FANDOM


  • Kavpeny
    Kavpeny closed this thread because:
    Attack Potency revision has been completed.
    06:53, February 21, 2016

    Introduction

    As many of you are probably aware, this wiki has been growing at a rather significant pace. As noted by Darkness552, this wiki now has almost 5,000 articles.

    However, it's time to take a step back, and improve on the quality of articles on the wiki, along with the wiki in general. I have some projects aligned for improvement of the wiki, to make VS Battles wiki a better place. However, I require the community to band together, to work together to improve the wiki.

    At the moment, I have eschewed all other projects in favour of the most important one: Revising the Attack Potency chart.

    Steps

    1. The Calc Group revises the chart, as per OBD listings and some of our our own.
    2. Staff members go through pages, and spot any pages which require changes, as per the new energy levels.
    3. Each Tier will be handled by teams of staff members.

    Guidelines

    • When the project will begin implementation, no edits apart from revising attack potency will be allowed.
    • A standard edit summary, "Revised Attack Potency" must be made.
    • I sincerely request that the staff members give it their all.
    • Regular members are also free to participate.
    • Anybody who tries to utilize the overwhelming edits to cover any suspicious ones of their own will be banned.

    Teams

    Note: If a character has more than 1 tier, the team with the higher tier will deal with it.

    Note 2: Due to the minimal number of characters in Tier 11, we will leave it be for now.

    Dates

    • New Attack Potency energy levels - September 24th-28th
    • Finalizing the energy levels and values - September 29th, 30th
    • Editing - October 1st onwards.

    Note: If any staff member is uncomfortable with the listed dates, kindly mention it right now.


    Conclusion

    I will not mince words: The task is humongous. It will require a lot of work, from a lot of people. In particular, it will require a lot of work from the staff. I strongly urge all staff members, as well as interested community members, to help out with this massive project.

    Improving the Attack Potency chart's accuracy is the first major step towards significantly increasing the quality of this wiki

    Does anybody have any objections/suggestions?

      Loading editor
    • What do we do when Mods have to adjust locked pages?

      I also have a reccomendation. We will not make energy levels for the + rating, that will only apply when the character is very low on the energy level (Like 57.3-60 zettatons for Planet Level, and 60+ for Planet Level+).

      Aside from that, I'll give it my all to make this wiki better.

        Loading editor
    • Just for clarification, October 1st is when the actual mass edits begin, correct?

        Loading editor
    • So in layman's terms?

      (sorry i'm kinda slow today)

        Loading editor
    • @The Everlasting: That is precisely why there's an Admin per team. Segregate the tier pages three-fold, list the pages you want unlocked, and said Admin will unlock them.

      Otherwise, you can always ask me. Just give me the list of pages you want unlocked, and I'll take care of it.

      I agree with your recommendation. The '+' creates quite a bit of confusion. I request that the Calc Group members do away with '+' ratings when revising the table.

      Thank you very much for your support.

        Loading editor
    • @Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot: That is correct.

      @Skodwarde The Almighty: Go through any pages which need changes in Attack Potency post the revised chart, and pre-inform staff members before making an edit to the Attack Potency (and Tier).

      No problem. I would suggest that you go through the guidelines section at least once, though.

        Loading editor
    • Alright. I'm ready to make the wiki a better place.

        Loading editor
    • So will I post the requests here or the Admin's message wall?

      You're very welcome.

        Loading editor
    • Anything that needs fixing i'll fix(years of taking out garbage has seeped into my style and ethic)

        Loading editor
    • Oh boy. It's finally happening.

        Loading editor
    • @Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot: Thanks for the support, man.

      @The Everlasting: Both are fine.

      @Skodwarde The Almighty: I'm sensing a story there, but that would be off-topic, and I don't wish to derail the thread. Thank you for the support, in any case.

        Loading editor
    • @Sheoth: Yes, it is. I can count on your support as well, then?

        Loading editor
    • No problem.

      😀

        Loading editor
    • I will do my very best.

        Loading editor
    • It's ok for me...

      I'm concerned about the calculations that already are in this wiki, shouldn't we revise the attack potency of those as well?

        Loading editor
    • @Lord Kavpeny:

      Certainly.

      However, one thing I must inform you about:

      Mid October is a very busy month for me school wise. I have several make-up exams spread out during the dates of Oct. 12-20. During these days, my activity will range from severely limited to none at all. Of course, the days before and after this, I will be fixing profiles to my fullest.

      I hope this is understandable...

        Loading editor
    • @ImagoDesattrolante: Thank you

      @KamiYasha: Since the numerical values of the calcs will be the same, regardless of their classification, the calcs will not become defunct, simply revised to match the new levels. While ideally it would be best to modify the classifications within the calcs as well, we must do things one step at a time. Any confusion between differing calc listing and stat listing can be waived by mentioning "Revised Attack Potency since then".

      Additionally, any stats based on calcs must have their numerical values compared with the new chart, and have their listing changed if necessary.

      @Sheoth: It is understandable. That is precisely why I have assigned multiple staff members per team. If you're busy in the 2nd and 3rd week of October, make sure to take the brunt of the work-load in the first week of October, and then the other staff members will take over when you're busy. Fair enough?

        Loading editor
    • @Lord Kavpeny:

      Sounds good.

      Btw, I like the group system put in place.

        Loading editor
    • Ok, sounds good for me.

      It will be a lot of work, but it's needed.

        Loading editor
    • @Lord Kavpeny, i have a lot of free time, so whenever my help is needed, i'll be there.

        Loading editor
    • Also, as I think it would be helpful, should each team make a thread on one of its members user pages to follow so they can more effectively edit and communicate?

        Loading editor
    • Ok tier 7 and 8, October 1st got it

        Loading editor
    • FINALLY!!! I've been waiting for this for months! Thanks a bunch, Kavpeny!

      Alright, now a few questions & suggestions.

      Firstly, I propose keeping the sub-sub tiers of Small Galaxy level (Low 3-C) Universe level+ (Low 2-C), and Small Planet level (Low 5-B) and the like, as well as maybe add a Brown Dwarf/Sub-Stellar level (High 5-A).

      Now for the question: Are we gonna revise our system based on the new revision of OBD? I read that article they posited for explaining the downgrade of the Small Galaxy and Galaxy levels, and what little I understood of it didn't seem too convincing to me... Apparently, destroying the Supermassive Black Hole is enough to disperse the Galaxy or something.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I will do my best to improve this wiki. 

      @Sheoth. That seems like a good idea to me. If the members are capable of communicating more effectively, than this project will go by more smoothly. 

        Loading editor
    • Tag me for these. (I'm kinda bored)

      I need to get a good idea of how this all goes down so i don't screw s**t up.

        Loading editor
    • @Sheoth: Preferably make it on one other member's message walls instead of the forums. But yeah, it's a good idea. I'm fine both ways, whether you wish to set up such threads or not.

      @SwordSlayer99: Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • @Azzy and @SwordSlayer 

      when the editing starts we will communicate through my wall

      also guys please do note my school schedule on my wall just in case

        Loading editor
    • @GohanLSSJ2:

      Thank you for your support.

      I agree with your suggestions on splitting tiers such as Small Galaxy. Not sure about Brown Dwarf, though.

      Well, the explanation is: Since Supermassive Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are what keeps them together, that is why GBE calculation should use the black hole instead of the galaxy itself, since the gravitational binding energy is that of the black hole, not the galaxy.

      ^ I disagree with that, since anything which has mass, also exerts a gravitational force, hence regardless of the existence of the supermassive black hole, the aggregated matter will not disappear if just the black hole is destroyed.

      That's just me, though. I am willing to hear the viewpoints of other Staff members on the matter as well.

        Loading editor
    • Well, even if we agree with the Galaxy level downgrade (I understand it, but don't really agree), we probably shouldn't take the Small Galaxy level downgrade into consideration (Since it's now 10 kiloFoe).

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      @GohanLSSJ2:

      Thank you for your support.

      I agree with your suggestions on splitting tiers such as Small Galaxy. Not sure about Brown Dwarf, though.

      Well, the explanation is: Since Supermassive Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are what keeps them together, that is why GBE calculation should use the black hole instead of the galaxy itself, since the gravitational binding energy is that of the black hole, not the galaxy.

      ^ I disagree with that, since anything which has mass, also exerts a gravitational force, hence regardless of the existence of the supermassive black hole, the aggregated matter will not disappear if just the black hole is destroyed.

      That's just me, though. I am willing to hear the viewpoints of other Staff members on the matter as well.

      I get ya man. I'm also in the fence regarding this stuff. Supposedly, OBD redefined Galaxy-busting as the force to "disperse" the Galaxy's matter beyond it's collective GBE (re-calculated to be that of the Supermassive Black Hole now). But that just means an explosion that shoots off the stars. For a example on a smaller scale, wouldn't the sun blowing up (which can be a force vastly less than a Supernova) also disperse all the planets on the Solar System that survive the initial explosion?

        Loading editor
    • Regarding the idea of a Brown Dwarf / Sub-Stellar Level, maybe it could replace the current Large / Multi-Planet Level+

        Loading editor
    • Gerdkinerf wrote:
      Regarding the idea of a Brown Dwarf / Sub-Stellar Level, maybe it could replace the current Large / Multi-Planet Level+

      Basically this.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I'll try to help out when I am able to!

      Here's a couple questions, though... For one thing, for character stats that aren't necessarily dependent on calculations, would any edits be necessary? Two, wouldn't these edits also apply to a character's durability in many cases? Just wondering.

        Loading editor
    • @GohanLSSJ2: Exactly.

      • Destroying the supermassive black hole at the centre of a galaxy will likely not disperse it, due the gravity of present matter aggregate.
      • The new definition of Galaxy "busting" is flawed because:
        • It can be interpreted as destruction via chain reaction, which is an inaccurate definition of busting.
        • It can be interpreted as cutting or shredding apart a galaxy, which is again very different from the accepted definition of busting, similar to the difference between breaking a planet into pieces and busting it. Completely incorrect, yet again.
        • The accepted definition of "busting" is actually the obliteration of something in its entirety, in one shot/strike. Not cutting, not spreading, and not via chain reaction.

      @Gerdkinerf: And what about Large/Multi-Planet level?

      @ThePerpetual: No, any edits would not be necessary. Isn't that precisely why we need to go through each and every page? To see in which pages the change is necessary, and change those specific pages?

      Yes, said changes would apply to Durability as well, in all cases where a character's Attack Potency is listed similar to the Durability (or vice-versa).

        Loading editor
    • Well, I had to ask.

        Loading editor
    • We're in agreement, then.

      In that case, I propose setting the benchmark for Small Galaxy level at 1 GigaFoe (10^53 if I remember correctly), and work with that all the way to 100 PetaFoe.

      As to what Gerkinerf said, I think he means having Large/Multi Planet level as the basic 5-A, and have Sub-Stellar/Brown Dwarf level to be something like High 5-A (like how Small Galaxy level is Low 3-C or how Universe level+ is Low 2-C, for example).

        Loading editor
    • @ThePerpetual: Fair enough.

      @GohanLSSJ2: Sorry bro, but two people's agreement is not enough. I will wait for the rest of the staff's opinion on the matter as well.

      Understood. Yeah, that can be easily taken into consideration.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • I need to ask. Have we figued out an energy requirement for Multi-Galaxy level? I need to know when I start editing.

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote:
      I need to ask. Have we figued out an energy requirement for Multi-Galaxy level? I need to know when I start editing.

      I don't think so, unfortunately. :(

      By the way, would you consider any of this to be helpful in revising the chart or no? http://lounge.moviecodec.com/vs-general/a-large-scale-destruction-list-orders-of-magnitude-for-vs-349083/

      My sincerest apologies if you've already seen it.

        Loading editor
    • @Gerdkinerf: All's good up to the Galaxy levels. Then it gets shaky.

      @Lord Kavpeny: I know the two of us alone can't make the veredict on our own. However, I'd like to say that it seems that at least some other people, such as The Everlasting, have shown certain disagreement with the revision OBD made, too. So we might just be able to keep the benchmark of standart Galaxy Level (Milky Way) at 100 PetaFoe.

        Loading editor
    • This revision might take months if there are 5000+ articles

        Loading editor
    • I was thinking about this before, but I didn't think you guys were going to do this due to the huge amount of work it will take. Good luck to all who are on the project, this will be a huge process and thanks in advance for putting this much work into the website.

        Loading editor
    • I suggest no more new articles are made until the attack potency is revised. Many character tiers will need to be recalculated and many more feats will be challenged. if more threads are made they'll slow down the process and the older articles which are not popular enough will be abandoned and outdated

        Loading editor
    • Faisal Shourov wrote:
      I suggest no more new articles are made until the attack potency is revised. Many character tiers will need to be recalculated and many more feats will be challenged. if more threads are made they'll slow down the process and the older articles which are not popular enough will be abandoned and outdated

      That's what we're already going to do. Mass edits begin October 1st, and no other page creation or editing is permitted during that time.

        Loading editor
    • Faisal Shourov wrote:
      This revision might take months if there are 5000+ articles

      It'll be worth it.

        Loading editor
    • I will be at home likely 18 o'clock possibly later at the 1st.

      That said, I should be able to make the edits on the day after I get home (I would only need to check 366 articles and the locked ones and there should not be many locked ones that low, also easier than higher levels) I will make a list with the necessary changes beforehand, so that I can work fast.

