- 32,835
- 38,108
-
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
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
Anyways...I have points myself & from a guy that tells people to get a job. The latter has plenty of common sense.
Fam, do you want our points now or Monday?
- 31,457
- 34,316
I don't think nuking our real world profiles would entirely be the best interest since fighting off an entire army of lions, tigers, and bears with your bare hands is still a solid feat. Furthermore, they still useful for comparing them to verses that are pretty down to earth such as various live action crime dramas verses and various non-fantasy FPS verses (As well as some sci-fi ones that lack supernatural stuff).
- 9,651
- 8,711
And that's exactly what the bears in the video did...? Did you see them bleeding heavily after biting and clawing each other? Those attacks would cause heavy injuries on humans and apes but the bears with their panniculus carnosus muscle can simply shrug it off.
- 9,651
- 8,711
I'm pretty sure that even the strongest 9-C human ever would be cut or pierced by 10-B attacks, this is a waste of time and I see no point in making their durability 10-B/9-C in their profiles, we already know that cutting and piercing attacks can hurt characters of higher tiers.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
Guys, I also have counter arguments & feedback from Armorchompy on the topic. & I have suggestions on how we can use the energy dispersion explanation here for our benefit. Also, I think we need to put a note on the IRL verse page on why it's there, & how things are tiered.
Frequently, people go waltz in here trying to fully apply IRL physics to the site's oversimplified physics. A note there on how we make compromises to apply to the site would at least save some trouble on issues like these.
- 11,552
- 10,976
We should just delet any irl profile
Any real-life expert laughs and considers it stupid
Analyzing the strength of something in real life is completely different from analyzing something in a book or game
Any real-life expert laughs and considers it stupid
Analyzing the strength of something in real life is completely different from analyzing something in a book or game
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
For anyone here saying that IRL should be nuked because of it's inconstancies, they would also have to solve the problem that we use IRL as a ruler, but not as a rule.
Removing IRL means that we wouldn't be able to scale how powerful feats of beating up/surviving various types of animals in fiction. Like what happens if one of your favorite characters/verses does this type of stuff & it's the only good strength feat you have?
As fiction is fundamentally based off the inspiration of real life & human imagination, we would also sacrifice knowing how powerful specific weapons & moves are for specific characters. How is anyone going to know how powerful a supernova, tornado or machine gun is if their favorite character/verse uses those moves?
There would be a surprising amount of opposition of removing the IRL verse & we would be back to square one at that point. Also it would set a double standard that we remove IRL based off that reasoning while acknowledging that humans can do & survive things that are 9-C, in which the tiering system (the most fundamental thing on site) at lower tiers would also be disputed.
Removing IRL means that we wouldn't be able to scale how powerful feats of beating up/surviving various types of animals in fiction. Like what happens if one of your favorite characters/verses does this type of stuff & it's the only good strength feat you have?
As fiction is fundamentally based off the inspiration of real life & human imagination, we would also sacrifice knowing how powerful specific weapons & moves are for specific characters. How is anyone going to know how powerful a supernova, tornado or machine gun is if their favorite character/verse uses those moves?
There would be a surprising amount of opposition of removing the IRL verse & we would be back to square one at that point. Also it would set a double standard that we remove IRL based off that reasoning while acknowledging that humans can do & survive things that are 9-C, in which the tiering system (the most fundamental thing on site) at lower tiers would also be disputed.
As for Keeweed's arguments, Armorchompy has given an interesting response to one of Keeweed's major arguments. The rest of Keeweed's arguments are right & some can fall into his place, but there's a couple things Armorchompy & I would have to point out.
While I have more arguments against your proposal, I think Armorchompy's argument here would sum up why your proposal wouldn't be accepted:
"Rating them as 10-B is going to lead to a fuckton of misunderstandings and isn't representative of the animal's actual behavior. And by that logic it should really be 10-C, it's not like a human's body "tanks" punches, it just absorbs them somewhat."
Since energy disperses in an attack & people can one-shot each other, shouldn't every animal be as durable as a 70 year old grandpa?
The Armorchompy also said it would make killing an elephant in one punch 10-B, & he considers it absurdeven though I would tolerate a 10-C durability Camel.
Most of what you're saying isn't new. Staff already knew that surface area is a factor like, years before your proposal. When you get back, you'll beg the question of why stuff like this hasn't changed? The answer is that many proposals also led to inaccuracies when theoretically put out. The reason why staff accepted stuff into the IRL verse & site is because it didn't cause a set of problems bigger than the set of problems it solved.
