FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:4288169
    17:40, April 28, 2020

    Continued from here as the previous thread has nearly 500 posts.

    There have been general debates on how we should be treating feats such as cooling and freezing. The main argument brought up is that freezing is the antonym of heating feats. Heating by definition is adding thermal energy to an object, where as freezing is extracting the same amount of energy. Our definition of AP mentions the energy being produced is what our definition of Attack Potency is rather then the destruction being done. However, the arguments for supporting them is that extracting energy is still Attack Potency because it's still harnessing the same amount of concentrated energy.

    Obviously, we have literally over 23,648 pages upon this thread's creation and hundreds of blog calculation in which at least hundreds of characters have their tiers depending on a calculation that involves the freezing of an object. And this especially includes nearly every single cloud formation feat using CAPE. While the vast number of our profiles isn't a reason to argue for or against the standard, the fact remains it's important to make sure each and every single one of them is justified. But how it gets justified is a different story.

    Anyway, I still stand on my agreement with a few other users including what Mr Bambu, DMUA, DontTalk, Xulrev, and Ugarik said that freezing feats are still attack potency feats. We gave in depth details about them being no different the heating feats excluding the fact that it's in reverse. Plus, for every object being cooled, there still at least one more object, or the rest of the atmosphere being heated. So counter intuitively, if heating feats are attack potency, then so are cooling feats. However, there is a problem that our Attack Potency page mentions it being required that "The character needs to produce there own energy". It probably could be reworded as saying they simply need to concentrate an X amount of energy.

    Other problems that did occur that heating and cooling feats shouldn't scale to striking strength and durability by default. Which is also a case be case scenario; we still do if the thermal energy or force operate on the same mechanics including but not limited to a specific verse related energy/power source being used for everything. But surviving a plasma rifle or freeze gun shouldn't always fully be a durability feat; between the concept of inverse square law and their body actually absorbing or releasing the thermal energy being some notable requirements for them to be durability feats. But it was also agreed that some things can have great temperature resistance but lacks true durability against blunt force trauma on the same tier; and vice versa.

    Note: This is a Staff thread and it's preferably Calc group members especially. However, regular users may ask me or other staff members via message walls for permission to comment. I have already given a few permission to share their thoughts.

    Note 2: On the matter of scaling heat attacks to force attacks when they share a power source. Read the Collapsed posts carefully to get a better understanding of the examples for a typical power scaling chain:

    Respect paragraph/Power scaling chain for a typical verse
    So this isn't any sort of real verse, but let's say I decided to make a fanfiction like verse that's RPG and/or Shounen Manga style. Or it has canon media containing both. It has a seemingly medieval fantasy like setting, but certain modern weapons exist such as explosives. But the most prominent thing is that it has a level up system like most RPGs and they also got have this thing where their power level is based on how much "Fighting Spirit" they have based on the lore. Fighting Spirit has a combination of spiritual and magical properties, but characters also used them to enhance physical strength, durability, and speed. They're also often used for magic barriers and stuff. But even non magic users still have great levels and often comparable levels to that of magic users. The games if any also have SP (Stands for Spirit Points) as an ammunition statistic for their special attacks. They're using used for status effecting hax, healing, and teleportation but those game mechanics shouldn't be used for scaling purposes. But now down to the feats and the respect scaling.

    The first feat done by level 1 characters is fighting various large monsters. One of the mooks has canonically withstood a point blank explosion with the durability feat calculated at slightly above 500 kg, since explosions are a combination of heat at force, so it's a solid tier feat. This is 8-C which would scale to fodder characters for sure.

    After the party progressed a bit in their journey, at least one of the mages learns an Ice Berg spell that was calculated at 8-B. The Ice Mage is equal in power to the Fire Mage, and both of them can regularly trade blows along side the party's sword wielding Warriors and Hand to Hand combat Monks regardless of whether physical or magical attacks are being used. So that's 8-B temperature manipulation and resistance, but whether it scales to physical durability is up to debate. And at this point, everyone completely fodderizes stomps the various 8-C mooks.

    With even further progressions, they part comes across a fire golem like enemy. This guy has a lava spell capable of melting giant rocks. Which was calculated at 8-A based on how much stone they were able to melt in a single second. The party was able to defeat this enemy and trade blows. So this enemy has 8-A heat manipulation, and the party would have to have 8-A levels of heat resistance to tank their precision fireballs that can also explode. The Fire Golem can also attack with melee. Also, the part is invulnerable to the 8-B and below foes at this point; both physical and magical/temperature attacks.

    With yet even more progressions, they meet a casual "Hill Buster". It's a giant that shatters a hill, which was calculated at around 15 Kilotons. This giant is invulnerable to everything that came before both physically and magically, until the protagonists grew strong enough to trade blows with this behemoth. So this giant is Town level and is overwhelmingly greater than everything they fought before them, this includes Multi-City Block level and below attacks heat, electric, melee, all having no effect.

    Upon further progression, a Thunder God is introduced. Thunder God performs a Low 7-B feat. Said Thunder God becomes a new formidable foe that's mightier than all previous enemies. It's a storm feat, typically pass as environmental destruction, but this god is an embodiment of the storm they create. The same Thunder God is also physically much stronger than the previous giant who would take 0 damage from the party that was even with said giant.

    A new foe has an attack that nukes the battle field. The nuclear explosion was calculated at 7-A which to protagonists can calculated at point blank range. Explosions are impressive heat and force wise, so this easily scales as a 7-A feat at this point in time. And no need to mention how much the protagonists have progressed.

    With even more progression, an Ice Mage was now able to freeze an entire lake. This was calculated at 6-C. The Fire Mage should logically be equally capable of unfreezing the same lake due to being equal to the Ice Mage. And the warrior is also still able to trade blows with the same strongest enemies and the same protagonists can trade blows with each other with each other. The 7-A nuke is nothing to any of them at this point in time.

    Even more progressions, and the Wind Mage was able to blow way massive amounts of clouds with a Hurricane. The kinetic energy was calculated at 6-B which the same Wind Mage can harness their same magic into a single attack to cut their enemies. Wind is physical, and thus would scale to physical durability. The Fire and Ice Mages can still trade blows with the Wind Mage and same with the Warrior.

    Reaching near the end of the series chronologically, the 12 Legendary Weapons where introduced, they are by lore implied to have equal power, but when it comes to individual feats, there are two that stand out. There is Durandel, the Blazing Sword of Fire, and Malte, the Frozen Lance of Blizzards. The wielders of said two weapons were able to affect the planet's atmosphere. A single strike from the Malte was able to cause an Ice age, similar to the level seen in this blog. And Durandel was able to cause Global warming and return the Earth to its original stage. Legendary Weapons all have mystic powers that also enhance the wielder, and only those with great power can wield them. As the weapons possess great powers that destroy the wielders if they're not strong enough to handle them. Upon growing much stronger than their 6-B selves, they can now use these weapons just fine.

    Finally, the God Tier enemy of the verse is capable of creating a pocket reality with an Earth to Sun distance. Said character can also invoke the star to go Supernova and warp the pocket reality, and has trapped the protagonists within. The Protagonists can not only trade blows with the Final Antagonist, but the only way out would be to destroy the final enemy and thus destroy the pocket reality. Supernovas are High 4-C which is impressive both heat and force wise. So this is a clear cut High 4-C feat. And that wraps up to power scaling chain progressions.

    Note: This does NOT include that gag Galaxy level feat that happened early on done by a underdog Jester character; that's an outlier. And it also excludes PIS such as a game mechanic of characters loosing health when the step in lava in the games, or fodder/mook enemies chip damaging the protagonists. It also excludes casual low end feats such as a Wind God who also has a 8-A calculated Tornado feat done on screen. But the protagonists were well past 7-C physically, and the Wind God was lore wise equal to the Low 7-B Thunder God who has his storm feat.

    Those who are the Yay's power scaling chain conclusions
    * Bottom Tiers characters are 8-C
    • Low Tier characters are 8-B
    • Mid-Low Tier characters are 8-A
    • Low-Mid Tier characters are 7-C
    • Mid Tier characters are Low 7-B
    • High-Mid Tier characters are 7-A
    • Mid-High Tier characters are 6-C
    • High tier characters are6-B
    • Top Tiers are High 6-A
    • God Tiers are High 4-C
    Those who are in Nay's power scaling chain's conclusions
    * Bottom Tiers characters are 8-C
    • Low Tier characters are at least 8-C physically with 8-B levels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • Mid-Low Tier characters are at least 8-C physically with 8-Alevels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • Low-Mid Tier characters are 7-C physically with at least 8-A levels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • Mid Tier characters are at least 7-C physically with Low 7-B levels of Tempurature manipulation/resistance
    • High-Mid Tier characters are 7-A
    • Mid-High Tier characters are at least 7-A physically with 6-C levels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • High tier characters are 6-B physically with at least 6-C levels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • Top Tiers are at least 6-B physically with High 6-A levels of Temperature manipulation/resistance
    • God Tiers are High 4-C

    Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Bambu, AKM, Dragon, Elizhaa, Matt, Spino, DMUA

    Nay: Dargoo, Andy, Kep, Wok, Damage, Anton, Ricsi, Zark (Though, appears the Nay applies to having them on the AP/Durability section in general).

      Loading editor
    • DMUA is also in agreement that it should be AP.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for helping out. I will add a link to this to our highlights thread.

      Edit: Sorry. It seems to have been handled already.

        Loading editor
    • Cooling something down requires a heating somewhere else. Just to make a very simple example, that’s why the back of a fridge is warm. You need energy to cool something down, but that very same energy creates even more heat somewhere else. This is just 2nd principle of thermodynamics.

      So cooling something down is no different than heating.

        Loading editor
    • Does cooling something down require heating somewhere else? I know that it requires increasing energy somewhere else since energy can't be created or destroyed, but couldn't the energy be put into chemical bonds or something?

      I would like to say that "Cooling is different from heating, because heating requires an output of energy which usually seemingly comes from the user, while cooling involves reducing energy, with any excess not having an obvious destination, if it goes into the user that's just absorption which isn't AP." but this doesn't fully respond to the argument you made. So I'm not sure where I stand on this right now.

        Loading editor
    • Exceptions are of course exceptions.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that durability should not be scaled to these kinds of feats by default.

        Loading editor
    • The God Of Procrastination wrote: Exceptions are of course exceptions.

      In fiction where things are cooled by magical beams of frost and freezing spells, and where entire planets are frozen with nowhere for the heat to go to, I don't think it's very accurate to assume every feat is the equivalent of a random household fan.

        Loading editor
    • Freezing is indeed different from Heating, one increase energy, the other "slow down" or nullify energy, Freeze something is decreasing the atoms movement from their previous state, heating is accelerating, if we go too much int detail, freezing/Heating involve Potential Energy and Kinetic energy to produce/decrease energy, it's called Internal energy (thermical transfer follow this logic too). Freezing and Heating are indeed different but I need to check what other people have said in the previous thread because i can't decide for now.

        Loading editor
    • IMHO in order for a heat feat to be accepted for scaling it also needs to have physical force behind it at the very least. Like a fire-blast that pushes back its opponents as if one was being punched.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: Does cooling something down require heating somewhere else? I know that it requires increasing energy somewhere else since energy can't be created or destroyed, but couldn't the energy be put into chemical bonds or something?

      Yes, when you cool something down you always create even more heat somewhere else. You need energy to cool things down anyway

      E9628FCE-2035-4083-9491-1314728FB016

      You need work to transfer heat from a colder object to a hotter one, and work always creates heat.

      If cooling things down didn’t require energy, fridges wouldn’t need electricity to work.

        Loading editor
    • Those examples seem specific to refrigerators and moving energy between reservoirs. Why can't you cool something down through a chemical reaction that takes energy?

      Refrigerators don't do this but it would require a constant supply of those chemicals, which is impractical for refrigerators.

        Loading editor
    • The law of conservation of energy clearly doesn't work in most fiction so I don't see any reason not to scale character's AP to the change of the internal energy they make.

      I mean laser dodging feats violate the very prisciple of theory of relativity yet we still calc it

        Loading editor
    • >Why can't you cool something down through a chemical reaction that takes energy?

      That's an exothermic reaction, and still kicks out the energy into another system. Consveration of Energy and Mass is a thing, and all that energy is forced into another system when forcibly cooled via chemical (or other) means. 

      There's no two ways about it, if you supercool something, you've forced all the thermal energy in that thing into the system immediately outside/next to the thing being cooled. 

      Basic thermodynamics, it still applies here as Bambu and myself pointed out at the very top of the previous thread here and here

      EDIT: Ugarik is still correct that the Conservation principle gets violated a LOT by fiction, but the basis of the theory here is still relevant regardless

        Loading editor
    • As far as reality goes, either the heat would need to be "moved" somewhere else, or be transformed into another type of energy.

      In-fiction, majority of the time the fact that cold is just atoms moving less isn't a thing, and freezing beams just work... because.



      Not sure how that would reflect to feats. In my opinion, if it uses some form of energy (like mana), then it could be assumed that the energy beam just releases energy to counteract energy. It breaks physics, but that is not exactly new.

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik wrote: The law of conservation of energy clearly doesn't work in most fiction so I don't see any reason not to scale character's AP to the change of the internal energy they make.

      I mean laser dodging feats violate the very prisciple of theory of relativity yet we still calc it

      I'm not particularly involved with this discussion, but regarding this comment here, I do have something to say that is likely quite important.

      The way that this wiki functions in regards to IRL physics for feats is quite inconsistent. We accept things like Newton's Laws for scaling between AP and Durability, but we also ignore things like the Conservation of Energy for feats.

      And don't get me wrong; I'm not at all saying that we should change this. It's for a good reason; the way that the conservation of energy works IRL is very different to how it is depicted in fiction, with fiction generally completely ignoring it.

      The reason I bring this up is because of how it pertains to this discussion. Freezing or cooling practically always causes heating somewhere else IRL. And if we assumed these feats were being done IRL, then they would 100% be usable. I think the question that should be asked here is whether fiction treats it the same way, or in other words, if fiction generally accepts the physics behind cooling.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa

      Chemical reactions resulting in a net loss of energy do not exist (using irl thermodynamics ofc, fiction can do whatever it wants if it's explained to have different physical laws or something).

      When you remove energy from an object, that energy has to go somewhere else, to give you an example, if you use ice to cool down a drink, the ice melts, doesn't it?

      That's because energy was equally distributed between the ice cube and the drink, making the latter colder but the former hotter.

        Loading editor
    • That's an exothermic reaction, and still kicks out the energy into another system. Consveration of Energy and Mass is a thing, and all that energy is forced into another system when forcibly cooled via chemical (or other) means.

      There's no two ways about it, if you supercool something, you've forced all the thermal energy in that thing into the system immediately outside/next to the thing being cooled.

      Why can't the system it kicks the energy into be the chemical bonds that are formed? Or are you saying that the energy does go into those chemical bonds, but reminding me that that's still energy increasing in an adjacent system?

      @Kaltias Chemical reactions resulting in a net loss of energy do not exist

      I know, I mentioned conservation of energy earlier in this thread. I'm just contesting the claim that cooling an object results in an INCREASE OF HEAT somewhere else, and I'm AGREEING THAT ENERGY INCREASES somewhere else, but doubting whether that has to be in the form of heat.

        Loading editor
    • Well, the main reason why it's an increase of heat somewhere else is due to entropy.

      If your thermodynamic system was 100% efficient there would be no overall increase of heat, but these don't exist, so part of the energy is always lost in the form of heat, contributing to entropy.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa

      >Or are you saying that the energy does go into those chemical bonds, but reminding me that that's still energy increasing in an adjacent system?