      So we also have to discuss which changes have actually made, so let me just start here (or maybe I should get a separate thread? Well, for now it goes here) I would suggest we only fit the levels that we have as well in the OBDs energy chart. So our sub-categorys (except the "+" ones) can just all keep existing, we don´t have to go around and just rename existing levels and the energy levels of the sub-categroys can stay the same as long as they do not conflict with the remaining energy levels . That is of course only as long as the names are not misleading and everyone agrees. So changes per Tier:

      10: No attack potencys at that level. So no edits necessary (which means I actually only have to do 279 edits)
      9: OBD Small building level = Our Room level. Per OBD´s destruction chart feats for that would be:
      - Blast area of at least 49 m^2 (Approx. 8 m blast diameter)
      -About a 7 x 7 m shed/shack is a good minimum.

      So that might as well qualifies as a room in a building, so I don´t think renaming is necessary, but if someone disagrees we might as well do it.

      Aside from that unifying Street level and Street level+
      8: Building Level: Higher bounds have to be raised to 2 tons of TNT.
      Large Building Level: Lower bounds have to be changed to 2 tons of TNT, higher bounds have to be raised to 11 tons.
      City Block: Lower bounds have to be raised to 11 tons, higher bounds have to be lowered to 22 tons. (per OBD destruction chart)
      Multi-City Block: Lower bounds have to be changes to 22 tons, Higher bounds have to be raised to 5.8 kilotons.
      7: Small Town: Lower bounds have to be raised to 5.8 kilotons.

      small City: Higher bounds have to be raise to 6.3 Megatons.
      City: Lower bounds have to be changed to 6.3 Megatons.

      Large City or Mountain: Personally I think a mountain level is not a bad idea, but the OBD doesn´t list one. (But I am not sure if mountain is right, but the destruction chart lists mountains together with citys so I would guess it is ok.
      Large Mountain or small Island: Corresponds to OBDs small Island level. The OBDs Destruction Chart list Mount Everest as just below Island Level, so one could swap the name in the official chart to small Island or Large Mountain to show that, but I do not think it needs to be edited in all profiles. Higher bounds need to be changed to 4.3 gigatons.
      6: Island level: Lower bounds need to be changed to 4.3 gigatons.

      Small Country: Higher bounds need to be changed to 7 teratons. They seem to use the average country are as lower bounds (according to the destruction chart), so there are likely a lot smaller countrys. We might want to recalculate this, but it could get into conflict with Island Level, we would have to see what we do then.
      Country: Lower bounds have to be changed to 7 Teratons.
      Large Country: Higher bounds have to be raised to 1.33 Petatons.
      Small Continent: As per their destruction chart their continent Level seems to use the area of north america as basis, even through it isn´t the smallest continent. So either we calc the result here for the smallest continent or just use their lower bounds non the less. In case we calc it it may conflict with country level, we would have to see. Lower bounds have to be raised to 1.33 Petatons otherwise.

      Large or Multi Continent: Higher bounds have to be raised to 29.6 exatons.
      5: Moon: Lower bounds have to be raised to 29.6 exatons.
      Moon+: I would suggest renaming it into small Planet Level, with the boundary of 433 exatons to 57.3 Zettatons. Moon levels higher bounds should be adjusted accordingly.
      Planet Level: Lower boundardy has to be changed to 57.3 Zettatons. Upper bounds have to be changed to 2.7 yottatons.
      Large and Multi-Planet: Lower bounds have to be changed to 2.7 Yottatons
      small star: Upper bounds have to be changed to 164.913 tenatons.
      Star level: Lower bounds have to be changed to 164.913 tenatons.

      Now small galaxy level in the OBD clashes with our Multi-Solar system level, so we will have to decide which one we want to take.

      Galaxy: Has to be lowered to 10 gigaFoe

      So I wrote all changes that I think have to be made and my comments to them. Now it is the turn for opinions.

        Loading editor
    • I'll go through my opinion on the tiers in order:

      10: Nothing to be said.

      9: Sounds good. And I prefer "Small Building level", since a small building can only consist of one room.

      8: Agreed regarding Large Building level, but I thought the requirement for MCB was 100 tons.

      7: IIRC the requirement for Small Town level is 1 kiloton and Town level is 5.8.

      7: Agreed regarding Small City level/City level, and I believe the requirement for Mountain level is 100 megatons.

      6: Agreed, and I classify 1-1.32 petatons as Small Continent level.

      5: Agreed on all fronts.

      4: Once again, agreed on all fronts, and Large Star level would be 350.544 tenatons.

      3: I disagree with the change, and feel Galaxy level should remain at 100 petaFoe, and Small Galaxy level be 1 gigaFoe.

        Loading editor
    • 9: Ok let see what other people think.
      8: per OBD destruction chart MCB is 2*CB. In other words just the sum of the energy required to destroy two city blocks separately.
      7: Well I didn´t find small town mentioned anywhere, so I just took the minimum of town level as the lower bound assuming that the OBD took the lower bound when giving their general level. That could be wrong, but I don´t know better. If you can show me reasoning or a source for that it will just save work to leave it like that. Regarding mountain level that would mean that it is exactly everything between large city and small island. I am fine with that, even through a source for lower bounds would again be nice.
      6: For oceania I only get around 225 teratons. So that would be the smallest continent.
      I also only get 52 gigatons for belgium, what I would define as a reasonably sized small country (there are some smaller ones, but not much smaller if you don´t count city countrys, I think)
      4: we have 350. In my opinion that is close enough.
      3: Based on which information? I don´t really know where 100 petaFoe initially came from.

        Loading editor
    • I agree only cuz i'm terrible at math(unless somehow math gets shocked into my brain)

        Loading editor
    • 9: Very well.

      8: Huh, didn't know that.

      7: They don't mention a couple things (Namely Large Country/Large Island and Large Town), so I just figured the requirement for Small Town level was 1 kiloton due to their rankings of Raiden and Senator Armstrong (1.25 kilotons). The Mountain level thing, once again, came from my assumptions (Though I don't think it really matters, since I'd say the actual classification for it would be something similar).

      6: Hmm... I guess we could also use their highest boundaries of Country level to regard Small Continent level (As in, 710 teratons - 1.32 petatons), since ~2.25x Large Country level as a minimum for Small Continent level seems a too low to me.

      4: Yeah, that was just me being a little more exact, it doesn't matter in the least.

      3: That is the actual GBE of the Milky Way, the 10 gigaFoe thing comes from the mass-energy of our Supermassive Black Hole.

        Loading editor
    • May I ask does this upcoming mass edit also include this ? Just curious...

        Loading editor
    • 6: 760 teratons if the energy required to destroy russia after my calculation. So that could be a fitting boundary.
      Also what I edited in above: "I also only get 52 gigatons for belgium, what I would define as a reasonably sized small country (there are some smaller ones, but not much smaller if you don´t count city countrys, I think)"

      3: OK that would make sense then.

      7: Hmmm... not sure. Then again a town of an absolutely undefined size, so we can insert pretty much everything >> MCB and << small City for that.

      Note: Everything I calc here needs to be recalculated by someone else to make absolutely sure that I didn´t made some error, even simple ones, given how important the edit is!

      @Byakushiki Setsura: No.

        Loading editor
    • 6: Well, contries can wildly vary in size, so I don't think Belguim would count if destroying it is only 52 gigatons, but I wouldn't know.

      7: Pretty much.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with pretty much all tiers, as well as still propose making a "High 5-A" subsection for a "Sub-Stellar/Brown Dwarf level". And also am against downgrading Galaxy level.

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      Faisal Shourov wrote:
      I suggest no more new articles are made until the attack potency is revised. Many character tiers will need to be recalculated and many more feats will be challenged. if more threads are made they'll slow down the process and the older articles which are not popular enough will be abandoned and outdated
      That's what we're already going to do. Mass edits begin October 1st, and no other page creation or editing is permitted during that time.

      So until the mass edit begins, new profiles still can be made? 'Cause I saw a few new profiles since the notification of this thread like all the Spideys 

        Loading editor
    • Byakushiki Setsura wrote:

      So until the mass edit begins, new profiles still can be made? 'Cause I saw a few new profiles since the notification of this thread like all the Spideys 

      Yes. Mass edits begin on October 1st. Until then, feel free to make profiles.

        Loading editor
    • I see. Thanks for the answer. Don't think I would make new profile anytime soon though... 'Cause I seriously need to catch up with some series to make profiles for characters 

        Loading editor
    • So me, Sheoth and KamiYasha have Tier 6 and Tier 7 to cover huh. Alright then no problem.

      Also on the topic of Galaxy Level. I'd like to see see some proof that the amount of energy required to destroy the Milky Way Galaxy is 1061 joules (not 1061 ergs. You'll know why I added this later on).

      Here it's defined that the binding energy of our Galaxy is 1061 ergs. It's also what the OBD uses for their Galaxy Level rating. Now there's something that intrigued me here. According to the link I provided the GBE of our galaxy is 1061ergs and our rating for Galaxy Level is 1061joules (anyone notice it yet).

      When we convert 1061 ergs to joules we get 1054 joules or 10 Gigafoe. And 1061 joules is 100 PetaFoe. Now I don't know what the OBD used in the past to get their Galaxy Level rating but I'm pretty sure they used the same thing (as I can't seem to find any calcs for it which results in 100 PetaFoe). The only thing I want to point out here is that it's highly possible or almost certain that they (and us) mistook ergs as joules which resulted in Galaxy Level being 100PetaFoe instead of 10GigaFoe.

      As far as I know there isn't a calc which puts destroying our Galaxy at 1061 joules. If there is such a calc please tell me so that I may look at it for myself.

      I'm not in disagreement with keeping Galaxy level at 1061 joules. But I don't want to use something if we have no basis for it. So for now I'd suggest making a new calc to define our Galaxy Level rating or finding a calc for it which results in 100PetaFoe if we are gonna use 100PetaFoe as the basis of Galaxy Level.

        Loading editor
    • This may help for the city block to city AP (and possibly the small country + levels):

      http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/classic/

      http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

        Loading editor
    • yeah, i was confused by 1 x 10^61 J for galaxy busting, since the total mass-energy of our galaxy (including matter, dark matter and everything else) is only 1 x 10^59 joules

      i think the 10 gigafoe sounds ok

        Loading editor
    • If our current rating is based on a misconception, than we should of course change it. So 1054 joules would be fine with me.

      To add in another point: The GBE of Rigel is the basis for Large star level. But as I noticed when checking the calculation FanofRPGs made in this blog post I only get 9.4*1041 J for the GBE of Rigel. To compare we currently have noted Large Star level 1.464x1042 J (the OBD uses the same rating). So that also needs attention.

        Loading editor
    • Since I am not one to get into all of the exact energy levels required for certain destructive feats, I will stay out of that and let the more knowledgeable users handle it.

      However, I agree withGohanLSSJ2 in that we should create a High 5-A Tier if possible

        Loading editor
    • How do these subtiers sound?

      4-B

      Low 4-B "Supernova level": The force of a supernova

      Mid 4-B "Planetary System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to Neptune

      High 4-B "Outer Solar System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to the Oort Cloud


      4-A

      4-A "Inter-Stellar": Basically destroying a close-by cluster of star systems or a Solar Interstellar Neighborhood tops

      High 4-A "Multi-Solar System level+" able to destroy hundreds of light years worth of space


      3-C

      Small Galaxy Level: Destroying stuff like the Orion Arm or smaller galaxies

      Galaxy Level: Galaxies like andromeda and the Milky Way

      Large Galaxy Level: Larger galaxies like the Pinwheel Galaxy


      3-B

      Massive Galaxy Level or Inter-Galactic: Destroying two closeby galaxies or the morbidly huge galaxies like IC 1101

      Multi Galaxy Level: Destroying Galaxy clusters

      Super-Cluster Buster: Destroying massive galactic structures like the Virgo Supercluster


      3-A

      Low 3-A or "Spacial Superstructure" level: Stuff like the Sloan Great Wall or huge chunks of the universe

      Mid 3-A or "Observable Universe" level: Our observable universe

      High 3-A: Anything larger than our observable universe to infinite physical matter

        Loading editor
    • @Fan Great to me, personally.

        Loading editor
    • i think i agree with what fanofrpg said

        Loading editor
    • That all sounds fine and dandy to me. But if I may ask, what would the energy requirements be for all of those?

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote:
      That all sounds fine and dandy to me. But if I may ask, what would the energy requirements be for all of those?

      That's what I would like to know as well

        Loading editor
    • I don´t like the inflation of sub-specifications with that. I wouldn´t devide the tiers in Low, Mid and High. The tiers should group the other things together, so they don´t have to be as specific as the attack potencys themselfs.

      Aside from that I would like to keep 3-A just for destroying all physical matter in the universe.

      It is the border between finite and infinite and through that of a special importance.


      And the last question is how you plan to calculate them. Shockwave calculations do not work for things of that large size (things will be in front of other things a lot) and I doubt you will find GBE values calculated for them (I could be wrong there, but I can not imagine why any scientist would find it meaninful to calculate them). So putting numbers on the given units could be a problem.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      How do these subtiers sound?

