• 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.

Freezing Calcs, and Why they Make No Sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dargoo_Faust

Dargoo_Faust

Blue Doggo Enthusiast
VS Battles
Retired
15,637
5,392
The way we treat freezing feats - and honestly heat feats in general makes absolutely no sense.

Freezing, by definition, is an exothermic process. Concerning the object, it has a net loss in energy, as opposed to melting or physical force, which has a net gain. So, when someone freezes an object, they're removing heat energy from it, which... doesn't really translate to Attack Potency.

The attack potency depends upon the energy output of the attack, not the area of effect of the attack.
Freezing, or decreasing the heat energy of an object does not output energy (in the case of the person/mechanism doing it). It's not Attack Potency. Someone who freezes a large chunk of air can't dish out damage comparable to energy they remove, they can just remove a lot of heat energy from an object.

Heat feats in general don't really make much sense, as heat and force don't necessarily translate despite them both just being caused by changes in energy. Especially how they're used for judging durability.

Heat is a poor way to destroy objects, for one. A rock will shatter and break with a small application of force, but it'll take shunting in an absurd amount of heat energy into melt it. More energy. More powerful, right?

Ha, no.

For one, an object's heat capacity has literally nothing to do with how much physical force it can take. Some extremely brittle materials are stupid difficult to change in temperature, and some of the worst conductors of heat can be some of the strongest materials there are. There's no correlation, and I'm not really sure why it's translated in some cases despite this. Heat doesn't interact with durability.

Secondly, we base Durability on force, not the amount of energy you can take in, contrary with how it's treated in calculations.

Durability is the property which guarantees the ability to withstand a certain amount of force.
Heat is not force, thank you and goodbye.
 
The idea is that it's more a case of counteracting that heat. So it's less energy from freezing but negating the energy of heat. For the wiki that is enough to signify the ability to file out that energy in AP.

Of course heat and force don't clearly translate. But that isn't the point. Joules is joules, we measure all durability pre tier 2 in them and thus potency scales to your joules. It ain't perfect but imo it's the least broken the system can be.

The wording for durability is semantics, I think. Not hugely relevant. Heat calcs should be fine to remain for the purpose of this wiki.
 
For freezing calcs, specifically:

The person in question doing the freezing is interacting with a system that has a set amount of energy in it and that system must reach a certain level of energy to become frozen.

If I introduce energy forcibly into a system, I'm contributing [X] energy to it, which the wiki shorthands as 'Attack Potency' when you measure for [X].

If I remove energy forcibly from a system, I'm ejecting [X] energy from it; this is the exact same principle, just in reverse, and still involves the transferral of energy from one system to another. This is what freezing does, at base.

It's AP with how the Wiki treats it no matter how you shake it since you have to be forcing energy into some system by how thermodynamics works, and doing that by force is AP.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
The idea is that it's more a case of counteracting that heat. So it's less energy from freezing but negating the energy of heat. For the wiki that is enough to signify the ability to file out that energy in AP.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with the definition we have for AP. Also not how freezing works, you aren't "negating energy", you're moving it from one place to another. It's just the reverse of what we define for AP.

Please, tell me how freezing something translates to any other form of damage. Even the "they use the energy" argument is wrong since they aren't even pumping nondescript energy into the object.

It's just not a feat that relates to something's destructive capacity, I'm sorry.

Mr. Bambu said:
Joules is joules, we measure all durability pre tier 2 in them and thus potency scales to your joules. It ain't perfect but imo it's the least broken the system can be.
Click to expand...
So our system has no scientific basis, or rather we're selectively using science when it's most convenient, is what I'm hearing. I mean, I didn't expect anything different going into this, but if one of your only defenses for this is "we do it this way because we do it this way", I'm genuinely worried about our calc standards.

How joules are transferred matters. Some objects are vastly, vastly more resistant to different kinds of transference, and even in fiction. Remember when "Resistance to Heat Manipulation" was actually a separate power and not just part of a durability kit?

Mr. Bambu said:
The wording for durability is semantics, I think. Not hugely relevant. Heat calcs should be fine to remain for the purpose of this wiki.
Click to expand...
Semantics? What?

