- 32,835
- 38,111
RIP KLOL506's guns.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
RIP KLOL506's guns.
Fam, do you want our points now or Monday?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.
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.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).
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).
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.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.
We are not going to delete shit, especially from such a flimsy thing.
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 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.
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.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 and along with the energy required by blunt forces to damage it.
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?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.
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.With their 9-B ratings we are literally pulling nonexistent numbers out of thin air.
Human charges are 9-C, but because the reason you stated, we don't have 9-C durability.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.
I would honestly prefer if we put a note in the profiles explaining they are still susceptible to piercing damage and the like.If we didn’t have 10-C durablity against piercing damage a bug won’t be able to pierce us.
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.and I trust those who did the real life profiles revision took this into account.
Because we haven't gotten around to fix it, pretty much.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.
That was the prime purpose of the other thread, yeah. To fix a lot of the inaccuracies.If a lot of profiles (the real animal ones) are the middle of being changed with their KE, then sorry for the misunderstanding there.
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?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.
I know that the OP is probably working & waiting on the IRL animals CRTI 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.
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!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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
Question,That was the prime purpose of the other thread, yeah. To fix a lot of the inaccuracies.
Edit: It is simply an ongoing project.
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.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?