      4-B

      Low 4-B "Supernova level": The force of a supernova

      Mid 4-B "Planetary System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to Neptune

      High 4-B "Outer Solar System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to the Oort Cloud


      4-A

      4-A "Inter-Stellar": Basically destroying a close-by cluster of star systems or a Solar Interstellar Neighborhood tops

      High 4-A "Multi-Solar System level+" able to destroy hundreds of light years worth of space


      3-C

      Small Galaxy Level: Destroying stuff like the Orion Arm or smaller galaxies

      Galaxy Level: Galaxies like andromeda and the Milky Way

      Large Galaxy Level: Larger galaxies like the Pinwheel Galaxy


      3-B

      Massive Galaxy Level or Inter-Galactic: Destroying two closeby galaxies or the morbidly huge galaxies like IC 1101

      Multi Galaxy Level: Destroying Galaxy clusters

      Super-Cluster Buster: Destroying massive galactic structures like the Virgo Supercluster


      3-A

      Low 3-A or "Spacial Superstructure" level: Stuff like the Sloan Great Wall or huge chunks of the universe

      Mid 3-A or "Observable Universe" level: Our observable universe

      High 3-A: Anything larger than our observable universe to infinite physical matter

      Love it!

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote:
      That all sounds fine and dandy to me. But if I may ask, what would the energy requirements be for all of those?

      Low 4-B: 1-2 foe

      Mid 4-B: What we have for SS right now

      High 4-B Calc the GBE of the entire SS


      Low 4-A: Calc the energy needed to destroy two far apart star systems and the GBE of the SIN

      High 4-A: GBE of the SIN to the GBE of the smallest galaxy (Which is in the megafoe range)


      Low 3-C: High Megafoe to 10 Gigafoe

      Mid 3-C: 10 Gigafoe to the GBE of the largest galaxy under a certain size

      High 3-C: GBE of larger galaxies


      Low 3-B: GBE of IC 1101 or the energy needed to destroy two galaxies

      Mid 3-B: Energy needed to destroy the local group to the smallest galaxy clusters

      High 3-B: GBE of galactic superclusters

        Loading editor
    • Y does Pluto get no love QwQ?

        Loading editor
    • Skodwarde The Almighty wrote:
      Y does Pluto get no love QwQ?

      Pluto intercepts Neptune's orbit

      I just think it would make it more easy to remember how excactly strong a person is, for example, Seiya. Just saying he is 3-A does not give me clarity really.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      The Everlasting wrote:
      That all sounds fine and dandy to me. But if I may ask, what would the energy requirements be for all of those?
      Low 4-B: 1-2 foe

      Mid 4-B: What we have for SS right now

      High 4-B Calc the GBE of the entire SS


      Low 4-A: Calc the energy needed to destroy two far apart star systems and the GBE of the SIN

      High 4-A: GBE of the SIN to the GBE of the smallest galaxy (Which is in the megafoe range)


      Low 3-C: High Megafoe to 10 Gigafoe

      Mid 3-C: 10 Gigafoe to the GBE of the largest galaxy under a certain size

      High 3-C: GBE of larger galaxies


      Low 3-B: GBE of IC 1101 or the energy needed to destroy two galaxies

      Mid 3-B: Energy needed to destroy the local group to the smallest galaxy clusters

      High 3-B: GBE of galactic superclusters

      That's great!

      But for tier 3-C, then what are we gonna do about the energy to destroy the Milky Way Galaxy? Are we gonna go with the OBD idea of just "dispersing" all the stars off the Galaxy by blowing up the black hole? Because I'm still not fully sold on that one.

        Loading editor
    • ^ Ooooooooh, nice! 

      Can we get sub-tiers for the other parts of the chart too? I'd love to see it expanded upon! :D

      Maybe something like these ideas, for example?

      High 5-B: Equivalent to destroying either multiple Earth sized planets or destroying a single Super-Earth or mini-Neptune planet like Kepler 10-b. 

      Low 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple small gas giants like Uranus or Neptune.

      Mid 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple standard sized gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn to destroying a a single larger gas giant / "Hot Jupiter" like WASP-12b.

      High 5-A: Equivalent to destroying multiple large gas giants to destroying a single brown dwarf. 

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:

      I just think it would make it more easy to remember how excactly strong a person is, for example, Seiya. Just saying he is 3-A does not give me clarity really.

      Pretty much this. It'd be much better to be more specific and less overly broad about tiers, imho.

        Loading editor
    • "High 5-B: Equivalent to destroying either multiple Earth sized planets or destroying a single Super-Earth or mini-Neptune planet like Kepler 10-b. 

      Low 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple small gas giants like Uranus or Neptune.

      Mid 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple standard sized gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn to destroying a a single larger gas giant / "Hot Jupiter" like WASP-12b.

      High 5-A: Equivalent to destroying multiple large gas giants to destroying a single brown dwarf."

      @Gerdkinerf Don't you mean Low 5-A and Mid 5-A?

        Loading editor
    • Well, after all i've read...

      About the name's chart, is meaningless to me, I consider the attack potency revision more important.

      An then the whole thing about the energy needed to be Low Galaxy level, Galaxy level and High Galaxy level... I've no f****** clue, i mean, i've never understood how many Foes is 1 PetaFoe or Giga (How many Jules maintains, etc)

      I leave it to you guys or the calculations group, they are a more reliable source than i.

      Either way, when the massive edits begin, i will do everything i can do.

      Then, about Tier 6 and 5 (Whitch is the tier they designated to me, Schutz and Sheot)

      Tier 6: No much to say.

      Tier 5: Well... We must be rationalized if we consider our planet = Planet level

        Loading editor
    • ThePerpetual wrote:
      "High 5-B: Equivalent to destroying either multiple Earth sized planets or destroying a single Super-Earth or mini-Neptune planet like Kepler 10-b. 

      Low 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple small gas giants like Uranus or Neptune.

      Mid 5-B: Equivalent to destroying a single to multiple standard sized gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn to destroying a a single larger gas giant / "Hot Jupiter" like WASP-12b.

      High 5-A: Equivalent to destroying multiple large gas giants to destroying a single brown dwarf."

      @Gerdkinerf Don't you mean Low 5-A and Mid 5-A?

      Yeah, sorry. That's what I meant, my mistake. >_<

        Loading editor
    • I don't know... I'm not really a fan of all of the sub-tiers. I think it will add a ton of extra uneccesarry work.

        Loading editor
    • Sheoth wrote:
      I don't know... I'm not really a fan of all of the sub-tiers. I think it will add a ton of extra uneccesarry work.

      They'll likely rarely be used, to be honest, since many characters at that level aren't there necessarily due to calculations. This is only my experience of course, just throwing it out there.

        Loading editor
    • tbh, i dont think sub tiers are needed, but galaxy level should be revised 

        Loading editor
    • So I have made a chart with the new levels (for now just with TNT), in order to finalize everything. So Galaxy level is at 10 GigaFoe, right? Lower bound for small continent is energy required to destroy russia, as it is the largest country and through that the upper end of large country level (the smallest continent, Oceania, would require less energy than that; This calculation should be checked by someone else!). Aside from that I removed all + categorys and fit things to the OBD scale. In accordance with that I also inserted a small planet level. Did I forget anything?

      Level Energy in

      Conventional Terms

      Street 100 Joules to

      5 Kilojoules

      Wall 5 Kilojoules

      to 0.005 Tons

      Small Building 0.005 Tons

      to 0.25 Tons

      Building 0.25 Tons

      to 2 Ton

      Large Building 2 Ton to

      11 Tons

      City Block 11 Tons to

      22 Tons

      Multi-City Block 22 Tons to

      1 Kiloton

      Small Town 1 Kiloton to

      5.8 Kilotons

      Town 5.8 Kilotons to

      100 Kilotons

      Large Town 100 Kilotons

      to 1 Megaton

      Small City 1 Megaton to

      6.3 Megatons

      City 6.3 Megatons

      to 100 Megatons

      Large City

      or Mountain

      100 Megatons

      to 1 Gigaton

      Large Mountain

      or Small Island

      1 Gigaton to

      4.3 Gigatons

      Island 4.3 Gigatons

      to 100 Gigatons

      Large Island 100 Gigatons

      to 1 Teraton

      Small Country 1 Teraton to

      7 Teratons

      Country 7 Teratons

      to 100 Teratons

      Large Country 100 Teratons

      to 760 teratons

      Small Continent 760 teratons to

      1.33 Petatons

      Continent 1.33 Petatons

      to 1 Exaton

      Large or

      Multi-Continent

      1 Exaton to

      29.6 Exatons

      Moon 29.6 Exatons to

      433 Exatons

      Small Planet 433 Exatons

      to 57.3 zettatons

      Planet 57.3 zettatons

      to 2.7 Yottatons

      Large or

      Multi-Planet

      2.7 Yottatons

      to 2.998 Tenatons

      Small Star 2.998 Tenatons

      to 150 Tenatons

      Star 150 Tenatons

      to 350 Tenatons

      Large Star 350 Tenatons

      to 5.709 Foe

      Solar System 5.709 Foe

      to 141.3

      KiloFoe

      Multi-Solar System 141.3 KiloFoe

      to 10GigaFoe

      Galaxy 10GigaFoe
        Loading editor
    • Oh yes, I forgot something. there still is the Rigel issue I have mentioned above. Should we change Large Star Level to 9.4*10^41 J?

        Loading editor
    • I estimated Multi-Galaxy level to be at least 12 Terafoe, does that sound good?

        Loading editor
    • I don´t quite get your calculation I have to say. I am not good with the conversions, but I once calced it at 100 ZettaFoe (10^67 Joule), but that was a shockwave calculation and I am not sure if shockwave calculations should be legit for that high (I would say not for anything higher in any case).

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:
      I don´t quite get your calculation I have to say.

      I am not good with the conversions, but I once calced it at 100 ZettaFoe (10^67 Joule), but that was a shockwave calculation and I am not sure if shockwave calculations should be legit for that high (I would say not for anything higher in any case).

      I did a calc based off of surface area

      100 Zetafoe would be 3-A territory

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:

      I did a calc based off of surface area

      100 Zetafoe would be 3-A territory

      I don't think we have any sort of benchmark for 3-A yet. Destroying the universe is 3-A. Anything less is not.

        Loading editor
    • 40 yottaFoe (The mass-energy of the observable universe) is generally considered 3-A in terms of destructive power. Even without that, I don't think 100 zettaFoe would be the energy needed to only destroy two galaxies.

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      FanofRPGs wrote:

      I did a calc based off of surface area

      100 Zetafoe would be 3-A territory

      I don't think we have any sort of benchmark for 3-A yet. Destroying the universe is 3-A. Anything less is not.

      The Mass-Energy of the observable universe is 1e69 joules and usually mass energy is leaps and bounds above GBE.

      Also this is the calc I got for 3-B's minimum

      "GBE of the Milky Way = 10 Gigafoe

      Distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda: 2,560,000 light years

      2.058874161e13 square light years

      surface area of the Milky Way =  1.63362818e10 square light years

      surface area of the Andromeda Galaxy = 7.906760391e10 square light years (That is what I got it is probably higher)

      It is a 4.84x gap

      Energy needed to destroy the Andromeda Galaxy = 48.4 Gigafoe

      Energy needed to destroy the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy = 12.6030769084 Terafoe"

        Loading editor
    • 10^67 Joules is the energy required to cause a shockwave so strong between two galaxys that the energy density when the shockwave reaches the galaxys is so large that every single star with GBE and Size similar to our sun is destroyed. What one has to consider is that distance is important for this type of calc, which means, that they are out of proportion to mass-energy or GBE. this calc does something similar for a galaxy and ends up with similar results.

      I would also disagree with 40 yottaFoe for 3-A, because the observable universe is only a small part of the whole universe and the whole universe is most likely infinite in size, so infinite energy is required for 3-A.
      @ FanofRPGs : You use the surface proportions of andromeda Galaxy if compared to the Milky way to get the GBE of andromeda galaxy. That is a very bad method, but I understand what you are trying to do. But how do you get from the GBE of the two Galaxys to your end result of 17 terafoe?

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:

      I would also disagree with 40 yottaFoe for 3-A, because the observable universe is only a small part of the whole universe and the whole universe is most likely infinite in size, so infinite energy is required for 3-A. 

      I agree with this. Even if the universe is not infinite, 3-A feats are typically self evident and relying on calcs for them causes quite a few problems.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:
      10^67 Joules is the energy required to cause a shockwave so strong between two galaxys that the energy density when the shockwave reaches the galaxys is so large that every single star with GBE and Size similar to our sun is destroyed. What one has to consider is that distance is important for this type of calc, which means, that they are out of proportion to mass-energy or GBE. this calc does something similar for a galaxy and ends up with similar results.

      I would also disagree with 40 yottaFoe for 3-A, because the observable universe is only a small part of the whole universe and the whole universe is most likely infinite in size, so infinite energy is required for 3-A. @ FanofRPGs : You use the surface proportions of andromeda Galaxy if compared to the Milky way to get the GBE of andromeda galaxy. That is a very bad method, but I understand what you are trying to do. But how do you get from the GBE of the two Galaxys to your end result of 17 terafoe?

      I divide the surface area of the 2,560,000 light year span by the surface area of Andromeda. Then multiply that by the GBE of Andromeda.

      If you use the surface area/GBE of the Milky Way instead, it still gets 12 Terafoe

        Loading editor
    • I divide the surface area of the 2,560,000 light year span by the surface area of Andromeda. Then multiply that by the GBE of Andromeda. Why?

        Loading editor
    • About the energy values, they look good to me DontTalk.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:
      I divide the surface area of the 2,560,000 light year span by the surface area of Andromeda. Then multiply that by the GBE of Andromeda. Why?

      That is the formula most omnidirectional explosions use

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote: About the energy values, they look good to me DontTalk.

      The ones from the Table I assume?