      This is the correct interpretation of your hypothetical posited, and what I would give as my answer; even if you're forcing the thermal energy into chemical bonds that draw the heat from the main body being cooled, that's still a forceful removal of said energy via a given, quantifiable process. 

      Simply put, regardless of the method of transfer of thermal energy, any body given temperature 100 Made-Up Units that is immediately and forcibly cooled to 0 Made-Up Units has objectively had 100 Made-Up Units' worth of thermal energy expelled from it in any size/shape/form, and therefore has had that level of thermal energy negated via some form of chemical/physical/esoteric process, and is quantifiable

        Loading editor
    • Fiction really doesn't take in account real world laws of the universe. Well unless its important to the plot (like Dr.stone)

        Loading editor
    • Or really noticeable at all times (I haven't seen a series without gravity).

        Loading editor
    • Plenty verses ignore how gravity should work l, really.

      Regardless, point is made. Fiction and physics go hand in hand like sled control and Sonic Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • >Kaltias

      >Talk about Entropy 

      Is this a Puella Magi reference?

        Loading editor
    • The Causality wrote: >Kaltias

      >Talk about Entropy 

      Is this a Puella Magi reference?

      Funnily enough, Kyubey absolutely sucks at explaining it.
        Loading editor
    • Yes, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only recycled. Freezing an entire planet might required heating up the surrounding space outside the planet, or heating up the character freezing the planet. And yes, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics does get violated a lot in fiction, but it would be even more weird to assume characters have the ability to delete energy; which would also technically be AP in a sense. But as I said, giving a character who can freeze a lake 6-C levels of Existence Erasure just because they can freeze a lake as opposed to just giving the character 6-C tier would be weird.

      But yes, characters who can telekinetically freeze or unfreeze the atmosphere wouldn't always scale to physical stats by default, unless there's some mechanical operations that treat physical stats and magic and/or energy manipulation interchangeably. And stuff like a fire breathing dragons and ice breathing dragons should inherently have their breath attacks scale to physical stats, since they literally breathe their thermal energy. And character like Monkey D Luffy literally heat up their own body to perform various attacks, that's also AP and durability. And characters who follow those above qualities and trade blows with other characters would also scale. But stuff like in various shooting games, plasma rifles and freeze guns don't always scale to durability; and may often be passed more as temperature resistance rather than durability.

        Loading editor
    • I think freezing feats should continue being listed as AP, even if it doesn't scale to other attacks or durability as easily anymore.

      The ability to create ice structures or freeze a given area is consistently used to display a character's strength, to the point I think it's necessary to have some way of measuring them and comparing their potency. Listing the energy change in attack potency is simply the easiest and most effective way of handling this so I don't see the problem with doing things this way

      What I feel is that too much focus is being put on technicalities and specific wording on things regarding this issue, without much legitimate harm that comes from considering ice feats AP. We are gauging strength of characters, and when a feat displays that and we can estimate it in terms of energy required to pull it off, I don't think we should be pedantic and refuse to classify it as AP. Just make it clear what kind of feat it is and have standards in place so that it isn't treated as homogenous with more conventional AP feats.

        Loading editor
    • Andy seems to make sense in his last post.

        Loading editor
    • To continue off of what Andy posted, I see no issue with slowly updating character profiles to have an "X Tier against Fire/Heat" durability, seeing as it's already done with profiles such as Enji Todoroki.

      I feel like much of the issues I described with Freezing and Heating feats is scaling them to blunt force attacks like Striking Strength, and ignoring how resistance to temperature change and material strength are two completely different things - I'm sad to see much of my discussion was reduced down to "Dargoo doesn't want to see heat feats being used" when the discussion evolved into talking points that can legitimately help our feat cataloging goals.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote: To continue off of what Andy posted, I see no issue with slowly updating character profiles to have an "X Tier against Fire/Heat" durability, seeing as it's already done with profiles such as Enji Todoroki.

      I feel like much of the issues I described with Freezing and Heating feats is scaling them to blunt force attacks like Striking Strength, and ignoring how resistance to temperature change and material strength are two completely different things - I'm sad to see much of my discussion was reduced down to "Dargoo doesn't want to see heat feats being used" when the discussion evolved into talking points that can legitimately help our feat cataloging goals.

      Would freezing calcs still scale to a character's other attacks if they come from the same energy source?

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa, they would if it's something like "Insert verse power source here".

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: @Agnaa, they would if it's something like "Insert verse power source here".

      Yes but I was asking Dargoo specifically because his original post on this had two parts:

      • Freezing calcs don't make sense because they remove energy.
      • Heat feats don't necessarily translate to normal AP and Durability since they're not force.

      In this thread he's still holding his second position, I'm wondering if he still holds the first. This isn't a question that anyone besides Dargoo can really answer. If he agrees that freezing calcs can scale to normal AP then that's conceding that freezing calcs do make sense and removing energy like that should be treated the same as outputting energy.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote: even if it doesn't scale to other attacks or durability as easily anymore.

      It shouldn't at all if we don't have any other reason to.

      Yes, it is true that when freezing an object the thermal energy goes somewhere else, and the amount of energy that is transferred is calcable. However, this energy transfer cannot scale to other stats. It would be environmental destruction at most. I think the most reasonable interpretation of these feats is that the removed thermal energy is dispersed into the environment and spread out so much that the effects are unnoticeable (inverse square law). For example, long after a nuke fireball dissipates (idk, say one week after hiroshima? timeframe doesn't really matter too much), the heat that you'd feel would be nowhere near the heat you'd feel if you were inside the fireball immediately after detonation. When energy is dissipated this much, it cannot be used for offensive purposes obviously.

      There is another interpretation, and it is much less reasonable than the one I gave. It is that the character absorbs all of the thermal energy. This is ridiculous because this is never even implied in fiction. Since when do freezing feats generally involve the character absorbing the thermal energy like a sponge? When elsa did her freezing feat, nothing at all indicated that all of the thermal energy went into her for example.

      Now you may say that if they use the same energy source, it can scale to other attacks. However, there is no reason to believe that there is any proportional relationship between energy used to do a freezing feat and energy extracted during a freezing feat. There are two types of freezing feats that I know of.

      One is directly extracting energy from the object through some sort of "energy telekinesis." This does not scale to AP. Please note that I am NOT saying that telekinesis is not scalable. "Energy telekinesis" (there is probably a better term for this) and object telekinesis are entirely different. One involves altering the path of where energy moves (which itself does not require energy because you can't use energy to directly alter the path of energy IRL, only indirectly, keep in mind that energy is ALWAYS moving on its own). The other involves moving objects. The definition of kinetic energy is literally "energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion."

      The other type of freezing is using a refrigerant (ex. a physical freeze beam made of some sort of material). I'll make my point for this in a bit.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, there are examples in which it would be assumed the character is absorbing the thermal energy; there do exist characters where just their mere presence causes the the environment to freeze. And yes, Frozen Elsa is an example of a glass cannon, but characters like Glacius and Sub-Zero do scale from their ice calculations since it's their own chi. Also, let's say someone created an ice sword that cannot be melted even upon absorbing energy greater than the GBE of Earth for instance, then I'm sure a character like that would still have a solid 5-B tier.

        Loading editor
    • Just because their presence causes the environment to freeze doesn't mean they're absorbing the energy. I'd say the exact opposite, which is that they repel the thermal energy and cause it to spread out to the point of it being unnoticeable (inverse square law) is much more reasonable.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:Also, let's say someone created an ice sword that cannot be melted even upon absorbing energy greater than the GBE of Earth for instance, then I'm sure a character like that would still have a solid 5-B tier

      I honestly don't get the point of this. Also, ap scales to durability, not the other way around. A skyscraper doesn't have building level AP for instance.

        Loading editor
    • Striking strength scale to durability via Newton's Third law, but that's not the point. Creating a magic barrier that can repel force can still be AP via magic; keep in mind that creating shields that repel force isn't that much different than choking people with those same magic cuffs. If two serious characters can trade blows with their own attacks, they scale.

      Passively repelling energy would still be passive AP. Side note, skyscrapers only have like Wall level durability but are just large building sized.

        Loading editor
    • Someone making ice from something that isn't part of their body (yes it shouldn't scale and need a sepret ap. Like Weiss Schnee ice dust) but If it comes from magic or "put verse power here" then yeah, as they are making it trough their own energy

        Loading editor
    • Spinoirr wrote:
      Someone making ice from something that isn't part of their body (yes it shouldn't scale and need a sepret ap. Like Weiss Schnee ice dust) but If it comes from magic or "put verse power here" then yeah, as they are making it trough their own energy

      Yeah but we can't just say that the amount of energy required is proportional to the energy moved in the freeze. For example, there is no strict proportional relationship between energy usage of a fridge and cooling ability of a fridge as some refrigerators are more efficient than others.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Creating a magic barrier that can repel force can still be AP via magic; keep in mind that creating shields that repel force isn't that much different than choking people with those same magic cuffs

      I don't get what this has to do with "energy telekinesis." Shields are made of some sort of material, "energy telekinesis" doesn't have anything directly to do with matter, just energy. Also could you elaborate on the choking thing? Shields don't constrict anything, but choking involves constricting.

      Agnaa wrote: In this thread he's still holding his second position, I'm wondering if he still holds the first. This isn't a question that anyone besides Dargoo can really answer. If he agrees that freezing calcs can scale to normal AP then that's conceding that freezing calcs do make sense and removing energy like that should be treated the same as outputting energy.

      I still hold the first position.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      • Freezing calcs don't make sense because they remove energy.

      In this thread he's still holding his second position, I'm wondering if he still holds the first. This isn't a question that anyone besides Dargoo can really answer. If he agrees that freezing calcs can scale to normal AP then that's conceding that freezing calcs do make sense and removing energy like that should be treated the same as outputting energy.

      So, I still technically hold the first opinion - under the caveat that we word AP to something that doesn't exclude freezing by definition.

      And I still think it should be counted differently under AP, as in "X via freezing/heat".

        Loading editor
    • Would, say, a 6-B with no feats related to tanking heat-based attacks still be able to tank a 6-C freezing/heat based attack?

      Are you fine with calcs of freezing energy scaling to other attacks if there's a shared energy source or something similar?

        Loading editor
    • "6-A, with 5-B thermal power"

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote:

      So, I still technically hold the first opinion - under the caveat that we word AP to something that doesn't exclude freezing by definition.

      How would we word it though? AP is worded in a way so that it logically scales to most or all of the character's attacks and durability.

        Loading editor
    • Weiss Schnee uses her aura to freeze targets, so it is combat applicable in her case. That's an example of aura behaving on what appears to be Anti-Thermal energy. And I meant characters like The Invisible Woman have the ability to use her own force-fields as an attack. It's also an extremely common ability for characters to make an energy barrier that's just as tough as their KI attacks.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Weiss Schnee uses her aura to freeze targets, so it is combat applicable in her case. That's an example of aura behaving on what appears to be Anti-Thermal energy.

      Appears to be. We can't just assume that all freezing feats make use of "Anti-Thermal energy." I don't really know much about rwby though.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      characters like The Invisible Woman have the ability to use her own force-fields as an attack. It's also an extremely common ability for characters to make an energy barrier that's just as tough as their KI attacks.

      How does she use the force fields to attacks? I don't know that much about marvel powerscaling and I prefer not to because imo it's really inconsistent. lee's video on marvel powerscaling is pretty based. Also, I don't get how characters making energy barriers comparable to their attacks has anything to do with proving that cooling feats require an input of an amount of energy equal to the amount of energy displaced. I think "ranged energy displacement" MIGHT be a better term than "energy telekinesis". It's weird too though.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Weiss Schnee uses her aura to freeze targets, so it is combat applicable in her case. That's an example of aura behaving on what appears to be Anti-Thermal energy. And I meant characters like The Invisible Woman have the ability to use her own force-fields as an attack. It's also an extremely common ability for characters to make an energy barrier that's just as tough as their KI attacks.

      And Naruto uses his chakra to cast jutsu.

        Loading editor
    • But her semblance is glyphs she makes and adds dust to them from her weapon to freeze things...

        Loading editor
    • I don't get what significance dust in rwby or chakra in naruto has in this discussion. Just because a source of power/energy/whatever is required to do the freezing feat, doesn't mean the required energy is proportional to the amount of thermal energy moved. For example, with a refrigerator, energy is obviously required to operate. However, there is no strict proportional relationship between the energy required to operate a fridge (if we only know that it is a fridge, not what kind it is) and the amount of thermal energy it displaces. Some fridges are more efficient than others.

      The second type of freezing is using a refrigerant (could be ice, liquid nitrogen, maybe some magical material) to absorb heat. This one is more grounded in reality. An example is putting ice in a drink to cool it down. This can't scale. Thermal energy always (automatically) moves from hot to cold. If you had a freeze beam made of liquid nitrogen or something, the only energy you'd need to provide is the energy that propels it.

        Loading editor
    • How would explain creating enough liquid nitrogen to cover an entire planet however? How one would argue that that's not an AP feat when such a thing is still a global flood? And all that thermal energy either being absorbed or dispersed in order create it all in the first place. There also is such a thing as Thermal Shock; when an excessive amount of heat and an excessive amount of cold collide, it can cause destructive force. Also, Kaltias already explained that it would still required a great deal of energy to stop atoms and molecules the same way freezing stuff would.

        Loading editor
    • I don't remember any feats that had someone cover the world with a refrigerant. Most of the second type of freezing feat are smaller in scale, like an ice beam. Also, the thermal energy displaced is already in the environment in the first place so the character doesn't need to create it. My house probably has a lot of thermal energy in it right now because it's obviously nowhere near absolute zero.

        Loading editor
    • Bending and displacing thermal energy with your own willpower is still an AP feat, and actually; there are a lot of feats of characters causing a global scale Ice Age. And firing an ice bolt from your body that freezes stuff is still AP; as is an Ice Dragon's breath.

        Loading editor
    • Are the staff members here closer to reaching a conclusion?

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Bending and displacing thermal energy with your own willpower is still an AP feat, and actually; there are a lot of feats of characters causing a global scale Ice Age. And firing an ice bolt from your body that freezes stuff is still AP; as is an Ice Dragon's breath.

      You're begging the question. You're using the claim that freezing is AP to prove that freezing is AP.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      Would, say, a 6-B with no feats related to tanking heat-based attacks still be able to tank a 6-C freezing/heat based attack?

      Are you fine with calcs of freezing energy scaling to other attacks if there's a shared energy source or something similar?

      I'd say no to that, if they have absolutely no heat feats. Although I'd be hard-pressed to find a 6-B with no heat resistance feats due to how feats on that scale would go off, there's probably a decent amount of just get in the tier due to scaling.

      It depends. If the verse treats something that should arguably take less energy as being more intensive with that resource then the power source isn't really internally consistent with how much energy it takes to perform feats and trying to scale it through energy source is a bit whacky. As for cases where the power source is consistent in this regard, it still really depends, I'd need a specific example to comment.

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo I believe I've had this discussion with you before, but I strongly believe that 6-Bs without explicit heat-based feats would have their "residual feats" far below their tier if they were calculated. And I think that response is currently generally disagreed with, so it's something the thread should talk about.

      Well, currently we always allow it, so if you think it should be more case-by-case than that, then that's something the thread should discuss.

