UQ Holder downgrade

[Nerd1435]

Nikitis' feat here is not Large Planet level, there is little difference between the energies required to put the Planet in rotation aka Rotational Energy of the Planet for a day/year/second.

The calculation somehow considers rotational energy of the Planet can only sustain it for a day, but that's not the case. As long as there is no damping force it keeps rotating. So the result would be decreased by 365 times.

The Calc: (I've already commented on it)

Nikitis Laps Full Power

vsbattles.fandom.com

As for the blackhole feats, although I'm not really a big fan of evaluating them by taking their mass and linearly appropriating them according to the mass of Earth/Sun; nevertheless; the Blackhole calculations page reads:

"To roughly estimate the Attack Potency level one can then compare its mass to either that of the earth or the sun, whichever is closer to its mass. If it's x times the mass of the object it is compared to we estimate that it's creation would equal about x times the energy needed to destroy said object, i.e. either x-times baseline planet level for earth or x-times baseline star level for the sun."

And in the calculation the mass of the Blackhole turned out to be 6.48 x 10^26 kg. It is much closer to the mass of the Planet than it is to the mass of the Sun (almost by a factor of 30x)

So the AP required would have to be scaled up from GBE of the Planet. That is, by 108 times or so.

The feat:

UQ Holder: Dana is strong

vsbattles.fandom.com

Dana's feat would be close to the baseline of Large Planet level.

Nikitis' feat would be closer to the baseline of Planet level.

The other blackhole feat would ofc be even lower than Dana's considering they have a smaller Schwarzchild radius.

The characters would have to be downgraded accordingly. Also, sorry for the bland, un-appealing format.

 

[Antvasima]

@Damage3245

Is almost always very cautious when it comes to not exaggerating power levels, so I am inclined to trust his sense of judgement when he wrote his calculation.

 

[Damage3245]

I think Nerd1435 may have a point here but I'd be interesting in hearing from some other calc group members if his conclusions are correct.

 

[Antvasima]

@TacticalNuke002 @KaiokenBlueGT @FrenchStephy @Sage_God_Slayer

What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

I think Nerd1435 may have a point here but I'd be interesting in hearing from some other calc group members if his conclusions are correct.

Okay.

@Ugarik @Jasonsith @Mr._Bambu @Executor_N0

What do you think about this?

 

[BlackDarkness679]

I agree with the OP here

 

[Executor_N0]

The rotational thing is true. As long as there are no forces opposite to the rotation, the energy needed to maintain the earth in rotation don't need to be multiplied by the amount of time that the earth will be rotating. So, the change is fine.

About Black Holes, I also agree.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Executor makes sense to me.

 

[Damage3245]

It makes sense. But seems like an odd thing to specify a year in the statement if the timeframe is irrelevant.

 

[Nerd1435]

What was the exact statement again?

Does it imply she would set the Earth in motion and sustain it for 1 year or did it only imply she can sustain it's rotational energy for 1 year?

Because if it's the latter, it will be massively downgraded and the BH calcs would probably have to be looked at again because it would imply an outlier afaik.

 

[Nerd1435]

I might as well bring up Black Hole feats since calc staff have been tagged.

The current standard for evaluating the AP for creating a Blackhole seems extremely arbitrary to me. (Not the mass-energy method but rather finding the ratio of mass of BH and Sun/Earth and just multiplying it with GBE of Sun/Earth)

Why was this proposed? Isn't it better to rather just naively calculate the GBE of a BH by not at all factoring any relativistic corrections to GBE if we're not going to do it anyway? (Considering that normally it's impossible to escape a Blackhole and with relativistic corrections, it would just result in infinity)

Or do you think it's better to calculate the GBE of the corresponding star of a BH which would have to have collapsed to form the said Blackhole?
Although this is technically better than the former, it looks as if we're doing something completely unrelated to how the fictional BH has been created just for the sake of getting some energy value.