      That is the formula most omnidirectional explosions use

      Source please. I know the formula different.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, the energy valies from the Table look good to me.

      Although, do we have an energy value for Small Galaxy level?

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:

      The Everlasting wrote: About the energy values, they look good to me DontTalk.

      The ones from the Table I assume?

      That is the formula most omnidirectional explosions use

      Source please. I know the formula different.

      I cannot give a specific link but many calcs I have seen throughout the internet use the formula

      What formula do you use? It is probably more accurate.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:
      So I have made a chart with the new levels (for now just with TNT), in order to finalize everything. So Galaxy level is at 10 GigaFoe, right?

      Lower bound for small continent is energy required to destroy russia, as it is the largest country and through that the upper end of large country level (the smallest continent, Oceania, would require less energy than that; This calculation should be checked by someone else!). Aside from that I removed all + categorys and fit things to the OBD scale. In accordance with that I also inserted a small planet level. Did I forget anything?

      Level Energy in

      Conventional Terms

      Street 100 Joules to

      5 Kilojoules

      Wall 5 Kilojoules

      to 0.005 Tons

      Small Building 0.005 Tons

      to 0.25 Tons

      Building 0.25 Tons

      to 2 Ton

      Large Building 2 Ton to

      11 Tons

      City Block 11 Tons to

      22 Tons

      Multi-City Block 22 Tons to

      1 Kiloton

      Small Town 1 Kiloton to

      5.8 Kilotons

      Town 5.8 Kilotons to

      100 Kilotons

      Large Town 100 Kilotons

      to 1 Megaton

      Small City 1 Megaton to

      6.3 Megatons

      City 6.3 Megatons

      to 100 Megatons

      Large City

      or Mountain

      100 Megatons

      to 1 Gigaton

      Large Mountain

      or Small Island

      1 Gigaton to

      4.3 Gigatons

      Island 4.3 Gigatons

      to 100 Gigatons

      Large Island 100 Gigatons

      to 1 Teraton

      Small Country 1 Teraton to

      7 Teratons

      Country 7 Teratons

      to 100 Teratons

      Large Country 100 Teratons

      to 760 teratons

      Small Continent 760 teratons to

      1.33 Petatons

      Continent 1.33 Petatons

      to 1 Exaton

      Large or

      Multi-Continent

      1 Exaton to

      29.6 Exatons

      Moon 29.6 Exatons to

      433 Exatons

      Small Planet 433 Exatons

      to 57.3 zettatons

      Planet 57.3 zettatons

      to 2.7 Yottatons

      Large or

      Multi-Planet

      2.7 Yottatons

      to 2.998 Tenatons

      Small Star 2.998 Tenatons

      to 150 Tenatons

      Star 150 Tenatons

      to 350 Tenatons

      Large Star 350 Tenatons

      to 5.709 Foe

      Solar System 5.709 Foe

      to 141.3

      KiloFoe

      Multi-Solar System 141.3 KiloFoe

      to 10GigaFoe

      Galaxy 10GigaFoe

      Pretty good job here! :D

      Although, I kinda miss the whole "+" categories and I still think we should include sub-tiers in order to make things less broad and easier to visualize and understand for newcomers. Kinda more professional that way, imho,

      But I'm just being whiny and nitpicking here lol. Don't take anything I say too personal, please. :P

        Loading editor
    • The profiles will still have a +, they just won't have energy values (I think they should only not have the + if they're very low on the energy value [Like Planet level for 57.3-60 zettatons and Planet level+ for 60+ zettatons]), and we will still have sub-tiers, they just won't be as broad as the ones suggested above.

        Loading editor
    • @ FanofRPGs : I was in the midst of writing a long explanation when I realized that you actually just use a different form of the same formula. My bad. In that case the main difference in our results is the fact that you assumed that only the GBE has to be overcome for a galaxy to be destroyed, while my results is for wiping out any and all stars in the two galaxys. My result also assumes the milky way. But I still get a higher result than you for the milky way even using your assumptions (I get 27 teratons). How did you get your frontal area? mine is 7.03E+41 m^2, which is lower than yours, I believe. I calculated mine using π*(9.461E+20m /2)^2 with 9.461E+20m being the diameter of the milky way (I assumed it was spherical). Did you find an article with the frontal are or did you calculate it somehow? Except for that we did lowball the values for multi-solar system level by assuming that the explosion wasn´t spherical, but cylindrical IIRC. If that is the case we should do it for Multi-Galaxy the same way.

        Loading editor
    • That's all perfectly understandable, I just personally find the new scale to be a little too simplistic and broad in it's levels for my tastes. But I can accept it and I'm not gonna pester anyone to make any changes, don't worry. I don't want to be thought of as an annoyance here. ^^

        Loading editor
    • @ The Everlasting : So the + behind the categorys does not have to be changed in the mass edit?

        Loading editor
    • Not unless it's something very low in the requirement for that level. Like I said, it would go like this:

      Planet level = 57.3-60 zettatons.

      Planet level+ = >60 zettatons.

      Does that sound like it would work? And as I asked earlier, have we figured out a requirement for Small Galaxy level? By the way, for a little help, the smallest galaxy is Willman 1.

        Loading editor
    • Would it be a reasonable idea for Planet Level+ to start at being equal to either busting multiple Earth / Venus sized planets or busting a single Super-Earth / Mini-Neptune / Gas dwarf planet like Kepler-10b or COROT-7b?

        Loading editor
    • Not really, that sounds like Multi-Planet level/Large Planet level to me.

        Loading editor
    • Small galaxy level would clash with Multi-Solar system level. Because of that I have left Multi-Solar System level in the table and didn´t take the small galaxy level stat from the OBD chart. I have handled MSS preferred for now because it used a calc made here (even through actually finding the calc will be difficult), but as I mentioned somewhere it is up to debate if we want to replace MSS level with a small galaxy level.

        Loading editor
    • But what is the GBE of Willman 1? According to the old OBD energy scale, that is the smallest known galaxy.

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote:
      Not really, that sounds like Multi-Planet level/Large Planet level to me.

      To be fair, Super-Earth's / Mini-Neptune's are just large rocky planets and have lower masses and diameters than even Uranus and Neptune. I can't imagine their GBE's being any higher than 8x-12x Earth Busting (458.4 Zettatons - 687.6 Zettatons), which isn't even a single Yottaton.

      Maybe I could calc their GBE's, if that helps?

        Loading editor
    • To the + thing. I have nothing against using it to show a tendency in results( in order to show if a stat is closer to high or low end) but I don´t think it needs a clear definition (else we could just have kept the + levels). Given that the + of the catergorys were always the higher end of them I guess one doesn´t have to change them in that case.

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote: But what is the GBE of Willman 1? According to the old OBD energy scale, that is the smallest known galaxy.

      I have no idea. I don´t know how one would calculate the GBE of a galaxy, so if it isn´t written somewhere I can´t help with it.

        Loading editor
    • Gerdkinerf wrote:
      The Everlasting wrote:
      Not really, that sounds like Multi-Planet level/Large Planet level to me.
      To be fair, Super-Earth's / Mini-Neptune's are just large rocky planets and have lower masses and diameters than even Uranus and Neptune. I can't imagine their GBE's being any higher than 8x-12x Earth Busting (458.4 Zettatons - 687.6 Zettatons), which isn't even a single Yottaton.

      Maybe I could calc their GBE's, if that helps?

      I calced Kepler 22b and some other Super Earth to be 4-7 Yottatons

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      Gerdkinerf wrote:
      The Everlasting wrote:
      Not really, that sounds like Multi-Planet level/Large Planet level to me.
      To be fair, Super-Earth's / Mini-Neptune's are just large rocky planets and have lower masses and diameters than even Uranus and Neptune. I can't imagine their GBE's being any higher than 8x-12x Earth Busting (458.4 Zettatons - 687.6 Zettatons), which isn't even a single Yottaton.

      Maybe I could calc their GBE's, if that helps?

      I calced Kepler 22b and some other Super Earth to be 4-7 Yottatons

      Ah, I see.

        Loading editor
    • So given that we will begin tomorrow we have to get this finished now.

      1. Multi-Galaxy: Lets decide on a value. As I said for Multi-Solar system we used a cylindrical explosions "since cylindrical volume is smaller and more suitable for low end." to quote Lord Kavpeny on this. As he first asked me to calculate a level for Multi-Galaxy he also wanted to use that for Multi-Galaxy and I agree with that, we should be consistent.

      The calc:

      The Diameter of our Galaxy is 9.461E+20 m. I will assume a galaxy is a circle/cylinder. In that case the frontal area of our Galaxy is: A = π*(9.461E+20m /2)^2 = 7.030139879814872826E+41 m^2

      Our Galaxy is about 2.4E+22 m away from the closest Major Galaxy (not counting dwarf galaxys), the Andromeda Galaxy.

      So the Area the explosion has to cover is:

      Aexp = 2*π*(2.4E+22m /2)*9.461E+20 m = 7.133425942947128119E+43 m^2

      So the energy the explosion needs is:

      (7.133425942947128119E+43 m^2 / 7.030139879814872826E+41 m^2) * 10^54 J (=10 GigaFoe) = 1.0146918930345629e56 ≈ 10^56 J = 1 teraFoe

      So that is what I get for that given method. I think it is reasonable. Use / not use/ check. Go go go.

      2. So if not a bunch of people come complaining about something except inserting more subcategories I guess the table as I posted it is ok?

      In that case after Multi-Galaxy is decided on I will will add it to the table, convert all units and finalize the scale for tomorrow. (Except someone else wants to do the boring job of converting units)

      3. Anything else that has urgently be done before tomorrow?

        Loading editor
    • 1. Okay. I'll be sure to take that into account when making the edits.

      2. Sounds good to me.

      3. Maybe finalize a rating for Small Galaxy level.

        Loading editor
    • To 3. Well, as I said small Galaxy level would be a value smaller than multi-Solar system because of the different methods used to calculate them and we also don´t really have anything to go on when it comes to small galaxy (I don´t know how to calculate GBE of a Galaxy), so I personally would not introduce a small galaxy level.

        Loading editor
    • If I were to calculate the energy needed to destroy the local group, would I use the GBE of Andromeda? Also do we know the largest galaxy in the Virgo Supercluster?

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk

      So should I just assume the value for Low 3-C is either the megaFoe range or low gigaFoe range? It may be a bad idea, but it's just a suggesstion, and it's not like it's really important anyway.

      Either way, since I still have school tomorrow and Friday, would it be a problem if I started the edits now?

        Loading editor
    • There I finished the conversions (except ratio). Any complains about it will have to be dealed with by another admin, given that I will be away from now until tomorrow evening.

      Tier Level Energy in

      Conventional Terms

      Energy in Tonnes

      of TNT Equivalent

      Energy in Joules
      9-C Street 100 Joules to

      5 Kilojoules

      2.39x10-8 to 1.195x10-6102 to 5x103
      9-B Wall 5 Kilojoules

      to 0.005 Tons

      1.195x10-6 to 5x10-35x103 to 2.092x107
      9-A Small Building 0.005 Tons

      to 0.25 Tons

      5x10-3 to 2.5x10-12.092x107 to to 1.046x109
      8-C Building 0.25 Tons

      to 2 Ton

      2.5x10-1 to 2 to 1.046x109 to 8.368x109
      Large Building 2 Ton to

      11 Tons

      2 to 11 8.368x109 to 4.6024x1010
      8-C City Block 11 Tons to

      22 Tons

      11 to 22 4.6024x1010 to 9.2048x1010
      8-A Multi-City Block 22 Tons to

      1 Kiloton

      22 to 1000 9.2048x1010 to 4.184x1012
      7-C Small Town 1 Kiloton to

      5.8 Kilotons

      1000 to 5800 4.184x1012 to 2.42672x1013
      Town 5.8 Kilotons to

      100 Kilotons

      5800 to 1052.42672x1013 to 4.184x1014
      Large Town 100 Kilotons

      to 1 Megaton

      105 to 1064.184x1014 to 4.184x1015
      7-B Small City 1 Megaton to

      6.3 Megatons

      106 to 6.3x1064.184x1015 to 2.63592x1016
      City 6.3 Megatons

      to 100 Megatons

      6.3x10^6 to 1082.63592x1016 to 4.184x1017
      7-A Large City

      or Mountain

      100 Megatons

      to 1 Gigaton

      108 to 1094.184x1017 to 4.184x1018
      Large Mountain

      or Small Island

      1 Gigaton to

      4.3 Gigatons

      109 to 4.3x1094.184x1018 to 1.79912x1019
      6-C Island 4.3 Gigatons

      to 100 Gigatons

      4.3x109 to 10111.79912x1019 to 4.184x1020
      Large Island 100 Gigatons

      to 1 Teraton

      1011 to 10124.184x1020 to 4.184x1021
      6-B Small Country 1 Teraton to

      7 Teratons

      1012 to 7x10124.184x1021 to 2.9288x1022
      Country 7 Teratons

      to 100 Teratons

      7x1012 to 10142.9288x1022 to 4.184x1023
      Large Country 100 Teratons

      to 760 teratons

      1014 to 7.6x10144.184x1023 to 3.17984x1024
      6-A Small Continent 760 teratons to

      1.33 Petatons

      7.6x1014 to 1.33x10153.17984x1024 to 5.56472x1024
      Continent 1.33 Petatons

      to 1 Exaton

      1.33x1015 to 10185.56472x1024 to 4.184x1027
      Large or

      Multi-Continent

      1 Exaton to

      29.6 Exatons

      1018 to 2.96x10194.184x1027 to 1.238464x1029
      5-C Moon 29.6 Exatons to

      433 Exatons

      2.96x1019 to 4.33x10201.238464x1029 to 1.811672x1030
      5-B Small Planet 433 Exatons

      to 57.3 zettatons

      4.33x1020 to 5.72x10221.811672x1030 to 2.393248x1032
      Planet 57.3 zettatons

      to 2.7 Yottatons

      5.72x1022 to 2.7x10242.393248x1032 to 1.12968x1034
      5-A Large or

      Multi-Planet

      2.7 Yottatons

      to 2.998 Tenatons

      2.7x1024 to 2.998x10301.12968x1034 to 1.2543632x1040
      4-C Small Star 2.998 Tenatons

      to 150 Tenatons

      2.998x1030 to 1.5x10321.2543632x1040 to 6.276x1041
      Star 150 Tenatons

      to 350 Tenatons

      1.5x1032 to 3.5x10326.276x1041 to 1.4644x1042
      Large Star 350 Tenatons

      to 5.709 Foe

      3.5x1032 to 1.364x10351.4644x1042 to 5.706976x1044
      4-B Solar System 5.709 Foe

      to 141.3 KiloFoe

      1.364x1035 to 3.377x10395.706976x1044 to 1.4129368x1049
      4-A Multi-Solar System 141.3 KiloFoe

      to 10GigaFoe

      3.377x1039 to 2.38x10441.4129368x1049 to 9.95792x1053
      3-C Galaxy 10GigaFoe

      to 1 teraFoe

      2.38x1044 to 2.39x10469.95792x1053 to 9.99976x1055
      3-B Multi-Galaxy 1 teraFoe

      to undefined

      2.39x10469.99976x1055
        Loading editor
    • "Either way, since I still have school tomorrow and Friday, would it be a problem if I started the edits now?"

