely be a while.

Funnily enough, I was going to ask if it's literally close to midnight where you're from. If you want to sleep earlier, it's always optional to stay on social media literally all the time. Gudnight!

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Executor_N0 You guys are the smartest when it comes to piercing damage shenanigans so your opinion here would be useful.

 

[Flashlight237]

Edit: I don't think that's what I intended to mean LOL. I think I was refering to how more energy in a smaller area = more damage, but arguing over if I knew this prior isn't the point of this thread lol.

It's actually more force in a smaller area=more damage. Energy is basically force applied over a distance.

His argument for "9-C steel > 9-B animal" really doesn't hold much of a candle when you consider that you need hundreds of megapascals (figures are all over the place; don't ask) to penetrate steel as opposed to skin which you only need 100 psi (~689.5 kPa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532970/ ) to penetrate.

Did I mention that in solid entities, the crystal structure can trip a few things up? That's how we can cut diamonds.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

His argument for "9-C steel > 9-B animal" really doesn't hold much of a candle when you consider that you need hundreds of megapascals (figures are all over the place; don't ask) to penetrate steel as opposed to skin which you only need 100 psi (~689.5 kPa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532970/ ) to penetrate.

That makes... more sense.

Though he did state that if a 9-B animal holds back, you can beat it up in minutes.

& there's that thing where I'll (or others will) show stuff on what we mean by "durability being non-linear."

 

[Flashlight237]

& there's that thing where I'll (or others will) show stuff on what we mean by "durability being non-linear."

Man, there are plenty of concepts in real world physics that are exponential, even basic stuff like area and acceleration. This wiki just didn't explore most of them (ex. kinematic viscosity, which is area covered over time).

 

[Keeweed]

It's actually more force in a smaller area=more damage. Energy is basically force applied over a distance.

His argument for "9-C steel > 9-B animal" really doesn't hold much of a candle when you consider that you need hundreds of megapascals (figures are all over the place; don't ask) to penetrate steel as opposed to skin which you only need 100 psi (~689.5 kPa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532970/ ) to penetrate.

Did I mention that in solid entities, the crystal structure can trip a few things up? That's how we can cut diamonds.

How can you say this and not notice my point entirely.

Skin only takes 100 psi to penetrate; what are we talking about here? We are talking about the durability of animals, which are made of skin of and flesh.

I am saying steel is superior to animals, then you just said yes is indeed harder to damage steel than what animals are made out of, yet that means I’m wrong despite the fact I’m talking about how it’s easier to harm animals than steel. Like, what!?

How does that not support my point. If it only takes way less energy to harm animals than other materials that also aren’t 9-B, why are animals 9-B?

Even for blunt force we know the minimum energy required to destroy flesh and meat. Animals are universally made or the same biological material; if you destroy even the most minimal amount of that material, you could destroy any animal (except with ones that specifically have armor). You can’t just be more durable than what literally makes up your own body (if you want to be pedantic, in real life).

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Skin only takes 100 psi to penetrate; what are we talking about here? We are talking about the durability of animals, which are made of skin of and flesh.

I am saying steel is superior to animals, then you just said yes is indeed harder to damage steel than what animals are made out of, yet that means I’m wrong despite the fact I’m talking about how it’s easier to harm animals than steel. Like, what!?

How does that not support my point. If it only takes way less energy to harm animals than other materials that also aren’t 9-B, why are animals 9-B?

Source of psi's of steel, which require thousands of psi. I just had the thought that how we ignore human bones is because it's an outlier to how we tier animals (including humans), but not an outlier to real life. Did you say that these animals are as durable as the things they're made of & they're made of steel?

Skin isn't as equal as internal organs ignoring bones. Internal organs of a torso aren't designed to defend against any attacks while skin & possibly muscles are designed to defend against attacks (more notably, a degree of piercing damage)

With a spear, I think you can do more piercing than a Lion's claw & penetrate Hippos more easily while that same spear wouldn't penetrate steel due to it’s generally high pressure strength. Question, you did say a Hippos's bulk is more durable (9-C) than a human's, right?

I think I do have evidence of knives being 10-B in energy, but Theirfir stated that it's tier is defined by the amount of damage it can do. I think this is one of the reasons why 9-C weapons are 9-C.

 

[Flashlight237]

Source of psi's of steel, which require thousands of psi. I just had the thought that how we ignore human bones is because it's an outlier to how we tier animals (including humans), but not an outlier to real life. Did you say that these animals are as durable as the things they're made of & they're made of steel?

Skin isn't as equal as internal organs ignoring bones. Internal organs of a torso aren't designed to defend against any attacks while skin & possibly muscles are designed to defend against attacks (more notably, a degree of piercing damage)

With a spear, I think you can do more piercing than a Lion's claw & penetrate Hippos more easily while that same spear wouldn't penetrate steel due to it’s generally high pressure strength. Question, you did say a Hippos's bulk is more durable (9-C) than a human's, right?

