• 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.

Multipliers For Destroying Many Things

Agnaa

Agnaa

VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
15,540
13,777
Do we give multipliers for destroying many things?

If a character takes out hundreds of ships, kills dozens of characters, etc. with one attack, would their AP be those entities' durability multiplied by the number of them killed?
 
Depends of the case. Destroying 12 stone training tables in one shop requires more force than destroying 7 in one. However, if an explosion destroy a house at 120 m away, the number of houses does matter, they will be equally destroyed, as its an aoe "attack".
 
I'm not talking about real-world things with known destruction values. I'm talking about fictional constructs that get their durability from feats.

Destroying multiple 6-C spaceships, or killing 5 8-B characters in one attack. That sorta thing.
 
I think that they'd multiply this way. You would ultimately need that amount of total power in an attack to acomplish such a thing. If it's an outlier it's an outlier but the method in itself should be fine.,
 
A multiplier is not necessary, with the attack having enough AP to destroy one of objects and be a AoE attack, is enough.
 
Wokistan said:
I think that they'd multiply this way. You would ultimately need that amount of total power in an attack to acomplish such a thing. If it's an outlier it's an outlier but the method in itself should be fine.,
Click to expand...
I feel like it might be calc stacking, but this view is also fair enough.
 
"A multiplier is not necessary, with the attack having enough AP to destroy one of objects and be a AoE attack, is enough."

This isn't really true though. I could have say, an 8-C bomb. It won't explode an infinite amount of humans so long as they're in the radius, that's not how physics works.
 
An infinite amount of anything do not fit within a finite area tho.

As simply as having a 8-C with an area of effect of 50 m, within the area anything whose destruction threashold is below 8-C will be destroyed. I'm talking about an unrealistic aoe attack, something like an real explosion wouldn't be necessary the same, depending of the size of what is destroyed, the overpressure would lose effect over distance (although not over area in other direction).
 
But why are we suddenly not using actual methods of calcing explosions? Where does this random standard come from?
 
Welp, OP didn't ask specifically about explosions, but even then, it would be the same: an explosion destroy a house 100 m aways from the detonation point, so you can have an idea of what is the yield of the explosive, does something changes if there's a dozens of house with the same area (50 m of below)? They will be equally destroyed, no matter the number.
 
Well if it's AoE, and you inverse square law to calculate how much the energy was released. You don't multiply by how many things were destroyed.

For an attack that's like a ray or lobbed, then maybe a multiplier but I think that's really shakey math, especially for large levels like planet, galaxies, etc.
 
It kinda does matter though. Fairly sure ISQ assumes nothing's obstructing the energy being released. If there's a bunch of stuff in the way, energy's transferred there instead which doesn't necessarily result in the same amount of energy reaching the thing 100m away. Explosives can be suppressed with large amounts of concrete and whatnot, after all.
 
An aoe attack still needs to have enough energy to destroy all those enemies, especially with reverse square law
 
Now, objects obstructing others it affect the amount of destruction (at least real lofe explosions), but in a radius of 100 m, there can be several houses, and not necessary tjose that are just behind the one at 100 m, in the other side of the area, few meters separated aside from the other, etc. Also, being 50 m behind the other house would reduce the damage a negligible amount (but I'm talking about a one-two floor house, bigger objects like skyscraper would reduce the damage from objects behind even more).

Inverse square law may not always apply, that is only for attacks that works as real explosions, several times in fiction (most notable DB) they not work in that way, where everything within the aoe effect is equally destroyed and have a more controllable aoe (like, a crater in one side and everything fine in the other).
 
By current rules we don't use such multipliers, by the "Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else"-rule.

Personally I would also be against applying it. It's essentially no different than calculating destruction values for fictional materials and using such things is calc stacking. That the calc in this case is very simple doesn't really make a difference.
 
So for example Darth Sidious destroyed hundreds of High 6-C shields, I should simply rate him as "At least High 6-C, likely far higher" instead of multiplying by the amount of shields present?

Another question, Galen Marek (Starkiller) charged up a cannon in 15 seconds, and said cannon was able to destroy the above mentioned High 6-C shields. Am I allowed to divide the High 6-C yield by 15 seconds, or is that Calc Stacking?
 
Does the opposite works? Example, tanking to 50 Megatons attacks at once. Does it make me 100 Megatons? Or tanking blows from 2 characters with 500 Megatons AP each, does it make me 1 GT?
 
Well I can probably take ten punches but that doesn't mean by durability is equal to ten punches, so I suppose no?

Although sometimes in fiction two attacks combine and blast you at the same time, that I don't know.
 
That's why I said "at once". I know that taking 10 punched doesn't make you equal to this 10 punches in durability, because of the time between them.
 