      In case it's not clear, I don't have a strong stance on this, but I want to point out any points of contention so that we don't just talk past each other, assume we agree, and get nothing done - as the thread seemed to be going that way.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      that response is currently generally disagreed with, so it's something the thread should talk about.

      I mean, if someone would actually like to explain how to translate blunt force resistance to thermal change resistance I'm all ears. There's no correlation IRL, but perhaps someone has something I didn't look into.

      Agnaa wrote:
      Well, currently we always allow it, so if you think it should be more case-by-case than that, then that's something the thread should discuss.

      If the energy system of the verse is not consistent with how energy transfers and is calculated IRL, I'm not sure why we try to scale IRL energy values with an entirely different system of energy.

      I'd love to see opinions on the above point, personally. All I've seen thusfar is mostly with how we list the feats on pages, but the issues with scaling and how the feats are treated and used in VSes weren't discussed as much.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:

      Dargoo Faust wrote:

      So, I still technically hold the first opinion - under the caveat that we word AP to something that doesn't exclude freezing by definition.

      How would we word it though? AP is worded in a way so that it logically scales to most or all of the character's attacks and durability.

      Look above you.
        Loading editor
    • The God Of Procrastination wrote:

      Jaakubb wrote:


      Dargoo Faust wrote:

      So, I still technically hold the first opinion - under the caveat that we word AP to something that doesn't exclude freezing by definition.

      How would we word it though? AP is worded in a way so that it logically scales to most or all of the character's attacks and durability.
      Look above you.

      Oh, I thought he meant "word AP" as in changing the definition of Attack Potency entirely.

      Also, I agree with Agnaa. Characters with high durability almost always have lower resistance to heat. For example, small building level or building level characters being hurt by lava. I think it wouldn't be TOO unreasonable to assume that a tier 6 character could possibly get hurt by a nuclear fireball.

        Loading editor
    • There also exist a lot of vehicles and some characters whose heat resistance is greater than durability against blunt force trauma.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: There also exist a lot of vehicles and some characters whose heat resistance is greater than durability against blunt force trauma.

      True, although that's kinda irrelevant to the conversation at hand:

      • Me: Would you say a 6-B could be damaged by a 6-C heat-based attack?
      • Dargoo: Technically yes, but I think it'd be very difficult to find a 6-B without a 6-B heat durability feat.
      • Me: I don't think it would be very difficult.
      • Jaakkuub: I agree.
      • You: Yeah but sometimes characters have higher heat resistance than their normal durability.
        Loading editor
    • I think we should save this discussion for later though. We should stick with one topic at a time.

        Loading editor
    • I definitly feel that heat should be able to harm higher tiers, though I have no crazy science to back me up.

      An ability that biols the blood of an enemy should not stop working because the enemy is tier... 9? Pretty sure 100 degrees wouldn't be above 9-B, if even that.

        Loading editor
    • Heat affecting higher tiers will probably only come into play for characters who get stats purely on scaling, I imagine. That or bricks whose only feats consist of shattering something what is big.

      I also don't think it's something too strainful on our administrators to seperate out heat feats in AP/dura too (see MHA profiles, I linked above we already do this); it's something that'd be gradually implemented and would greatly help us in regards to cataloguing feats and organizing VSes.

        Loading editor
    • What about freezing feats though

        Loading editor
    • Basically the same, although we should probably change our wording of AP to support it first. Also scaling freezing to blunt force durability is far more difficult than heating, too.

        Loading editor
    • Same as what? I think freezing feats and heat feats are way different. Heat feats are at least somewhat applicable to AP, but not freezing.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:
      Same as what? I think freezing feats and heat feats are way different. Heat feats are at least somewhat applicable to AP, but not freezing.

      IRL freezing and heating are the same thing, it's more a matter of what's losing heat and what's gaining heat.

      Obviously fiction doesn't follow this a lot of the time, as when someone insta-freezes a large block of air the water/air around it doesn't heat to boiling temperatures, which produces a lot of the issues here.

      And I agree and disagree - freezing doesn't apply to AP as we currently define it, and it doesn't apply to AP in the conventional sense as it's kind of a different metric for attacking an enemy. Which is why I'm asking to seperate heat-based AP and non-heat based AP for characters where that would apply. They'd be functionally sperate, but listed under AP.

      I'd personally have them listed under a new stat entirely - but I'm unsure how we'd apply that without overhauling our system entirely, which I'd like to avoid if possible.

        Loading editor
    • Would say that scaling freezing to blunt force is impossible, stuff do not decrease it temperature by punching, is physically impossible.

        Loading editor
    • How would AP be reworded so that freezing feats are fine? I'd rather just discard freezing feats and count freezing as a sort of "energy displacement" power, would be hax since durability can't counter energy being sucked from you. I don't know.

        Loading editor
    • The proper way to define AP based in altering energy values would be "the capability to produce change or alter the elements of a system", wouldn't be damage cuz energy do not necessary means that.

        Loading editor
    • The AP definition should be changed to mention displacing energy or the ability to concentrate or harness energy rather than simply saying produce energy. Ice Manipulation is still harnessing or concentrating energy and would thus be AP. It's the same as heating objects but in reverse; kind of like rising vs falling or moving forward vs moving backwards. Also, forgot to mention that some characters have the ability to undo their own freezes back to just normal temperatures; that's technically heating. So we should still treat cooling and heating feats equally based on what Kaltias, Xulrev, and Bambu said.

      But to Agnaa's it was still part of the discussion. The OP was listing two things; the cooling Vs heating was one, and applying it to durability is the other. Me mentioning that some characters have more heat resistance than they do durability on top of you guys talking about characters having less heat resistance than blunt force durability was actually part of the exact same topic. Though, as Ugarik said, if the change temperature attakcs and physical strikes all operate on the same mechanics such as "Everything comes Chakra, or Ki, or the force, or psynergy, ect" type of scenarios, then we could equalize it all.

      Basically my two cents based on the general agreements on those who seem reasonable.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      Though, as Ugarik said, if the change temperature attakcs and physical strikes all operate on the same mechanics such as "Everything comes Chakra, or Ki, or the force, or psynergy, ect" type of scenarios, then we could equalize it all.

      So, I commented on this and never had a response, so I'll try starting a debate with this, then.

      Dargoo Faust wrote: If the energy system of the verse is not consistent with how energy transfers and is calculated IRL, I'm not sure why we try to scale IRL energy values with an entirely different system of energy.

      I'd love to see opinions on the above point, personally. All I've seen thusfar is mostly with how we list the feats on pages, but the issues with scaling and how the feats are treated and used in VSes weren't discussed as much.

      IMO equalizing everything when it has the same source has issues when the source itself isn't consistent with how we value energy IRL.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Dargoo here, in all honesty.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      The AP definition should be changed to mention displacing energy or the ability to concentrate or harness energy rather than simply saying produce energy. Ice Manipulation is still harnessing or concentrating energy and would thus be AP. It's the same as heating objects but in reverse; kind of like rising vs falling or moving forward vs moving backwards. Also, forgot to mention that some characters have the ability to undo their own freezes back to just normal temperatures; that's technically heating. So we should still treat cooling and heating feats equally based on what Kaltias, Xulrev, and Bambu said.

      An important thing is that AP automatically scales to the character's other attacks and durability. It can't do either because freezing attacks:

      Use energy that already exists in the environment that does not need to be produced by the character

      Newton's Third Law does not apply since nothing comes in contact with the character. That's the entire point of telekinesis in general. There is no energy produced inside the body to be tanked either.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • "An important thing is that AP automatically scales to the character's other attacks and durability. It can't do either because freezing attacks"

      It absolutely doesn't. AP only automatically scales to durability when it's a physical attack and can vary between different attacks of the same character.

      "Use energy that already exists in the environment that does not need to be produced by the character"

      In most circumstances, freezing feats will still be a mark of the character's own power, and have a limit depending on the specific individual. That's why it's important to mention the energy value involved in performing them which should be listed in the AP and tier section,because those are meant to illustrate how strong a character is. Even stuff like environmental destruction and reality warping are listed in AP and tier despite not scaling and often not scaling to other stats respectively, and that's because they are still relevant to the character's strength and worth noting

      "Newton's Third Law does not apply since nothing comes in contact with the character. That's the entire point of telekinesis in general. There is no energy produced inside the body to be tanked either."

      If you're arguing against freezing being AP then this point doesn't work in your favour. Telekinesis is something we treat as AP, and so we wouldn't discredit freezing for working in a similar way.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      "An important thing is that AP automatically scales to the character's other attacks and durability. It can't do either because freezing attacks"

      It absolutely doesn't. AP only automatically scales to durability when it's a physical attack and can vary between different attacks of the same character.

      Really? That's good then as long as we don't scale one attack to the energy transferred.

      Andytrenom wrote:
      In most circumstances, freezing feats will still be a mark of the character's own power, and have a limit depending on the specific individual. That's why it's important to mention the energy value involved in performing them which should be listed in the AP and tier section,because those are meant to illustrate how strong a character is. Even stuff like environmental destruction and reality warping are listed in AP and tier despite not scaling and often not scaling to other stats respectively, and that's because they are still relevant to the character's strength and worth noting.

      Why does it matter if it's a "mark of the character's own power"? Don't we just mostly discard intent on the author's part? Could you give me an example of someone who has reality warping listed on AP? I thought we scaled reality warping etc. to dura and other attacks. If we don't that's a good thing.

      Andytrenom wrote:
      "Newton's Third Law does not apply since nothing comes in contact with the character. That's the entire point of telekinesis in general. There is no energy produced inside the body to be tanked either." If you're arguing against freezing being AP then this point doesn't work in your favour. Telekinesis is something we treat as AP, and so we wouldn't discredit freezing for working in a similar way.

      I know. I was just making sure that DDM wouldn't bring up newton's third law to try to scale freezing to dura. Also, I did mention earlier that "energy telekinesis" for the lack of a better term is different from "matter telekinesis."

      Jaakubb wrote:
      "Energy telekinesis" (there is probably a better term for this) and object telekinesis are entirely different. One involves altering the path of where energy moves (which itself does not require energy because you can't use energy to directly alter the path of energy IRL, only indirectly, keep in mind that energy is ALWAYS moving on its own). The other involves moving objects. The definition of kinetic energy is literally "energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion."
        Loading editor
    • "Why does it matter if it's a "mark of the character's own power"? Don't we just mostly discard intent on the author's part?"

      First of all, I think discarding author intent as a general rule is dumb, what the writer of a story was trying to get across is obviously going to be important to what's happening in the story, it's just that sometimes events in-universe contradict the author's word or he is unaware of all the implications of what he's written, in which case we would give priority to what's happening in the story rather than what the author says or we think he intends

      Secondly, Freezing feats being the character's power is mostly made clear within the narrative itself, not via a detached word of god or by us guessing author intent without any in-universe evidence; there's literally no reason why the author intent argument would even apply here without it being misused


      "Could you give me an example of someone who has reality warping listed on AP? I thought we scaled reality warping etc. to dura and other attacks. If we don't that's a good thing."

      Gingka Hagane (Beyblade)

      Reality warping does not scale to other attacks and certainly not to dura by default, in some cases it probably does but that's not the general standard

        Loading editor
    • A very clear example is Evangeline from Mahou Sensei Negima. She's a very accomplished and extremely powerful Darkness and Ice Vampire mage from the series. How is Evangeline's power shown? By making constructs of massive ice easily and her spells being able to match the spells of other powerful characters or outright just hurt them. There are also different levels of spells, which goes also for ice, which denotes power. One of the biggest shows of her power to scare an army in the flashback of the sequel series is literally creating a massive iceberg of ice as big as a small island and visibly enormous from even 10 kms away. The implication is obvious, she's showing off how big of a deal she is so the army stops annoying her and agrees to a non aggression pact. Unless you were trying to be deliberately contrarian, I don't know how you couldn't tell the authorial intent here is obviously a demonstration of power, and obviously Negima ain't the only one that does this.

      Whenever the power is not of an AP variant, such as Ensis Exsequens, which is deadly due to forcibly transitioning all matter it clashes with from solid to to gas, it is made pretty clear.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb
      Jaakubb removed this reply because:
      dumb argument
      21:20, December 31, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • That is an impressively aimless and nonsensical comparison. 

      You are comparing something done in an instant by a single person to something done over time by a combined effort. This doesn't work on the surface or deeper level, and I am doubting you are even engaging what I am saying.

      A show of power is meant to be about how much damage the character can deal out, because... it is a show of combative or destructive power. Did you just really say something that lacking in any logical sense?

        Loading editor
    • Nvm that was a dumb argument. Making an iceberg is just a creation argument anyways, right?

        Loading editor
    • Just creating something maybe, taking out the energy to make the ice not so much.

      I already said this, if the implication of the ice or the fire shit or whatever is as a showcase of power or something determined by power, it should totally be usable. And if the source is a general source that fuels other things like physical abilities, there's no reason I can find not to scale it to them (if proper scaling happens of course).

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine with using it as a showcase of power. Feature it in a respect thread or something. Just don't pretend that the feat automatically means the character is capable of producing energy comparable to the energy moved out of the ice. That's all I'm arguing for. There's lots of impressive things a character can do that have little to no effect on AP.

      Also could we try putting non combat applicable AP ratings in red? Like this or something

      8-C environmental destruction
        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      First of all, I think discarding author intent as a general rule is dumb, what the writer of a story was trying to get across is obviously going to be important to what's happening in the story, it's just that sometimes events in-universe contradict the author's word or he is unaware of all the implications of what he's written, in which case we would give priority to what's happening in the story rather than what the author says or we think he intends

      So let me get this clear that Freezing feats can be quantified and catalogued to start.

      But to comment on this personally, I think we sort of dropped the privilege of making that argument the moment we made our standard for quantifying character feats fan-based-calculations, which operate on real life principles. It's rather hypocritical to say 'well, authorial intent can be thrown aside so we can do our calcs' but then add on 'but we can't ignore it when the same science we use to do our calcs debunks them'. Obviously our extrapolations of an author's work are liable to be critiqued in ways that the author's work can't.

      Andytrenom wrote:
      Secondly, Freezing feats being the character's power is mostly made clear within the narrative itself

      "Freezing being the character's power" is not a mutually exclusive claim from "freezing is different and should be classified as different than punching something".


      I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote: Also could we try putting non combat applicable AP ratings in red? Like this or something

      8-C environmental destruction

      That doesn't work in profiles, coloured text takes its own line and I don't think there's a way around that.

      For example: 10-B physically,
      8-C environmental destruction
      , 7-A with Super Duper Saiyan
        Loading editor
    • Oh yeah, just use span instead of div.
      Bruh, bruh

      Dargoo Faust wrote:
      I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles.

      Yeah, now that andy brought up that AP doesn't automatically scale to any other stats, I've changed my mind. I agree that it should be listed separately. We could use color to make sure that it's clear which AP stats aren't combat applicable. Maybe dark red instead of the red I used. darkred

        Loading editor
    • I don't think coloring the text is a good idea; that's kind of extra effort and messy to type in source mode editor.

