• 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.

Tier 4 Revisions Round 2

I'm fine with using something other than PSR for 3-C and 3-B. The Sun is probably fine for them, unless you have another star in mind.
 
So, if I am not mistaken, here is currently what we're looking at when it comes to the calculated baselines of the tiers:

High 5-A: OTS 44

Low 4-C: VB 10

4-C: Sol, the Su

High 4-C: Rigel A

4-B: Sun via Inverse Square Law at 2.795x10^9 meter radius (Not sure how far into the Solar System we should go to call this one)

4-A: Sun via Inverse Square Law at 3.974x10^16 meter radius (Distance to Alpha Centauri)

3-C: Sun via Inverse Square Law at 4.73037x10^20 meter radius (Milky Way Galaxy radius)

3-B: Sun via Inverse Square Law at 2.4001873x10^22 meter radius (Distance to Andromeda)

3-A: PSR J0348+0432 via Inverse Square Law at 4.40870040022x10^26 meter radius (Observable Universe radius)

Anything I am missing?
 
@Executor

That's what I imagined, just making sure.

Edit: I updated my post. Looks like we have everything as long as my 3-B radius is correct.
 
Awesome. Since Executor, DT, and Darkanine are OK with this, we should be able to move on to calculating the new values using our new star GBE formula. For reference, this is what needs to happen:

Using the new formula we will need to recalculate the baselines of the tiers given their celestial bodies newly revised GBE. This includes adjusting 4-B through 3-A, if they are indeed taken from the Sun's GBE. This also includes not only the joule value, but the prefixed TNT value, as well as the Tons of TNT value, and all multiplicative differences between the tiers.
 
It should probably be mentioned that we are using an older formula for the sake of convenience in the new calculation blogs for this.
 
I will do so. I am currently making a blog in which I redo the GBE formula for all the stars we have identified for the tiers, the reasoning behind it, and a new attack potency chart complete with the bounds for each tier (at and beyond 5-A) with bounds in joules, Prefixed TNT equivalent, tons of TNT, and the multiplicative value between each.

I've been working on it some a couple hours, but it will be a while more before I am done. Sorry for the delay.

Also, it isn't just convenience, it is consistency. We can't jump around between formulas without setting a bad precedent.
 
Also this would pretty much need to happen no matter what, as it is clear that most of these star calculations were done without any compensation for non-uniform density.
 
No problem. For what ever reason Galaxy level's baseline was like within 90% of my calculation I just did. Idk why that one was so close but some of the others (like Solar System level... yikes I don't know how the base got found for this last time) weren't.
 
Well, given how important this is to get right, your new blog has to be evaluated by several other calc group members, as well as DontTalkDT.
 
Like I said, I am glad to help, and thank you.

Next part I probably can't do alone. All the calculations spanning Large Planet level+ to Universe level need to be looked at for possible changes.

I will message a follow-up to the calc members and DontTalk.
 
Yes, we will need to start a big revision project at a later point, but it is an inappropriate time to do so when school is just starting for the year.
 
I agree. Perhaps contacting the admins and content mods and getting their opinions on a date would be optimal?

Edit: The message has now been sent to all calc members and DontTalk.

Me right now. I'm so glad that blog is done... I started getting lost in the numbers.
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, we will need to start a big revision project at a later point, but it is an inappropriate time to do so when school is just starting for the year.
Click to expand...
If this accepted, can I make the edit to the Attack Potency page if I am available? I have always wanted to put my name in the history of its editors. :p
 
Well, we cannot change the attack potency page until when the project is initiated, and it could take several months until we are able to do so, but at that time, you can edit the page, sure. No problem.
 
Do we still need to change the names for tiers High 5-A, Low 4-C, and High 4-C?
 
I think it would be good, personally, but honestly that is adding more work. If we want to try and do this in spring, we shouldn't do that right now.

Also the new calculation have shrunken 4-B by a lot and expanded High 4-C in place of it. Now we have three tiers in the millions of multiplicative differences instead of one in the trillions.

The difference for universe is still outrageously huge though.
 
Okay. We would need good alternative titles though.
 
Looking at it, why would 4-B be calculated with the Sun's values? Shouldn't an omnidirectional blast only need to be able to destroy Neptune if the blast started at the Sun? I am not sure if someone should be required to destroy the Sun at the range of Neptune to be SS level. Looking at it, if we use Neptune's values, 4-B begins at 2.277x10^45; a result almost identical to our current one.

I believe this is what the original calculation was based on, and don't see why we need to change "destroying Neptune at the range of Neptune's orbit" to "destroying the Sun at the range of Neptune's orbit."

I would like opinions on this, though. As of now I'm going to sleep. Hopefully I can wake to some progress. G'night, y'all.
 
I think that your reasoning for 4-B seems to make sense, but I am not a calc group member, so it is not my call.
 
So two for destroying Neptune at the range of Neptune's orbit.

Hopefully Executor and/or DontTalk weigh in here. I am curious as to what the logic behind using the Sun at Neptune's orbit range would be.
 
Not since last time, I don't think. They agreed with using the Sun at Neptune's range, since they thought this was how it was calculated before.

Neither commented here or on my blog since last night.

Edit: Mobile didn't load the new Blog comment. Sorry for the confusion.
 
I did not say to use the Sun in Neptune's orbit. I just explained that we used the distance Sun and Neptune as the size of the explosion for 4-B. As I said in the blog the calculation should be an omnidirectional explosion that originates from the Sun and will reach Neptune.
 
Ok. I misinterpreted. So it looks like Neptune being destroyed from a blast originating at the Sun is the way to go.
 
ArbitraryNumbers said:
I also agree with Assalt. Didn't we initially use Neptune to Sol distance anyways?
Click to expand...
We did, but I thought we used the Sun's GBE and radius as the variables for the formula, rather than Neptune's.

I realize this is incorrect now. I'll adjust the calculation accordingly.

Edit: The calculation, info regarding the way the calculations, and the table, have been adjusted accordingly.
 
A user has just brought up a good question.

"Why did you use the target for 4-A as the Sun and not Alpha Centauri, given you used the distance for Alpha Centauri?"

Despite the Sun being a standard fictional star the requirement of "being able to destroy the nearest star, Alpha Centauri A, and everything in between it" is met far more accurately by using the calculation with the values given from Alpha Centauri A.

Basically: Use Alpha Centauri A as the target in 4-A, rather than the Sun.
 
Yeah, I went ahead and updated it. I feel like this is one of those "well, duh" moments. If there is a reason to use the Sun I will upon the last edit.
 
Can somebody remind DontTalk and Darkanine to comment here please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CNBA3
Planets with GBE capacity limit?
Replies
6
Views
845
CNBA3
CNBA3
Flashlight237
Large Size Calculations Change
Replies
2
Views
368
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Epyriel
New Black Hole Creation Feat Formula Proposal
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ugarik
Ugarik
Finiznot
  • Locked
Tier 10-B to 9-B Gap Revision
Replies
20
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Why can't characters be assigned a 5-C tier without calculations?
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top