The Eminence In Shadow: LS upgrade

[XxZetsuxX]

This CRT aims to upgrade The Eminence in Shadow characters’ lifting strength (LS) using the following statement:

Cid, as a child with no prior magic experience, stated that magic allows users to lift “ginormous boulders” with a single finger. This has been calculated at approximately 2.75 tons.

According to VS Battles standards, since this feat is performed using one finger (i.e., one hand), would it be reasonable to upscale this to 5.5 tons when using both hands?

Furthermore, this value could likely be increased by a significant margin, considering the feat was accomplished effortlessly by someone who had only just begun using magic.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Statement lacks clarification for boulder size, so possibly can't calculate accurately.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

Statement lacks clarification for boulder size, so possibly can't calculate accurately.

It says ginourmous, so i took whats currently accepted in the profile which is 2.75 tons

 

[Random-Helper323]

Okay, there's an issue here. What qualifies as ginormous here? How many cubic feet are in a ginormous, if you will? The proposed size being used is the max size listed in the linked chart, which is five feet by four feet. No depth listed so this just gives us square feet rather than the cubic feet we need. I'm honestly not sure it can be used for a source at all.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Okay, there's an issue here. What qualifies as ginormous here? How many cubic feet are in a ginormous, if you will? The proposed max size listed in the linked chart is five feet by four feet. No depth listed so this just gives us square feet rather than the cubic feet we need. I'm honestly not sure it can be used for a source at all.

I was typing the similar, got ninj'd
Basically that.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

According to the definition;

"Ginormous" is an informal adjective meaning extremely large, huge, or immense, blending the words "gigantic" and "enormous". First used in the 1940s, it describes something of1 colossal size. Synonyms include humongous, tremendous, vast, and whopping.

I applied that to this feat, not sure if it helps however

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

We need to carefully consider the term “ginormous” here. The size of the boulder could vary widely, and without an exact measurement, we can’t make a reliable assumption. Even a very small difference in size could significantly affect the outcome and alter the rating. So, in the absence of clearly specified dimensions, I would have to disagree.

 

[Random-Helper323]

According to the definition;

"Ginormous" is an informal adjective meaning extremely large, huge, or immense, blending the words "gigantic" and "enormous". First used in the 1940s, it describes something of1 colossal size. Synonyms include humongous, tremendous, vast, and whopping.

I applied that to this feat, not sure if it helps however

There are two problems here. The word is one, which I'm willing to work on with you. The other issue, honestly the bigger one, is that chart. You say that chart is already being used as a justification on the profiles?

I think a better way to measure it would be to make estimates of how big a ginormous boulder would be based on what the person saying it would consider very large, other feats in the verse, etc. and then calculate the mass based on that estimated size and the mass of stone.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

There are two problems here. The word is one, which I'm willing to work on with you. The other issue, honestly the bigger one, is that chart. You say that chart is already being used as a justification on the profiles?

I think a better way to measure it would be to make estimates of how big a ginormous boulder would be based on what the person saying it would consider very large, other feats in the verse, etc. and then calculate the mass based on that estimated size and the mass of stone.

I will ask a friend if he can help with that

But out of curiosity, in the scenario we find a value for it, would the 2x multiplier via 2 hands actually work?

 

[Random-Helper323]

I will ask a friend if he can help with that

But out of curiosity, in the scenario we find a value for it, would the 2x multiplier via 2 hands actually work?

Best to look at precedent for feats of lifting things with one finger. It so happens the Wiki has a well established precedent for it: Tarkus from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

 

[Zefra3011]

For all its worth 0,0283168 m^3 weighs around 68 kg, so 1 m^3 should go to 2380 kg. 2,75 Tons are like 2494,758 kg. So what's currently accepted is around 1 m^3.

That said, I heavily disagree with the x2 argument. Just because the character can potentially use another hand, we double it. At this point, why not x4 since he can use the legs as well? Or calculate the % of muscle mass used for the feats and list the character as assuming he's using the 100%. I don't think that's something we should do, and just because a few bad apples did, it doesn't mean we have as well. There's also the problem of the magic system; they can potentially output magic from anywhere in their body. By this logic, we should make the feat x100 "because potentially he can output magic from every cm^2 of his body". Here he even says "one finger" so we like... x10?

That said, if we consider 1 m^3 not being giganormous, then they should all be listed as Superhuman. I do not believe there is a concrete way to establish what Cid is actually referring to with "giganormous".

Any level clearly above peak human that does not have an exact value.

I think the tier covers the "we don't know the actual weight" problem. Instead, if we assume 1 m^3 is fine as an assumption, then I believe we can keep what's accepted.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

For all its worth 0,0283168 m^3 weighs around 68 kg, so 1 m^3 should go to 2380 kg. 2,75 Tons are like 2494,758 kg. So what's currently accepted is around 1 m^3.

That said, I heavily disagree with the x2 argument. Just because the character can potentially use another hand, we double it. At this point, why not x4 since he can use the legs as well? Or calculate the % of muscle mass used for the feats and list the character as assuming he's using the 100%. I don't think that's something we should do, and just because a few bad apples did, it doesn't mean we have as well. There's also the problem of the magic system; they can potentially output magic from anywhere in their body. By this logic, we should make the feat x100 "because potentially he can output magic from every cm^2 of his body". Here he even says "one finger" so we like... x10?

That said, if we consider 1 m^3 not being giganormous, then they should all be listed as Superhuman. I do not believe there is a concrete way to establish what Cid is actually referring to with "giganormous".

I think the tier covers the "we don't know the actual weight" problem. Instead, if we assume 1 m^3 is fine as an assumption, then I believe we can keep what's accepted.

The 2x via 2 hands is a standard

According to google, people can lift double the weight with 2 hands intead of one, you are kinda overcomplicating things

 

[Zefra3011]

The 2x via 2 hands is a standard

No page has it as standard. Some calcs take it into account. But it was never generally discussed between the CGMs to have a general agreement. So it's not a standard as "all feats should take this into account" like the formulas we use to calculate stuff.

 

[XxZetsuxX]

No page has it as standard. Some calcs take it into account. But it was never generally discussed between the CGMs to have a general agreement.

Do a CRT about that to reach a consensus

Because rn, there's nothing invalidating that