Just look how we treat stuff that negates durability. Electricity is "just joules" but we've demonstrated that it can, in some forms, negate durability. Radiation is "just joules" but we nearly always treat it as negating durability. What makes Heat so different? It's used for more calcs?

We even treat Heat like it doesn't interact with durability sometimes, we just equate it to force, something fundamentally different, for whatever reasons.

There's no demonstrable defense for Heat, other than "it's always been this way". Or "it takes too much effort to fix".
 
If I remove energy forcibly from a system, I'm ejecting [X] energy from it; this is the exact same principle, just in reverse, and still involves the transferral of energy from one system to another. This is what freezing does, at base.
So, the attack has no energy output, the system does.

AP is concerning the character or attack.

So the attack has no AP.

It's AP with how the Wiki treats it no matter how you shake it since you have to be forcing energy into some system by how thermodynamics works, and doing that by force is AP.

That's not how AP is worded, I don't know what to tell you.

If you want to reword AP to stop being something's destructive capacity, I'm sure there's a thread for that.

Also, as I said with Bambu, no clue how this translates to any other form of destruction, by the way.

I fully expect this won't go through (although I have a small hope for freezing), but I hope I can at least demonstrate that we can fix this with small changes, gradually.
 
Yes. I'm aware of what freezing is. But that's still a counterweight to energy, hence their acceptance as a legitimate feat.

Can you elaborate on "other form of damage'? If I'm understanding correctly then what you're saying doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if a punch can't translate to agonizing a character, or if heat can't form itself as KE. We're dealing with energy of that particular feat for this. Not how it translates to other forms of energy.

Semantics as in the meaning doesn't matter. Force can be translated to Joules which is what we functionally actually use. So I don't think the meaning of Force is terribly important to rules lawyer over.

We actually have electricity calcs and radiation calcs. So not sure how this comes into play.

The defense is it has energy, does physical damage, and fits in the system. Dunno what more you want.
 
If anything, the phrasing Force should just be removed if this is an issue with confusing people.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Yes. I'm aware of what freezing is. But that's still a counterweight to energy, hence their acceptance as a legitimate feat.
Click to expand...
A "counterweight to energy" isn't energy. It isn't AP as we define it.

We're dealing with energy of that particular feat for this. Not how it translates to other forms of energy. Except said:
If anything, the phrasing Force should just be removed if this is an issue with confusing people.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't make Durability get treated any more accurately in regards to force and heat, though.
 
It really is though, or at least for the purposes of this wiki it is equatable. Freezing calcs are the reduction of heat, speaking broadly, which is energy.

Yes vut not in the same way. Yes, we assume that if Xs explosion is roughly equal to Ys freezing, then the two are about equal. I don't see the issue here.

Except, Heat = Joules = Force. What we ARE doing is converting things to joules. Not force. Joules. Again, using a single word technicality to justify simething of this scale doesn't make sense. Change the word to accomodate joules, not force, that is the fitting thing. Because that IS what we do. We get values in Joules. Which is what we do for a heat change, explosion, or punch.

...except that doesn't say the feats themselves aren't usable. The people doing them made mistakes. So my point stands. Generating joules is AP for this wiki. Like that's the straight up fact all pages say, I don't understand the issue here.

I mean. What, Pokemin style? If I burn you, you're burned, you're going to have burn marks.

Force doesn't matter, as I've explained we don't use force. We use Joules. Not Force.
 
Some of this honestly sounds like semantics, especially the part about durability only being about force. AP is how much energy you can produce and durabity is just the reverse, it is how much energy you can withstand and I don't think the use of the word "force" has any significance apart from being a word choice that gets the message across
 
>It really is though, or at least for the purposes of this wiki it is equatable. Freezing calcs are the reduction of heat, speaking broadly, which is energy.

Let's consult your own post on this one:

Mr. Bambu said:
Generating joules is AP for this wiki.
Click to expand...
Reduction of energy =/= generating energy. It doesn't meet your own standards of what AP is.

>Yes vut not in the same way. Yes, we assume that if Xs explosion is roughly equal to Ys freezing, then the two are about equal. I don't see the issue here.

Wait, seriously?

