• 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.

The Real World Discussion Thread

Weirdly enough, for a small animal, the Tasmanian Devil almost hits Human Level and would've actually hit Human Level before the value was changed from 40 to 60 joules.


Assuming an average head-and-body length of 65.2 cm for the Tasmanian Devil, this is what I got for the work of the Tasmanian Devil's bite.:

221.8/1612*0.652=0.08971067 meters

553 newtons*0.08971067 meters=49.6100005 joules (Below Average Human level+)
 
Will also post this stuff with DarlingAurora.

Ok. Ever since my shinanegians with female lab wank there, I've been thinking. How do we interpret the statement from this source? vvv

"The average dog can pull three to four times their body weight."

This statement above is in regards to the theme of pulling weight in it's surrounding text. Also, this source says the same thing for healthy, fit dogs vvv

"Depending on the conditions, a healthy, fit dog can likely pull about 3 times their own body weight."

Beyond these statements, there aren't really too much context behind how this was given. Despite this, applying these statements in context to dogs that are very strong pound-by-pound like Huskies and Pitbulls would make sense, considering that many dogs were bred to be stronger pound-by-pound to their particular purposes unlike most other dogs.

So basically, the average healthy dog can pull 3-4 times their weight (which is notable in dogs very strong pound-by-pound), but how do we interpret "average?"

Due to the diversity of dog breeds, it would be inaccurate to apply an average dog weight. So Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is used, though it's methods of determining itself don't give an average weight.

At this point from my perspective, there are 2 interpretations that I know of to interpret the weight pulling statements. 1, we give the mean size+weight of all dog breeds currently or ever (a large amount of work I haven't seen by credible sources due to the complexity of dog breeds). 2, the mean weight of a dog breed. 3, how naturally strong they are compared to other dogs.

The first interpretation is pretty grand, though the complexity of dog breeds of up to 360 of all of them in the world currently may get lengthy to add a mean weight. An arguement can be made that a mean weight and sized dog could be close to the most popular of dogs, dogs don't have to have a mean wieght to be popular though. Another assumption to this first interpretation is to use a medium-sized-dogs's weight, but that wouldn't make sense since a dog of comparable size in the large breed category would get overpowered by a dog of comparable size. And females of the same bred can be fairly slimmer than their male counterparts.

The second interpretation seems to be more logically consistent to my knowledge since a different gender can be above average in strength in animals (most notably, males).

The third interpretation is also logically consistent, albeit with a vague line with average. Like the vagueness of the first interpretation, do we also intend to say the mean weight pulled by any dog in a pulling contest for example? However, we can most definitely determine for certain if a dog is naturally strong for it's weight pound-by-pound. Examples:

  • Pitbulls are consistently natually robust pound-by-pound because they were originally bred for fighting
  • Huskies are shown to be naturally strong and in some cases, can surprisingly fight evenly with pitbulls. They were bred to be sled dogs.
So if a dog is consistently stronger pound-by-pound, then the 3-4x multiplier can be applied. However, if a female or dogs in their low-end average size+weight aren't shown to also be consistently stronger pound-by-pound, then this multiplier can't be applied.
 
H3110l12345I20 said:
Will also post this stuff with DarlingAurora.

Ok. Ever since my shinanegians with female lab wank there, I've been thinking. How do we interpret the statement from this source? vvv

"The average dog can pull three to four times their body weight."

This statement above is in regards to the theme of pulling weight in it's surrounding text. Also, this source says the same thing for healthy, fit dogs vvv

"Depending on the conditions, a healthy, fit dog can likely pull about 3 times their own body weight."

Beyond these statements, there aren't really too much context behind how this was given. Despite this, applying these statements in context to dogs that are very strong pound-by-pound like Huskies and Pitbulls would make sense, considering that many dogs were bred to be stronger pound-by-pound to their particular purposes unlike most other dogs.

So basically, the average healthy dog can pull 3-4 times their weight (which is notable in dogs very strong pound-by-pound), but how do we interpret "average?"

Due to the diversity of dog breeds, it would be inaccurate to apply an average dog weight. So Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is used, though it's methods of determining itself don't give an average weight.

At this point from my perspective, there are 2 interpretations that I know of to interpret the weight pulling statements. 1, we give the mean size+weight of all dog breeds currently or ever (a large amount of work I haven't seen by credible sources due to the complexity of dog breeds). 2, the mean weight of a dog breed. 3, how naturally strong they are compared to other dogs.