I think I do have evidence of knives being 10-B in energy, but Theirfir stated that it's tier is defined by the amount of damage it can do. I think this is one of the reasons why 9-C weapons are 9-C.

Even then, one shall not forget the basic differences between piercing and blunt force damage. A punch from a heavyweight boxer can go into the high 100s or low 1000s of psi and yet the skin of those they hit would survive largely because the punch of a boxer isn't as concentrated as a jab from a knife. I think there should be another concept of physics that would explain why that is, but I can't think of what it is right now; something to do with impacts? A person could survive getting hit by a car and yet not survive a bullet even though a bullet's sure as heck weaker than a car.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Even then, one shall not forget the basic differences between piercing and blunt force damage. A punch from a heavyweight boxer can go into the high 100s or low 1000s of psi and yet the skin of those they hit would survive largely because the punch of a boxer isn't as concentrated as a jab from a knife. I think there should be another concept of physics that would explain why that is, but I can't think of what it is right now; something to do with impacts? A person could survive getting hit by a car and yet not survive a bullet even though a bullet's sure as heck weaker than a car.

The argument about "outliers to index animals" is likely a miscommunication blunder, but we do have animals that are capable of damaging steel.

Since on the hippos' profile, the link on it's justification for charging as AP shows it dented a car & we all know that cars are made of steel. On the cattle's profile, in the link for fighting bears & lions in cage fights, ramadan was able to damage steel bars of a cage. & by surface area, a 9-B animal like a Megalodon could easily dent metal with it’s ship crushing bite. A grizzly was able rip a steel door of it’s hinges too as stated on it’s profile, & they can be 9-C in AP.

So if a sword can't dent steel then how durable is steel generally in regards to this information if energy disperses in an attack? I'm curious.

 

[Flashlight237]

The argument about "outliers to index animals" is likely a miscommunication blunder, but we do have animals that are capable of damaging steel.

Since on the hippos' profile, the link on it's justification for charging as AP shows it dented a car & we all know that cars are made of steel. On the cattle's profile, in the link for fighting bears & lions in cage fights, ramadan was able to damage steel bars of a cage. & by surface area, a 9-B animal like a Megalodon could easily dent metal with it’s ship crushing bite.

Yeah. Besides, literally the reason the word "outlier" exists is outliers can happen in the real world.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

outliers can happen in the real world

What outliers specifically?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

What outliers specifically?

It's a statistical concept in general.

We apply it on site in terms of the consistent pattern of feats and their overall value. When a high inconsistency surfaces (whether upwards or downwards in terms of their tiering), then that's an outlier.

If we follow the data of the average human strongmen documented throughout the ages and their "feats", we can indeed find a statistical anomaly when measuring them to Louis Cyr.

His feats are so far removed from the norm, that he's an outlier.

This concept can apply to virtually anything in statistics. Real life is just wild and variable like that. Even in our everyday lives, we can find outlier moments in our general day to day actions. Have you ever felt there was a specific day that "the stars aligned"? That you cannot explain why, but absolutely everything clicked. And you never could experience again such a day. Well, statistically, that specific day would also be considered an outlier.

So on and so forth.

(I probably am butchering this explanation, lol, so a calc member could probably clarify and explain better)

 

[Therefir]

All animals are generally made out of the same material as each other. They use the same biological material to form their flesh, meat, bones, and often skin.

This is not necessarily true.

Anthropoids like humans and gorillas are not designed in the same way a carnivore is, we lack a subcutaneous muscle called panniculus carnosus, which is a muscular layer attached to the skin that makes it loose and maneuverable

This is why humans are very susceptible to cuts, while bears can bite and claw each other without bleeding to death.

Because of this, we are literally less durable than other animals.

 

[Therefir]

Also, it's quite possible for large animals to withstand 9-B levels of blunt force damage, while at the same time being susceptible to bullets and edged weapons.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also, it's quite possible for large animals to withstand 9-B levels of blunt force damage, while at the same time being susceptible to bullets and edged weapons.

I mean, Keeweed's major arguments are that the animal's durabilty shouldn't scale to their or something else's AP because energy disperses in an attack, & how do we quantify the non-dispersed energy in this case?

 

[Therefir]

I mean, Keeweed's major arguments are that the animal's durabilty shouldn't scale to their or something else's AP because energy disperses in an attack, & how do we quantify the non-dispersed energy in this case?

"9-B, 9-C against cutting piercing attacks"?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

This is not necessarily true.

Anthropoids like humans and gorillas are not designed in the same way a carnivore is, we lack a subcutaneous muscle called panniculus carnosus, which is a muscular layer attached to the skin that makes it loose and maneuverable

This is why humans are very susceptible to cuts, while bears can bite and claw each other without bleeding to death.

Because of this, we are literally less durable than other animals.

There are trusted sources on the muscle that support what you said, this is an interesting observation Therefir!