The part where the cow gets knocked unconscious is hit in a spot where they're likely to get knocked unconscious. This reasoning shouldn't be used against bulk because areas of vulnerability are a problem for scaling durability. This is like saying Achilles isn't invulnerable on the rest of his body since he isn't at his heel.
The parts where animals can survive 9-B damage but die to 10-B damage just explains what nonlinear durability is. Hitting specific spots of organisms will make them not withstand your own attacks, other spots are mild & recoverable injuries that wouldn't kill the organism.
Edit: the part where I mentioned vulnerable areas is likely a blunder, but there are areas on a person where punching them wouldn't one-shot them & vice versa. Also we usually have priority over blunt force & raw strength for physical stats for animals (including durability) unless if it's a special case like the Honey Badger. For how weapons are tiered ask KLOL506 or the staff here.
While I have more arguments against your proposal, I think Armorchompy's argument here would sum up why your proposal wouldn't be accepted:
"Rating them as 10-B is going to lead to a fuckton of misunderstandings and isn't representative of the animal's actual behavior. And by that logic it should really be 10-C, it's not like a human's body "tanks" punches, it just absorbs them somewhat."
Since energy disperses in an attack & people can one-shot each other, shouldn't every animal be as durable as a 70 year old grandpa?
The Armorchompy also said it would make killing an elephant in one punch 10-B, & he considers it absurd
Most of what you're saying isn't new. Staff already knew that surface area is a factor like, years before your proposal. When you get back, you'll beg the question of why stuff like this hasn't changed? The answer is that many proposals also led to inaccuracies when theoretically put out. The reason why staff accepted stuff into the IRL verse & site is because it didn't cause a set of problems bigger than the set of problems it solved.
The part where the cow gets knocked unconscious is hit in a spot where they're likely to get knocked unconscious. This reasoning shouldn't be used against bulk because areas of vulnerability are a problem for scaling durability. This is like saying Achilles isn't invulnerable on the rest of his body since he isn't at his heel.
The parts where animals can survive 9-B damage but die to 10-B damage just explains what nonlinear durability is. Hitting specific spots of organisms will make them not withstand your own attacks, other spots are mild & recoverable injuries that wouldn't kill the organism.
Edit: the part where I mentioned vulnerable areas is likely a blunder, but there are areas on a person where punching them wouldn't one-shot them & vice versa. Also we usually have priority over blunt force & raw strength for physical stats for animals (including durability) unless if it's a special case like the Honey Badger. For how weapons are tiered ask KLOL506 or the staff here.
I'll make my potential notes here for the IRL verse page:
- Add maybe" & from a realistic perspective" after "can be overcome through sheer raw power" since that's how we treat animals? IDK how else to word this since I feel it can have disasterous implications. But this shouldn't be as important.
- Add note 2: "Real Life Physics & Thermodynamics aren't always fully applicable to the real world pages on-site due to the tiering system being an oversimplification of real world physics. However, staff are willing to hear & accept proposals that would solve more problems than it causes in order to make standards as aligned to reality as possible while being adhering to the tiering system & site's intended purpose."
- Add note 3: "Much of the durability evidence above an animal's durability rating comes from some of the animal's energy dispersing & converting into an other form or that there's unavoidable inaccuracies when implementing the tiering system onto the animal. They should still be rated as their attack potency."
- & finally, Add note 4: "While staff acknowledges that the tiering system doesn't follow real world physics & thermodynamics with real life pages' inaccuracies, the real world page is on-site since it serves as a reference point for other verses on-site" (including verses members are supporters towards)
Any thoughts here?
- Add maybe" & from a realistic perspective" after "can be overcome through sheer raw power" since that's how we treat animals? IDK how else to word this since I feel it can have disasterous implications. But this shouldn't be as important.
- Add note 2: "Real Life Physics & Thermodynamics aren't always fully applicable to the real world pages on-site due to the tiering system being an oversimplification of real world physics. However, staff are willing to hear & accept proposals that would solve more problems than it causes in order to make standards as aligned to reality as possible while being adhering to the tiering system & site's intended purpose."
- Add note 3: "Much of the durability evidence above an animal's durability rating comes from some of the animal's energy dispersing & converting into an other form or that there's unavoidable inaccuracies when implementing the tiering system onto the animal. They should still be rated as their attack potency."
- & finally, Add note 4: "While staff acknowledges that the tiering system doesn't follow real world physics & thermodynamics with real life pages' inaccuracies, the real world page is on-site since it serves as a reference point for other verses on-site" (including verses members are supporters towards)
Any thoughts here?
