- 16,279
- 24,999
Sounds fine.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
TV Invincible Season 3 CRT
- Status
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #42
- 38
- 6
Everything seems about right for the most part to me, but thing is about the Immortal..
They do sorta imply that he was one of the strongest on the planet during Nolan pulling up n all, and while he doesn’t really say nothing against mark being stronger than him by season 2 it’s clear he can at least somewhat take on his iterations, like Nogogglesible who of which id assume would be around the level of a post-season 2 invincible. But then he ends up beheading immortal anyway.
With how the series power ranking pretty much goes, S4 might and I mean just might boost some tiers.
They do sorta imply that he was one of the strongest on the planet during Nolan pulling up n all, and while he doesn’t really say nothing against mark being stronger than him by season 2 it’s clear he can at least somewhat take on his iterations, like Nogogglesible who of which id assume would be around the level of a post-season 2 invincible. But then he ends up beheading immortal anyway.
With how the series power ranking pretty much goes, S4 might and I mean just might boost some tiers.
- 16,279
- 24,999
The Allen & Mauler proposals should be fine as well.
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #45
Maverick Zero X, Excellence616 and FusionPrime0 are at the supporters page and agree so...
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #46
bump
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #47
bump
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #48
bump
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #49
bump
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #50
bump
Chritin
He/Him- 1,501
- 1,137
Okay genuinely, no clue if I'm missing something but there is no way that High 6-A calc makes sense.
- The amount of mass you are claiming was jettisoned off the moon is roughly 60% the mass of land mass on earth down to the lowest depth on the planet. There is no way in hell that kind of volume was taken off the moon without any serious visual clarification.
- Even more egregious than the mass, the energy/level of force being applied to it would quite literally shatter it. In no universe where PRE-STELLAR lifting forces do no completely shatter the moon, let alone leave no physical crater.
- The height for the shockwave just feels off. I'm glad there was an effort to at least half the high-end for the low-end value, but the way the high-end was calculated feels a bit off. The scene really does seem to cut around a lot and doesn't feel reprehensive of how the scene likely played out in real time (for instance, mark mentions he gets lost at some point which we don't see)
- I don't even get what shape the shockwave was calculated as? At first I thought it was a half spheroid, which would be ((4/3)πa²b)/2, but from the looks of it it's in the form aπb^2??? Hell, it shouldn't even be any kind of spheroid since we can see the lunar surface through its center, implying that it opens up.
- The GPE for the cloud itself was calculated assuming ALL of the mass from the lunar dust is at that height, which is clearly isn't.
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #52
That's why LS and AP are rated independently
Any comment on this ?
Chritin
He/Him- 1,501
- 1,137
Uhhh, yeah? That's not even what I'm arguing? I'm just saying the feat legitimately makes no sense if you are implying Mark somehow kicked off the moon with Pre-Stellar LS.
- 19,734
- 21,231
Looking into it:
For dust clouds you usually do 99% empty, not 68 or 90%; this would drop the weight by 10x.
The shape is just kind of bad, you should get the area of it instead and work off that, or reach each chunk into a simple shape and each separately and then combine.
You need to average and square the speed and distances, not every bit of dust moved the same distance at the same time, the calc kind of treats it as if the whole mass got moved the total distance when only the very edge went that far and everything else is everything inbetween. Same for the other end.
The height is kind of absurd, the pink line is more a width than a height, perspective do be a thing that exists, it's more to the side, and Mark's distance isn't even remotely the height.
Very rough numbering gets me like 6-B and Class P or above (the good news is, even lowballing it deliberately just to check the floor doesn't drop it below P) and that's before actually calcing the proper shapes and thus distance, so, it's still a good feat, but it isn't like, even half as high as shown in the OP.
I am not recalcing this btw, we're about to get a stupidly high LS and AP feat to where this won't even matter and going pixel by pixel to get the exact area and footprint of dust cloud gon take like 3 hours, not worth the cost tbh.
For dust clouds you usually do 99% empty, not 68 or 90%; this would drop the weight by 10x.
The shape is just kind of bad, you should get the area of it instead and work off that, or reach each chunk into a simple shape and each separately and then combine.
You need to average and square the speed and distances, not every bit of dust moved the same distance at the same time, the calc kind of treats it as if the whole mass got moved the total distance when only the very edge went that far and everything else is everything inbetween. Same for the other end.
The height is kind of absurd, the pink line is more a width than a height, perspective do be a thing that exists, it's more to the side, and Mark's distance isn't even remotely the height.
Very rough numbering gets me like 6-B and Class P or above (the good news is, even lowballing it deliberately just to check the floor doesn't drop it below P) and that's before actually calcing the proper shapes and thus distance, so, it's still a good feat, but it isn't like, even half as high as shown in the OP.
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #55
Any word on all the other stuff ?