      It would be less chaotic if you would start tomorrow.

      But if you don´t think you will be able to finish tomorrow if you don´t start now, I guess it can´t be helped.

        Loading editor
    • In that case, I'll start later tonight when it's October 1st for some users.

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk:

      That's the official table/chart we are using, right?

        Loading editor
    • The fact that the admins (you for example) acknowledge it as such is what would make it official.

      But de facto to this point it is pretty much just a chart I made, but since nobody else made one it is the best we have.

      So in other wordsLord Kavpeny hasn´t ackknowledged it yet, so if you say all edits should wait until he approves of it that is fine with me as well.

        Loading editor
    • so when is the chart going to come into effect? by next week?

        Loading editor
    • I personally have no problem with your chart. But yes, perhaps we should wait for Lord Kavpeny to give his approval.

        Loading editor
    • @The Living Tribunal1 At the first of october.

        Loading editor
    • @Sheoth: Ok.

      @The Everlasting: In that case I would ask you to only start with the edits after Lord Kavpeny gave his ok.

        Loading editor
    • No problem.

        Loading editor
    • 1st oct?

      wow thats fast!!

        Loading editor
    • The chart's pretty legit, DT. I think it's perfectly fine, as anything above 3-B cannot be calced.

        Loading editor
    • i think anything till 3-A can be calced as the mass - energy of the universe

      after that it gets tricky

        Loading editor
    • We don't know the mass-energy of the universe, though. The observable universe is only a small part of the universe and we don't know how much larger it is, hence why universe level feats tend to be self evident.

      You can't really calc anything higher as energy is a 3-D concept that cannot destroy space-time.

        Loading editor
    • mass energy of observable universe = 4 x 10^69J

      it is expected to be possibly 800 x observable universe at full scale


      but still, thats only the calc for the matter, dark matter and all other physical stuff, not the spacetime dimensions (keep in mind spacetime dimensions can be damaged, or twisted, but idk how much energy is needd to damage of of univers's dimensions, they are not like the static maathematical ones, but destroying the dimensions as well will be much higher thaan destroying physical stuff, since to make even small holes, u need like massive near ss lvl of energy

      simply put- energy to destroy all stuff in the universe can be measured, but idk if the energy to tear a whole as big as the universe can be measured 

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, but that's why I think it's a good idea for DT to leave the highest end of 3-B as undefined.

        Loading editor
    • For 4-D and above characters. What unit would be used for their attack power? Square joules?

        Loading editor
    • Unquantifiable.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      For 4-D and above characters. What unit would be used for their attack power? Square joules?

      nah, you will need to add a new unit, since your vector calcs will now have 4 coeffs

      but technically a universe, and multi-universes and normal beings are all 4-D - height, width, breadth and time

      so i think u r refering to 5-D space then, in which case, vectors have 5 components, calcs wont be hard but tedious

        Loading editor
    • Indeed. A 4-D being is already beyond the concept of energy as we know it, which means it is impossible for us to determine the "energy" output of anything on that level, as it is beyond our ability to calculate, as well as the components of the calculations, themselves.

        Loading editor
    • The Everlasting wrote:
      Unquantifiable.

      it is quantifiable with an extra component 

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      Indeed. A 4-D being is already beyond the concept of energy as we know it, which means it is impossible for us to determine the "energy" output of anything on that level, as it is beyond our ability to calculate, as well as the components of the calculations, themselves.

      you mean 5-D right also, no they can still have energy, but they will have an extra compotnent for direction

        Loading editor
    • nvr mind

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1
      The Living Tribunal1 removed this reply because:
      not needed
      22:47, September 30, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      you mean 5-D right also, no they can still have energy, but they will have an extra compotnent for direction

      No, I mean 4-D. We are 3-D beings who live in a universe of 4-dimensions. While we live in 4-D space, we are not technically 4-D unless you consider time, which is not a spatial dimension. This is the reason a cube is considered 3-D (and has the same number of spatial dimensions as we do), but a tesseract is considered 4-D and has more dimensions than we do.

        Loading editor
    • we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe

      we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

      time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

      if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

      we have same overall dimensions as the universe

      if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:
      we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe

      we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

      time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

      if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

      we have same overall dimensions as the universe

      if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

      No, we are typically referred to as 3-D, not 4-D. Like I said, this is because we possess three spatial dimensions, which are what is considered when determining something's dimensional structure. Like I said, this is why you do not refer to a cube as 4-D, because it only possesses three spatial dimensions, which are what's important here. 3-D beings are beings that possess three spatial dimensions, just as 4-D beings possess four spatial dimensions.

        Loading editor
    • If you would like more of an explanation on why we are considered 3-D and not 4-D, here is an explanation directly from a physicist.

        Loading editor
    • we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

        Loading editor
    • Darkness552 wrote:
      we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

      Pretty much this. We're 3-D beings who can perceive 3-dimensions and live in a 4-D continuum.

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      The Living Tribunal1 wrote:
      we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe

      we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

      time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

      if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

      we have same overall dimensions as the universe

      if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

      No, we are typically referred to as 3-D, not 4-D. Like I said, this is because we possess three spatial dimensions, which are what is considered when determining something's dimensional structure. Like I said, this is why you do not refer to a cube as 4-D, because it only possesses three spatial dimensions, which are what's important here. 3-D beings are beings that possess three spatial dimensions, just as 4-D beings possess four spatial dimensions.

      we are 4-D beings mate

      and the universe is 4-D as well, if it has one extra dimension, then please mention which one it is

      there is no separating spacial and time based dimensions

      if the space around us was 4-D we wud not be able to percieve it

      a cube wud be 4-D if it is moving, but if it never moves, and is incapable of moving, and remains in that same positonal frame, then it is 3-D, in effecr, if it not in time, it will remain like that with only 3 points describing any part of it

      but if it were to have 4 coefficients in its column vector form, then it will be able to move through time, in the real world, all cubes and shapes are 4-D, if  they werent, they wud be incapable of moving and will remain timeless

      4 spacial idmensions do not exist separately, they exist in a 5-D space

      also, if the universe is described with the 3 space and one time dimension

        Loading editor
    • Darkness552 wrote:
      we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

      of course we percieve time, if we can perccieve something moving, then we percieve the object in all of its 4 distinct physics chaarcteristics. 

      we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

      are you telling me that we are idependent of time?

        Loading editor
    • EDIT

        Loading editor
    • u say we cant interact with time: yet anything with mass tugs on it, you say we cant percieve it, yet we can percieve an object movingl with in a coordinate system requires 4 components of a vector

      the truth is, the first order of infinity above us is 5-D spacetime- or if u wannacall it 4-D space (+1-D time)

        Loading editor
    • @LT

      yea but we only percieve some of time not all of time otherwise we would be able to move at any speeds we want and almost basically be able to see into the past and future

      Are you telling me that we are independent of time?

      no but we are below it to the point we are not time itself and instead just made of Length x Width x Height

        Loading editor
    • anyway, back to the main point- was saying that the biggest amount of energy calculable using our methods is 3-A, since i think that involves destroying all matter

      this can be done for the observable universe, and th unobservable one, if i can find how much bigger it is expected to be than the observable one

        Loading editor
    • Darkness552 wrote:
      @LT

      yea but we only percieve some of time not all of time otherwise we would be able to move at any speeds we want and almost basically be able to see into the past and future

      Are you telling me that we are independent of time?

      no but we are below it to the point we are not time itself and instead just made of Length x Width x Height

      no one can see into the future- since it has not happened, but we can peer into a probable one via calculate, 

      also, as far as peering into the entirity of the timeline of a continuum is concerned, thats more like 5-D 

      we are not below time- time is a part of the coordinate sysetms that defines us, using that arguement, we can not really imagine length, bredth of height, since we always need reference points and shpes for those too

        Loading editor
    • Literally every source I can find online states that we are 3-dimensional and we perceive the world in 3-D. If we were 4-D, we could perceive incredibly long periods of time at once, which we cannot. This is why were are not considered 4-D.

      A tesseract is 4-D.

      We are 3-D.

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      no one can see into the future- since it has not happened, but we can peer into a probable one via calculate, 

      This would be irrelevant for an entirely 4-D being, as again, it would experience immense periods of time at once, and not just the "present" as we do.

        Loading editor
    • but is it actually seeing into the future and not just a calculation which has a possibility to be wrong?

      no being time itself would mean well you are time or as infinite as time which like i said is not the case

        Loading editor
    • all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)

      the terrasact is 4-D if it is independent of time, but if its coordinate system includes time (which is the case for all shapes in reality or any situation with time), the terrasect becomes 5-D (which it technically is as we now deal with 5 dimensions including time)

        Loading editor
    • Darkness552
      Darkness552 removed this reply because:
      Removed
      23:53, September 30, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:
      all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)

      Which is why, as I've said, every single source refers to spatial dimensions.

      A circle is not considered 3-D because time exists.

      A cube is not considered 4-D because time exists.

      We are not considered 4-D because time exists.

        Loading editor
    • also, as far as the size of the unobservable universe goes, it is at least 10^23 x bigger than observable one 

      after going past the edge of it, everythign repeats again, like a multiverse 

      so, 10^23 x mass energy of observable universe seems to be a good guess for 3-A

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      The Living Tribunal1 wrote:
      all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)
      Which is why, as I've said, every single source refers to spatial dimensions.

      A circle is not considered 3-D because time exists.

      A cube is not considered 4-D because time exists.

      We are not considered 4-D because time exists.

      in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by  a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

      a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

      yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

        Loading editor
    • anyway, the point was that 3-A is the highest calculable amount, after which things get fuzzy

      and the minimal energy for the unobservable universe wud be at least 10^23 x mass energy of observable universe

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk wrote:
      There I finished the conversions (except ratio). Any complains about it will have to be dealed with by another admin, given that I will be away from now until tomorrow evening.
      Tier Level Energy in

      Conventional Terms

      Energy in Tonnes

      of TNT Equivalent

      Energy in Joules
      9-C Street 100 Joules to

      5 Kilojoules

      2.39x10-8 to 1.195x10-6102 to 5x103
      9-B Wall 5 Kilojoules

      to 0.005 Tons

      1.195x10-6 to 5x10-35x103 to 2.092x107
      9-A Small Building 0.005 Tons

      to 0.25 Tons

      5x10-3 to 2.5x10-12.092x107 to to 1.046x109
      8-C Building 0.25 Tons

      to 2 Ton

      2.5x10-1 to 2 to 1.046x109 to 8.368x109
      Large Building 2 Ton to

      11 Tons

      2 to 11 8.368x109 to 4.6024x1010
      8-C City Block 11 Tons to

      22 Tons

      11 to 22 4.6024x1010 to 9.2048x1010
      8-A Multi-City Block 22 Tons to

      1 Kiloton

      22 to 1000 9.2048x1010 to 4.184x1012
      7-C Small Town 1 Kiloton to

      5.8 Kilotons

      1000 to 5800 4.184x1012 to 2.42672x1013
      Town 5.8 Kilotons to

      100 Kilotons

      5800 to 1052.42672x1013 to 4.184x1014
      Large Town 100 Kilotons

      to 1 Megaton

      105 to 1064.184x1014 to 4.184x1015
      7-B Small City 1 Megaton to

      6.3 Megatons

      106 to 6.3x1064.184x1015 to 2.63592x1016
      City 6.3 Megatons

      to 100 Megatons

      6.3x10^6 to 1082.63592x1016 to 4.184x1017
      7-A Large City

      or Mountain

      100 Megatons

      to 1 Gigaton

      108 to 1094.184x1017 to 4.184x1018
      Large Mountain

      or Small Island

      1 Gigaton to

      4.3 Gigatons

      109 to 4.3x1094.184x1018 to 1.79912x1019
      6-C Island 4.3 Gigatons

      to 100 Gigatons

      4.3x109 to 10111.79912x1019 to 4.184x1020
      Large Island 100 Gigatons

      to 1 Teraton

      1011 to 10124.184x1020 to 4.184x1021
      6-B Small Country 1 Teraton to

      7 Teratons

      1012 to 7x10124.184x1021 to 2.9288x1022
      Country 7 Teratons

      to 100 Teratons

      7x1012 to 10142.9288x1022 to 4.184x1023
      Large Country 100 Teratons

      to 760 teratons

      1014 to 7.6x10144.184x1023 to 3.17984x1024
      6-A Small Continent 760 teratons to