Last edited:
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #52
I don’t see how this is flimsy at all. You guys just keep ignoring how piercing damage works, it doesn’t make your attacks millions of times stronger it just hits a smaller area. Plus there are multiple examples I brought up that are purely blunt forces. A goat obviously doesn’t produce as much kinetic energy as a car. Yet a cow, which can sometimes walk off getting hit by a car, can be literally floored by a goat (a small goat at that).
A man once got hit by a train and was mildy inconvenienced, yet we all know that man was just a normal dude that can easily be punched to death like any other man.
We have the actual scientific numbers on how much energy it takes to destroy what makes up real life animals, it doesn’t require 9-B energy. If you destroy a part of a creature that is needed for its survival it dies, and you don’t need to produce 9-B energy a large majority of the time.
Predators can survive multiple slashes and stabs because their skin doesn’t drag with the slash. They don’t take fatal damage and don’t bleed as much. However, they are still stabbed. The weapon did its job, it cut apart their flesh. It damaged them.
With our current profiles a spear should snap like a twig upon hitting a 9-B animal (because they break on 9-C steel), yet that’s obviously isn’t what happens. The spear goes straight through, the creature’s durability stops nothing, and if the spear hits something fatal the creature dies.
Survivability isn’t durability. Real creatures survive damage because just hitting a creature with a lot of energy in random spots doesn’t matter. If you don’t hit anything important, you didn’t hit anything important. You can crush a bears heart and brain in your hands, with a 9-C hammer you can bruise up and damage elephant flesh, a sledgehammer would absolutely one hit kill a large chunk of creatures we rate as 9-B.
A man once got hit by a train and was mildy inconvenienced, yet we all know that man was just a normal dude that can easily be punched to death like any other man.
We have the actual scientific numbers on how much energy it takes to destroy what makes up real life animals, it doesn’t require 9-B energy. If you destroy a part of a creature that is needed for its survival it dies, and you don’t need to produce 9-B energy a large majority of the time.
Predators can survive multiple slashes and stabs because their skin doesn’t drag with the slash. They don’t take fatal damage and don’t bleed as much. However, they are still stabbed. The weapon did its job, it cut apart their flesh. It damaged them.
With our current profiles a spear should snap like a twig upon hitting a 9-B animal (because they break on 9-C steel), yet that’s obviously isn’t what happens. The spear goes straight through, the creature’s durability stops nothing, and if the spear hits something fatal the creature dies.
Survivability isn’t durability. Real creatures survive damage because just hitting a creature with a lot of energy in random spots doesn’t matter. If you don’t hit anything important, you didn’t hit anything important. You can crush a bears heart and brain in your hands, with a 9-C hammer you can bruise up and damage elephant flesh, a sledgehammer would absolutely one hit kill a large chunk of creatures we rate as 9-B.
- 9,651
- 8,711
That's completely irrelevant, we have hundreds of 9-C and 9-B characters that would be affected by piercing damage just the same as 9-C/9-B animals, what, are you suggesting we should delete those as well? Because Peak humans and animals are susceptible to piercing damage of far lower levels?
Last edited:
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #54
I never suggested deleting the profiles (or if I did it, since I don’t remember suggesting it, I meant that as an absolute last resort). Plus, again, real life is hilariously different from fiction.
In real life we have the scientific reasons as to why piercing attacks hurt these creatures. We have the actual, real, energy limit required to cut through flesh along with the energy required by blunt forces to damage it.
I also brought up examples with blunt forces. Again cows scale to being hit by cars right now, with little issue, but that small goat (I showed earlier) one hit a cow. It was floored immediately.
In real life we have the scientific reasons as to why piercing attacks hurt these creatures. We have the actual, real, energy limit required to cut through flesh along with the energy required by blunt forces to damage it.
I also brought up examples with blunt forces. Again cows scale to being hit by cars right now, with little issue, but that small goat (I showed earlier) one hit a cow. It was floored immediately.
Last edited:
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #55
Real animals are made out of real materials. They are real creatures that abide the laws of reality. If you destroy the materials that make up these creatures, you can kill them. There would be no reason why you won’t be able to. With their 9-B ratings we are literally pulling nonexistent numbers out of thin air. Despite having the real, scientific, numbers on the energy required to hurt them. We are instead saying they scale to something way above that.
- 9,651
- 8,711
We use real life equations for fiction even if we don't know if they apply exactly as in real life, but our animal KE calcs must be 100% correct because those calcs were made for real life situations.
