Tier 4 revisions

[Kepekley23]

Relevant:

1. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/Stars:_Standards_and_GBE

2. https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1269115

Basically, we had a whole discussion about this and decided some of the stuff in the Tier 4, from Small Star to Large Star level, was incorrect.

For example, the GBE of the Sun, which is listed as the baseline for the 4-C tier. Except the GBE of the Sun is only 2.277146e+40 joules; which is a far-cry from the value listed in the profile. It would only fall under Low 4-C.

Furthermore, according to our Gravitational Binding Energy page, the GBE of the Earth and the Sun were calculated with a more precise formula than the one we always use. This is also false; the supposed "more precise formula' is actually identical to the formula we use, the order of the letters is just different, and the results with that are identical down to the fourth decimal.

Also, according to one of our members, the values listed on the Wikipedia page aren't even present on the alleged sources for them, which makes it even worse.

In other words, the GBE of the Sun is nowhere near the value listed even with the "better formula". We should thus downgrade the standards for 4-C to the new value calculated above; 2.277164x10^41 joules.

Now, onto the second issue.

This one may not be as important, but it is still one. With the new information, the "Dwarf", "Small" and "Large" names are incorrect and redundant. A large star is actually much easier to destroy than the Sun, for example, and red dwarfs are actually the "large" stars here, with their GBEs being well within the High 4-C range.

To sum it up, the largest star in the universe, UY Scuti, has poor density, and as such, its GBE is very tiny. It only comes off to Dwarf Star level+; except it is not a dwarf star, it is the largest star ever. As such, Assaltwaffle believes they should be removed and renamed.

To what, we don't know. Perhaps "Low Star", "Star", and "High Star level". I'm personally not into this suggestion, but still, opinions are needed.

Summary

• Change 1: Change the standard for 4-C to 2.277164x10^40 joules. This would widen the gap between it and High 4-C.

• Change 2: Rename the tier 4 components due to the fact that dwarf and small stars are harder to destroy. It may not be necessary, but we are open to suggestions here.

NOTE: STAFF ONLY

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Highlighting, this is important

 

[DMUA]

I think High Star and Low star would be the best, and make sure to make a note on the Attack Potency page pertaining to how Large Stars are easier to destroy than Small Stars.

 

[Antvasima]

This comes at a very inappropriate time. I was planning to create a very important highlighted thread myself.

I also do not think that we have the time and resources for any tiering system revisions that affect a massive amount of profiles.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Antvasima

Not overtly massive. Don't worry about that.

But I think we can postpone this for a short while if said thread is more important.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Well, given the threads, you probably already know my opinion.

1. The Sun's GBE value we use and that serves as our baseline for 4-C is straight-up wrong, with no evidence to the contrary. This pretty much has to be changed, as it is blatantly inaccurate. It isn't even inaccurate to a couple decimals either, our value is 27.56x higher than the accurate one. Not good; needs a change.

2. This is honestly needs to be changed, by many hundreds of profiles would need a change. If this proves to be too much of a burden I can understand forgoing it and living with the misnomers. That said it will still be easier looking through all the Low 4-C calculations and adjusting them accordingly, which has to be done.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

This comes at a very inappropriate time. I was planning to create a very important highlighted thread myself.

I also do not think that we have the time and resources for any tiering system revisions that affect a massive amount of profiles.

What thread was coming up? I think this is pretty significant, considering that one of our AP values is just completely wrong. It isn't even "it should be X because this star/object is better" it is just "it should be X because X is the correct value for the reason listed."

I get the reluctance with the name change, but we have changed a tier's name before, notably with Tier 1, and that was because it just didn't sound good, not because the entire thing was a misnomer.

If I may ask, what trumps this in importance?

 

[Promestein]

If the calculation is accurate of course things should be changed, but it may have to wait.

 

[Marco_Shark]

High Darwf Star Level and Low Large Star Level sound great to me.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

You will find out more when I have finished preparing the instruction thread, but it is a new feature that will prevent me from reaching a complete burnout if the rest of the staff help out.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

So I get to see this issue fade into obscurity like it apparently did before. Lovely.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I obviously do not disagree as such about adjusting inaccurate values, but wiki revision projects usually need to be organsied during holidays to get sufficient participants.

 

[Kepekley23]

I understand postponing this revision for a while due to more important matters, but I don't think we should ignore this. We strive to be unbiased and objective; listing incorrect values is exactly what we should not do.

I think we can apply this slowly; yes.

 

[Fllflourine]

I think "Large Star" should be replaced with "Massive Star", as mass is a key contributor to overall GBE.Notice how the list of the most massive stars on Wikipedia doesnt even have more than one Hypergiant. To compare, UY Scuti is only 7-10 solar masses.

Dunno about Low 4-C or High 5-A, but these are my two cents.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

As I mentioned, I agree with you about adjusting inaccurate values. I just do not have the ability to organise a wiki revision project in my current completely overworked condition, and do not know if the staff would be willing to participate when they are busy with schoolwork.

