• 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

i'd expect something more than Class 10 to be honest, the largest sauropods are up to about 80 tonnes (or 100-120 counting Maraapunisaurus and "Bruhathkayosaurus")
Lifting strength is how much force, not weight you can lift as defined on-site. Sauropods often are too slow to produce a lot of force, so I'd need to look up if they can get back up from falling over first for this to apply
 
^There's more articles in the categories to cite from and make VSBW Real World entries/profiles/articles/pages about though, so that's why I linked these initially
With regard to natural/cosmic phenomena








For other big and small stuff:


 
I'm not saying we add the Wikipedia categories to VSBW, just make profiles/articles/pages in VSBW based on (via citing from) the Wikipedia articles of the stuff within the Wikipedia categories, that's what I meant by expanding the database + adding more entries.
Missing the point. I already knew and addressed this. Not to mention, why didn't you immediately say or recite it was to reduce clutter from your initial replies? I don't remember everything.
 
Not to mention, why didn't you immediately say or recite it was to reduce clutter from your initial replies?
😐
I thought the proposal was already made in the other thread for reference welp


but again, not sure how many people (mostly regarding Real World contributors who were not involved in the other thread) have read through it and/or are comfortable with it.
 
goodbye-saurophaganax-welcome-allosaurus-anax-v0-g4vvek31vm8e1.png

skeletal by Henrique Paes
 
Personally, I like how we already have the verse page set up when it comes to animals and such. I mean, do you really think the average person is gonna know what an Archaea or a Chordata is? You're more likely to find people who know what a fish or a bird is.
 
Personally, I like how we already have the verse page set up when it comes to animals and such. I mean, do you really think the average person is gonna know what an Archaea or a Chordata is? You're more likely to find people who know what a fish or a bird is.
What about longer sections that can take up the entire screen at once for the average user, like the mammals section for example? We could have a bit of a tabber section prevent clutter and it would be easy for people to navigate even with scientific names. For scientific names, we go for the more public ones that are more likely to be understood by regular people
 
What about longer sections that can take up the entire screen at once for the average user, like the mammals section for example? We could have a bit of a tabber section prevent clutter and it would be easy for people to navigate even with scientific names. For scientific names, we go for the more public ones that are more likely to be understood by regular people
yeah I'm not sure if we should stick to making individual entries/profiles/articles/pages OR grouping them together and giving the groups their own entries/profiles/articles/pages OR using tabs to group them together within the Real World verse page itself for all the Real World verses entries and content sections, but I agree with the approach for naming.
 
For scientific names, we go for the more public ones that are more likely to be understood by regular people
Like I said, I prefer what we already got. We got cnidarians? Boom, Cnidarian section. We got mollusks? Boom! Mollusk section. Everything we got now is the easiest to understand it could be; any changes are just going to complicate things.
 
So uhh... Would this be points in favor of the mice, or would this be points against the Asian Bullfrog?:



I mean the frog isn't bothered by eight whole mice, but it struggles to try and grab one.
 
So uhh... Would this be points in favor of the mice, or would this be points against the Asian Bullfrog?:



I mean the frog isn't bothered by eight whole mice, but it struggles to try and grab one.

The mice had comparable reflexes to an African Bullfrog. And the latter was able to overpower at least 2 by the end. So yes, it doubles as a feat for both animals
 
Well, someone pitted 1000 ants against 1000 cockroaches in various contests, including an actual army battle:



In a 1v1, a cockroach loses against an ant. In a 1000 v 1000, the cockroaches initially had the upper hand thanks to all the trampling, but the armies wound up in a standstill.
 
I am fine with H3110l12345I20's conclusions here, as well as with his new profile page drafts. 🙏
 
I am fine with H3110l12345I20's conclusions here, as well as with his new profile page drafts. 🙏
Ok.

To be fair, I treat discussion threads as more of a sandbox to talk about stuff (and Flashlight is possibly doing the same thing), however, if a change is intentionally stated to be deserving a CRT, I'll put it in a CRT and contact the relevant user about it.
 
Ok.

To be fair, I treat discussion threads as more of a sandbox to talk about stuff (and Flashlight is possibly doing the same thing), however, if a change is intentionally stated to be deserving a CRT, I'll put it in a CRT and contact the relevant user about it.
Yeah, I basically put updates whenever one pops up. The recent post I put up about crows is an example.
 
I'll put up an advisory here. Whenever you see Youtube videos, make sure you actually can identify the species in the video. There are some videos, like the one below, that are complete BS (it's a video of a komodo dragon getting startled by a wave while trying to eat a dead moray eel):

 
Hello, I would like to try to create a few pages for this "verse", mainly regarding Swedish planes.

Is there anything specific, I need to follow or is it just a normal layout?
 
I am having some troubles finding dimensions for the Gripen A specifically, the best ones I can currently find is this. But I am not sure if it's reliable or not. Should I still use it with a message saying it's not reliable, or just skip it completely? Just note it's only for the dimensions (Height, length, and wingspan.)
 
I am having some troubles finding dimensions for the Gripen A specifically, the best ones I can currently find is this. But I am not sure if it's reliable or not. Should I still use it with a message saying it's not reliable, or just skip it completely? Just note it's only for the dimensions (Height, length, and wingspan.)
If it's a plane you can find in War Thunder, chances are there's a leaked military document for it somewhere.
 
If it's a plane you can find in War Thunder, chances are there's a leaked military document for it somewhere.
Funnily enough, War Thunder actively nerf Sweden hard, so their statistics are likely off... The Russian bias is huge though.

Honestly, though it seems to match what I had already found, so I guess the numbers were much more likely to be correct.
 
I am currently leaning towards it being high-animalistic, though it may be one step below it. What do you guys think?
 
Well, is it comparable to the bottle noise dolphin, chimp, elephant, tool making etc?
No, but.

I would say, that mimicking a scent/chemical from Ant's to give the Wasp's eggs is a pretty decent intelligent feat since it allows the Wasps, much higher chances of surviving, due to the protection they would gain from being in a ants nest, and be feed. That means the Wasps know how to get that specific chemical/scent of, and what that specific scent, will have for effect for the eggs and the ants.

Now while this I think is High-Animalistic, as a feat... It's also extremely specialised...
 
No, but.

I would say, that mimicking a scent/chemical from Ant's to give the Wasp's eggs is a pretty decent intelligent feat since it allows the Wasps, much higher chances of surviving, due to the protection they would gain from being in a ants nest, and be feed. That means the Wasps know how to get that specific chemical/scent of, and what that specific scent, will have for effect for the eggs and the ants.

Now while this I think is High-Animalistic, as a feat... It's also extremely specialised...
Wdym by specialized?
 
Wdym by specialized?
Intelligence feats can be extremely specialized, meaning they are only impressive in certain areas.

Meaning that a being with overall lower intelligence may have areas they are more intelligent in than beings above them.

(Trying to explain it before getting my first cup of coffee is not the best idea.)
 
Intelligence feats can be extremely specialized, meaning they are only impressive in certain areas.

Meaning that a being with overall lower intelligence may have areas they are more intelligent in than beings above them.

(Trying to explain it before getting my first cup of coffee is not the best idea.)
Not a bad explanation for someone who's tired. Although...

"High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain crows and octopi."

I suppose there's a potential argument to be made about the wasp having a comparable problem solving feat.
 
Back
Top