        Loading editor
    • "It's rather hypocritical to say 'well, authorial intent can be thrown aside so we can do our calcs' but then add on 'but we can't ignore it when the same science we use to do our calcs debunks them'. Obviously our extrapolations of an author's work are liable to be critiqued in ways that the author's work can't"

      I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion "author intent can't be ignored even if debunked by science" from my argument. My issue was playing the author intent card where it doesn't apply, such as discarding ice feat's correlation to power even though that's usually implied within the narrative and not via baseless word of god statements or the author having contradictory views on the character's power which is what we ignore

      As for debunking author intent, I don't see where that comes from either, freezing not being an output of energy in real life does not contradict the fact that a character's ability to freeze things is often tied to their level of power in their fictional setting, not really seeing how your argument applies to anything I actually said

      "I know this was a response to Jaakub, who thinks that they shouldn't be listed under AP at all, but I'd like to point out again, that despite my many attempts to bring this up, I haven't seen any discussion on quantifying them and listing them separately on AP and durability, alongside other heat-based attacks, something we already do on numerous profiles"

      If I hadn't made it clear before then alright, I'm perfectly fine with listing temperature feats as a separate form of AP and durability to other feats. The only thing I'm arguing is related to format, where such feats will be listed, and my answer is where all the other feats depicting the power of characters are listed: the AP and tier sections

        Loading editor
    • But freezing feats will not be able to be used as supporting feats, or anything that affects other stats of a character, right? I'm not quite sure about this argument so I'll probably be wrong, but I'll make it anyways (devils advocate i guess). Freezing feats "often being tied to [a character's] level of power" and "usually implied within the narrative of too arbitrary

      Also coloring text is easy, I don't know what you're talking about.

        Loading editor
    • I personally believe that the freezing power being bound to a source of energy do not change much, see the example of someone that can freely freeze 10 m radius innately with someone that does the same but tied to a limited supply of certain energy. Would say the last one is "weaker" in the sense that is going to run out of fuel eventually, meanwhile the other one limitation is simply being conventional tiring (assuming it draws stamina), but with our current system the last one is steongest cuz it actually use some kind of supply.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, rate of cooling is important.

        Loading editor
    • > or anything that affects other stats of a character, right?

      Honestly I can't think of any scenario where we take a freezing/heating feat and apply it to blunt durability or punching strength, or other forms of damage like electricity.

      The arguments for it ever doing that falls loosely into these two camps:

      • Their punching/striking shares a power force with the heating and freezing, therefore it should scale.
        • This firstly assumes that the power source (Ki, Chakara, Magic, Whatever) functions identically in energy values and properties to energy in real life. While some verses might make a point out of this (a lot of hard-magic verses go in-depth about energy exchange in magic), far more often the in-verse 'energy' contradicts RL energy in a way that makes equating the two a false equivalence.
        • Even if the power source functions identically to RL energy, even in RL heat and force aren't really equatable, this is a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics.
        • Considering these both, if the energy source isn't realistic than it can't realistically translate, and if it is realistic then it still can't realistically translate.
      • The verse treats heating and striking as the same type of damage.
        • The only examples that I can think of where this happens is Video Games, where fire and striking both drain the enemy's health pool with little differences. Although this is clearly an example of Game Mechanics (obviously game developers won't spend 90% of their resources differentiating how heat and blunt force damage their enemies), some games do add in little details in stuff like executions to differentiate them.
        Loading editor
    • To be fair, most Health Bars refer to endurance, Durability is generally DEF (but it can also be dodging, blocking and/or parrying, depends of how the verse treat it), and thus generally translate to "amount of damage before fainting or dying".

        Loading editor
    • > and thus generally translate to "amount of damage before fainting or dying".

      Problem is, because it's a game, it often doesn't differentiate between different kinds of damage in regards to this. Which is why I pointed out how it's more game mechanics. My point applies if it's health or DEF we're talking about, really.

        Loading editor
    • Welp, I wouldn't suggest to use such a simplistic mechanic in order prove that heat = blunt damage, as you suggested; but there's a bunch of other mechanics that separate different types of damage and defensive statistics. Tabletop games for example explicitaly (at least the ones here) separate the different types of damage.

        Loading editor
    • So I suppose we agree on this, then?

        Loading editor
    • Yeah sure, guess stuff like this is would be no longer applicable, am I right?

        Loading editor
    • Yeah.

        Loading editor
    • Not everything is entirely game mechanics; there's just Power Levels in general for a lot of verses. As DonTalk said, many verses simplify power scaling in which character A > character B in every way or consistently grow stronger than they were yesterday and all that. Also, some characters have literally growing stronger also makes them faster and all there elemental techniques are increased.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Not everything is entirely game mechanics

      Never made that claim. I'm calling an extremely specific argument game mechanics.

      there's just Power Levels in general for a lot of verses.

      Not sure what 'power levels' is describing here, and how it ties into equating the thermodynamic equivalent of apples and oranges. Some examples would be helpful.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote:

      Honestly I can't think of any scenario where we take a freezing/heating feat and apply it to blunt durability or punching strength, or other forms of damage like electricity.

      Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:

      Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

      Aren't some storm calcs done by KE? iirc they also have really really close values.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like we're far too generous with applying storm calcs to (combat applicable) AP, personally.

        Loading editor
    • We're too generous in general, in ancient times we at least didn't scale any kind of power to combat applicable AP, or scale travel speed to reaction speed for example; people sometimes forget that we have the Unknown rating, one rather put that instead of assuming stuff.

        Loading editor
    • We scale random rubble to AP because they supposedly moved at mach speeds and thus hold a specific amount of KE while ignoring that the same amount of KE would vaporize normal rubble, so stuff like storm calcs aren't the only things we are too leniant with.

        Loading editor
    • I disagree, I think we're far too knit picky with stuff that are clearly their own attack potency that the feat is clearly related to their own power. Yes, there are plenty of glass canon shaman like characters, but a lot of "Mystic Knight" type RPG characters easily have storm feats combat applicable.

      Anyway, someone should probably inform someone like DontTalk or Mr Bambu

        Loading editor
    • Maybe, but acting like moving water vapor at mach and making a storm with it out of nowhere is just cherry picking the physics we'd like to apply for a feat.

      But in this ckntext, the only reason Freezing would scale to normal AP would be the intent of having the freezing be a showcase of power, like Aokiji freezing the see like it's nothing. But then taking that part of author intent and extrapolating it to "the power released by their attacks is equal to the amount of atom movement they negated" is way to bug a jump for me.


      But not like there is a correct way to rate all fictional characters correctly.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty much every cloud creation feat using cooling as the method, and I can think of a lot of character who are scaled via creating Ice Bergs out of thin air.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, how does that matter to what I said?

      I'm saying I disagree with how things are done. Saying they are done that way isn't changing that.

        Loading editor
    • Is not really a bug jump.

      This is one area where I very much feel unreasonable nit picking is bringing up shit. We can only go so far with not being able to take some sort of assumption, no matter how simple, before we are rejecting things that I don't see couldn't be taken as completely legitimate.

      It just comes to a point where it feels genuinely just close minded and inflexible.

        Loading editor
    • You can't, in any way, convince me that a tenth of our characters with heat feats were actually meant to be manipulating the vibration of atoms by author standards, especially for storm feats or the like.

      With author intent being the main reason such a thing would actually scale, it's a rather weak argument for me. Especially since we are using physics that give us numbers we want but we are ignoring other physics that would make this impossible. It's literal cherry picking to justify the feat.

        Loading editor
    • You are entirely free to tell me how else would we get something out of those feats then,

      Isn't that what we do already for a majority of cases to fit things the best we can to the unreasonability of fiction without bending things too much? Not stacking calcs, no KE without good reason with how liberally authors forget it, etc.

      Because the way this is sounding is just leaving any ice feats in complete non existence because no method that would satisfy you exists.

        Loading editor
    • LSirLancelotDuLacl
      LSirLancelotDuLacl removed this reply because:
      Triple posting, jesus, I hate this internet
      19:04, January 5, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • LSirLancelotDuLacl
      LSirLancelotDuLacl removed this reply because:
      .
      19:03, January 5, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • You can't use science where it's inapplicable man. As said above, unknown is a thing. You might dislike freezing stuff not being able to give you a hard number in joules, but that neither makes me wrong nor you right.

      You might notice those two are not using physics due to in-universe contradiction. No calc Stacking because it gives inflated results, no KE without proper reason because fiction doesn't always treat speed=kinetic energy, and heat would fit that just as well. We don't equate creation to energy to mass conversion due to lack of byproducts that should exist.

      Really, the same type of rule would even work well. "Don't use these feats unless the verse makes it clear it works as the calc would assume".

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Anyway, someone should probably inform someone like DontTalk or Mr Bambu

      I've asked them.

        Loading editor
    • Bambu has already commented on the topic and, iirc, mentioned that he didn't want to discuss it further, although since I've abandoned trying to remove freezing/heat from AP/Durability entirely hopefully he's more amicible to comment again.

        Loading editor
    • Which pages would need to be updated with explanations of the agreed upon new standards?

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa already gave me a short summary of what is suggested, but can someone give me a precise in-depth formulation of exactly what changes are suggested at this point?

      Not really too eager to get into this, but I probably should take a look now.

      Agnaa wrote:

      Jaakubb wrote:

      Oh yeah, I forgot about storms. Storms are caused by cooling, and storm calcs scale to ap and stuff, like in dark souls.

      Aren't some storm calcs done by KE? iirc they also have really really close values.

      Storms are giant heat engines. Technically heat and KE are more or less the same thing for them, just that the way the approximation works is different.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote: I feel like we're far too generous with applying storm calcs to (combat applicable) AP, personally.

      I agree.

      Our cloud formula in general needs to be dealt with, which I'll hopefully do once I get enough time to.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Which pages would need to be updated with explanations of the agreed upon new standards?

      I think that going through individual pages would be too unweildy. We should instead look through calcs of heat feats, look into how they're applied in the verse it's from on here, then, if the heat is used to scale to physical strength/durability statistics, it should be listed as "X level physically, Y level against heat-based attacks."

      We could go through a similar process for storm calculations, with the difference being that under AP it would be "X level, with Y level Environmental Destruction".

      @DontTalk

      Essentially we've ruled out various justifications for scaling heat-based feats to physical durability and striking strength, and we've ruled out doing it by default. See above for my suggestion in regards to practically applying this.

      Additionally, we've also determined that characters cannot resist heat-based attacks purely based on physical force resistance feats, although within a degree of common sense (I don't think we'll see anyone arguing a 5-B with no heat resistance feats dies to a house fire, but something like a 9-B/9-A with no such feats wouldn't be capable of surviving 9-B to 9-A levels of heat-based attacks). Additionally, characters with high heat resistance feats cannot resist physical attacks purely based on their heat resistance feats.

      I'll emphasize that heat-based feats will still be listed under attack potency and durability, I wrote out an example of how this would be worded above. 

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo I think Ant was also asking what regulation pages need to have their explanations updated. As I'm certain that something somewhere will need to be rewritten to implement this.

        Loading editor
    • So just kinda skimming through as someone who kinda goes with the flow on all this calculation and science stuff...

      If there is a character who uses say, a fireball or something like that and their attack vaporizes a lake or something, would this be outlawed with the new standards or is this in a safe zone?

        Loading editor
    • What is a heat based feat?

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmasterxyz wrote: So just kinda skimming through as someone who kinda goes with the flow on all this calculation and science stuff...

      If there is a character who uses say, a fireball or something like that and their attack vaporizes a lake or something, would this be outlawed with the new standards or is this in a safe zone?

      It would be allowed but would be listed alongside force-based AP (from things like punches, explosions, energy blasts, bullets, etc.)

      @DT I think it's feats that involve the increase or decrease of temperature to get their result? But you could wait for a bigger supporter to give a better definition.

        Loading editor
    • I believe those that only way they cause damage are by elevated temperatures, be magma or combustions.

        Loading editor
    • So, say a magician creates a dark-attribute beam attack that on one occassion vaporizes a bunch of rock, together with the explosion it usually causes.

      If a character tanks that, does it get normal durability or heat durability? Both? Neither?

        Loading editor
    • What about characters who are physically human but have both force-based and heat-based magical attacks? Would the force-based and heat-based ones be listed separately on the profile as well?

        Loading editor
    • I would say that explosions counts as our conventional definition of durability, it involve both overpressure and heat, but if someone resist x amount of degrees it may reduce the damage tanked by the explosion. In the other hand, explosions damage do not comes exactly a blunt force, it comes a pressure different, in fact, the 20 psi value is not due shattering people bones and flesh, is by causing barotrauma.

        Loading editor
    • @Anton Then they'd be Unknown physically, 8-B with heat attacks, like Enji Todoroki.

      @DontTalk Good counterexample, idk how people would want to treat that.

      @Spino Yes.

        Loading editor
    • Do we still scale supernatural temperature work to other applications of said supernatural power?

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk Dargoo thinks that we shouldn't. Here's a recent post of his on that issue.

      Dargoo Faust wrote: > or anything that affects other stats of a character, right?

      Honestly I can't think of any scenario where we take a freezing/heating feat and apply it to blunt durability or punching strength, or other forms of damage like electricity.

      The arguments for it ever doing that falls loosely into these two camps:

      • Their punching/striking shares a power force with the heating and freezing, therefore it should scale.
        • This firstly assumes that the power source (Ki, Chakara, Magic, Whatever) functions identically in energy values and properties to energy in real life. While some verses might make a point out of this (a lot of hard-magic verses go in-depth about energy exchange in magic), far more often the in-verse 'energy' contradicts RL energy in a way that makes equating the two a false equivalence.
        • Even if the power source functions identically to RL energy, even in RL heat and force aren't really equatable, this is a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics.
        • Considering these both, if the energy source isn't realistic than it can't realistically translate, and if it is realistic then it still can't realistically translate.
      • The verse treats heating and striking as the same type of damage.
        • The only examples that I can think of where this happens is Video Games, where fire and striking both drain the enemy's health pool with little differences. Although this is clearly an example of Game Mechanics (obviously game developers won't spend 90% of their resources differentiating how heat and blunt force damage their enemies), some games do add in little details in stuff like executions to differentiate them.
        Loading editor
    • That do you mean with supernatural temperatures? something like Hellfire?

        Loading editor
    • If the same feat has both force-based and heat-based power in it, do we have to calculate how much force and how much heat was in the attack respectively?

        Loading editor
    • Ok, I heavily disagree with not scaling techniques to each other.

      That goes into the direction of expecting Ap feats for every separate application of a supernatural power and is poison to both debating and indexing.

      If the verse makes a point that they are different than ok, but otherwise all applications using the same amount of supernatural power should be roughly in the same ballpark. Otherwise we just end up with characters having dozens of tiers (one for each technique) and bunch of unknowns.



      Striking Strength vs Heat is a different issue, but for one spell to another spell default assumption should be that amount of supernatural power invested is proportional to power output of the attack.

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo

      I meant which official standards/instruction pages that need to be updated.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk seems to make sense as usual in any case.

        Loading editor
    • We used to scale different types of attacks in the past, characters able to perform attacks that can potentially oneshot its enemies when they were unable to do so before is pretty common. Not real issue to scale one spell to another, but I would suggest to do so if they have the same nature (electric, explosive, heat, etc. kind of damage).

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT wrote:
      So, say a magician creates a dark-attribute beam attack that on one occassion vaporizes a bunch of rock, together with the explosion it usually causes.

      If a character tanks that, does it get normal durability or heat durability? Both? Neither?

      Both. Explosions are an example of a heat-based attack that's also a force-based attack, considering the heat of the reaction (the fireball) and the shockwave.

      So you'd have the heat of it vaporizing the rocks, and the force generated by the explosion it causes thereafter, which, given the simplicity of the example you're giving, can both be pretty easily calc'ed.

      Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote: If the same feat has both force-based and heat-based power in it, do we have to calculate how much force and how much heat was in the attack respectively?

      Depends on the feat. Ideally we'd calculate force over area for force, but for our system, since it's based on joules, explosive yield should work find as a combined force/heat attack.