 

[Kepekley23]

Schoolwork on January 10?

 

[Hellbeast1]

It's possible Antvasima is referring to assignements of some kind, many schools do give out such tasks during the holidays so it isn't unheard of.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Schoolwork on January 10?

I just started my school again, and this is going to be a heavy semester. That said, this evening is my free time; free time I have already given to getting this done. How many more days could it take to search through tier 4 and find the maybe couple dozen calcs that could be affected and change the results?

We can automatically eliminate anything NOT Low 4-C, and not everything in Low 4-C would change.

I'm OK with waiting on some name changes if another big revision is approaching, but I don't think the 1st, more pressing, issue is that hard.

 

[Kepekley23]

I agree with you here.

That said, if that highlighted thread is important, I think we can postpone this for, say, a few days before getting it started. We obviously will have to change it - there's simply no way around it, other than trusting baseless Wikipedia citations which aren't even actually in the book (Thanks for the info, Ravel).

 

[Antvasima]

Well, my thread is not about a project. It is about a new feature that enables a great change in procedure of cooperation for much of the staff, as I cannot realistically continue with 80 hour work weeks taking care of the wiki in the long run without suffering from bad health and complete burnout, and the wiki currently would not work very well at all without me handling that workload.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I thought that school was starting again around now, but it seems like I either was mistaken, or that people have different holiday periods around the world.

 

[Kepekley23]

Bingo.

I think you should move onto creating and highlighting said thread. We will get back to this a little while later, then.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Ant

Colleges in the South-Eastern US have begun again. I just haven't played or done really anything outside of this since I got home from classes.

That said it is not uniform and I am sure many users are not back in school just yet.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Agreed.

Also, after we come to a decision on exactly what the names should become and all that, changing the lower-bounds of Tier 4 really shouldn't be all that difficult or time consuming compared to other large revisions.

 

[Antvasima]

In any case, in practical terms we need to figure out how precisely we should reorganise, and possibly rename, a small part of the Attack Potency chart, and how we should organise this. Perhaps Ryukama would be willing to help out?

 

[Fllflourine]

Anyways, if my first post didn't imply it already; I agree with this revision.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

I don't start until for about the week after next week so i'm pretty much still free of schedule for the most part.

That and this looks okay if our standard for Star level is not as what it appears to be.

 

[Ryukama]

The names are fine. Just the energy requirements need to change. This may result in some tier changes for characters.

All we need to do is go through all the Tier 4 pages, which is no difficult task at all compared to the things we've done in an extremely efficient and quick manner.

The only factor is when staff will be available, which I know I'm not at all available any time soon. I'm technically never available for these organizations but squeeze time at the expense of other things IRL.

 

[Antvasima]

@Kepekley23

I will start to prepare the thread as soon as I am able.

 

[Kepekley23]

As always, Ryukama makes all the sense in the world. I agree with him.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Doesn't this like only affect those from Low 4-C to i guess maybe 4-B? 4-A's look like they won't be affected at all as far as i see of this here.

 

[Kepekley23]

I guess so.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, did we need to rename the Dwarf Star and Large Star tiers or not? Or would the Dwarf Star tier be abolished altogether?

Also, would anybody be willing to organise this revision after we have worked out what exactly that needs to be changed and to what?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

4-As wouldn't be affected by either of these. 4-Bs don't need to be either. When it comes to the Sun GBE update, that needs to happen without question, only Low 4-Cs would be affected, and then only the higher end of the Low 4-Cs.

If we decide to name change (which I disagree with Ryu on, the names are the problem, not the energy values [except baseline star level]) High 5-As, Low 4-Cs, and High 4-Cs would be affected. Once again, 4-C's name, and all of 4-B and 4-A would stay out of it.

 

[Fllflourine]

Well, I already made my suggestion for High 4-C, if we do go through name changing.

How does "Low" or "Light" Star level sound for Low 4-C?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Low sounds better than Light, imo. Would suggest the star has low GBE, which is correct for the tier.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

Our GBE of the Sun comes from the book An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure. Here's the book, the information is on page 52 (57 on PDF due to counting introductory stuff), equations 90-92, but more have relevant information.

 

[Fllflourine]

In that case, would High Star level sound better for the sake of consistency with Low Star level than Massive Star level?

Altho we would still need to come up with a new name for High 5-A, because I surely don't want to login to a profile and see "Very Low Star level"

 

[Antvasima]

So does anybody have good well-considered suggestions for how we should handle this?

If Star level would now go down to almost the lower border of the former Small Star level, do we need to get rid of Low 4-C altogether?

Also, didn't somebody mention that swarf stars have a higher gravitational binding energy than a "regular" star, or do I misremember?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Our GBE of the Sun comes from the book An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure. Here's the book, the information is on page 52 (57 on PDF due to counting introductory stuff), equations 90-92, but more have relevant information.

So where is the value? I didn't see the value we use, nor relevance to the formulas shown. Am I missing something? Mentioned gravitational forces, but I didn't see the term Gravitational Binding Energy.