The first interpretation is pretty grand, though the complexity of dog breeds of up to 360 of all of them in the world currently may get lengthy to add a mean weight. An arguement can be made that a mean weight and sized dog could be close to the most popular of dogs, dogs don't have to have a mean wieght to be popular though. Another assumption to this first interpretation is to use a medium-sized-dogs's weight, but that wouldn't make sense since a dog of comparable size in the large breed category would get overpowered by a dog of comparable size. And females of the same bred can be fairly slimmer than their male counterparts.

The second interpretation seems to be more logically consistent to my knowledge since a different gender can be above average in strength in animals (most notably, males).

The third interpretation is also logically consistent, albeit with a vague line with average. Like the vagueness of the first interpretation, do we also intend to say the mean weight pulled by any dog in a pulling contest for example? However, we can most definitely determine for certain if a dog is naturally strong for it's weight pound-by-pound. Examples:

  • Pitbulls are consistently natually robust pound-by-pound because they were originally bred for fighting
  • Huskies are shown to be naturally strong and in some cases, can surprisingly fight evenly with pitbulls. They were bred to be sled dogs.
So if a dog is consistently stronger pound-by-pound, then the 3-4x multiplier can be applied. However, if a female or dogs in their low-end average size+weight aren't shown to also be consistently stronger pound-by-pound, then this multiplier can't be applied.
Click to expand...
That's the thing... They could pull 3-4x their weight. Not lift, pull. When you pull something, you move it along the ground. This could mean one of two things: either the dogs can pull so-and-so directly along the ground (in which case the force required would be lowered by the friction coefficient), or they could pull so-and-so while it's on wheels (which also lowers the force required). There's a difference. I would know; the physical I took before I got my job had tested my lifting, pushing, and pulling strength.
 
Last edited:
Flashlight237 said:
That's the thing... They could pull 3-4x their weight. Not lift, pull. When you pull something, you move it along the ground. This could mean one of two things: either the dogs can pull so-and-so directly along the ground (in which case the force required would be lowered by the friction coefficient), or they could pull so-and-so while it's on wheels (which also lowers the force required). There's a difference. I would know; the physical I took before I got my job had tested my lifting, pushing, and pulling strength.
Click to expand...
Well, the coefficient would also very depending on the ground. And if they're actually pulling something with wheels or not.

And the thing here with taking this into account is that when I tried to calc some LS taking this into account with weight pulling here, the weights lead to below average human LS.

Also, we do have feats and context suggesting that some dogs can easily resist the pull of a person, whether by one, or both arms. They can latch on to you like a leech and make you loose your balence too.
 
Hey everyone! I found a useful scan in-case anyone's likely to be forced to witness a dog fight: https://nycdoggies.com/wellness/break-up-dog-fight/

If a dog's tail is pulled up and backwards continuously or their back legs are grabbed and followed by the grabbed dog being flipped on their back, their bite grip will usually release. That should be a notable weakness for all dogs.
 
H3110l12345I20 said:
This case is really electricity that isn't measuring the physical blows of the animal. Though the scan also did state evidence for 20 ms and superhuman attack speed. "In automotive terms, the tongue could go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in a hundredth of a second, though it only needs about 20 milliseconds to snag a cricket." So if you can find the mass of the tongue or another reliable calc, then the energy can be quantified as long as it's still 10-C.
Click to expand...
Apparently some chameleons have tongue speed of 2,500 m/s. Was skeptical of if this meant what I thought it did or if the researchers were talking about the acceleration of the tongue or something, but my profile gives them hypersonic attack speed
 
Kind of touched over this in a CRT I made, but I wonder how we handle regeneration for characters with bodies not designed to fit their categories. Like how an axolotl has an equal regen level as sea stars (Low-Mid), even though the latter has seemingly superior capabilities, as it can regenerate from one arm and even overcompensate by duplicating from a single arm/growing an extra one. They are almost entirely composed of limbs, though, so it's hard to put them any higher than Low-Mid.
 
Hortonhearsahoot said:
Kind of touched over this in a CRT I made, but I wonder how we handle regeneration for characters with bodies not designed to fit their categories. Like how an axolotl has an equal regen level as sea stars (Low-Mid), even though the latter has seemingly superior capabilities, as it can regenerate from one arm and even overcompensate by duplicating from a single arm/growing an extra one. They are almost entirely composed of limbs, though, so it's hard to put them any higher than Low-Mid.
Click to expand...
"
Mid: The ability to regenerate from decapitation or severe brain damage. For machines and vehicles, this would be regenerating from the destruction of critical parts, such as the engine.

