• 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.

Attack Potency Page Revision (Sizes)

Sera_EX

Sera_EX

She Who Dabbles in Fiction
VS Battles
Retired
6,104
5,102
To summarize Andytrenom's original premise, our attack potency page lacks justification for any value below planet level.

Basically, he asks where do we get these values from for the lower tiers. For example, our values for planet level come from using the Earth as a baseline. For Solar System level we use the Sol System for baseline. For Galaxy level we use the Milky Way as baseline, etc. As such, what do we or what should we use for the baselines of Building level (what kind of building is used for baseline), Town level/City level (which town or city is used for baseline), Mountain level, Country level, etc.

Antvasima believes this an important matter of calc group members, so I reposted the discussion here.

Note: So far. This does not require any sort of mass revision, we just need clarifications of the values we already have
 
Yes, it might just be a good idea if the calc group members evaluate the size of the kind of buildings used as a basis for Building level, as well as the method of destruction used.

Or maybe it would just cause inconsistency and confusion, and should be scrapped as an idea, but it might be worth investigating mathematically.
 
Agreed. While Building level is very broad and is easy to qualify for, I think a base for country level is needed. We differentiate small, normal, and large but without any examples.
 
Fairly sure we took many of the values from the OBD matching this.

That said many of the sub tier categorization is fairly arbitrary, I believe. Essentially any tiers with borders that are strangely round values were quite likely chosen just for being round values.

Not that this is particularly problematic, considering that those tiers have no strict destinction regarding what they are based on to start with.


Of course one could backwards quantify them into values of destruction of certain kinds, like in some cases of the linked table is done. Aside from nice coincidences those won't match anything, though.
 
I see what you're saying. I should get Andy here, since he is the one who originally brought this up. He may have more to say.
 
Regarding things that coincidentally match something:

A nuke with 4.3 gigatons (bottom island level) = 4300 megatons would destroy anything in a radius of 43.3 km or an area of approx. 5890 km^2. That is close to the area of Melville Island.

A nuke with 100 gigatons (bottom large island level) = 100000 megatons would destroy anything in a radius of 122.2 km or an area of approx. 46912 km^2. Closest match would probably be Severny island.
 
@DontTalkDT

Yes, Polar-kun initially selected some arbitrary even values without deeper meaning, and I don't think that we have properly revised or defined all of them yet.
 
@Ant Sorry, but why would evaluating the size of the building and the method of destruction cause inconsistency? I'm not quite sure what you meant by that.
 
I referred to if the mathematical values would end up contradicting what they supposedly represent, which is rather likely, as I don't think that we have revised all of the ones that Polar-kun originally assigned.
 
I don't see a need for this, really, except in rare cases. Our page is based on arbitrary values (like 8-A being exactly 10x greater than basic 8-B).
 
@Bambu But the values that do have an actual source still need to be explained.
 
Building level is hardly an issue. Neither is town or city level. I strongly believe Mountain and especially Country level needs an explanation. Countries vary in size because what makes a "country" is not its size but its composition. However when we say "Country level" we're clearly using a country of a specific size as the baseline.
 
We have a blog depicting the minimum size for both Mountain and Island level. Country level could probably be discerned. I know surface wiping the average sized country is only Low 6-B+ (See: Dark Cloud).
 
What is the "average sized" country? Again, we use the Earth as the basis for Planet level. What's the basis for country level?
 
I think that quite a lot of our values are left over from when Polar-kun arbitrarily assigned them.

We probably need to make a massive summer revision project involving most of the staff at some point.
 
As explained in what I linked what is used as country level baseline is the energy needed to nuke the average country area.

Average country area means no country in particular, it is just area of all countries divided through number of countries. That is about 767731 km^2 of landmass.

So we are talking about something between Chile and Turkey area wise.
 
You're probably right Ant. Might I add that The arbitrary values are especially troubling when dealing with feats that don't have a calc.

If someone gets their rating from "being able to blow up a small city" for example, we would be giving them a random energy output for their AP, instead of something that has actual basis for being associated with such a feat.