I don't even know what you are trying to suggest here, we have dozens of life actions with peak humans being susceptible to piercing damage.
Are you trying to suggest we should downgrade everyone's durability to 10-C because they can be cut by 10-C levels of piercing damage?
- 9,651
- 8,711
Just like any other creature in the 9-C range is made of "real materials" and is susceptible to piercing damage of lower levels, again what's your point?
No, they are not pulled out of thing air, it's literally just their kinetic energy resulted by using mass and speed, and we know they can survive their charges.
But as I said, all this is irrelevant because any creature of this range is as vulnerable to slashing and piercing damage as an elephant, even though elephants can destroy walls with their speed and mass.
Last edited:
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #58
I would for humans, and some other animals, yes. I know you obviously find that crazy, but it’s true. If we didn’t have 10-C durablity against piercing damage a bug won’t be able to pierce us. The bug doesn’t magically produce more energy than it could actually produce, skin is just crap. We have the actual numbers on why skin is crap.
Steel isn’t weak against piercing damage that lacks the actual energy required to piece it. A bug, or even another metal knife, can’t cut through steel. I literally showed a video of a steel sword bouncing off steel because it lacks the energy to cut it. Meanwhile that sword can easily cut into these supposedly 9-B creatures with ease.
Animals don’t scale to their full ramming KE. Run into a hard wall, head first, you could die and at least will be super injuried. That applies to all animals, you don’t hit yourselves with you own KE. If you’ve ever stubbed your toe or punched a hard desk you know what happens when that KE actually hits you (it does a lot of damage).
Steel isn’t weak against piercing damage that lacks the actual energy required to piece it. A bug, or even another metal knife, can’t cut through steel. I literally showed a video of a steel sword bouncing off steel because it lacks the energy to cut it. Meanwhile that sword can easily cut into these supposedly 9-B creatures with ease.
Animals don’t scale to their full ramming KE. Run into a hard wall, head first, you could die and at least will be super injuried. That applies to all animals, you don’t hit yourselves with you own KE. If you’ve ever stubbed your toe or punched a hard desk you know what happens when that KE actually hits you (it does a lot of damage).
- 9,651
- 8,711
Human charges are 9-C, but because the reason you stated, we don't have 9-C durability.
But there are many animals out there that could actually survive their charges, and I trust those who did the real life profiles revision took this into account.
I would honestly prefer if we put a note in the profiles explaining they are still susceptible to piercing damage and the like.
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #60
I would be perfectly fine with a note explaining piercing damage as an alternative. I don’t agree with them being 9-B blunt wise either, but at the very least it will make it clear that animals won’t just be walking through spears and stuff when those things kill them all the time.
Goats are a really bad example for animals surviving their charges. Goats’ heads are specifically designed to withstand blunt force and disperse it (which is why a goat walked off a charge that floored a much larger cow). Most other animals aren’t built like that (as shown by the cow).
When it comes to large animals it would really come down to bulk not durability. The energy within their charge has a lot of area to disperse across, rather than going straight back into something vital. If the full KE of an elephant went straight into its head it would absolutely die.
Goats are a really bad example for animals surviving their charges. Goats’ heads are specifically designed to withstand blunt force and disperse it (which is why a goat walked off a charge that floored a much larger cow). Most other animals aren’t built like that (as shown by the cow).
When it comes to large animals it would really come down to bulk not durability. The energy within their charge has a lot of area to disperse across, rather than going straight back into something vital. If the full KE of an elephant went straight into its head it would absolutely die.
- 10,343
- 11,894
I can absolutely confirm we were. Many animals were downgraded precisely because they could not be proved to reliably withstand their own KE nor particularly high blunt-force, and special cases like the Peregrine Falcon has a separate AP value for their normal "strikes" and its full dive, as it was indeed shown to use it for hunting.
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #62
I do mean any disrespect by saying this, but I don’t see any animal handling their own KE though (except the heads of goats, but those are specifically designed to that in every way). The KE of an elephant has a crap ton of surface area to spread across without hitting the elephant itself. If all the KE of an elephant went directly into a specific part of the body, or if an elephant just hard stomps onto another elephants head, both would absolutely kill the hit elephant.
I don’t see why we would use KE for any creature when we specifically have the real energy requirements to destroy them and the requirements are vastly lower than their KE.
For example: We currently we have the cows scale to the KE of a car. Despite the KE of a small goat absolutely flooring one.
I don’t see why we would use KE for any creature when we specifically have the real energy requirements to destroy them and the requirements are vastly lower than their KE.