      DontTalkDT wrote:

      Ok, I heavily disagree with not scaling techniques to each other.

      I never said that. My issue is with scaling force-based techniques to heat-based techniques. There's a lot less issue with scaling heat-based attacks to heat-based attacks than there is that.

      That goes into the direction of expecting Ap feats for every separate application of a supernatural power and is poison to both debating and indexing.

      I'd prefer if you explained why and how it applies to what I'm proposing. I can't really meaningfully respond to this otherwise. Although if your claim is (I doubt it is, but I'm not really getting much else from you) that we shouldn't catalog separate kinds of feats separately as a rule of thumb, that's something we already do even in the way I'm specifically talking about on our site.

      So this comes off more as 'differentiating kinds of feats is poison to debating, but our differentiation of feats isn't', which is confusing to say the least. Again though I felt like you didn't really explain yourself here so I could be totally wrong about your point, feel free to expand on it.

      Otherwise we just end up with characters having dozens of tiers (one for each technique) and bunch of unknowns.

      This seems to be a gross exaggeration of what I'm proposing and is based on a misunderstanding of my arguments from above. I'm not saying we cannot scale techniques. I am saying we cannot scale force-based techniques to heat-based techniques.

      If you understood what I was saying from the beginning, then I feel like this is a bit of a slippery slope. Differentiating heat and force wouldn't apply to even a quarter of our current pool of profiles, and likely wouldn't even effect characters who have hybrid heat/force feats. And said characters wouldn't get 'a dozen' seperate listings, I doubt we'd see more than a hundered or so with over two.

        Loading editor
    • You're saying that we cannot scale force-based techniques to heat-based techniques even if they share the same power system, but just to be crystal clear, do you think that we also cannot scale heat-based techniques to forced-based techniques?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, vice versa as well.

        Loading editor
    • So for explosions, the explosion yield can be used for both force and heat AP, or do we have to separately calculate force and heat?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with DonTalk 100%

        Loading editor
    • Causing storms can't automatically (maybe sometimes of course, but don't make the smooth brained argument that the exception disproves the rule [I normally hate this phrase because theres no correct interpretation of it but I dont know any better ones]) scale to AP because it's a chain reaction. You just cool a mass of air, and then due to the nature of air it moves a lot. The storm's kinetic energy is non combat applicable for obvious reasons (a normal storm wont kill a character with city block level dura) and cant scale to other states because it requires no quantifiable energy output as the catalyst of the storm is a cooling feat (theres no reason to believe that the energy output needed to perform a freezing feat is proportional to the energy displaced).

      And the default assumption is NOT that the supernatural input equals the energy output. It OFTEN is but not always (take chain reactions for example. If I use the force to push a boulder off a cliff that's already there, is the required input proportional to the kinetic energy of the falling boulder? Of course not). The supernatural input equals the normal input, not output is the default.

      Can we deal with one heat based attacks "subtopic" at a time? Whenever we bring up something we move on to something else and forget about it. This shouldn't go around in circles any more than it already is.

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
      So for explosions, the explosion yield can be used for both force and heat AP, or do we have to separately calculate force and heat?

      Ideally you'd calculate both seperately, although I'm not personally sure how you'd go about calculating the force in a way that translates to our joules-based system.

        Loading editor
    • Force can translate to energy if there's movement to go with it. But not otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • So what should we do with explosion calcs if we can't calculate both separately?

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote: So what should we do with explosion calcs if we can't calculate both separately?

      I think the first step should looking into a way to calculate both, if this revision is going to be accepted, rather than worrying about what to do in the event that's impossible.

        Loading editor
    • Our current formula is based mostly on force; especially for omnidirectional ones and nuclear explosions. The Gas explosions have no where near as much force as they look, and the actual heat is more Wall level at best unless the character is like much larger than human sized.

        Loading editor
    • Also I have a question, why does our Calculations page says that when we get a result in Watts for heat-based feats, we shouldn't multiply it by the time and just use the Watts as Joules?

        Loading editor
    • Also yeah, most heat durability feats are underwhelmingly low. Unless something is extremely hot or extremely high surface area, it usually is just Tier 9.

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote: Also I have a question, why does our Calculations page says that when we get a result in Watts for heat-based feats, we shouldn't multiply it by the time and just use the Watts as Joules?

      Probably because watts are "Joules per second", and for our AP feats we only use the value of one second of the feat.

      If a feat happens over five seconds, we divide the total energy output by five. But if the feat happens over 0.2 seconds, we still use that value, since we don't know that if the feat continued for 5x as long that it would actually output 5x the energy.

      Also @DDM @Spino I strongly suspected that myself and have brought it up multiple times, but Dargoo doesn't seem to think it'll be much of an issue, so he may have a response to that.

        Loading editor
    • For feats were watts are used, we scale attack potency based on Joules per second; unless the timeframe was less than a second, then we just go by the end result.

        Loading editor
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

      40%-50% of energy is from the blast (which is why we multiply explosion calcs by 50%) while 30%-50% of energy is from thermal radiation.

      However, just like surviving the Sun feat calculated by DontTalkDT, there's a maximum amount of thermal energy an object can take through a certain source of heat.

      Heat capacity for the human body is 3470, and nukes can be up to 100 000 000 degrees Celsius, or 100000273.15 Kelvins. So let's say a 70 kg human, the maximum energy in take would be

      3470*70*100000273.15 = 2.4290066e13 Joules, Town level

      That's the MAXIMUM amount of heat energy someone can take in from a nuke.

        Loading editor
    • Also Inverse Square Law applies to heat right? So we can just calculate explosions normally, since both the blast and thermal radiation are at most 50%. Then Inverse Square Law, but if the result exceeds the maximum energy intake we put them as Town level instead?

        Loading editor
    • I guess that could work, but if it's point-blank then I don't know, prolly the entire yield applies.

        Loading editor
    • Technically, if we known the temperature at say point of the explosion, we do not need to apply the square inverse law (talking in general, not necessary about explosions). As for explosions, I suggested a method to scale overpressure long ago (only applicable to gound level explosions), although anything below 20 psi overpressure is "humanly possible to survive".

        Loading editor
    • Now this is really starting to feel overly complicated...

        Loading editor
    • Well could we just credit 40-50% of the blast to force and 30-50% of the blast to thermal radiation (if it doesn't exceed the maximum energy intake of roughly 7-C)?

        Loading editor
    • Also sorry since I'm a little late to the party, what did we decide to do with freezing feats?

        Loading editor
    • @Spino it was agreed among the staff to continue treating freezing feats the same way we treat heating feats since it's the same feat but in reverse.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      @Spino it was agreed among the staff to continue treating freezing feats the same way we treat heating feats since it's the same feat but in reverse.

      Aren't we still discussing that? I don't remember coming to a conclusion here. My arguments still stand. Heating feats scale to other stats, freezing calcs shouldn't affect other stats at all. Not even as supporting feats. Also coloring text is easy, I still think it's a good idea.

      Also what are you guys' thoughts on, say, the effects of a 7-A heat attack on a 6-B character or something similar to that? Lots of high tier characters consistently get hurt by lava or contact with the sun. Could be PIS but i don't know.

        Loading editor
    • Kaltias already explained it and detail, as did DonTalk that we absolutely can't knit pick supernatural power sources as a lot of combat oriented fiction typically simplifies those systems to treat all those feats equally. There's no way to argue against feats such as using Water/Ice bending to freeze a lake outside of headcanon. If their ability to freeze massive areas is completely tied to their power level in a verse with a linear PL system, it scales to everyone equal to or stronger than them.

      There is some distinction, but often times blatantly low anti-feats such as 5-B characters dying from house fires are PIS. But 6-B characters getting burned by 6-C heat is some distinction. Plus, often times, it's typically other things besides heat; such as the Sun having radiation and high gravity that negates durability.

        Loading editor
    • Dark makes sense.

        Loading editor
    • I'm NOT saying that freezing feats can't scale to anything else because they use supernatural energy, but because it doesn't require the character to produce or tank any quantifiable amount of energy AT ALL. I'm FINE with putting freezing feats in AP, just don't scale it to durability, other attacks, or anything like that. Not even as supporting feats. Andytrenom was fine with this. Same goes with storm feats by extension because storms are simply chain reactions caused by cooling, so for example, dark souls tier 6-B should be downgraded.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, we seem to agree that you can't really scale heating/freezing in of itself to statistics like physical durability and striking strength. And I've put forward the argument that even with a shared power system this is true.

      That said, scaling freezing attacks to other freezing attacks (and possible to heating attacks, since they operate generally on the same principle) seems fine to me.

      I'd rather not get into a discussion on specific verses here; we can make a Dark Souls thread some time later if this is accepted.

        Loading editor
    • I was just bringing up dark souls as an example. Virtually all storm feats should be discarded because they're just a chain reaction caused by cooling, which requires no quantifiable energy output.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote: Both. Explosions are an example of a heat-based attack that's also a force-based attack, considering the heat of the reaction (the fireball) and the shockwave. So you'd have the heat of it vaporizing the rocks, and the force generated by the explosion it causes thereafter, which, given the simplicity of the example you're giving, can both be pretty easily calc'ed.

      So if I understand it correctly the vaporization energy calculated still completely counts for both AP kinds of the beam?

      I never said that. My issue is with scaling force-based techniques to heat-based techniques. There's a lot less issue with scaling heat-based attacks to heat-based attacks than there is that.

      Yeah, but that sentiment is exactly what I disagree with. And tbh when we can scale light techniques to darkness techniques, we are already doing scaling way more questionable than kinetic to heat energy based techniques.

      Amongst the countless supernatural powers there is just no reason we would do this specific distinction and scale between different attributes of supernatural techniques for everything else.

      And as long as we tier both after the amount of energy the different type is irrelevant.

      Physics wise it is natural to assume that supernatural power converted into a phenomenon goes 1-to-1 energy wise. There is simply no reason for massive amounts of energy to disappear to nothing in the process.

      Fiction wise this virtually always the case anyway. A mage with lots of supernatural powers is virtually always perceived powerful, regardless of which spell is cast.

      And it is way more practical to assume this to start with.

      I see nothing we would gain from throwing out physics, common understanding and practicality in order to accommodate exceptions.

      Exceptions can be dealt with and they will usually show themself. Writers use tropes to have to explain less to the reader, which is why we usually get the appropriate explanation when the system deviates from the trope.

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't say 'virtually all of them', although yes, like I mentioned above a large amount of them should be re-evaluated.

        Loading editor
    • DT hammers the nail in the thread yet again.

        Loading editor
    • I am also in agreement with DT

        Loading editor
    • Freezing feats tho? Can we at least agree that they cannot affect anything else at all? And storm feats too by extension.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT makes sense to me as well.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with DontTalkDT too if I didn't make it clear.

        Loading editor
    • Also Wikipedia says that 40-50% of an explosion comes from the blast and 30-50% of an explosion comes from thermal radiation. However, most sources I've seen (funnily enough including the source Wikipedia linked) saying that it's 50% blast and ground shock and 35% thermal radiation.

      So if we decide to separate force and heat in the end, 50% of the explosion to be credited to force and 35% credited to thermal radiation (again, unless it exceeds the maximum energy intake).

      As Antoniofer said though, if we know the specific heat, we don't need Inverse Square Law.

        Loading editor
    • So if I understand it correctly the vaporization energy calculated still completely counts for both AP kinds of the beam?

      No. I was saying that in the case you presented me, you could do separate calcs with ridiculous ease.

      Yeah, but that sentiment is exactly what I disagree with. And tbh when we can scale light techniques to darkness techniques, we are already doing scaling way more questionable than kinetic to heat energy based techniques.

      I can't really see why you disagree with the sentiment, considering our site operates on it already.

      I'm not entirely sure about how pointing out 'more questionable' stuff we do makes heat to force scaling any less questionable. It just points out other issues that need to be tackled.

      Amongst the countless supernatural powers there is just no reason we would do this specific distinction and scale between different attributes of supernatural techniques for everything else.

      This argument doesn't make much sense either, really. I could take that sentiment and just say 'we already disregard the scientific standards we use to judge supernatural feats so much, so let's just start scaling lifting strength to striking strength and vice versa'. It has a clear bias towards the status quo of the site implicitly, and is basically a catch-all handwave for improving our calculation and cataloging methods in any capacity. Imagine if this was used during our various revisions of our storm standards, nothing would be done.

      tl;dr: Pointing out that we as a site have issues in other places, again, doesn't make this issue any less significant, and kind of sidetracks the discussion in general.

      Physics wise it is natural to assume that supernatural power converted into a phenomenon goes 1-to-1 energy wise. There is simply no reason for massive amounts of energy to disappear to nothing in the process.

      I don't feel like you understood that part of my argument was that, even if this was our first assumption, more times than not that assumption is contradicted back and forth, as these energy systems plainly don't act like IRL energy. So I'm not sure if you're asking for an assumption to be made, or if you're asking for an opinion to be insisted against overwhelming opposing evidence.

      And honestly? The assumption should be that IRL physics and fictional physics are the same or similar until shown otherwise. In which case, force and heat aren't very much equatable if it follows traditional physics, and energy doesn't scale 1 to 1 between these feats regardless if it doesn't follow traditional physics. There's no real justifiable argument for scaling.

      A mage with lots of supernatural powers is virtually always perceived powerful, regardless of which spell is cast.

      This statement peeves me a bit. "People are saying the mage is powerful, therefore all his magical abilities scale" has like, zero connection between the claim and the evidence given. In a medieval fantasy setting, I'm sure citizens would wet their pants at the prospect of someone summoning storms and literally nothing else, that doesn't mean his generic energy bolts also happen to contain the combined energy of that storm.

      I see nothing we would gain from throwing out physics, common understanding and practicality in order to accommodate exceptions.

      This is just confusing though. You started off your argument by telling me that we outright disregard fundamental differences in physics, therefore we don't need to differentiate force and heat, and now you're telling me that my proposal 'throws out physics, common understanding, and practicality'.

      It seems to me that what's being touted here isn't 'physics, common understanding, and practicality', but rather the status quo of the site. Which, from your own words, disregards all of these for convenience.

        Loading editor
    • Are you guys talking about nuclear explosions or explosions in general?

        Loading editor
    • I think it's about nukes but I don't know if the full yield would scale if it's at point-blank.

      EDIT: YEP, it's nukes. I looked up what Spino was saying and it led to this page: Effects of nuclear explosions

        Loading editor
    • I mean at point blank the thermal energy comes from photons released by the reaction so I think it could scale?

      But freezing feats though! I'm completely fine with listing freezing (and by extension storm) feats as AP but it cant scale to other attacks and durability!

        Loading editor
    • @Jaakubb

      I can almost guarentee you that (practically) nothing will change regarding how we treat heat feats as long as the "same power system, it scales" argument is valid for interchangable stats.

      Basically the same thing happened with Environmental Destruction when I wrote that page; it was a great concept that was approved nearly unanimously (probably because it was already used on the site at the time), but a few loopholes made it never apply in a lot of meaningful ways.

        Loading editor
    • Well, part of the problem is that it takes an awful lot of work to overturn a system used for thousands of pages, and we seldom seldom seem to manage the resources to actually properly apply major revisions nowadays.

        Loading editor
    • I'll help.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still with DontTalk here all the way. And actually @Dargoo, I can think of plenty of verses where Tier 7/6/5/4/3/2 tiny fireballs and lightning bolts are a thing. Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system and are often performed by mages from verses with a universal power source. Especially when there exist instances of storms getting undone by physical strikes, or pocket realities getting shattered through physical blows.

