WAHOOOO! Mario Bros AP Revisions (M&L Brothership Spoilers) - Part 1 (Feat-Gathering)

[Chariot190]

There already is a recalc, but it seems to be HEAVILY lowballed as it only considers the volume of the hole itself without considering the fact that the entirety of the storm was likely moving

The clouds do extend past that yeah, we see them moving still when we see cap. And by the end, the horizon is cleared. We could do omnidirectional to horizon KE with that timeframe. Or if we have a bigger size like via the map, we can do that instead.

 

[IDK3465]

I just noticed a pretty big problem with the Dark Bowser calc, it used 1/4 mass for omnidirectional KE when it should’ve used 1/12 mass

(1/12) * 1,392,214,139,175,340,000 * 632497.112^2 = 4.641324e+28 Joules or 11.093031 Exatons of TNT (Multi-Continent level)

So, yeah… no tier 5 yet I guess

 

[Dalesean027]

I just noticed a pretty big problem with the Dark Bowser calc, it used 1/4 mass for omnidirectional KE when it should’ve used 1/12 mass

(1/12) * 1,392,214,139,175,340,000 * 632497.112^2 = 4.641324e+28 Joules or 11.093031 Exatons of TNT (Multi-Continent level)

So, yeah… no tier 5 yet I guess

In the case of such an omnidirectional expansion one could use the formula "kinetic energy = 0.25 * cloud mass * (Speed of cloud movement)2" to account for the different speeds involved.

 

[IDK3465]

In the case of such an omnidirectional expansion one could use the formula "kinetic energy = 0.25 * cloud mass * (Speed of cloud movement)2" to account for the different speeds involved.

Crap your right, I forgor

We should really have these on the calculations page huh

 

[ShakeResounding]

Ah, so the Tier 5 results are still valid then?

Hopefully that cloud feat banks something to support High 6-A.

 

[Chariot190]

Idk if the Wario cloud feat is gonna get that high. The thickness is like, 1000000x lower than the old calc, so even if we extend the radius based off the map, it might get like, idk, 6-C? Like it's a feat, and 100% should be recalced given he just kinda facetanks it so it's at least a solid bit feat, but if the goal is "shit within the peta to exa" range, this ain't it.

 

[TartaChocholate]

Idk if the Wario cloud feat is gonna get that high. The thickness is like, 1000000x lower than the old calc, so even if we extend the radius based off the map, it might get like, idk, 6-C? Like it's a feat, and 100% should be recalced given he just kinda facetanks it so it's at least a solid bit feat, but if the goal is "shit within the peta to exa" range, this ain't it.

Getting closer at least, somewhat.

 

[IDK3465]

Idk if the Wario cloud feat is gonna get that high. The thickness is like, 1000000x lower than the old calc, so even if we extend the radius based off the map, it might get like, idk, 6-C? Like it's a feat, and 100% should be recalced given he just kinda facetanks it so it's at least a solid bit feat, but if the goal is "shit within the peta to exa" range, this ain't it.

Actually, I take issue with the recalc’s cloud thickness.

The way Migue measured it was based on the beam of light, but if that were the case, Shake King’s castle (which is bigger than the beam) would have to be visible. But, if you look at the shot that was used to measure the clouds, the castle is completely invisible.

Also, it fails to take into account the fact that light sources produce a lot of exposure (I think that’s the term, at least; idk I’m not a photographer), resulting in the actual size of the thing being obscured, especially at far distances.

Finally, looking at the cloud calculations page, 130 meters is very small for most clouds. The only two that would actually work for that thickness is stratocumulus and cirrus, both looking nothing like the storm in this case. If anything, the storm looks most like a Nimbostratus, something the calc itself agrees with in regards to density.

As such, I think it would be better to use Nimbostratus thickness (3 km) instead. And if anyone is curious, doing some quick angsizing, (3 * 729/[195*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 8.0086 km), it doesn’t actually conflict with the 20 km horizon line, so this should be completely fine.

EDIT: This would also dramatically increase the speed of the storm when dispursing, so, while maybe not a full-on High 6-A feat, it would be a pretty damn decent supporting feat.