Jason_Courne
He/Him- 1,664
- 1,751
The hollowness is actually 38% stacked with 90%, which results in only 0.062x volume for hollowness, I took this from Bambu's dust storm calc which was later recalc'd but still accepted with the same hollowness
I haven't really seen any mentions of using 99% hollowness
But I do agree with fixing the shape / area of the dustcloud, new pixel scaling here
Last edited:
Jason_Courne
He/Him- 1,664
- 1,751
Updated the blog with the new pixel scaling, kinetic energy gets 56 petatons of tnt (I reworked the dustcloud's area into a circle to calculate an average dispersion radius for kinetic energy, and then omnidirectional dispersion)
LS also got changed to Class Y
LS also got changed to Class Y
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #58
So the viltrumite scaling hasn't been broken, nice
Last edited:
- 12,490
- 16,863
Since this got evaluated and accepted, should be fine.
Rest of the proposals in OP seem good to me too.
- 12,035
- 15,559
I have a problem with Mark's moon feat.
Doesn't Mark's moon jump breaks our Kinetic Energy rules?
"For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case. Keep in mind that this destruction should be compared to the energy lost by the object during the event. A ball travelling at relativistic speeds creating a hole its size, and continuing to move at nearly the same speed afterwards, would not be considered a contradiction. While a similar feat, with the ball falling to the ground a few meters afterwards, would be cause for concern."
We rejected Omni-Man's feat for the same reason.
Mark doesn't cause any noticeable damage to the moon despite impacting it. I can accept not seeing a continent-size shattering or something, but there wasn't any damage period. The energy from the dust all comes from his jumping off the moon, which should've produced a noticeable impact or crater on the moon's surface.
I don't see how this feat is acceptable without some destruction. He isn't causing any noticeable damage, and I'm not comfortable with saying it's an animation error or something. The destruction should be seen first before something like that is claimed.
That's my take on this feat. I'm not commenting on the scaling.
Doesn't Mark's moon jump breaks our Kinetic Energy rules?
"For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case. Keep in mind that this destruction should be compared to the energy lost by the object during the event. A ball travelling at relativistic speeds creating a hole its size, and continuing to move at nearly the same speed afterwards, would not be considered a contradiction. While a similar feat, with the ball falling to the ground a few meters afterwards, would be cause for concern."
We rejected Omni-Man's feat for the same reason.
Mark doesn't cause any noticeable damage to the moon despite impacting it. I can accept not seeing a continent-size shattering or something, but there wasn't any damage period. The energy from the dust all comes from his jumping off the moon, which should've produced a noticeable impact or crater on the moon's surface.
I don't see how this feat is acceptable without some destruction. He isn't causing any noticeable damage, and I'm not comfortable with saying it's an animation error or something. The destruction should be seen first before something like that is claimed.
That's my take on this feat. I'm not commenting on the scaling.
Jason_Courne
He/Him- 1,664
- 1,751
The main problem with Omni-Man's feat is we got an outright contradictory aftermath of destruction, iirc
Meanwhile Invincible's feat doesn't really have that since there's nothing structural to significantly damage on the Moon, and by the time we can even get a glance at the aftermath, Mark's already hundreds of miles away and the entire view is obstructed by the dustcloud
Meanwhile Invincible's feat doesn't really have that since there's nothing structural to significantly damage on the Moon, and by the time we can even get a glance at the aftermath, Mark's already hundreds of miles away and the entire view is obstructed by the dustcloud
- 9,658
- 6,573
Which is the current status of the thread?
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #63
Accepted it seems. Whatever details someone may want to iron out can be addressed later, the overall scaling have been established
In the mean time...
@FusionPrime0
Last edited:
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #64
If you could help with these it'd also be good
I'll apply the changes later, I'm sort of busy right now
Last edited:
Jason_Courne
He/Him- 1,664
- 1,751
Honestly, Rex vaporizing a trash can is probably the best one to work with
A 31 gal trash can is 23 inch top width, 18 inch bottom width, with a 29.75 inch height
Truncated cone volume: 161,709 cc - 31 gal = 44361 cc
Vaporization of steel: 59944.88*44361 = 2659214821.68 joules (.64 tons of tnt)
Blog page here
A 31 gal trash can is 23 inch top width, 18 inch bottom width, with a 29.75 inch height
Truncated cone volume: 161,709 cc - 31 gal = 44361 cc
Vaporization of steel: 59944.88*44361 = 2659214821.68 joules (.64 tons of tnt)
Blog page here
Last edited:
- 9,658
- 6,573
Minor Bump
- 12,490
- 16,863
Was this properly applied?
- 1,641
- 602
- Thread starter
- #69
Yes, tho I should mention I left Martian Man's tier the same as Shapesmith since his profile hammers down he's compable to him, hopefully that's not an issue
- Status
Similar threads