An explosion and freezing something are two fundamentally different things which would interact uniquely. Why in the heavens would we just assume they bounce off each other like a punching match? Convenience?

Separating the heat debate, since it's become more of me questioning our system itself as opposed to me proposing minor revisions to it.

Wall of Text

Except, Heat = Joules = Force.

Ah, yes! If A is loosely related to C, and B is loosely related to C, A and B must be the same thing!

>What we ARE doing is converting things to joules. Not force. Joules. Again, using a single word technicality to justify simething of this scale doesn't make sense. Change the word to accomodate joules, not force, that is the fitting thing. Because that IS what we do. We get values in Joules. Which is what we do for a heat change, explosion, or punch.

Getting a value in joules should not have us forgetting where we get those values from. Heat, Electricity, Force, Radiation, they all interact with the world differently. Simply because they all share the characteristic of energy doesn't magically wash away the very fundamental differences they have.

>Generating joules is AP for this wiki. Like that's the straight up fact all pages say, I don't understand the issue here.

Ah, and we go back to the "we do this because we do this" argument. I'm questioning why we mishmash every kind of energy transfer into joules when this doesn't reflect how these different forces and interactions actually operate.

Yeah, we judge things in joules for AP. I'm not allowed to question why this is so?

Force doesn't matter, as I've explained we don't use force. We use Joules. Not Force.

Except Force does matter.

It's kind of why when you punch someone, it hurts. The energy is transferred differently when you burn someone. When you shock someone. Et cetera.|}
 
Andytrenom said:
Some of this honestly sounds like semantics
Click to expand...
Isn't semantics something we should actually worry about with our frequent terms and guidelines, to be very honest on this one?

If we're explaining something different than what we practice, all we've done is explained something poorly.
 
@Dargoo Yeah, but that is if you're arguing about fixing the explanations themselves, but in the OP you seemed to be taking the wording as proof that standards need to be changed, which is something that should not be reasoned through semantics

If the problem is how we are explaining things, the solution should just be to reword them
 
Andytrenom said:
@Dargoo Yeah, but that is if you're arguing about fixing the explanations themselves, but in the OP you seemed to be taking the wording as proof that standards need to be changed, which is something that should not be reasoned through semantics
If the problem is how we are explaining things, the solution should just be to reword them
Click to expand...
It's why I seperated the discussions in my posts regarding heat, as I've began questioning why our system was made this way to begin with, which is probably better for another thread. I'm fine with closing the discussion on heat feats in general if we can finish the freezing discuss.

I'm cool with doing a re-word of some of our older explination pages.
 
I though that Force was meusure units only on Newtons, and that Newtons can't be converted in Joules, which is the meusure of Energy.
 
@New Yes but you can end up using energy and force interchangeably in a non scientific context, both often just refer to how hard an attack hits
 
Andytrenom said:
can end up using energy and force interchangeably in a non scientific context
Click to expand...
If our calculations are a non scientific context, what's the point of using RL equations to begin with?
 
Not the calculation, just the basic description of terms. As in when you say "durability is how much force you withstand" the point isn't to use the scientifically accurate terms but just explain what the idea is in a simple manner, which is why you may use force instead energy, since it also refers to the strength of the attack you withstand
 
So, isn't just the amount of energy a character can generate and turn-in-force to attack, but rather, any energy a character can manipulate (emit, remove, transfer, increase, decrease, etc) and turn-in-force to attack. I'm right?
 
This got talked on. Huh.

Anyways I talked with Dargoo over Discord for this one. Lowering heat isn't creation of energy, true. It is however the release of energy from other things. So for me that's the same thing, energy is still changing and occurring.

Ultimately this comes down to your opinion on if that fits enough. For me it obviously does, we have math to gauge it and it should count.

Force seems to be a misunderstanding of the system. We are based on energy in joules. Not Force. End of story for that'n.

TL;DR freezing does include the changing of energy and should be fine to use, I see no issue with it.
 
Bambu makes sense.

Even our frag and v. frag has no scientific basis, but there really isn't a better way for us to figure things out for destruction.

TL;DR, it's the best we can do.
 