 

[Parzival-Bo]

Oh, actually there's another Wario-based feat I remembered recently. Wario Land 1's best ending, the genie (which Wario beat the crap out of a few minutes prior) creates a separate-from-Earth planetoid with Wario's face visibly carved into it.

Since it's meant to be a "castle" and that was literally what Wario wished for, I'd think it has to be a large enough planetoid to maintain a breathable atmosphere, likely a Tier 5 feat. Even if he just terraformed an existing planetoid that just happened to already exist not too far from Earth, that'd probably still be Tier 6.

 

[McFriesGuy075]

Oh, actually there's another Wario-based feat I remembered recently. Wario Land 1's best ending, the genie (which Wario beat the crap out of a few minutes prior) creates a separate-from-Earth planetoid with Wario's face visibly carved into it.

Since it's meant to be a "castle" and that was literally what Wario wished for, I'd think it has to be a large enough planetoid to maintain a breathable atmosphere, likely a Tier 5 feat. Even if he just terraformed an existing planetoid that just happened to already exist not too far from Earth, that'd probably still be Tier 6.

That looks relative to Wario's size. He even stands on top of it as if it was a boulder, are you sure that's an actual planetoid?

 

[Parzival-Bo]

That looks relative to Wario's size. He even stands on top of it as if it was a boulder, are you sure that's an actual planetoid?

Seems to be. The next result down is a castle, and then a pagoda, and both are far back enough to fit entirely on the Gameboy screen. The castle is the canon ending, since Wario has that same castle in Wario Land 2, and in that game it's a full "World 1" in a 5-World game.

I'm willing to chalk up the "stands on top of it" bit to cartoon physics. He walks through/in front of the planet repeatedly during the credits, so it's clearly not on the same 2D axis as Wario.

 

[McFriesGuy075]

• On page 9, Chariot190 explained why High 6-A Star Spirits likely don't work.

Link does not work

 

[ShakeResounding]

Updated. Thank you for the diligence!

 

[IDK3465]

If nobody else wants to, I’d be willing to do a recalc of the Wario storm feat.

 

[Parzival-Bo]

If nobody else wants to, I’d be willing to do a recalc of the Wario storm feat.

Yeah, go for it.

 

[IDK3465]

Actually, I take issue with the recalc’s cloud thickness.

The way Migue measured it was based on the beam of light, but if that were the case, Shake King’s castle (which is bigger than the beam) would have to be visible. But, if you look at the shot that was used to measure the clouds, the castle is completely invisible.

Also, it fails to take into account the fact that light sources produce a lot of exposure (I think that’s the term, at least; idk I’m not a photographer), resulting in the actual size of the thing being obscured, especially at far distances.

Finally, looking at the cloud calculations page, 130 meters is very small for most clouds. The only two that would actually work for that thickness is stratocumulus and cirrus, both looking nothing like the storm in this case. If anything, the storm looks most like a Nimbostratus, something the calc itself agrees with in regards to density.

As such, I think it would be better to use Nimbostratus thickness (3 km) instead. And if anyone is curious, doing some quick angsizing, (3 * 729/[195*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 8.0086 km), it doesn’t actually conflict with the 20 km horizon line, so this should be completely fine.

EDIT: This would also dramatically increase the speed of the storm when dispursing, so, while maybe not a full-on High 6-A feat, it would be a pretty damn decent supporting feat.

Ok, so I may have made a bit of a mistake in my math regarding the horizon

Apparently, Migue's image was actually scaled down from its original size, as when I did my own measurements, the height of the clouds was 199 px, and the screen height was 2160. This resulted in a distance of 23.252 km.

But I still think that the cloud height would be reasonable mathematically. If you look at the shot again, you'll realize the "camera" is on top of a hill rather than on sea level. And looking at some online formulas, you'd only really need to be 40 m above sea level for the center of the cloud to be below the horizon line.

Besides, just 3 km more than the average horizon distance is a way more reasonable amount of artistic liberty than the shit-trillion the original calc got, so I'd say it should still be fine, but I'd be willing to see if anyone disagrees.

 

[IDK3465]

Alright, calc's done. Now, all we need is for it to be evaluated

 

[Spinoirr]

Alright, calc's done. Now, all we need is for it to be evaluated

Given Wario tanked that it's good support for high 6-A