      Yes, there do exist verses that have Shaman type characters who aren't physically considered all that superhuman and would simply just have ED. But plenty of Shounen, RPG style verses, fighting games and verses where gods exists do portray them as being 100% combat applicable.

        Loading editor
    • DDM makes a good point as usual.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Well, part of the problem is that it takes an awful lot of work to overturn a system used for thousands of pages, and we seldom seldom seem to manage the resources to actually properly apply major revisions nowadays.

      So we can't apply major revisions of any kind on our site?

      And I mentioned earlier that I don't intend for this to have the staff suddenly put everything down and start re-writing the entire wiki; we can have stuff that's gradually introduced to the site as long as it has people consistently doing small work on it.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      I can think of plenty of verses where Tier 7/6/5/4/3/2 tiny fireballs and lightning bolts are a thing.

      Which is great, because I'm not saying they can't exist, I'm saying that we can't translate a large fire's energy to a punch's energy by default.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system and are often performed by mages from verses with a universal power source.

      Totally agree. Both blatantly disregarded the infrastructure we used to calc feats and often operated on pseudo-science that we made up ourselves. One of them, storms, had consistent improvements in this regard, however, due to great effort from our calc team. I wish the same could be said of pocket realities, but that's something that can be discussed in a more relevant thread.

      Although none of what I just said or what I just quoted above has anything to do with this thread, really. I'm not sure what was brought up; I'm not questioning the use of storm calcs as a whole.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Especially when there exist instances of storms getting undone by physical strikes, or pocket realities getting shattered through physical blows.

      Which are actual feats of striking strength. Why bring this up when we're talking about interchangeably using heat and force? I feel like this is just padding your previous point.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Yes, there do exist verses that have Shaman type characters who aren't physically considered all that superhuman and would simply just have ED. But plenty of Shounen, RPG style verses, fighting games and verses where gods exists do portray them as being 100% combat applicable.

      This doesn't seem to actually be arguing against my points against our methods of scaling. Instead, this kind of just assumes that mixing around heat and force attacks is fine to begin with, therefore there exists verses that 'portray' them as scalable, when my entire issue here is the standards that let us do that in the first place.


      On a side note, I'd perfer if we didn't repeatedly leave "I agree with" comments unless the opinion's been changed or there's something beyond that to add, as those will eat up the thread's 500 comments extremely fast.

        Loading editor
    • I am not saying that no important changes can be applied, just that it is hard to get them done in practice, especially if it is uncertain if they are even particularly beneficial.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote:
      @Jaakubb

      I can almost guarentee you that (practically) nothing will change regarding how we treat heat feats as long as the "same power system, it scales" argument is valid for interchangable stats.

      Literally my entire point' for why freezing feats don't scale is because they DON'T' involve a power source proportional to the energy displaced during the feat. NO energy is produced, energy that is ALREADY in the environment is moved.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Storm feats aren't really all that much different than pocket reality feats when it comes to the balance of our system

      No. Storms are just storms unless the text says otherwise. They are chain reactions that happen as a result of cooling.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      especially if it is uncertain if they are even particularly beneficial.

      Well, there's already a wide consensus on the matter of heat and force feats being seperated by default (something which is already done on multiple profiles, if I might add), my talk with DontTalk just concerns cases where they are sourced from the same power/energy system.

      So I don't know how whatever consensus we get from my and DontTalk's discussion will particularly affect the amount of work that will be done to implement this, as we're already implementing the majority of it. And as a result I don't know why this point is particularly relevent here.

        Loading editor
    • So are we done with the heat vs normal kinetic energy thing? Force is the wrong term.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah. I don't recall any administrators or even regular users rejecting that premise (they only rejected it not being listed at all, and we're past that), and it was supported by around 4-5 staff just off the top of my head.

      Force is only wrong in that it's not what we're measuring for, but fair enough.

        Loading editor
    • So are we gonna focus on freezing feats now? The "same energy source" argument had nothing to do with my arguments against freezing feats scaling to other stats.

        Loading editor
    • If Cold has no bearing on durability or AP, should a more clear distinction between Ice and Cold be made? As one is a byproduct of the other but only Ice can be used in a manner that pertains to defending or attacking and thus be scaled to KE.

      If so, should we then expand or change the existing Absolute Zero page to be something more than just extreme freezing?

      Also, if we now put Heat resistances under durability and it is made compulsory, how do we then quantify someone's effective resistance 100% of the time?

      I'm really sorry if these are pointless or dumb questions.

        Loading editor
    • Ice is just what you get when water is really cold and it is a physical object. If the ice is being launched at high speeds, then sure, the kinetic energy of the ice can be called. However, if the ice is absorbing heat, the amount of thermal energy absorbed doesnt scale to anything unless the character is tanking the thermal energy.

        Loading editor
    • I'd rather a conclusion be reached on my talk with DontTalk before we proceed with more particulars, personally.

        Loading editor
    • Sure. I have no strong opinion on that so I'll wait.

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo Faust, it isn't just those fireballs being the same potency as the larger AoE spells being precise, but a lot of characters do use the same magic that's used to effect a planet's atmosphere to enhance their strikes.

      Pocket Reality feats or creation feats in general are very much interchangeable with destruction feats for the same reason light and darkness calculations are interchangeable as well as heat and cold feats. They're all feats of power that we can't simply just "Ignore".

      I said context and case by case is the key. Not every magic user is versatile yes, but a whole bunch of them are. Gandalf for instance has striking strength comparable to his magic; used a non RPG example so there. And yes, Fire Emblem is a common example in which Magic resistance inherently scales from Magical Attack Potency. Which I can explain later.

      @Jaakubb, again; those words are approaching overwhelming amounts of headcanon for plenty of verses. Plenty of characters do use their own power to form thunder storms. Example being this. It is an S-Rank Tome that can only be wielded by S-Class Thunder Magic users as those weaker aren't powerful enough to use it. And it's consistent with various C rank to B rank tomes getting 8-A to 7-C results plus other S Rank tomes like Rexflame, Rexcalibur, and Rexaura should be the same by lore. Example of a storm feat being 100% combat applicable.

      I do agree that staff consensus is important, and that comments that are nothing but, "I agree with blank" are kind of clogging the thread. And other staff members could be asked, but I'm positive most of us agree with DontTalk.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote: Are you guys talking about nuclear explosions or explosions in general?

      Well for some reason according to our explosion yield calculations page it says that if the explosion is a nuke we can just scale the character to the whole yield, but if it is not a nuke we need to multiply by 50%.

        Loading editor
    • You mean add 50% right? Multiplying by 50% is just halving the result.

      Edit: Nvm you actually need to half non-nuke explosions.

        Loading editor
    • Even though the opposite is true of this. Even the link there is explicitly saying that only 50% of the nuke's energy is from the blast, and only for nukes (The same link Spino posted). Guess our Explosion Yield Calculations page needs a little bit of fixing.

      What about tanking it at point-blank tho? What then? Me personally, I think the full yield would scale given Jakubb's reasoning so prolly nothing will change regarding taking explosions right in your face.

      No idea about freezing feats tho, sorry.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      a lot of characters do use the same magic that's used to effect a planet's atmosphere to enhance their strikes.

      And? What says that's translatable?

      Do they have planetary striking feats?

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Pocket Reality feats or creation feats in general are very much interchangeable with destruction feats for the same reason light and darkness calculations are interchangeable as well as heat and cold feats. They're all feats of power that we can't simply just "Ignore".

      You clearly missed where I said that line of discussion was off-topic.

      And in the case of what's actually relevant for this thread, obviously there's different kinds of 'power' as our system so often differentiates already. I'm not saying a heat-based feat isn't a feat of 'power' at all, just that it's a feat of heat-based power.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      I do agree that staff consensus is important, and that comments that are nothing but, "I agree with blank" are kind of clogging the thread. And other staff members could be asked, but I'm positive most of us agree with DontTalk.

      Only 2 staff members (you and Ant) have weighed in on DontTalk's points, though, out of the larger majority of admins who have participated on this thread.

      I'm also refraining from discussing specific examples too much, I'd rather not have this thread derail significantly by turning into a proxy revision for multiple verses.

        Loading editor
    • Spino is in agreement with DontTalk, and I think Bambu and DMUA have also weighed in their agreement with DontTalk AFAIK

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:
      Spino is in agreement with DontTalk, and I think Bambu and DMUA have also weighed in their agreement with DontTalk AFAIK

      Fair enough on Spino; I wasn't considering calc team as staff when I posted that. So I'll revise my statement to 3 (Spino, Ant, DDM). 

      Bambu and DMUA commented on the previous thread, where I was arguing something entirely different which I have already dropped. If we're speaking for other people though and using completely unrelated arguments for a tally though, Andy, Kep, Anton, Ricsi, Damage, and even (indirectly) Ant has supported my points above. Which is why it's more wise to have them weigh in seperately on my conversation with DontTalk.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I unfortunately haven't had the time to read the entire discussion, and do not remember it all that well at this point.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: Even though the opposite is true of this. Even the link there is explicitly saying that only 50% of the nuke's energy is from the blast, and only for nukes (The same link Spino posted). Guess our Explosion Yield Calculations page needs a little bit of fixing.

      On second thought, I think that this is because for non-nukes there is no thermal radiation and all the other stuff, so we only scale the character to the blast. However for nukes, all the blast, thermal radiation, ionising radiation and residual radiation are there, therefore all scale.

        Loading editor
    • OK.

        Loading editor
    • Is there a formula to find the heat of non-nuclear explosions if we indeed decide to separate force and heat feats?

        Loading editor
    • I'm also pretty sure Spino agrees with my points outside of the context of the 'same power system' argument, though, iirc.

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
      Is there a formula to find the heat of non-nuclear explosions if we indeed decide to separate force and heat feats?

      I looked and honestly, I couldn't find any.

      Also this would prolly only apply to explosions taken from a distance, not at point-blank.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      @Jaakubb, again; those words are approaching overwhelming amounts of headcanon for plenty of verses. Plenty of characters do use their own power to form thunder storms. Example being this. It is an S-Rank Tome that can only be wielded by S-Class Thunder Magic users as those weaker aren't powerful enough to use it. And it's consistent with various C rank to B rank tomes getting 8-A to 7-C results plus other S Rank tomes like Rexflame, Rexcalibur, and Rexaura should be the same by lore. Example of a storm feat being 100% combat applicable.

      What are you suggesting we consider storm feats as? As if they moved the clouds themselves? That's much worse of an assumption. The only thing combat applicable about the rexbolt is the lightning bolt (though I haven't played fire emblem so idk). What was calced was CAPE.

      Can we at least agree that cooling doesnt automatically affect ANY other stat or cannot act as a supporting feat?

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:

      As if they moved the clouds themselves? That's much worse of an assumption.

      iirc the baseline assumption was explicitly agreed to not be KE by our calc team.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: @Jaakubb, again; those words are approaching overwhelming amounts of headcanon for plenty of verses. Plenty of characters do use their own power to form thunder storms. Example being this. It is an S-Rank Tome that can only be wielded by S-Class Thunder Magic users as those weaker aren't powerful enough to use it. And it's consistent with various C rank to B rank tomes getting 8-A to 7-C results plus other S Rank tomes like Rexflame, Rexcalibur, and Rexaura should be the same by lore. Example of a storm feat being 100% combat applicable.

      It's the bolt itself that deals damage, though.

        Loading editor
    • I have to unsubscribe from this thread due to time constraints. You can notify me later via my message wall if you need my help after you have reached a conclusion.

        Loading editor
    • @Jaakubb & TGoP, it's the Rex Bolt Tome that does the full feat. How else would you describe being able to form clouds in an area with no humidity; it was calculated using CAPE yes. Which Executer N0 went in full detail about the method being solid. It's still the full energy of the calculation being generated by the tome each and every time it's caster. The Tome also enhances to power of the caster just by holding it, who can also trade blows with other enemies using similar tomes. Soren and Ilyana can also overpower someone using the Rex Bolt using a much more basic Wind Tome, meaning they scale to it in general. The lightning bolt also strikes with enough force to disperse the same giant storm cloud that generated it; so there is Tier 7 force behind it as well. And especially when they use Rexcalibur and Rex Bolt respectively. They can also trade blows with other S Class swordsmen.

      @Dargoo effecting the planet's atmosphere was a casual spell using a very small fraction of the Black mage's power. And the same Black mage used up a lot of magic to enhance the striking strength of a Warrior, which said Warrior than kills a powerful God who was initially deemed unstoppable even amongst other gods with powers capable of effecting the whole planet.

      Note, I also said I don't entirely disagree with you that there should be some distinction between force and heat, and I'm also glad that you decided to concede with cooling and heating being interchangeable with each other for reasons mentioned above. Obviously, for various FPS and War Movie verses for instance, there are plenty of characters who can survive 9-A punches just fine, but gets their face melted off by Wall level plasma rifles. And there are characters/vehicles that withstand 9-A plasma rifles without completely melting/getting vaporized; who get obliterated by Wall level grenades and rockets. Those are obvious examples of distinctions. But as DonTalk said, most verses that have a heavily universal power source that's often got a fancy name. Many powers are often treated 1 to 1; at least mostly.

        Loading editor
    • What if clouds in Fire Emblem are fragile? Also, while this feat in general has some scaling, for other verses, it could be that making clouds is just an efficient use of power.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      @Jaakubb & TGoP, it's the Rex Bolt Tome that does the full feat. How else would you describe being able to form clouds in an area with no humidity; it was calculated using CAPE yes. Which Executer N0 went in full detail about the method being solid. It's still the full energy of the calculation being generated by the tome each and every time it's caster. The Tome also enhances to power of the caster just by holding it, who can also trade blows with other enemies using similar tomes. Soren and Ilyana can also overpower someone using the Rex Bolt using a much more basic Wind Tome, meaning they scale to it in general. The lightning bolt also strikes with enough force to disperse the same giant storm cloud that generated it; so there is Tier 7 force behind it as well. And especially when they use Rexcalibur and Rex Bolt respectively. They can also trade blows with other S Class swordsmen.

      I don't know the specifics of this feat, and I honestly don't care to. If the lightning bolt dispersed the clouds with it's own energy, then fine, that's a kinetic energy feat. It's pushing the clouds away, and that energy could be focused onto a character. However, this would be the exception, not the norm. The default assumption is that a storm is just a storm unless otherwise stated.

      Again, can we at least agree that freezing won't affect any other stats at all? And don't bring up the "universal energy source" argument because that literally has nothing to do with my argument. I'm fine with listing it as AP though, just don't scale it to anything.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb
      Jaakubb removed this reply because:
      Saving space
      03:16, February 6, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      But as DonTalk said, most verses that have a heavily universal power source that's often got a fancy name. Many powers are often treated 1 to 1; at least mostly.

      Okay, so I feel like I should restate my issues with 'universal power source, everything translates, physics be damned' approach.

      So let's assume that the fictional energy source is functionally similar and acts similar to RL energy. In RL, heat and force are not interchangeable, so if we're treating this mystic force like it's RL energy heat and force still can't be interchangeable. If for kicks and giggles we're saying we want to translate them anyways, then our calc system doesn't operate under RL physics, and we're just using physics whenever it's convenient for higher statistics.

      If we aren't treating the mana like it's RL energy, then energy values are meaningless in regards to mana values. I can think of plenty of verses where something that should take more energy takes less mana than something that takes less energy. Heck, there's even verses where mana and magic explicitly violate physics in ways that could make amping physical strikes to Tier 8 take more mana than creating a Tier 7 storm.