I think it's rather better to just use mass-energy equivalence whenever a Blackhole feat (that we are sure is real) involved.
Using gravity manip. to produce an infinite curvature on space-time and creating Mass to do it are equivalent anyways.

 

[Damage3245]

What was the exact statement again?

Does it imply she would set the Earth in motion and sustain it for 1 year or did it only imply she can sustain it's rotational energy for 1 year?

Because if it's the latter, it will be massively downgraded and the BH calcs would probably have to be looked at again because it would imply an outlier afaik.

Here is the statement.

 

[Nerd1435]

Idk it's hard for me to infer what exactly he meant from that statement.

But I personally think the author wasn't aware that the earth would stay rotating at pretty much the same rate for at least 1000s of years once set in motion and that it doesn't require much Magic power (relatively) to sustain the exact same speed.
I'll just go with 0.1% magic power = rotational energy of Earth like I said in the post.

Although idk what others may think of this.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm fine with that.

 

[Executor_N0]

Of course going by Newton's First Law after the "force" is applied, it would continuing rotating forever as long as no other force is applied countering the rotation.

But, this is magic. So this "magic force" might work differently. Since we don't have enough information to consider any difference for the energy value, I think that following what we know as much as we can would be the right choice. So I'm still fine with using the rotational energy value and then apply it as being 0.1% of the magic energy that it has as a whole.

 

[Nerd1435]

Since this is accepted I think UQ Holder focused members can discuss the changes.
Or maybe the calcs need to be edited first, it's a pretty short thing anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

So if the change has been accepted, is somebody willing to place the entire modified calculations in a blog post that can then be accepted by Damage and Executor?

 

[Damage3245]

I'll just update my calculation. Just need to remove the x365 from it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Is somebody willing to update the statistics of all the affected profile pages please.

 

[Jasonsith]

So this can be accepted right?

... Wait. I am not sure about the accuracy or reliability on the "0.1% claim is enough" part.

May be "at least 2.58e+29 joules, possibly 2.58e+32 joules" seem more valid.

What about the black hole feat?

 

[Ranzuki]

I would suggest to change Small Planet level profiles to actual Planet level as Mars should count as baseline Planet level by VSbattlewiki standards and also for the scalng of Ialda Nagi, Dynamis, and Yukihime taking direct hits from Albiero's blackholes.

The blackhole that Ialda Nagi tanked was the same size as Dana's blackhole which should put Ialda Nagi and Ialda Negi in the same Large Planet tier as Dana.

There is also the Movie feats which cements the fact that Negi is capable of Planet level feat by pulling Mars and Earth together. This feats are confirmed canon and was stated by the author to take place in a different timeline where the actual series itself is composed of several different timelines.

Lastly, I suggest to highlight Lightspeed reaction on their Speed category.

 

[Damage3245]

... Wait. I am not sure about the accuracy or reliability on the "0.1% claim is enough" part.

The character making the statement was very specific about the amount of percentage of their power that they were giving to Touta. I think we can treat it as reliable.

 

[Jasonsith]

The character making the statement was very specific about the amount of percentage of their power that they were giving to Touta. I think we can treat it as reliable.

Is this claim otherwise proven?

I would say that "at least Moon level, likely Planet level" be a safer description. Because one's own statement is really not a good reliable source of tiering. IIRC this methodology of multiplier is not used for All Might's claim on the 60 times multiplier on weakened state vs prime state.

 

[Nerd1435]

Here is the statement.

He posted the scan in case you want to take a look at it.
He slowly starts giving some of his power to Touta, once it goes from 0.07% to 0.1%, that's when he says the energy he has provided him is enough to keep the earth rotating for one year.
He is very explicit with it unlike All Might who iirc only says he would've only required 5 punches in his prime instead of 300.