 

[Keeweed]

Even then, one shall not forget the basic differences between piercing and blunt force damage. A punch from a heavyweight boxer can go into the high 100s or low 1000s of psi and yet the skin of those they hit would survive largely because the punch of a boxer isn't as concentrated as a jab from a knife. I think there should be another concept of physics that would explain why that is, but I can't think of what it is right now; something to do with impacts? A person could survive getting hit by a car and yet not survive a bullet even though a bullet's sure as heck weaker than a car.

I’ve brought that up in a earlier thread, and now I have a good way to bring it up now (so thanks).

That’s not durability by this site’s standards, which is why animal durability is so wonky to begin with.

The animal doesn’t survive the an attack (that has enough power to destroy the material that makes up its body) because it tanks it. It survives because the attack dispersed across the part that is hit, hitting a wide amount of the material doing little damage versus the damage it could do. Which is why piercing attacks are so devastating because you can actually hit the part of the body you are specifically trying to hit.

Large animals survivability comes from bulk. But if you can actually hit the animal in specific ways (like this), it falls down like a house of cards.

Which is why I think animals shouldn’t be rated 9-B, because they aren’t the reason for their durability. What makes them up doesn’t actually tank any hits 10-B and beyond. It’s just that physics makes it that you’re punches don’t 100% purely optimally actually hit the target. Any attack that actually can hit them optimally (like if an animal rams head first into a material strong enough to dead stop their charge, like have a person run head first into a brick wall (since that’s an example a 100 times easier to find)) will absolutely wreck creatures.

Real creatures don’t have the blanket sheer durability almost all fictional characters have (even most live action ones, John wick rammed through bullet proof glass and didn’t just instantly explode). They, along with real humans, can suddenly die from the most tiny amount of damage, or could survive straight up being hit by a train (actually happened, a guy got hit by a train and lived with minor injuries, should humans be 9-B now?) if enough stuff aligns.

Having it that animals aren’t 9-B and explaining all the stuff in real life that goes into how creatures actually survive damage, despite the material they are made of not normally being able to, makes much more sense to me than trying to cram animals into a tiering system that crumbles upon trying to handle reality.

Edit (about predator and prey skin): I knew about predators and prey animals having different skin against cuts, I mentioned it earlier. It’s not durability how this site treats it. The prey skin just drags with the cut, thus receiving more damage. Predators just have a very limited resistance to cuts because their skin doesn’t drag with the slash, thus receives less damage.

Edit 2: Sorry for taking so long to respond. I had work and got a massive headache after work. I still have the headache, but I felt bad leaving this thread waiting.

 

[Keeweed]

"9-B, 9-C against cutting piercing attacks"?

They won’t be 9-C, the 9-C attack is specifically cutting into them. Durability says they have to withstand the damage with minor injuries (especially in real life where the weapon is clearly doing its job).

If we do go that route, which I’m somewhat fine with (though not really since the animals aren’t the reason they can survive 9-B damage). They should be 10-B (and only 9-C if we can find scientific evidence that says their skin can withstand energy or force within 9-C ranges. I think crocodiles and elephants may apply, but I can’t find evidence saying so. Armadillos definitely apply though).

Edit: Since I’m busy today I’m just going to edit this comment for this. Once I’m free Monday, I’ll post this as it’s own comment. Unless people want to start discussing this again earlier.


Coming back to this, I think I need to talk about the bulkiness of animals again, since I did that a lot last thread but see I haven’t really properly brought that over to this thread again.

Pretty much, to do significant damage to quite a few animals there are times you would need 9-B amounts of energy to do so. But that isn’t because the animal’s durability, it’s due to their survivability. An elephant has a lot of flesh you got to destroy to do enough damage to kill it alot of the time (unless you hit its neck or another thinner part of the body). Your 10-B attack isn’t failing to damage it, it just isn’t doing enough damage to matter.

For a true 9-B any attack really beneath its durability won’t actually do any damage at all. You attack would be dead stopped, like how materials that require a minimum energy of 9-C to break won’t just magically suddenly break from 10-B no matter how many times you actually hit it.

That, combined with how real attacks often don’t often optimally hit the target (as shown by a cattle walking off being hit by a speeding car only to be instantly dropped by a goat; or a human surviving being hit by a train despite being a completely average joe) are the two biggest reasons I don’t think animals should have 9-B durability ever, even for extremely bulky ones.

They can survive 9-B energy; even sometimes often. However, they can also just as easily suddenly die from 10-B damage.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

where's my official 10-B durability Camel? I want a 9-C street-fighter to be able to one-shot one in a match up here.
BUMP

 

[ExSENNA]

I always wanted real world to be yeeted away for being real and thus actually obeying laws of reality. Maybe vs battles tiering system just isn't suited for scaling anything that is real

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I always wanted real world to be yeeted away for being real and thus actually obeying laws of reality. Maybe vs battles tiering system just isn't suited for scaling anything that is real

RIP KLOL506's guns.

@DontTalkDT @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Executor_N0 You guys are the smartest when it comes to piercing damage shenanigans so your opinion here would be useful.