Though, maybe it's better to discuss all this on a separate occasion.
 
"Random"

No, we wouldn't.

They would become the baseline of a given tier deemed appropriate. There's a difference. Even then, most are only filler spots until a feat is calc'd.
 
Antvasima said:
We probably need to make a massive summer revision project involving most of the staff at some point.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think it's necessary. The tiers we are talking about have no real borders. We could arbitrarily choose stuff as baselines, but the resulting borders wouldn't be much less arbitrary than what we have.


E.g. Islands range from smaller than some towns to larger than many countries. So what is a small, basic or large island is something absolutely not clear to start with.

Likewise certain countries are the size of or smaller than cities. So what a small or large country is, is a completly subjective choice.

Cities as well vary in size a lot and towns hardly have any definition of size to start with, much less an actual distinction between large or small towns.

Even buildings go from a garden shed to palaces and giant malls with thousands of shops.


In short: Just like we have it currently with stuff like mountains, one doesn't get around getting a basic sense of size of these objects, as the real life sizes vary a lot. Once one has that where the borders are drawn isn't that important.
 
Well, we could use averages. It would at least be less misleading and arbitrary than currently. However, it would require a staggering amount of work to revise at this point.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, we could use averages. It would at least be less misleading and arbitrary than currently. However, it would require a staggering amount of work to revise at this point.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are statistics on average towns.

And something like average small countries or average small cities of course exist neither, as there isn't a border between normal and small cities or normal and small countries.


Baseline 5-A is Uranus, I believe.
 
Oh, that definitely flew over my head lol.
 
Well, it doesn't sit right with me that we use some entirely random values, but I suppose that there isn't anything that we can do about it for a long time anyway.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
tbf...Uranus is a very forgettable planet.
Click to expand...
Not with that attitude ovo.

But in all seriousness, we should still list the standard sizes for country and continent level. Reppuzan and Lina made a blog about the same thing for Mountain and Island level in the past.
 
Shouldn't we wait until we are able to start a revision project?
 
Antvasima said:
Shouldn't we wait until we are able to start a revision project?
Click to expand...
We can decide the specifics of the revisions for now and simply put it in our to-do list.
 
I suppose so, but the calc group would need to put down some work on defining appropriate sizes, destruction methods, and tier borders.

Somebody should probably ask Assaltwaffle to participate here. He has previous experience with this.
 
Well if the values are entirely arbitrary it may be best to re-adjust the borders to some more understandable standards. If not we at least need to identify and make clear what exactly our construct for obtaining the values is (i.e. "Explosion with fireball of 100 meters using *insert formula* = 8-B").

For example, everyone can see how we get the values from High 5-A and above. The celestial bodies, reason, and methodology are all laid out in case anyone ever has a question. I think it would be easy to make a page explaining where 5-C to 5-A come from, since that is relatively simple. I would be up for making our standards for the lower tiers known and easily accessible, even if we don't end up revising them.

Also to answer Sera's question, IDK where 5-A's value comes from, since none of our gas giants put through the GBE formula give that value. Uranus is the closest at 1.19x10^34 joules, though.
 
Well, not all of the values are arbitrary. Kavpeny organised a big revision long ago (You might be able to find it in a blog of his). I just don't think that we revised all of them.
 
I think that we have far too many revisions going right now to be able to handle something of this magnitude, but Assaltwaffle and DontTalkDT might be interested in beginning to figure out a new reference list, with more reliable tier borders, that we can use for a revision next summer, or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ArachDusa
Would destroying Jupiter be a 5-A+ feat?
Replies
1
Views
880
KLOL506
KLOL506
Frxwins
Upgrade Attack Potency Thread
Replies
2
Views
565
Frxwins
Frxwins
SeijiSetto
(Minor) 5-A value check
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Flashlight237
Change in Tornado AP
Replies
23
Views
3K
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
Ednaxel2
Question about the + symbol for attack potency
Replies
1
Views
401
TheRustyOne
TheRustyOne
Back
Top