      1.33 Petatons

      7.6x1014 to 1.33x10153.17984x1024 to 5.56472x1024
      Continent 1.33 Petatons

      to 1 Exaton

      1.33x1015 to 10185.56472x1024 to 4.184x1027
      Large or

      Multi-Continent

      1 Exaton to

      29.6 Exatons

      1018 to 2.96x10194.184x1027 to 1.238464x1029
      5-C Moon 29.6 Exatons to

      433 Exatons

      2.96x1019 to 4.33x10201.238464x1029 to 1.811672x1030
      5-B Small Planet 433 Exatons

      to 57.3 zettatons

      4.33x1020 to 5.72x10221.811672x1030 to 2.393248x1032
      Planet 57.3 zettatons

      to 2.7 Yottatons

      5.72x1022 to 2.7x10242.393248x1032 to 1.12968x1034
      5-A Large or

      Multi-Planet

      2.7 Yottatons

      to 2.998 Tenatons

      2.7x1024 to 2.998x10301.12968x1034 to 1.2543632x1040
      4-C Small Star 2.998 Tenatons

      to 150 Tenatons

      2.998x1030 to 1.5x10321.2543632x1040 to 6.276x1041
      Star 150 Tenatons

      to 350 Tenatons

      1.5x1032 to 3.5x10326.276x1041 to 1.4644x1042
      Large Star 350 Tenatons

      to 5.709 Foe

      3.5x1032 to 1.364x10351.4644x1042 to 5.706976x1044
      4-B Solar System 5.709 Foe

      to 141.3 KiloFoe

      1.364x1035 to 3.377x10395.706976x1044 to 1.4129368x1049
      4-A Multi-Solar System 141.3 KiloFoe

      to 10GigaFoe

      3.377x1039 to 2.38x10441.4129368x1049 to 9.95792x1053
      3-C Galaxy 10GigaFoe

      to 1 teraFoe

      2.38x1044 to 2.39x10469.95792x1053 to 9.99976x1055
      3-B Multi-Galaxy 1 teraFoe

      to undefined

      2.39x10469.99976x1055

      Is it reasonable to assume that "+" categories start at the mean of low end and high end of a level?

      IE: If Multi City Block Level starts at 22 tons of TNT equivalent and ends at 1 Kiloton of TNT equivalent, would Multi-City Block Level+ be directly in between that, at 511 tons of TNT equivalent?

      1,000 + 22 = 1,022

      1,022 / 2 = 511

        Loading editor
    • I calced Rigel to be 290 Septillion Megatons of TNT tops so Large Star level's requirements are much lower

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by  a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

      a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

      yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

      Which is why, as I have said repeatedly, time is not considered the fourth dimension in Euclidian space, which space-time is not. Objects do not gain a spatial dimension by moving, and only require an extra dimension to calculate their position. The dimension of the space does not affect the dimension of the object, which can not exist in that space entirely. This sort of relates to how a 2-D being would only perceive a small sliver of a 3-D being, just as we would only perceive a small sliver of a 4-D being. This is why a tesseract is considered 4-D, and we are not. Regardless of motion, you will always need four coordinates to determine a single point in the tesseract. The same cannot be said for humans. Please read this, this, and this for comprehensive reasons we are not considered 4-D, and why we are not referred to as such in fiction. The implications in those works should be obvious, regardless.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      I calced Rigel to be 290 Septillion Megatons of TNT tops so Large Star level's requirements are much lower

      Interesting.

      Another thing, isn't the GBE of the Sun listed on the OBD as 164.913 Tenatons, not 150 Tenatons?

      I think 164 - 227 Tenatons being Star Level, 227 - 290 Tenatons being Star Level+, 290 Tenatons - 12.0952868 TenaKilotons being Large Star Level, and 12.0952868 TenaKilotons - 47.8011472 Tenakilotons (2 Foe) being Large Star Level+ sounds reasonable, imo. 

      Btw, I got 12.0952868 TenaKilotons by combining 290 Tenatons with 23.9005736 TenaKilotons AKA 1 Foe (24.1905736 TenaKilotons) and dividing that in half for the mean. I figured it'd be a reasonable stepping stone between the two. 227 Tenatons is likewise the mean of 164 and 290 Tenatons.

        Loading editor
    • I got the Sun to be 54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT actually

      I will link you to the blog which shows this if you want

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      I got the Sun to be 54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT actually

      I will link you to the blog which shows this if you want

      I'd like to see it, sounds interesting.

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      in all those cases, we consider that the shapes are time less, if a circle moved in a cartesian plane, then it will need to be defined by  a vector with 3 coordinate point.....

      a cube moving through a void will need 4 coordinates to define its position and so on so forth, generally by dimensions, +1 for time is always assumed for moving objects, or else we wont be able to do calculations of them moving

      yes u r rite for spacial dimensions, and using spacial dimensions, our universe has 3, so using that definition, the universe is 3-D (spacially)

      Which is why, as I have said repeatedly, time is not considered the fourth dimension in Euclidian space, which space-time is not. Objects do not gain a spatial dimension by moving, and only require an extra dimension to calculate their position. The dimension of the space does not affect the dimension of the object, which can not exist in that space entirely. This sort of relates to how a 2-D being would only perceive a small sliver of a 3-D being, just as we would only perceive a small sliver of a 4-D being. This is why a tesseract is considered 4-D, and we are not. Regardless of motion, you will always need four coordinates to determine a single point in the tesseract. The same cannot be said for humans. Please read this, this, and this for comprehensive reasons we are not considered 4-D, and why we are not referred to as such in fiction. The implications in those works should be obvious, regardless.

      thought mathematically, there is not difference between time and space dimensions, since both need to represented in the vectors of an object. in the links they talk about spatial dimensions (also, if we are in fact considering a touch of reality here, then keep in mind the only advantage a higher dimension has over a lower one is that it gives objects more freedome to move, and not ifnite more power)

      i think i understand that you are sollely refering to space dimensions ok then, using ONLY spacial dimensions as definition, the universe itselft wud be a 3-D void expanding into some 4-D (4 spacially dimensional) hypervoid or bulk

      so, tell me how is the universe itself 4-D, which is that extra dimension?

      if anything, the universe itself exists on top of a 4 spacial dimensional bulk (the same way a surface lays on top of a 3 spacial dimensional objec, and a line lies within a 2- spacially dimensional object). so its expanding on a 5-d (4 spcial dimensions) brane

      TO SUM IT UP: Which is the extra proven 4th dimension? When in fact no results have shown the presence of other dimensions? Also, if theoretical stuff is concerned, the universe wud have 11-dimensions, with extradimensions being all around us, with us unable to see them due to them being so minute

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      The Sun's GBE I got in an attempt to make Beerus 4-A pre-episode 12

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Beerus%27s_star-busting_blast The next one was for DBZ again http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Some_random_calculations

      I also found that stars like UY Scuti or VY Canis Majoris are easier to destroy than the Sun

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      thought mathematically, there is not difference between time and space dimensions, since both need to represented in the vectors of an object. in the links they talk about spatial dimensions (also, if we are in fact considering a touch of reality here, then keep in mind the only advantage a higher dimension has over a lower one is that it gives objects more freedome to move, and not ifnite more power)

      i think i understand that you are sollely refering to space dimensions ok then, using ONLY spacial dimensions as definition, the universe itselft wud be a 3-D void expanding into some 4-D (4 spacially dimensional) hypervoid or bulk

      so, tell me how is the universe itself 4-D, which is that extra dimension?

      if anything, the universe itself exists on top of a 4 spacial dimensional bulk (the same way a surface lays on top of a 3 spacial dimensional objec, and a line lies within a 2- spacially dimensional object). so its expanding on a 5-d (4 spcial dimensions) brane

      TO SUM IT UP: Which is the extra proven 4th dimension? When in fact no results have shown the presence of other dimensions? Also, if theoretical stuff is concerned, the universe wud have 11-dimensions, with extradimensions being all around us, with us unable to see them due to them being so minute

      Yes, I am referring to spatial dimensions, as those are the dimensions an object always possesses, which is what's most important. Power is an irrelevant term. The point is an object with higher dimensions is completely beyond the scope of the lower dimensional object. I cannot kill a circle, but I can tear apart the paper it exists on, whereas it can do absolutely nothing to me.

      The universe is 4-D, but there is no extra dimension. The universe is three spatial dimensions and one time dimensions. The difference is, unlike with us, those dimensions are fully unified in Minkowski space. We live in this continuum, but as I've said, are not fully unified with it.

      Despite these being the only 4 dimensions known, the point I'm trying to make is the continuum that is our universe is composed of all four of these dimensions fully unified, whereas we are not fully unified with time.

        Loading editor
    • I think large star level is kind of a misleading title, VY Canis Majoris and NML Cygni are huge but they are much easier to destroy than the Sun. Stars like Bellarix and Rigel are stars that we mean when we talk about large star level, how about giant or massive star level?

        Loading editor
    • In mathematical physicsMinkowski space or Minkowski spacetime is a combination of Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.

      Sounds a lot like when any things happens, it is the spacetime between them - which is in the case of any two events no matter how small they are, also, it seems to be like the sum of combination of these

      by dimension, i mean the definition itself- humans and all other things in the universe are defined by 4 dimensional coordinates

      now if u mean that the universe is 4-D since it encompassesa ll of time, then yes u wud be correct- it is a high 4-D thing (if infinite), and normal beings are low 4-D beings

      the fact is, the universe is the sum total of all confirmed 4-D things, and the brane is the sum total of all universes and so on

      just becuz huans do not have tohe totality of all 4-D thingss in the universe doesnt mean that they arent 4-D at all......

      this will go on forever

      but did u respond to my original point- on the minimum energy for unobservable universe being--> 10^23 x energy of observable universe

      so that means 3-A is the highest calculable tier, and not 3-B

        Loading editor
    • my main point was that 3-A is the highest calculable tier, not 3-B

        Loading editor
    • Yes, what I mean is the universe is 4-D because it fully encompasses the dimension of time, experiencing all of it simultaneously due to containing it.

      Everything in the universe can be defined by 4-D coordinates, but that does not mean they're 4-D. An object's dimensional level is defined by the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Humans require a minumum of three coordinates, hence being 3-D. The universal continuum will always require a minimum of four.

      I did not see your other point. It is theoretical in size, but it seems like it could work. That depends on what DontTalk and the other calcers think, though.

        Loading editor
    • wait, so u were arguing that the universe is all of the 4-D itself?

      i thought you argued the universe itself had an additional coordinate

      lol

      anyway, your point is true if the universe is infinite, or else there will be restrictions to all of its dimensions thus defining it to be a very large finite sum of all 4-d coordinate objects (eg. we know for a fact that there is a restriction to the universe's sum total of time which is 13.8 billion years), also, keep in mind that the universe is the sum total of all objects in it, not all events in it, its not like it stores all events of time and grows forwards like a loaf of bread, so if the universe is limited, its a 4-d region with 4-d defined objects, but not an necessarily  an infinite 4-d space on its own (it will be one if and only if it is infinite, but we already know it has had a finite time so far)

        Loading editor
    • Nah, just that the universe fully encompasses the dimension of time.

      That is a question that we may never truly know the answer to, friend.

      Get on it, Hawking.

        Loading editor
    • what if time exists outside it 

      also, time itself seems to be limited, since the past is liited, so if i were to plot it along the time axis, the universe will be from t = 0 to t = 13.7 billion years

      so its finite along those lines, also it likes has finite 3 spacial dimensions, so its like a region of the sum total hight-width-breadth-time graph, 4 entire theoretical 4th dimension wud be infinite on all axis, since it includes all entries for all axis such that the entries are in the set of real numbers

      so its a sum of the 4-d but not a never ending 4-d hyperspace (at least not very likely)


      also, azzy boy, wat if i told you the past, the present and the future are not distinct (in the newtonian fashion), and so static time does not exist , but relative time does (this last thing is off topic)

        Loading editor
    • It's a definite possibility, as different types of time (higher dimensional/extra dimensional time etc.) have been theorized. I suppose, but it can depend on which theory ends up actually being right/the one you believe. There's always Eternal Return and yadda yadda.

      Yeah, I've heard that, before.

        Loading editor
    • EMERGENCY UPDATE

      Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

      I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

      While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

        Loading editor
    • Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote:
      It's a definite possibility, as different types of time (higher dimensional/extra dimensional time etc.) have been theorized. I suppose, but it can depend on which theory ends up actually being right/the one you believe. There's always Eternal Return and yadda yadda.

      Yeah, I've heard that, before.

      no i mean the past and future things were models used to show how static time doesnt make sense, and how time is relative

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      ===EMERGENCY UPDATE===

      Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

      I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

      While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

      ^ Thank you.