      The argument isn't valid no matter what standard we use, unless we actively violate our own standards. I'll mention this more clearly, but using your and DontTalk's logic, there's kind of nothing from stopping us from saying that despite speed and force being two fundamentally different things in physics, if the speed enhancement and the striking enhancement has the same power source, we can use kinetic energy to backtrack to speed, something we explicitly ban on this site. The same goes for Lifting Strength and any other statistics we currently list separately even with the same power source involved. Which is why I mentioned initially that our site doesn't translate fundamentally different forces already - just look at how we treat speed.

        Loading editor
    • " there's kind of nothing from stopping us from saying that despite speed and force being two fundamentally different things in physics, if the speed enhancement and the striking enhancement has the same power source, we can use kinetic energy to backtrack to speed, "

      I feel this statement is kinda flawed. You can calculate speed from KE under real life science, the only reason we can't for our ratings is because the relation isn't always reliable in a fictional context, which can lead to faulty statistics not supported by the actual work. As far as I can tell that is a completely different situation to what we're dealing with here, which is about heat and KE not being equatable in science to begin with.

      Leaving that aside though, I'm fine with keeping heat and KE feats separate, at least as a default assumption.

        Loading editor
    • @God of Procrastination are you trolling? Because that's like saying the piece of concrete that Super used to block Darkseid's Omega Beams is super durable rather than it just being PIS + Superman's pushing strength. Or that verses with planet busters take place on a fragile planet

      @Jaakubb, that's pretty much how every JRPG treats spam able techniques. It's often like the spell effects the whether, and there's this shock wave attacking the enemy that dissipates the storm or environmental effect when the attack is over. And two or more characters can spam the same ability back and forth. Plenty of Thunder God such as Raiden, or characters who are literally living storms. So actually, there appear to "Exceptions" outnumbering the "Norms" if we went by that.

      @Dargoo, actually, thermal energy is the kinetic energy of the atoms in molecules in an object. Plus, energy cannot be created or destroyed and only transferred. In order for movement to happen, there needs to be thermal energy being cycled or transferred to generate kinetic energy. It may not transfer linearly, but it's still interchangeable regarding the existing energy in the universe.

      Also, the difference between fictional energy and RL energy is because we ourselves are not psychics, Ki manipulators, Energy Benders, ect IRL. We do not fully control how thermal energy or kinetic energy work, so we don't always see or feel it as linear. But the laws of nature do cycle it interchangeably. But when an energy bender does the work, they literally become the laws of nature and the driving force behind it all.

      As for the Mana example, the problems still come from Gameplay balancing as we as Destructive Capacity Vs Attack Potency and many other things. Just because a Sword strike calculated at Tier 8, it doesn't make it locked at Tier 8. Especially if they harm or killed a Tier 7 or above character. Mana is another example of an endurance; some characters have infinite mana/MP and can spam their storm attacks or stack power ups for physical strikes indefinitely, so... High 3-A? Anyway, the amount of MP/Mana required for the spell isn't the primary point, but the fact is them being able to perform the feat(s) it in the first place is what matters. And the fact that those same feats are spammable is more than enough reason to treat it as a casual AP feat. A Tier 9/8 mage wouldn't even be close to producing a full storm cloud; at best he could just make a mini cloud that's not too far above their heads. It takes a Tier 7 or above mage to make a true storm cloud in the high skies or blizzard.

      The lifting strength Vs Striking Strength is false equivalency. That's not interchangeable IRL; there are plenty of large animals that carry a massive load, but don't kick hard. Plus, Bruce Lee himself proved that lifting strength =/= striking strength. One just needs a lot of muscle while the other is a fast paced technique. As for Speed Vs AP/Calc Stacking, that's a different issue. We're comparing AP to AP here, but now you're comparing AP to Speed. Well first of all, KE and speed aren't interchangeable per say. It's speed combined with weight that determines KE. But anyway, it's often because there are plenty of verses far weaker characters are a lot faster than stronger characters; and stuff like FTL speed attacks having KE. And some verses have almost no speed feats but excellent tier feats as vice versa.

      For durability, since durability isn't even a linear concept neither in IRL nor in fiction; and especially not IRL. There is a massive difference between pressure resistance and heat capacity/melting point/boiling point. Obviously, we can't make distinctions to great; such as a 5-B character being assumed to be able to die from house fire is plain stupid of course. Stuff like smashing a vehicle being a 9-B feat and melting a vehicle being an 8-C feat is common knowledge. And various characters have to some extent have more resistance to one over the other. But at the same time, there's a limit to how much we can bridge gaps in our system.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:

      You can calculate speed from KE under real life science, the only reason we can't for our ratings is because the relation isn't always reliable in a fictional context, which can lead to faulty statistics not supported by the actual work. As far as I can tell that is a completely different situation to what we're dealing with here, which is about heat and KE not being equatable in science to begin with.

      Except I wasn't talking about calculating speed from KE. I was talking about 'scaling' energy to speed through a 'shared power source', which is the issue this kind of logic presents.

      For example, getting a joules value from a spell, then saying that since the speedboosting magic has the same energy source of that spell, they can increase their speed with the same energy as their physical strikes, heat attacks, whatever.

      Even if you were right on my argument though, this doesn't really change anything else I said in that post.

      While I'm glad you're reading up on the topic, you should have continued to read in extremely basic thermodynamics then, as immediately after it's established that everything's energy in some form, there's fundamental differences in the way heat and work/force transfer it. Which is why they aren't equatable, as while they can be both measured in energy, they transfer it in fundamentally different ways.

      As for the Mana example, the problems still come from Gameplay balancing as we as Destructive Capacity Vs Attack Potency and many other things. Just because a Sword strike calculated at Tier 8, it doesn't make it locked at Tier 8.

      Especially if they harm or killed a Tier 7 or above character.

      If it was calculated at a certain tier, the only way it isn't that tier is if the material was misinterpreted or there was flaws in the calculation itself. If the character is more consistently in a tier above that, then we simply don't consider the feat as a lower-end showing. I feel like you're aware that characters don't need to constantly be preforming Tier Whatever feats during all combat scenarios.

      Mana is another example of an endurance; some characters have infinite mana/MP and can spam their storm attacks or stack power ups for physical strikes indefinitely, so... High 3-A?

      I don't know what this means in the context of this debate.

      If you're implying that having access to an infinite pool of mana makes one High 3-A, I feel like you've forgotten the many, many threads where it was determined that you need to be capable of effectively using infinite energy in a single attack, see Johnny Joestar as a big example of this.

      Anyway, the amount of MP/Mana required for the spell isn't the primary point, but the fact is them being able to perform the feat(s) it in the first place is what matters.

      It is your primary point, and I'm not sure why you're pretending it isn't. It's the basis for scaling in various magic-based verses like Overlord currently, heck.

      Your argument can't even exist without considering the amount of mana. If you're conceding that mana values don't correlate to energy values, you can't compare different kinds of feats or scale different kinds of feats as the only in-verse metric is the amount of mana they take. So like I said before, nothing says that a Tier 9 punch enhancement can't be more mana-intensive than a Tier 7 storm creation.

      So they can perform the storm creation, but since in some verses mana doesn't correlate to energy, you can't say that they can pump the same 'energy' into their punch enhancements since it doesn't operate on energy to begin with.

      And the fact that those same feats are spammable is more than enough reason to treat it as a casual AP feat. A Tier 9/8 mage wouldn't even be close to producing a full storm cloud; at best he could just make a mini cloud that's not too far above their heads. It takes a Tier 7 or above mage to make a true storm cloud in the high skies or blizzard.

      Sounds more like a casual Environmental Destruction feat, but I guess that's listed on AP.

      The lifting strength Vs Striking Strength is false equivalency. That's not interchangeable IRL; there are plenty of large animals that carry a massive load, but don't kick hard.

      There is no correlation between heat resistance and blunt force resistance in physical materials.

      There is no correlation between one's capability to output heat and one's capability to output physical force.

      The only correlation our standard operates on is that they all involve the exchange of energy. Lifting Strength and Striking Strength both involve an exchange of energy, so if they share a power source, our system says they must scale like all the other unrelated forces we already scale.

      My whole point is that none of these are interchangeable IRL outside of the measurement of energy, and you've just proved it wonderfully.

      As for Speed Vs AP/Calc Stacking, that's a different issue. We're comparing AP to AP here, but now you're comparing AP to Speed.

      You're comparing blunt force to heat, which are actually less relatable than blunt force and speed. Why is our system fine with conflating blunt force and heat but not blunt force and speed?

      Well first of all, KE and speed aren't interchangeable per say. It's speed combined with weight that determines KE.

      Heat and force aren't interchangeable either. This is my whole point.

      And I'm sure we can come up with something. If the mage is enhancing their speed, we know their mass, so we can just say they're pumping X Tier energy into their speed, and then we backtrack kinetic energy. Obviously this is stupid and we shouldn't do it, but it's functionally what we're doing with heat in these verses.

      (EDIT): Just to point out in case it isn't extremely obvious: I don't actually want us scaling Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, Speed, etc. I'm pointing out how easily our systems' logic lets us scale them with how it currently treats heat.

        Loading editor
    • " if the speed enhancement and the striking enhancement has the same power source, we can use kinetic energy to backtrack to speed, something we explicitly ban on this site."

      This is you not talking about calculating speed from KE?

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      " if the speed enhancement and the striking enhancement has the same power source, we can use kinetic energy to backtrack to speed, something we explicitly ban on this site."

      This is you not talking about calculating speed from KE?

      My point was on the scaling, whose logic would justify us doing stuff like that. Calculating speed from KE would be taking an objective feat and effectively calc-stacking on it to get a speed rating from a kinetic energy rating, while what I'm talking about would be taking something like a storm calc's rating, and 'scaling' it to speed if the person has a speed boost with a 'shared power source'. Obviously this is stupid, my point is that equating speed to heat is just as problematic as equating force to heat, or other completely unrelated statistics. I also feel like this is more just trying to point out that I technically mentioned it in my post and ignoring practically everything else I posted around it explaining what I had a problem with, which isn't really adding anything meaningful to the coversation, if I might add.

      I guess I could have worded it better, although I thought I clarified pretty well when I followed up on your post.

        Loading editor
    • That's actually what I first presumed your point was, but it didn't make much sense to me so I had reconsidered

      If your are trying to suggest that saying "he generates this much energy with heat attacks, so he can generate the same energy with physical attacks" is as absurd as saying "he can generate this much energy with attacks so he can run at this speed" then no, one is assuming he can output the same level of energy in more than one form, while the other is directly equating one value to another not measured with the same dimensions without any kind of calculation, which doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint

      If I am honest, this just feels like you're trying to make a situation sound as stupid as possible by bringing in faulty comparisons

        Loading editor
    • And if you're serious about your claim that logic like this will imply scaling speed to things like storm feats, then I don't see that either

      How do you even translate AP to speed without a calculations? Cause that seems like it will always just amount to meaningless statements like "10 megatons is mach 20" or something, which I would love to see anyone justify as being similar to scaling different attacks to the same AP

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo, just a minor note for now; the High 3-A example was just a joke. I know full well that pool of energy or having a battery with energy inside you isn't AP. And that energy being harness into one technique is what AP is. Infinite pool of energy is simply limitless stamina. I'll address the rest later. But Andy did give a good explanation regarding the comparisons.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      @Jaakubb, that's pretty much how every JRPG treats spam able techniques. It's often like the spell effects the whether, and there's this shock wave attacking the enemy that dissipates the storm or environmental effect when the attack is over. And two or more characters can spam the same ability back and forth. Plenty of Thunder God such as Raiden, or characters who are literally living storms. So actually, there appear to "Exceptions" outnumbering the "Norms" if we went by that.

      Fine then! For those feats specifically, when a storm is dispersed because of the character's kinetic energy, like when all might punched so hard that he directly provided the energy for a storm, use the kinetic energy! But unless otherwise stated, storms are just normal storms! You keep saying that "pretty much every storm feat is like this" but youre not giving any evidence. For every example you can give of a kinetic energy storm feat, i could give you multiple counterexamples.
      Also freezing feats are still stupid.

      I'm not quite sure what dargoo is trying to argue, but I think hes absolutely right that mana requirement of a spell has no strict proportional relationship to energy released by the spell. A simple healing spell could cost more than a spell that could destroy a boulder or something.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:

      If I am honest, this just feels like you're trying to make a situation sound as stupid as possible by bringing in faulty comparisons

      DDM and many others here have only established that heat and force both operate on an exchange of energy. I feel like you're aware that speed, and most everything else in the universe also operates on that exchange. My whole point was that comparing heat and force based on only that shared property is stupid, I'm not trying to make it sound stupid for no reason at all.

      > while the other is directly equating one value to another not measured with the same dimensions without any kind of calculation, which doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint

      To be entirely fair, we actually do that for force-based attacks, as we automatically convert them to joules so they can be measured by our system despite them "not [being] measured with the same dimensions". So it's something we already sort of do with force and heat.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't measure physical attacks in joules, but I'm more saying that this point doesn't magically un-do my comparison.

      ​​​​Heck, you already agree that we shouldn't translate heat and force by default. Forcing a translation based off of a shared power source really isn't any better than forcing a translation for no reason whatsoever; it's literally the same arguments being used to scale them that we debunked in the previous threads.

      Honestly, if we're just going to establish a bunch of loopholes to make these kinds of revisions ultimately meaningless again, I'd rather us just not have this applied at all.

        Loading editor
    • "To be entirely fair, we actually do that for force-based attacks, as we automatically convert them to joules so they can be measured by our system despite them "not [being] measured with the same dimensions". So it's something we already sort of do with force and heat."

      I'm pretty sure we just calculate those feats as work, which is measured in joules, if we were just arbitrarily translating force to an energy value then that would obviously be dumb. I was also under the impression that we were just using "force" in this thread for convenience sake to refer to more physical and impact based forms of AP, instead of its exact definition. If we aren't I'll just use "work" from now on

      "I'm not saying we shouldn't measure physical attacks in joules, but I'm more saying that this point doesn't magically un-do my comparison"

      It does if your comparison involves getting m/s out of joules directly without a calculation. It's impossible and nonsensical to do that and while there is a way of deriving speed from energy that we prohibit, it's for its own reasons that don't have much relevance to this matter

      Unless you want to argue our methods for calculating energy from force is wrong or have the same problems as calculating speed from energy, I still find your comparison to speed and AP to be very flimsy

      "​​​​Heck, you... in the previous threads."

      Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assertions, it's just this particular argument that's rubbing me the wrong way

      it's also just heat feats that I'm uncertain on whether they can be scaled via the universal power source thing or not, freezing feats I'm willing to agree don't scale on account of not being an output of energy

        Loading editor
    • "Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assertions, it's just this particular argument that's rubbing me the wrong way"

      In which case I don't really see the benefit in pursuing this argument too much then. I'm at least glad that you agree with my core POV, although I wish I could have expressed it better to you.

      "it's also just heat feats that I'm uncertain on whether they can be scaled via the universal power source thing or not"

      Would you say that it's at least unreliable to do it by default when we have nothing else besides a shared power source?

        Loading editor
    • If a character freezes something and then melts it and they both get the same tier. Then should we say something like "they froze and then vaporized "blank'"

        Loading editor
    • I guess. Maybe it should be implied that they are equally proficient with both heat and force based attacks?

        Loading editor
    • Spinoirr wrote:
      If a character freezes something and then melts it and they both get the same tier. Then should we say something like "they froze and then vaporized "blank'"

      Freezing isnt a valid feat though. Only the melting.