I agree with Bambu

I think it would be more on point to tackle how freezing isn't combat applicable per say, as your ability to absorb or take away energy doesn't necessarily determine your ability to actually cause damage to people, like with overwatch
 
KLOL506 said:
Even our frag and v. frag has no scientific basis
Click to expand...
Wait, seriously? We didn't base that on anything scientific?

DMUA said:
I think it would be more on point to tackle how freezing isn't combat applicable per say, as your ability to absorb or take away energy doesn't necessarily determine your ability to actually cause damage to people, like with overwatch
Click to expand...
Honestly, if we're calling that Destructive Capacity, there's something very inherently wrong with our terminology.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
TL;DR freezing does include the changing of energy and should be fine to use, I see no issue with it.
Click to expand...
My opinion on the matter is that Attack Potency is not defined as such and needs the character or attack to introduce energy into a system, as opposed to removing energy from a system. It doesn't mesh even with our grossly generalist approach to AP.

We should either change our definition of AP or just not include the feats.

Andytrenom said:
As in when you say "durability is how much force you withstand" the point isn't to use the scientifically accurate terms but just explain what the idea is in a simple manner
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "explaining the idea in a simple manner" and "explaining the idea incorrectly".
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Wait, seriously? We didn't base that on anything scientific?

Honestly, if we're calling that Destructive Capacity, there's something very inherently wrong with our terminology.
Click to expand...
We do, it's just very loosely tied to science and just kinda the best out of the options

Usually we call it attack potency, if we're getting term specific, and attacks don't have to directly effect people to make some assault or effect. Freezing something has an energy, but that won't all go towards someone getting damaged (even if fiction love it's fire and ice clashes)

Honestly, Durability should be altered to Energy, since that's what it's actually based on, so I'm all for changing that up.
 
We've been using NarutoForums' ways of figuring out frag and v. frag, but honestly it doesn't have any scientific standards other than the fact that we loosely derive it from other scientific methods, like, half the wiki doesn't work out that way if black holes are anything to say. But like Bambu and DMUA have stated, we really don't have any other way of figuring stuff like this out.

Attack Potency itself doesn't follow the fundamentals of physics as by definition energy should be dispersed upon attacking, but fiction ignores that, and so do we.
 
DMUA said:
Honestly, Durability should be altered to Energy, since that's what it's actually based on, so I'm all for changing that up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, seems like a easy fix for that wording.
 
DMUA said:
Freezing something has an energy, but that won't all go towards someone getting damaged
Click to expand...
Freezing doesn't have an energy. It describes the transfer of energy away from an object.

DMUA said:
Honestly, Durability should be altered to Energy, since that's what it's actually based on, so I'm all for changing that up.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that, as we'd at least be accurate to ourselves, but even then that brings up complications with the fact that durability just doesn't work that way IRL.

I bring up again how an object can have better resistance to blunt force than to heat. If we're calling durability "how much energy something can take" we're kind of just pretending energy is one uniform thing across the universe when it takes numerous, numerous forms.

If we're admitting that we're aware that this is all just pseudo-science and was made up for the sake of a simplistic system, that's fine, I'd just like a concrete answer.

KLOL506 said:
we really don't have any other way of figuring stuff like this out.
Click to expand...
Actually, if we measured AP in Force, it'd be fairly easy to calculate frag, v. frag, and other levels of physical destruction.

It's not that we have "no way of figuring it out", it's that we made a system that forces us to do things that aren't accurate to physics.
 
Except we can't use force, we're stuck with a tiering system based on energy.

Ant has also said that it's not gonna happen, so we gotta do with what we gotta do.

And IRL logic doesn't apply to fiction, so there's that too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Shantae CRT: A Couple New Additions
Replies
3
Views
891
SamanPatou
SamanPatou
Jackof_noTrades068
Mission: Yozakura Family (Part 1 of ?) - The anime brings calcs + new abilities
Replies
7
Views
841
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
KobsterHope07
  • Locked
KN8 Chapter 114 CRT
Replies
15
Views
956
KobsterHope07
KobsterHope07
WanderingGecko
  • Locked
Ultraman Marvel Revision
Replies
18
Views
1K
WanderingGecko
WanderingGecko
Digital_Franz
Misconceptions about UES and Multipliers
Replies
15
Views
2K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Back
Top