      Hopefully the newer chart will have sub-tiers like how FanofRPGS and me suggested, or at least "+" categories like the old one did.

        Loading editor
    • Alright.

        Loading editor
    • The Living Tribunal1 wrote:

      no i mean the past and future things were models used to show how static time doesnt make sense, and how time is relative

      I know. The second paragraph (that was only one sentence long) was a reply to that.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      How do these subtiers sound?

      4-B

      Low 4-B "Supernova level": The force of a supernova

      Mid 4-B "Planetary System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to Neptune

      High 4-B "Outer Solar System level": Energy needed to destroy the Solar System to the Oort Cloud


      4-A

      4-A "Inter-Stellar": Basically destroying a close-by cluster of star systems or a Solar Interstellar Neighborhood tops

      High 4-A "Multi-Solar System level+" able to destroy hundreds of light years worth of space


      3-C

      Small Galaxy Level: Destroying stuff like the Orion Arm or smaller galaxies

      Galaxy Level: Galaxies like andromeda and the Milky Way

      Large Galaxy Level: Larger galaxies like the Pinwheel Galaxy


      3-B

      Massive Galaxy Level or Inter-Galactic: Destroying two closeby galaxies or the morbidly huge galaxies like IC 1101

      Multi Galaxy Level: Destroying Galaxy clusters

      Super-Cluster Buster: Destroying massive galactic structures like the Virgo Supercluster


      3-A

      Low 3-A or "Spacial Superstructure" level: Stuff like the Sloan Great Wall or huge chunks of the universe

      Mid 3-A or "Observable Universe" level: Our observable universe


      Sorry if bringing this back is annoying, but does anyone here have any suggestions as to expand on this? All I can think of for ideas are these:

      7-A

      High 7-A or "Large / Multi-Mountain Level"

      6-C

      Low 6-C or "Small Island / Mountain Range Level"

      5-B

      High 5-B or "Super-Earth / Mini-Neptune Level"

      5-A

      High 5-A or "Sub-Stellar / Brown Dwarf Level"

      I still think we need to be more specific and go into more detail in what each category truly means so that newcomers will have a much easier time imagining how powerful a character really is. It's not good to be broad, imho.

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      ===EMERGENCY UPDATE===

      Everybody, please take note, that due to disagreement over the attack potency chart levels, the project has been pushed back to 3rd October.

      I repeat: DO NOT INITIATE THE PROJECT.

      While I do have a chart prepared, I would strongly prefer that the entire community go through it properly and meticulously prior to implementation, so that the project does not turn out to be a botch-up.

      Alright

        Loading editor
    • I am just making a quick visit, and won't interfere in the implementation of the project, but TLT1, please immediately stop repeatedly derailing the thread thank you. This is far too important for that.

      Also, you constantly take up this topic, which is technically strongly against the rules of the site, as we will not change the foundation of our higher tiering system for your sake. Sorry.

      If we were truly 4-dimensional we would be able to encompass and freely move back and forth along the time axis. We can not. However, again, this is extremely off-topic.

        Loading editor
    • In addition, I would very strongly suggest that the project is not initiated until after it has been thoroughly evaluated and the scale agreed upon.

        Loading editor
    • I think 4-C/4-B should be more like this

      Small Star Level: 2.992-54.5366885 Septillion Megatons of TNT

      Star Level: 54.5366885-290.894404 Septillion Megatons of TNT

      Giant Star (Not Large) Level: 290.894404 Septillion Megatons of TNT-23.9005736 Octillion Megatons of TNT

      Low 4-B: 23.9005736-136.448375 Octillion Megatons of TNT

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I am just making a quick visit, and won't interfere in the implementation of the project, but TLT1, please immediately stop repeatedly derailing the thread thank you. This is far too important for that.

      Also, you constantly take up this topic, which is technically strongly against the rules of the site, as we will not change the foundation of our higher tiering system for your sake. Sorry.

      If we were truly 4-dimensional we would be able to encompass and freely move back and forth along the time axis. We can not. However, again, this is extremely off-topic.

      that wasnt even the point, idk how it came to that, my main point was that 3-A was the highest calculable tier and not 3-B, now if we multiply 10^23 by mass-energy of the observable universe, we can get a good estimate for true universe level

        Loading editor
    • I will just say I second Gerkinerf and FanofRPG in their ideas.

        Loading editor
    • @The Living Tribunal1: The universe is infinite after recent measurements. Margin of error is just about 0.4%

      Source: NASA

      For me that is certain enough and I would go with it. Also as Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot wrote a universe busting feat is self evident. Either everything was destroyed or it wasn´t quite universe busting. There just is nothing in between.


      @FanofRPGs: GBE is usually (by OBD standard at least) calculated with the formula given here, so I will give results from it precedence.

      So let me check the case:

      First our sun.

      Solar Mass = 198892*10^30 kg

      Solar radius = 6.96342*10^8 m

      Complete formula: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(198892*10^30)^2)/(5*6.96342*10^8)

      Result: 2.2748328548001068e41 J = 5.4369810105165076482e31 tons of TNT = 54.36 tenatons

      So if your Septillion is the US septillion (really I always have to look up and guess what people mean if they use huge numbers like that >.< who would even know by head how much a septillion is?) your result is the same as mine.

      So in that case I suggest we use it. If anyone present, for any reason knows why these value should not be used, let him write now or forever hold his peace.

      Now Rigel:

      Mass: 17 solar masses

      radius: 62 solar radii

      Since they are muliples of our units before that I will just modify the formula accordingly:

      Complete formula: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(17*1.98892*10^30)^2)/(62*5*6.96342*10^8)

      Result: 1.06036e42 J = 2.534321223709369e32 tons of TNT = 253 tenatons

      So I actually got it even lower than you. Reason:

      My values. I find a lot of different values for its mass and radius. The german wikipedia page to Rigel  lists the stars, that the star system is made of, seperate and states the mass of the main star, which is the one we are interested in, as 17 solar masses and with a radius of 62 solar radii. So that is where i took my values from.

      So I am kinda unsure about the very basis of this calc. I will try to find a reliable source or if anyone can link me a reliable source on mass and radius that clearly distinguishs between the star system Riegel and the star Riegel (Riegel A) I would appreciate it.

        Loading editor
    • Is Giant or Massive Star the appropriate scientific term?

      Because if it isn´t I would just keep it as large. No need to rewrite the name of an category if it doesn´t make it clear either way.


      Gerdkinerf: I am opposed to inserting now subtiers. For one thing, in my expierence, people will just know even less where to place characters if we do many subtiers, because they can not tell wether something is a small or large variation of something. One would have to calculate/pixelscale almost everything to correctly place characters in this. And each subtier makes the edit less acurate. You have to remember that we don´t know the reasoning behind most of the characters stats, so having to decide wether or not they belong in a new sub category of a pre-existing category would always be difficult.

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk

      Large star level is a misleading name, for a star can be large but easier to destroy than the Sun because its low mass/gravity. Giant or Massive imply the star is also heavy.

        Loading editor
    • Giant wouldn´t imply mass to my knowledge. Massive would be preferable in my opinion iif we want to change the name because of that reason. But lets see what other people say.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Given that the wiki currently seems far too chaotic and unstable, and the staff already have their hands full, I think that it would be better to start the project in two months or so, around December. This will also give the staff plenty of time to make sure that the new standards are as accurate as possible.

        Loading editor
    • Kavpeny
      Kavpeny removed this reply because:
      Double post.
      10:02, October 2, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Given that the wiki currently seems far too chaotic and unstable, and the staff already have their hands full, I think that it would be better to start the project in two months or so, around December. This will also give the staff plenty of time to make sure that the new standards are as accurate as possible.

      Hmm...noted.

      In fact, now that you mention it, after spectating the recent wikia changes silently, I believe that you make an excellent point. Hardly surprising, given your massive experience as a bureaucrat.

      The wikia is still trying to stabilize itself, and the staff are doing an admirable job of holding it together. However, like you say, they have too much on their plate already, and every now and again, I occasionally notice an unpatrolled here and there.

      Add to that the fact that there is apparently a disagreement regarding separation of levels, and a massive amount of confusion regarding Tier 5 and 4, I believe it would be better if the entire staff agreed to a new standardized system by consent and proper discussion, instead of rushing to make such a critical decision.

      @everyone: Given all that, I'm inclined to state that Antvasima's suggestion holds merit, and that I concur with his notion. Also, I thank him for his advice.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks, Ant. Yeah it's best to go along with what he said as by this point, most of my attention will be drawn towards college work so around the time of December works best for me here and probably some others here too.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I agree with the decision. Especially given my limited time right now and possibly quite a bit in the future.

        Loading editor
    • so, no changes right now at all?

        Loading editor
    • So December? Gives me time to get a new charger.

        Loading editor
    • I can't believe I never asked this before. What's WeeklyBattles going to be in the AP revision?

        Loading editor
    • The delegation was made prior to him being added to the staff. When the project is in motion again, WB will be added to one of the teams.

        Loading editor
    • I know, I was just wondering where he'd go thanks to his promotion to staff member.

      I'd also like to say that, if any of the Admins of a team are unavailible when the revisions start, I can fill in for them.

        Loading editor
    • Hmmm... ok It is december now. Maybe a good time to think about restarting the project? I could give the topic my undivided attention from the 18th evening until 3rd. (well, except the usual christmas matters one has to attend)

        Loading editor
    • I made this AP chart many months ago, maybe it could help?

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/What_I_have_for_attack_potency

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      I made this AP chart many months ago, maybe it could help?

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/What_I_have_for_attack_potency

      I second using this as a template.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      I made this AP chart many months ago, maybe it could help?

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/What_I_have_for_attack_potency

      Nice job, dude. ^^

      Does anyone here, besides me, think it might be a good idea to have + categories be the median of two different attack potency levels? 

      Here's my (admittedly incomplete) version of an Attack Potency chart based on this concept:

      City Block Level: 10 tons - 55 tons

      City Block Level+: 55 tons - 100 tons

      Multi-City Block Level: 100 tons - 550 tons

      Multi-City Block Level+: 550 tons - 1 Kiloton

      Small Town Level: 1 Kiloton - 3.4 Kilotons

      Small Town Level+: 3.4 Kilotons - 5.8 Kilotons 

      Town Level: 5.8 Kilotons - 52.9 Kilotons

      Town Level+: 52.9 Kilotons - 100 Kilotons

      Large Town Level: 100 Kilotons - 550 Kilotons

      Large Town Level+: 550 Kilotons - 1 Megaton

      Small City Level: 1 Megaton - 3.65 Megatons

      Small City Level+: 3.65 Megatons - 6.3 Megatons

      City Level: 6.3 Megatons - 53.15 Megatons

      City Level+: 53.15 Megatons - 100 Megatons

      Mountain Level: 100 Megatons - 550 Megatons

      Mountain Level+: 550 Megatons - 1 Gigaton

      Small Island Level: 1 Gigaton - 2.65 Gigatons

      Small Island Level+: 2.65 Gigatons - 4.3 Gigatons

      Island Level: 4.3 Gigatons - 52.15 Gigatons

      Island Level+: 52.15 Gigatons - 100 Gigatons

      Large Island Level: 100 Gigatons - 550 Gigatons

      Large Island Level+: 550 Gigatons - 1 Teraton

      Small Country Level: 1 Teraton - 4 Teratons

      Small Country Level+: 4 Teratons - 7 teratons

      Country Level: 7 Teratons - 53.5 Teratons

      Country Level+: 53.5 Teratons - 100 Teratons

      Large Country Level: 100 Teratons - 550 Teratons

      Large Country Level+: 550 Teratons - 1 Petaton

        Loading editor
    • TBH I am thinking we recalc new values

        Loading editor
    • this wiki will be veerryyy different by next year by the looks of it 

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      TBH I am thinking we recalc new values

      I, too, think that might be needed.

      In particular, the value for Multi-Solar System does not convince me too much.

        Loading editor
    • I don't find the value for regular Solar System Level very convincing either. 5.709 Foe seems pretty underwhelming and I doubt an explosion with that yield would have enough power per the size of it's area of effect to overcome the GBE of the sun, the planets and their moons, the asteroids, the comets and every other object in the solar system.

      I think this is more accurate, IMO, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1004909251.As.r.html

      5.09e37 tons of TNT equivalent = 2.129656e47 joules or 2.129656 KiloFoe.

        Loading editor
    • GohanLSSJ2 wrote:
      FanofRPGs wrote:
      TBH I am thinking we recalc new values
      I, too, think that might be needed.

      In particular, the value for Multi-Solar System does not convince me too much.

      I have completed 7-A to 6-A

        Loading editor
    • Okay here is what I got

      The largest city by area is tokyo, which has a surface area of 13752 square km. Using this calculator

      http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/classic/

      I get the energy needed to surround it via the shockwave to be 805.869 Megatons of TNT.

      http://en.allexperts.com/q/Geography-1729/Volume-Mount-Everest.htm

      The surface area of the largest mountain is 2413 square kilometers

      Using fragmentation (8 joules/cm^3) I get 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT

      7-A = 805.869 Megatons of TNT - 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT

      Next, the largest island in the world is Greenland which has a surface area of 836,300 square miles. I have to find its volume, so I will also add its depth, the average depth to sealevel is 12100 feet. Multiplying 12100 feet with the area of Greenland, then using the fragmentation formula. I get 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT

      6-C = 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT - 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT

      Next, I will chose the middle-sized continent as the minimum for continent level, that is South America. Its surface area is 6.888 million square miles. Once again using 12100 feet as a depth. Then using the fragmentation formula. I get 125.802581 Teratons of TNT.