For example: We currently we have the cows scale to the KE of a car. Despite the KE of a small goat absolutely flooring one.
- 10,343
- 11,894
Because we haven't gotten around to fix it, pretty much.
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #65
If a lot of profiles (the real animal ones) are the middle of being changed with their KE, then sorry for the misunderstanding there.
I guess I would like to wait and see all that threads changes made then and continue this thread afterwards (though I think we should still make the note about piercing damage mentioned a bit earlier then discuss blunt trauma later).
I guess I would like to wait and see all that threads changes made then and continue this thread afterwards (though I think we should still make the note about piercing damage mentioned a bit earlier then discuss blunt trauma later).
- 10,343
- 11,894
That was the prime purpose of the other thread, yeah. To fix a lot of the inaccuracies.
Edit: It is simply an ongoing project.
- 7,357
- 2,067
- Thread starter
- #67
I know what that thread was for, I saw it be made and somewhat watched it throughout. I just thought it was mostly done by this point; and after learning a lot about animals recently (I’ve been watching many animal documentaries and read up on plenty of them) I viewed many of the profiles as being very weird. But if the project is still going on and isn’t all that much done, then I would prefer to wait.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I did propose our durability ratings for animals to be defined as "tanking the AP of a regular hit of a fellow animal or something of similar AP over a similar area" or something like that if it makes sense. I wouldn't mind additional notes on piercing damage.
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
Question, if energy is neither created or destroyed & energy is dispersed over an area, where does the energy go (& turn into) & does it get released?
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
I know that the OP is probably working & waiting on the IRL animals CRT
I've been working down this list from top to bottom to try & retier the durability of IRL animals (
I do have a proposal on how we can measure the durability of IRL animals, & plus...
for when the OP comes back. Within his logic & despite his conclusion...
"An elephant's skull, parts of which are six inches thick, can withstand the force of tusks, trunk, and head-to-head collisions. The back of the skull is flat and spreads out to create arches that protect the brain in every direction." - the brain section of this source.
Add that with the high surface area, & the Elephant is still 9-B in durability even at baseline 9-B charges.
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
Can you list the weird stuff on the profiles on my IRL big animals CRT? I'm curious. As long as it's a compromise between IRL & on site!
& plus, I want to ask more questions here since your conclusions are... confusing?
Also, I have an idea on how we can judge the durability of IRL animals. I just need momentum here.
like durability is the ability to be unaffected/damaged by a certain amount of force. If you say animal flesh is 10-B & insects can cut though it with 10-C energy, then things get weird.
Animal flesh being 10-B means it should be undamaged by anything 10-C & below. Since skin is technically flesh, 10-B durability should make it impenetrable to 10-C energy & yet insects are perfectly capable of giving you bites & Ebola. Yes, there's pressure, but logically 10-C energy shouldn't be able to through the skin even though it does.
Edit: if you took a fresh heart or any vital organ that's cut by a surgeon & you punched it at full energy, it wouldn't withstand the energy dispersed onto the organ. Saying animals should be 10-B out of convenience isn't accurate, it should be 10-C since bugs literally borrow though that stuff in a "totally sexy" way.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
I'm actively trying to tier the durability of major animals here. & I need a foundation which I can rely on to make the changes I've been planning over the past few days based on the definition of durability.
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 & 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 & 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.
Last edited:
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
Question,
Besides staff supporters, are there any active users that are willing to try to continue the CRT in evaluating the KE of IRL animals?
My thread on CRTing animals is pretty much dead at this point.
I'm planning to do the durability major animals first & then move on & watch the thread in-case confusing stuff occurs &/or people ask about stuff.
- 120
- 35
Not to complain or anything but i wonder; if thid changes would apply to profile how we will gonna scale characters that have feats of killing animals as their most impressive feats? Would they get downgraded to 10-B/10-A/9-C or something?
H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,893
- 2,461
1: This is a necro you're doing, there's context that suggests flesh isn't as durable as paper (flesh includes skin, muscle & fur too since they're soft). There's not going to be many dura tier changes.
2: Adaptations are a factor. If the animal in question isn't really adapted to withstand attacks of it's tier or from comparable species (like untrained humans), then we can afford to pull something like a 10-C human. This will only apply to the hominids & animals that haven't adapted to attacks of their tier btw.
3: If my CRT is done with the KE of IRL animals, the original poster (OP) is likely to come back.
- 10,343
- 11,894
Since the topic of this thread got expanded into subsequent others, I have closed this
- Status
Similar threads