I also have some examples similar to what you said about Darth Sidious. Jübi can counter like, 5 or 6 Bijü Dama from Kurama, each of them being like 2 Teratons. Should we give Jübi 10-12 Teratons AP because of that? (Jübi already scales higher than that so whatever, just an example)
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Another question, Galen Marek (Starkiller) charged up a cannon in 15 seconds, and said cannon was able to destroy the above mentioned High 6-C shields. Am I allowed to divide the High 6-C yield by 15 seconds, or is that Calc Stacking?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that just be High 6-C with the requirement that it has to charge up for 15 seconds first?
 
Well he did it with lightning, and I want to know how powerful it is in normal combat, cuz he doesn't charge for 15 seconds in normal combat.
 
Oof dividing by 15 sounds real weird there. It's not like he'd charge up for 1 second in a fight, right? It seems sorta unquantifiable.
 
Agnaa said:
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Another question, Galen Marek (Starkiller) charged up a cannon in 15 seconds, and said cannon was able to destroy the above mentioned High 6-C shields. Am I allowed to divide the High 6-C yield by 15 seconds, or is that Calc Stacking?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that just be High 6-C with the requirement that it has to echarge up for 15 seconds first?
Click to expand...
It depends on how the cannon works. For instance, in terms of an electrical circuit: if it's doing something like charging up a capacitor to max, then you're right, but if it's something like heating up a resistor then it would be able to produce 1/15 the energy in 1 second since those are based on power (energy divided by time). Though it's probably just safer to assume it requires a 15 second charge time unless it shows otherwise.
 
Agnaa said:
Oof dividing by 15 sounds real weird there. It's not like he'd charge up for 1 second in a fight, right? It seems sorta unquantifiable.
Click to expand...
It's not unquantifiable, he uses lightning in combat. I think you misunderstood, he didn't "charge himself", he used lightning to charge a cannon.
 
I know, but if it takes 15 seconds to build up the energy for a High 6-C cannon attack, that doesn't mean that his casual lightning attacks (that take 0 seconds to charge) would be 1/15th of that.

I say it's unquantifiable because to actually match the timeframes you'd need to divide by infinity, which is bad.
 
Again, he didn't charge up his lightning, he just continuously fire lightning to power a cannon.

Since our Tiering System uses Joules/second if the feat took over-time, I think it's fine.
 
I agree with DonTalk, knocking several people of the same tier out with one attack shouldn't automatically be used to multiply AP, that could be considered multiplier stacking.
 
I'm in agreement that we shouldn't be applying multipliers like that. Seems like something that would get out of control.
 
I believe we rejected stuff like "Ko'ing 10 characters with 5-B durability = being 10x baseline 5-B" and stuff in the like.
 
I think mass of objects might have looser calc stacking standards, does that seem correct?
 
Agnaa said:
I think mass of objects might have looser calc stacking standards, does that seem correct?
Click to expand...
Kinda depends on case-by-case basis. If it's multiple cars tho, just figure out the make and model.

I mean, a combined number of people does multiply lifting strength by a lot so that's not a problem.
 
I'll explain what it legit and what's not.

Vaporizing 100 men in one blast is a legit around 30 Gigajoule, High 8-C feat given that 300 Megajoules is around the energy required to vaporize a human, and vaporizing a hundred of them would be vaporizing 100x the biomass. And lifting multiple objects of the same weight would stack the weight.

However, we do not stack the characters' superhuman durability nor the durability of objects made of fictional supermetals to stack a character's attack potency.
 
There is, however, other ways to see it, for example a character uniformely increasing the environmental temperature up to 8000 K in an area of 50 m, in that case the amount of people or objects vaporized within the area do not make the attack stronger or weaker, it always yield the same.
 
Antoniofer said:
There is, however, other ways to see it, for example a character uniformely increasing the environmental temperature up to 8000 K in an area of 50 m, in that case the amount of people or objects vaporized within the area do not make the attack stronger or weaker, it always yield the same.
Click to expand...
I mean... people don't tend to match the room temperature...

But that is nitpicking.
 
Actually, the specific heat of humans is 3 times that of air, so having people there would make it take more energy, though not in a linearly increasing fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D.bunk01
Calc stacking and multipliers
Replies
1
Views
732
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
Testarossa002
Minor Multipliers Adjustment
Replies
13
Views
1K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Digital_Franz
Misconceptions about UES and Multipliers
Replies
15
Views
2K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Blackdragonq1
To what level does creating/destroying something for the last time scale?
Replies
4
Views
786
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
MasqueTLDF
  • Locked
(STAFF NEEDED) Major AP and Speed Revisions DxD
7 8 9
Replies
353
Views
18K
Duedate8898
Duedate8898
Back
Top