      6-B = 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT - 125.802581 Teratons of TNT

      Now for the limit of normal 6-A, I will use Asia, its surface area is 17.21 million square miles. Doing the math again, I get 314.323813 Teratons of TNT

      6-A = 125.802581 Teratons of TNT - 314.323813 Teratons of TNT

      Now for high 6-A I will stop at the GBE of the small moon, Charon. It has a surface gravity of 0.288 m/s^2, a radius of 395 feet, and a mass of 1.9e21 kg. That gives me a GBE of 49.882943 Petatons of TNT

      High 6-A = 314.323813 Teratons of TNT - 49.882943 Petatons of TNT

      So overall

      7-A = 805.869 Megatons of TNT - 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT

      6-C = 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT - 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT

      6-B = 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT - 125.802581 Teratons of TNT

      6-A = 125.802581 Teratons of TNT - 314.323813 Teratons of TNT

      High 6-A = 314.323813 Teratons of TNT - 49.882943 Petatons of TNT

      Low 5-C = 49.882943 Petatons of TNT - 29.6 Exatons of TNT

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      GohanLSSJ2 wrote:
      FanofRPGs wrote:
      TBH I am thinking we recalc new values
      I, too, think that might be needed.

      In particular, the value for Multi-Solar System does not convince me too much.

      I have completed 7-A to 6-A

      Oh really? Nice ^^.

      Would you be okay with posting them? I'd like to see them, please.

        Loading editor
    • Gerdkinerf wrote:
      FanofRPGs wrote:
      GohanLSSJ2 wrote:
      FanofRPGs wrote:
      TBH I am thinking we recalc new values
      I, too, think that might be needed.
      In particular, the value for Multi-Solar System does not convince me too much.
      I have completed 7-A to 6-A
      Oh really? Nice ^^.

      Would you be okay with posting them? I'd like to see them, please.

      Its above

      7-A = 805.869 Megatons of TNT - 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT

      6-C = 4.61375573 Gigatons of TNT - 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT

      6-B = 15.2742013 Teratons of TNT - 125.802581 Teratons of TNT

      6-A = 125.802581 Teratons of TNT - 314.323813 Teratons of TNT

      High 6-A = 314.323813 Teratons of TNT - 49.882943 Petatons of TNT

      Low 5-C = 49.882943 Petatons of TNT - 29.6 Exatons of TNT

        Loading editor
    • Gerdkinerf wrote: I don't find the value for regular Solar System Level very convincing either. 5.709 Foe seems pretty underwhelming and I doubt an explosion with that yield would have enough power per the size of it's area of effect to overcome the GBE of the sun, the planets and their moons, the asteroids, the comets and every other object in the solar system.

      I think this is more accurate, IMO, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1004909251.As.r.html

      5.09e37 tons of TNT equivalent = 2.129656e47 joules or 2.129656 KiloFoe.

      tey miscalced Neptune in it

        Loading editor
    • Wasn't the revision supposed to start from today???

        Loading editor
    • Nah, it's starting in four days.

        Loading editor
    • So 21st? Alright

        Loading editor
    • if I can be of any help in this I would be glad to be useful

        Loading editor
    • If the attack potency is gonna overgo an entire overhaul, I feel like that only the characters that are the very least tier 3-A are the ones whose articles are not locked to normal members while the rest get their attack potency and tier fixed up. Is that how it's gonna go?

        Loading editor
    • UPDATE

      Regarding the chart

      Beginning Date: January 1, 2016

      Guidelines

      • When the project will begin implementation, no edits apart from revising attack potency will be allowed. All other edits will be rolled back.
      • A standard edit summary, "Revised Attack Potency" must be made.
      • I sincerely request that the staff members give it their all.
      • Regular members are also free to participate, although it is advised that if unsure, they not make incorrect edits. Any incorrect edits will be treated as suspicious ones.
      • Anybody who tries to utilize the overwhelming number of edits to cover any suspicious ones of their own will be banned.
      • All "Content Revision" threads will be put on hold.
      • I suggest all teams create a thread, on one of the team member's message wall, and co-ordinate their efforts.

      The teams

      Note: Given that tier 3 and 4 are still not concretely decided upon yet, it may very well be that revision of (only) tier 3 and 4 be withheld, and start on Jan 4 instead.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I just looked through Tier 4, and a very great amount of their rankings are very self-explanatory with no calcs. As a result, it would be possible for the revisions to start as normal.

        Loading editor
    • So i will be sitting here doing nothing

        Loading editor
    • Kkapoios wrote:
      So i will be sitting here doing nothing

      That's right!~ Joking, i'm just f'ing with you~

        Loading editor
    • Well, Swordslayer and Zeil haven't been around that much anymore...

        Loading editor
    • Sorry Kkapoios. You are a valued member of the team. I am sure that you will be included in a group with lots of profiles to deal with.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Sorry Kkapoios. You are a valued member of the team. I am sure that you will be included in a group with lots of profiles to deal with.

      I like how he's one of the few people who got left out on all this. Sorry, sorry. Can't help myself making a joke.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm...now that I reconsider, SwordSlayer99 has been mostly inactive.

      Kkapoios, switch with him. You will be co-ordinating with Tier 7 and 8 team, SS99 will be on reserve.

        Loading editor
    • Yay!

        Loading editor
    • I see. Sounds all good to me.

        Loading editor
    • UPDATE

      We are officially commencing the project!

      Guidelines

      • When the project will begin implementation, no edits apart from revising attack potency will be allowed. All other edits will be rolled back.
      • A standard edit summary, "Revised Attack Potency" must be made.
      • I sincerely request that the staff members give it their all.
      • Regular members are also free to participate, although it is advised that if unsure, they not make incorrect edits. Any incorrect edits will be treated as suspicious ones.
      • Anybody who tries to utilize the overwhelming number of edits to cover any suspicious ones of their own will be banned.
      • All "Content Revision" threads will be put on hold.
      • I suggest all teams create a thread, on one of the team member's message wall, and co-ordinate their efforts.

      The teams

      Note: Given that tier 3 and 4 are still not concretely decided upon yet, revision of (only) tier 3 and 4 has been withheld, and the team for tier 3 and 4 will start on Jan 6 instead.

      Other teams, please begin the Attack Potency revision.

        Loading editor
    • So do it now? Aite

        Loading editor
    • Create a thread on one of your team member's message wall (or yours) so that you can co-ordinate your efforts. Revise only your alloted tiers, not others.

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      Create a thread on one of your team member's message wall (or yours) so that you can co-ordinate your efforts. Only your tier, not others.

      I know about that last part but okay.

        Loading editor
    • It is probably good to create a highlighted thread that tells people not to do regular editing for the next few days.

        Loading editor
    • Alright!

        Loading editor
    • That's a good plan to do, Ant.

        Loading editor
    • Done. You should be seeing it.

        Loading editor
    • Also Kavpeny, does the original note about a character having more than one tier still applies now?

        Loading editor
    • ...could you please re-phrase?

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      ...could you please re-phrase?

      Note: If a character has more than 1 tier, the team with the higher tier will deal with it.

      You literally wrote that at the top in the op here.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, sorry, have a lot on my mind, and it's 2 am here.

      Yeah, the note still applies.

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:
      Sorry, sorry, have a lot on my mind, and it's 2 am here.

      Yeah, the note still applies.

      You could have simply said yes, dude. But very well, i just wanted to know if it still applies even now.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks, Kav. I'll get to work.

        Loading editor
    • Dude Kavpeny, shouldn't you change the old AP chart with the new one by now?

        Loading editor
    • @Lord Kavpeny If possible, I think that it may be a good idea to place the two charts beside each other in the blog post, so it will be easier for the staff to compare the values when they convert one category to another.

      @CrossverseCrisis We should provably wait until the new chart has been finished. Categories 4-B to 3-B have not quite been hammered out yet.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      @Lord Kavpeny If possible, I think that it may be a good idea to place the two charts beside each other in the blog post, so it will be easier for the staff to compare the values when they convert one category to another.

      @CrossverseCrisis We should provably wait until the new chart has been finished. Categories 4-B to 3-B have not quite been hammered out yet.

      Oh okay. Well it's because someone wondered why we're still using the old one even though we have the new one made here. But very well.

        Loading editor
    • @Antvasima: Updated my blog post to include old chart as well. Should help with faster revision of revised AP's for characters.

        Loading editor
    • I have class in the morning and afternoon, so I will not be available until at least after 3 PM.

        Loading editor
    • Unclechairman wrote:
      I have class in the morning and afternoon, so I will not be available until at least after 3 PM.

      *sigh* 3 pm by which time-zone?

        Loading editor
    • Well, it doesn't quite matter now, does it?

      But for future reference, I go by the Eastern Time Zone in the United States.

        Loading editor
    • So, what do I do?

      It was suggested that a general purpose thread for communication be created on a team member's wall, but I searched through the walls of the team for tier 3 and 4 and found no such thing.

      Do I simply proceed uncoordinated? I know I arrived late, but it would be a massive pain to check through all of the pages' histories to find out which ones have already been edited.

        Loading editor
    • Unclechairman wrote: But for future reference, I go by the Eastern Time Zone in the United States.

      Noted.

      Actually, Unclechairman, revision for Tier 3 and 4 has not begun yet, so I would suggest that you create a co-ordination thread for you team. Also, A6colute will be late to the party, so begin editing without him.

      As for when the revision begins, it will begin on Jan 7 in all likelihood.

        Loading editor
    • @ kavpeny: as for the upper limit of 3-B, should it be universe level, with upper limit of 3-B touching 3-A?


      if so, for that scenario, should we use a massive nuetron tar at the edge of the observable universe, and use the energy of destruction method as shown here   (by that i mean both formulas: 0.6G(M^2)/R, and the other proportionality one ---> 4(pi)((a/R)^2), where a is distance from center of explosion (radiu of observable universe) to calculate energy needed?

        Loading editor
    • 3-B => (calc value) to Undefined

      A fair method, with a few flaws.

      • Observable universe =/= Universe. In fact, universe >> observable universe.
      • The universe is ever-expanding.
      • Why a massive neutron star in particular?
        Loading editor
    • 1- i kknow, its not exact universe level, but observable universe can be  a high end for 3-B


      2- i know it is, but we are using the current values of the observable universe for this (high end 3-B)


      3- a massive neutron star has a greater gbe than any normal star, a neutron star of 2 solar masses and a 13 km radius has a gbe of 487 foes (well beyond even large star level), so that gives us a high end value for destroying the observable universe (iirc doing so was originally proposed by donttalk)


      what i am propising here, is observable universe to be the high end value for multi galaxy level, and the nuetron star provides a high end for that, if u want, we can use a normal star instead

        Loading editor
    • Again, all decent points.

      However, in all tiers of our AP chart, whenever we utilize a "Hgih" segregation within a tier, it is easily understood that the regular tier will be incontrovertibly smaller than the "High" tier object.

      For example, Large Planet (5-A) was segregated, with Brown Dwarf acting as High 5-A. However, it was universally true that the energy output for a Brown Dwarf would be higher than any large-sized planet.

      It is that very premise which allowed for the tier of High 5-A to exist, and be separate from 5-A.


      In this case however, the same cannot be said. While the energy output of the Observable Universe is large, can it be said for certain that it will always be >> than Multi-Galaxy? After all, what fraction of the universe is observable in the first place?

      It is almost certain that there will be a wide range of Multi-Galaxy level energy output, well exceeding that of the energy output for Observable Universe. Pray tell, how can a tier be listed as high end if it may not be high end in the first place?

      The very premise is flawed.


      A better solution would be to: instead of deliberately trying to assimilate the energy output for Observable Universe (and causing a fundamental AP indexing error), we can instead list the energy output fot the Observable Universe, using the very same method, under a trivia section on the Attack Potency page. That would serve as a useful tid-bit of information for those interested, while not messing with our AP chart either.

        Loading editor
    • ok, agreed with the listing 


      but then 3-A is completely unknown right, along with 3-B? 


      anyway, for that trivia value, do u want me to use the neutron star along with the method in that link? i think it works fine

        Loading editor
    • I prefer the term "undefined". But yes, in terms of energy, 3-A is not quantifiable. Again, it's not as much of an issue, given that universe-level feats are mostly self-evident.

      By all means, go ahead with your suggested method. A dedicated blog post for the calc would be preferable.

        Loading editor
    • ok, oh one more thing, are you ok with me using a neutron star instead of a regular sun like star?

        Loading editor
    • Lord Kavpeny wrote:

      Noted.

      Actually, Unclechairman, revision for Tier 3 and 4 has not begun yet, so I would suggest that you create a co-ordination thread for you team. Also, A6colute will be late to the party, so begin editing without him.

      As for when the revision begins, it will begin on Jan 7 in all likelihood.

      i wont be around on Jan 7 but i will be able to edit on jan 8

        Loading editor
    • @The Living Tribunal1: Hmm...well, if you are doing a proper calc, then the best method would be to calculate the energy output for both scenarios, so that both low end and high end values are obtained, as is the proper course for most calcs.

      @Darkness552: Hmm...okay.

        Loading editor
    • sorry about the late notice

        Loading editor
    • i made a blog LK


      link

        Loading editor
    • You could have at least Linked it to him too, Tribunal.

        Loading editor
    • @The Living Tribunal1: I'll look into it. Thanks for edit-adding a link.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message