        Loading editor
    • @Jaakubb and @Dargoo I never said "All storms feats are like this" I simply said we can't just ignore every storm feat in existence and just assume it isn't combat applicable. It's heavily case by case and we literally went over that discussion back in 2018. However, most RPG characters and fighting game characters do indeed use the storms in a combat applicable manner. If a Shaman was "Praying to the gods to alter the storms", then it wouldn't be combat applicable. But when the God of Thunder does it, it's usually combat applicable. Also, as for the MP example, I said it's case by case but game play balancing stuff should be ignored. A White mage that heals/revives the party indefinitely would make every RPG in existence too easy. Which is why there is stamina consumption. A better example would be simply comparing attacks to other attacks; and/or using the lore. Like a storm spell being a mid level spell with low MP consumption, and Meteor also being a mid level spell with an 8-A/7-C result and similar MP consumption. And then Ultima being the strongest magic tome in the verse, stating that "It's so powerful, no mere mortal could wield without destroying themselves and possibly the entire world" being wielded by the "Protagonist who's much stronger than any human". There's no reason for Ultima to have tier rating just being higher than the highest calculation. Rather than relying heavily on game mechanics and knit picks, I just use some details into consideration, but go by the lore. The primary point is that if a mere fraction of someone's power can casually do feats of a certain teir, there's no reason to assume the same character going all out can do something equal to or greater.

      Anyway, Kaltais, Xulrev, Triforce, and Ugarik already explained above that freezing/cooling is indeed identical to heating but in reverse. You can't just ignore them entirely. The science is that thermal energy is actually the natural kinetic energy flow of the particles inside an object. It requires Kinetic energy to raise or lower the speed of an object. Let's say a 2000 kg object was drifting through outer space at 1000 m/s. The natural KE is 0.5 * 2000 * 1000^2 = 1 Gigajoule. Doubling the speed, which of course requires quadrupling the KE, requires striking it with 3 Gigajoules to get 4 Gigajoules. While at the same time, halving its speed requires quartering the KE, or striking it with 750 Megajoules. Or stopping it entirely requires striking or pushing 1 Gigajoule or striking it even harder can make it drift the opposite direction. Basically, heating is the same as the former while cooling is the same as the latter. For the idea of "Using your own energy source/Ki sort of thing to heat or cool objects". Just like heating is basically telekinetically pushing the particles to move faster, cooling is essentially telekinetically pulling the particles to slow down. So in other words cooling is just as combat applicable as heating. Freezing an object that's Quintillions of degrees all the way down to Sub-Zero temperatures is the same feat as heating a sub-zero temperature all the way up to Quintillions of degrees Celsius.

      Now, I do agree that there could be some distinction between heat and force based attacks, but it's heavily case by case as what's said numerous times. DontTalk looking at his user page said he was going to be quite busy, but I still think he's spot on. Star Wars characters are a perfect example of characters who can use their Force Powers to enhanced their own physical strength, thus scaling their striking strength and durability to their telekinesis. It's the same thing Chakra/Ki/Magic/Reishi(What ever the hell the writers what to call it) feats using Thermal energy and Kinetic Energy. Verses with a linear power level system are exactly that. So stuff like Bleach isn't going to be having some massive downgrades just because they scale from storm feats. Or everyone in Killer Instinct is 6-C scaling from a lake freezing feat; not going to budge anytime soon.

      Anyway, given how circular this argument is and how many times threads like this are constantly being made, I honestly agree with Dargoo on one thing that we're really not going to get very far at this rate, nor will many verses be effected.

        Loading editor
    • Since DDM is dropping the argument, and DontTalk is too busy to speak on significant calculation/feat interpretation changes, I guess we can take a solid vote on the matter.

      From what I understand, we're already conclusive on the basic assumption being that heat and force cannot scale; it's just that the primary exception DontTalk is suggesting, that if heat-based and force-based attacks have the same power source they can scale, is contentious at the moment.

      So on the matter of that exception, I belive it's:

      Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Spino

      Nay: Dargoo, Andy

      Although the vast majority of staff who commented on this thread and the previous thread hasn't spoken on the matter, so I'll contact them.

        Loading editor
    • I still stand by Don'tTalk's stance

        Loading editor
    • There was another thread discussing the other argument on the "Heat Vs AP" thread, in which Bambu still pretty much agrees with the same thing DontTalk said as well.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      @Jaakubb and @Dargoo I never said "All storms feats are like this" I simply said we can't just ignore every storm feat in existence and just assume it isn't combat applicable. It's heavily case by case and we literally went over that discussion back in 2018.

      I never said we should ignore them all. I'm saying that a storm feat isn't valid simply by virtue of being a storm feat. Some still apply.

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      But when the God of Thunder does it, it's usually combat applicable

      I disagree. Storm feats should only be considered combat applicable when the character directly produces the kinetic energy of the storm, like with all might's detroit smash. Most storms are just a chain reaction instigated by cooling.

      Also could you please address my points on freezing instead of retreating back into the exact same argument? That's not how cooling works. In fiction, they are either using "energy telekinesis" or using a refrigerant. Give me a more reasonable interpretation. For reference, using a refrigerant does make the vibration of the particles decrease, decreasing the heat, and it has already been established that using a refrigerant does not require any outside energy source.

        Loading editor
    • It doesn't sound like you read the next part of the argument. About them telekinetically slowing down the atoms and molecules in the object by forcing them to slow down. Even Dargoo finally conceded with separating heat Vs cooling. I also explained the scientific details so I don't need to repeat that part.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      There was another thread discussing the other argument on the "Heat Vs AP" thread, in which Bambu still pretty much agrees with the same thing DontTalk said as well.

      Bambu was commenting on me trying to remove heat and freezing altogether from AP, which I have stopped doing. I've informed him of this more recent discussion although he seems disinterested in commenting again.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      It doesn't sound like you read the next part of the argument. About them telekinetically slowing down the atoms and molecules in the object by forcing them to slow down. Even Dargoo finally conceded with separating heat Vs cooling. I also explained the scientific details so I don't need to repeat that part.

      So there are two interpretations for cooling:

      They are telekinetically slowing each particle

      They are using "energy telekinesis" to move the energy itself (and yes, energy is a thing that moves, take photons for an example).

      Why is the first more reasonable than the second? They are equally probable and due to occam's razor we choose the interpretation that has the least implications (the second).

      @Dargoo Faust You changed your mind on cooling feats? Or do you think they don't scale but are still able to be listed as AP? Because I agree with that.

        Loading editor
    • Yay: AntDontTalkDDMSpino, DMUA

      Nay: DargooAndy

        Loading editor
    • There's also the scientific detail of thermal energy being the natural flow of atoms and molecules in the atmosphere, on which speeding it up or slowing it down whether speeding up or slowing it down to either an increase or decrease in KE requires some degree of KE, thus an AP feat.

      @Jaakubb, Dargoo changes his mind on separating heating feats from cooling feats, as they're both listed under AP. He just doesn't think either heat nor cold should scale to striking strength or durability.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      There's also the scientific detail of thermal energy being the natural flow of atoms and molecules in the atmosphere, on which speeding it up or slowing it down whether speeding up or slowing it down to either an increase or decrease in KE requires some degree of KE, thus an AP feat.

      You still haven't proven why the first interpretation is more reasonable than the second.

      Andytrenom thinks that freezing feats shouldn't scale to anything because it has no energy output for the reasons others and I made earlier (Andytrenom is kinda based?😨)

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote:


      Kep has informed me off-site that he votes Nay.

      Yay: AntDontTalkDDMSpino, DMUA

      Nay: DargooAndy, Kep ​​​

        Loading editor
    • I haven't been following the entire thread, and at this point it's rather huge. So could I check if there is a summary on the main argument of why the exception "heat-based and force-based attacks have the same power source they can scale" should be accepted?

        Loading editor
    • In general, they shouldn't. Heat is only force on the quantum level, and that level of innate precision needs showing.

        Loading editor
    • @Damage3245 This doesnt have anything to do with your specific question, but what's your opinion on cooling feats specifically? I'm not the only one who thinks they dont scale to other stats btw.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
      I haven't been following the entire thread, and at this point it's rather huge. So could I check if there is a summary on the main argument of why the exception "heat-based and force-based attacks have the same power source they can scale" should be accepted?

      I believe the general rule that heat and force cannot be scaled has already been accepted. The current debate and the thing we're voting on is whether or not that when the heat-based and force-based attack shared a power source (Chakara, Ki, Magic) it is an exception to this rule and we can scale them. An example would be a Ki blast that blew up part of a mountain, and us reasoning they can use the same 'energy' when they use Ki to say, heat up a cup of tea.

      I beleive that scaling throgh a power system presents the same exact issues as scaling without one - heat and force are operate fundamentally different regardless of power source, and we already do not scale fundamentally different forces through shared power systems. If the mystical energy has the same properties as regular energy then the same reasons for not scaling established already apply, and if it doesn't have properties of regular energy then we don't really have a reasnonable metric by which to scale them as what takes more IRL energy might take less fictional mana.

      Andy and most of the people supporting my argument aren't as hard-line as me and believe that it's just that the power system can't be the only justification for scaling, and that additional information like statements of power are needed, which I think is acceptible.

      DontTalk and DDM are arguing that we as a site already merge together various fundamentally different power sources such as electricity, gravity, etc, through shared power sources, and heat is no different. They (or at least DontTalk) believes that removing the 'shared power system' justification for scaling will create oppertunities for making an overabundance of minor AP classifications, although I'll note that it seemed DontTalk mistook that I was saying that heat-based attacks can't scale to other heat-based attacks when I only had issues with force-based attack and heat-based attacks scaling to one another.

        Loading editor
    • @Dargoo; I see. I believe that having additional information such as supporting statements is a reasonable requirement to have in order to scale them.

        Loading editor
    • Has durability from heat been concluded?

        Loading editor
    • Yes. We have agreed that it certainly applies for durability, but it doesn’t necessarily scale to one’s blunt force durability. Granted as you can see above there’s still a decision on if it can scale to blunt force when someone uses the same power source.

      I believe the votes are now:

      Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Spino, DMUA

      Nay: Dargoo, Andy, Kep, Damage

        Loading editor
    • Yay, by the way. 

        Loading editor
    • Darnst.

      Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Spino, DMUA, Bambu

      Nay: Dargoo, Andy, Kep, Damage

        Loading editor
    • I believe if stuff hasn't changed too much I'll go for the Dragoo's idea, so, a Nay I guess?

        Loading editor
    • Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Spino, DMUA, Bambu

      Nay: Dargoo, Andy, Kep, Damage, Anton

        Loading editor
    • I'd say Nay myself.

        Loading editor
    • Yay: Ant, DontTalk, DDM, Spino, DMUA, Bambu

      Nay: Dargoo, Andy, Kep, Damage, Anton, Ricsi

        Loading editor
    • DragonMasterxyz also appears to agree with DontTalk iirc, but I could ask him just in case.

        Loading editor
    • This CRT seems to only count staff as valuable input but in any case I'd be Yay.

        Loading editor
    • If we're also counting non-staff input then I vote Nay

        Loading editor
    • This thread is specifically staff only >.>

        Loading editor
    • Okay I agree that heat shouldn't scake to AP by default in a similar way as storm feats but that's entirely because I think heat resistance shouldn't apply to durability period. (do not count it as a vote)

      Mecanichal damage is intirely different from thermal so I want to see the agrument agains it (I couldn't follow the entire thread so I can't find those comments now)

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, your atoms being pushed by kinetic energy and your atoms starting to shake so hard that they come apart are two very different things.

        Loading editor
    • Unless the attack is like a beam that can slice things like a 1000 degree knife and has force to it (as it is a energy attack)

      If a character is shown no heat resistance and the opposite, they live the Lazer pushing at them they should scale in AP to the Lazer. As the character is living the force of it. Even when they shown to be affected by heat

        Loading editor
    • I don't know what you wish to say but I don't think "live" is the verb for it.

        Loading editor
    • @Spi Do you mean "survive"?

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik wrote: Okay I agree that heat shouldn't scake to AP by default in a similar way as storm feats but that's entirely because I think heat resistance shouldn't apply to durability period. (do not count it as a vote)

      Mecanichal damage is intirely different from thermal so I want to see the agrument agains it (I couldn't follow the entire thread so I can't find those comments now)

      It's on another thread

      Don't talk mentioned that, yes, our durability is greatly simplified, but if we were to try splitting them up we'd get like 20 different types of durability, some of which only engineers would really even know about, and all of which fiction rarely distinguishes from just taking blunt force (unless the character has a particular weakness or resistance to one or the other)

        Loading editor
    • @Ugarik, what the votes are doing at the moment is basically this. If a character uses Ki or Magic or insert universal power source that everything in the verse comes from to perform their various heat/cold attacks, and the same characters use that exact same power source to enhance their striking strength and durability, as well as those same characters consistently trading blows with other Ki/magic users who are officially the same power level, should we scale their thermal energy manipulation to their general Tiers. If yes, then you'll be up as Yay. If you think the linear power level system and/or use of Ki or Magic is not enough to make temperature manipulation/resistance the same tier as physical stats, then your name would be placed as Nay.

        Loading editor
    • In my case, I'd be nay, with exceptions being exceptions.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      If you think the linear power level system and/or use of Ki or Magic is not enough to make temperature manipulation/resistance the same tier as physical stats, then your name would be placed as Nay.

      To add on to this simplified explaination, Andy and most others supporting my position have added on that it's just that the use of Ki or Magic is not enough in of itself for scaling - naturally if there's stuff like direct statements that support scaling them in that case some exceptions can be made. I don't personally like it, however I perfer that over scaling everything together the moment a supernatural element is introduced.

      To comment on DMUA's post, DontTalk's argument is a gross exaggeration of this proposal. Less than half of half of our profiles utilize heat based attacks in some way, and I doubt the majority of our pages would have heat resistance and also have the heat resistance be outside the tier they are already in, especially in higher tiers. Not to mention this doesn't even apply to most Tier 2 characters and higher. Not to mention that this only makes one distinction - the idea that we'd need to make "20" distinctions for "every profile" is just silly. Not to mention that heat and force/work is the first and most fundamental distinction of energy transfer in all of thermodynamics.

        Loading editor
    • I think a lot of tier 6s would have sub tier6 heat resistance. Or am I understanding wrong?

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:
      I think a lot of tier 6s would have sub tier6 heat resistance. Or am I understanding wrong?

      I mean, most of the feats that get characters into Tier 6 involve a large amount of heat (meteor impacts, for example), I doubt it would be anything far below whatever tier they're in unless they have that rating purely off of scaling and nothing else.

        Loading editor
    • Meteor impacts would never have humans getting tier 6 heat dura from them.

        Loading editor
    • Even surviving inside the Sun's core is only 8-A levels of heat resistance; Tier 6 levels of heat resistance would be like Quadrillions to Quintillions of degrees on the celcius scale if using the volume of a human body was used.

        Loading editor
    • 8-A is sun's surface iirc, the core is tier 6 (if hasn't changed); one can, however, interprete surviving in the sun's core to be Heat Resistance + Pressure Resistance (Notice that just cuz someone is adapted to survive in elevated pressures doesn't mean is more durable, look at real life fishes from the depth for example).

        Loading editor
    • The Sun's surface is only 8-C using the body of a human; it's Tier 6 as far as "Energy per second, but volume/mass of a human being heated up to 15 million degrees Celsius is simply Multi-City Block+

        Loading editor