High-Mid: The ability to regenerate from being blown/cut to pieces, brain included, or from a small piece of the user's body, such as a finger, or the heart.
"

If most people don't seem to think "X" body part is a small piece, then put "at least Mid, possibly High-Mid" regen. Did you read the entire regen page? I can understand you missing a couple of details.
 
Hortonhearsahoot said:
But then I wonder if things like sea stars being able to regenerate the rest of their body along with their neruons (even though it's technically not a brain) gives them high-mid regeneration. This isn't just about that specific animal either. The anatomies of some creatures are so different from what the regeneration page is used to, and may not do their capabilities justice.
Click to expand...
"High-Mid: The ability to regenerate from being blown/cut to pieces, brain included, or from a small piece of the user's body, such as a finger, or the heart."
The requirement to High-mid is regen from either...
  • Blown/cut to pieces (brain included)
  • A small piece of a thing's body
The regen is high mid as long as it's either of those requirements. It doesn't have to be both.
 
I'm aware that only one category is required. What I'm asking is if instead of having mid or potentially mid-high, a sea star could have just mid-high through the first category. The brain included part interests me because it makes me think in general about how we handle creatures without one being blown/cut to pieces along with whatever substitutes as a "brain".
 
Last edited:
Hortonhearsahoot said:
I know. I'm saying that if animals with a weird anatomy like starfishes would be eligible for the first category (blown/cut to pieces+brain) if they had the same level of regeneration. For example, let's say a sponge with regeneration is cut into 3 large chunks of its body, neurons included. It may not have a brain, but would those neurons count as being cut into pieces along with your brain?
Click to expand...
No.

If the entity can regen from a small part like a limb fragment, that's high-mid. The whole confusion here is from the fact that some animals have no brains at all, etc aren't designed to fit in the regen page that's for human-like characters. The regen page is fit enough to deal with strange cases like brainless animals as I've demonstrated.
 
Speaking of regeneration, I'm confused as to how Low-Mid works. Does it has to be all of the requirements, or just one? If it's the former, then things may be incorrect. A cockroach can lose its limbs and grow them back, but cut it in half and it won't recover.
 
Hortonhearsahoot said:
Speaking of regeneration, I'm confused as to how Low-Mid works. Does it has to be all of the requirements, or just one? If it's the former, then things may be incorrect. A cockroach can lose its limbs and grow them back, but cut it in half and it won't recover.
Click to expand...
We treat regeneration as more or less a scale, so generally just one would do.
 
H3110l12345I20 said:
What does everyone think of my dilophosaurus page remaster here?
Click to expand...
Well, I should point out that Sarahsaurus, the dino Dilophosaurus killed, got buffed since that 2010 study you linked. In 2016, its estimated weight is 200 kg (440 lbs). The citation from the Wikipedia is as follows: Paul, Gregory S. (2016). The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs (2nd ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 189. ISBN 9780691167664.
 
Flashlight237 said:
Well, I should point out that Sarahsaurus, the dino Dilophosaurus killed, got buffed since that 2010 study you linked. In 2016, its estimated weight is 200 kg (440 lbs). The citation from the Wikipedia is as follows: Paul, Gregory S. (2016). The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs (2nd ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 189. ISBN 9780691167664.
Click to expand...
Paul can be a knowledgeable person as a paleontologist since he has plenty of experience in the paleontology field, even though he lacks a degree in it.

Higher credibility wikipedia articles class GA article or above by wikipedia's content assessment grades and other sources than wikipedia on the same level tend to be more reliable. I've seen cited citations that say one thing and their scan says another on regular wikipedia articles. But in short, since it's reference supported, I'll allow it into the profile. Wikipedia does have a high standard for credible sources.
 
Flashlight237 said:
I mean, we have a flipping profile for white blood cells of all things. Of course personally, I don't think you're going to get much out of something like whatever the heck kinda animal you're bringing up, though.
Click to expand...
The smallest animal is effectively a parasite most notable in fish, but can infect other organisms. Thank you for the feedback!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H3110l12345I20
The Real World Profiles and Scaling General Discussion Thread
Replies
0
Views
682
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Why do we give fragmentation energy durability to real life objects and vehicles?
Replies
12
Views
1K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Composite Human Vs Tournament
4 5 6
Replies
232
Views
13K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Keeweed
  • Locked
The durability of real world animals
2
Replies
75
Views
4K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
  • Locked
Discussing IRL Human standards for the Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal & the like
3 4 5
Replies
181
Views
7K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Back
Top