 

[Nerd1435]

And besides, Nomu has shock absorption.
So if we say he absorbs "x" amount of fixed damage and a non-prime all might could deal "1.1x" damage, then 300 punches would deal a damage of "30x"
But when he was in his prime, he could've been capable of dealing "7x" damage, also resulting in dealing "30x" damage in 5 punches.
But the damage he deals with a punch isn't 60x his non-prime damage.

I'm just giving an example ofc, it could be either lower or higher.

 

[Jasonsith]

He posted the scan in case you want to take a look at it.
He slowly starts giving some of his power to Touta, once it goes from 0.07% to 0.1%, that's when he says the energy he has provided him is enough to keep the earth rotating for one year.
He is very explicit with it unlike All Might who iirc only says he would've only required 5 punches in his prime instead of 300.

This is still the statement estimated or even just spelt from a character, not from an official guide. My concern is the source of the character. No matter how delicate the number is, when it is spelt from a character, it is less reliable than from an objective guide or even official guide.

 

[Nerd1435]

That's just being un-necessarily pedantic, I feel. (Not meant in an insulting way, in case you misunderstand)
Its being very overscrupulous.

 

[Damage3245]

I'd be interested in hearing what @FrenchStephy has to say.

 

[Jasonsith]

My bottom line is accepting "At least Moon level, possibly/likely Planet level" as a catch-all for what agreed here.

I do not want this to be set as a bad example for "one's own descriptions/claims for a speed/strength/durability/attack potency being valid as literal and reliable" shenanigans.

 

[FrenchStephy]

I feel like Nikitis' statement is specific enough, but even if that's not enough I think we have some supporting feats that could be on the same tier (also the mangaka is getting old so I don't think we will ever have a official guide lol)

 

[Antvasima]

Jasonsith makes a good point. Nikitis may just have been bragging. It wouldn't be out of character for him to do so.

 

[Damage3245]

I think that "At least Moon level, likely Planet level" could work as suggested by Jasonsith. But I think a full Planet level rating would also be fine since there are other feats supporting it too.

 

[Nerd1435]

Jasonsith makes a good point. Nikitis may just have been bragging. It wouldn't be out of character for him to do so.

I mean tbf if you really think the likelihood of him bragging when he made the statement is significant enough, you should be skeptical about the statement in it's entirety, rather than a specific part. (Considering there's no proper reason why he would say the truth about his energy even if it's total being capable of sustaining rotation when you think he may have lied about the 0.1% part despite the context surrounding it)
So it would have to be "Possibly Moon level or higher" rather than "At least Moon level, Likely Planet level"

Might as well ignore this entirely in that case.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think Damage and Jason?

 

[Jasonsith]

I mean tbf if you really think the likelihood of him bragging when he made the statement is significant enough, you should be skeptical about the statement in it's entirety, rather than a specific part. (Considering there's no proper reason why he would say the truth about his energy even if it's total being capable of sustaining rotation when you think he may have lied about the 0.1% part despite the context surrounding it)
So it would have to be "Possibly Moon level or higher" rather than "At least Moon level, Likely Planet level"

Might as well ignore this entirely in that case.

I can settle with "Possibly Moon Level or higher" actually if this is actually just a statement rather than actual feat.

... and if it has supporting feats for higher level feats you should have brought them up altogether.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Damage3245]

I think that "At least Moon level, likely Planet level" could work as suggested by Jasonsith. But I think a full Planet level rating would also be fine since there are other feats supporting it too.

I posted my thoughts here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you.

Is it fine if we go with one of Damage's suggestions then?

 

[Jasonsith]

I see @Nerd1435 put two ends for the said feat. I can settle on the "0.1%" end if there are proofs the feat can rotate an Earth whatever. While the validity of the "100%" end can be debatable, it is not bad to include that and apply whenever in case.

May I also ask: is @Damage3245 not revoking his/her/their/its approval on the black hole feat? This is a much bigger one.

And are there more feats for calculation?

 

[Damage3245]

I'll ask @FrenchStephy to make any necessary adjustments to the black hole calc so that it can be re-evaluated.