Alex Mercer AP modification

[Callsign_Castle]

This calc is what's used for Alex's tier, but there's better feats of the same event.

This tank can one-shot buildings similar to the calculation used. It scales because this same tank only did relatively minor damage to a much larger building reinforced by a portion of Greene's biomass, and Alex consumed her. Alex would also scale because he created multiple Goliaths in the timeline before the Prototype 2 game, which can take multiple thermobaric bombs.

This would basically give Alex the full value of the calc, not a divided portion.

 

[AguilaR101]

People might find questionable to use concept art for this building considering there is nothing to suggest the interior may be larger than what it appears. And the calc still needs to be adjusted because only half of the building is actually shown to be destroyed and it falling apart in multi meter sized chunks is blatantly not violent fragmentation.

Although it is not uncommon for large building busting calcs to use a value of *28 j/cc based on them being made with reinforced concrete.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

You were literally in the last thread where all of that was addressed and debunked (again), and linked to an earlier discussion where it was also discussed and determined to be game mechanics.

 

[AguilaR101]

Is this the same building that was destroyed in the feat where it is demonstrably larger inside than it is on the outside? If not it's extremely questionable to assume that it happens to be as large as the other one.

And no one debunked the fact the destruction isn't violent fragmentation doesn't nor the fact only half of the building was destroyed, you can't handwave the depiction of the destruction as game mechanics when it's literally the only way to infer the building was destroyed.

 

[DeathNoodles]

Already discussed here

I'm pretty sure the visual lack of violent fragmentation (and only half of the building being destroyed in the feat) was already widely discussed before.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

^This

 

[AguilaR101]

I skimmed through the thread.

UMR/golden void tried to dismiss the sequnce of the destruction as purely game mechanics, an argument that has 0 merits since the only reliable way to infer the base was destroyed to any significant extent is utilizing the cutscene, which is exactly what the currently accepted calc uses. if you have an alternative way to confirm the volume was violently fragmented go ahead and post it because the stock fotage animation is literally the only evidence substantiating the current calc.

Assalt's opinions regarding the topic:

Multiple explosions: Valid. Many explosions brought it down, including 3 large ones.

He accepts the fact there are three explosions that brought down the building by looking at the visuals

Only half the building: Not valid. Looks to be purely gameplay mechanics. For all intents and purposes that building should be treated as gone.

He dismisses the visuals of only half the building being gone as game mechanics

Inverse Square law: Semi-Valid. One of the larger explosions was dead on Alex, but all others were farther away, especially if the building is larger in reality than in game.

This can be overlooked, doesn't affect anything.

The Calculation itself: Potentially flawed. The base looks to be made out of concrete, not normal Earth. Concrete has a lower fragmentation value than Earth. That said it looks to be reinforced concrete, so iron is likely to be interlaced in the building. Still doesn't hit the V.Frag. value of normal

He doesn't really provide strong reasoning for utilizing V.frag, he only says that the values of concrete should be used instead. Again, multi-meter sized chunks of concrete is definitely not violent fragmentation.

Still, this can ultimately overlooked since basic fragmentation of large buildings nowadays utilize the 28j/cc of reinforced concrete instead of the 20 j/cc V.frag for conventional concrete.

The real issue here: Assalts first two points, he is breaking down this scene yet he only accepts one part of the visuals (the three large explosions) and dismissing visuals from the very same scene that depic only half the building being gone as game mechanics and doesn't provide any solid reasoning for doing so.

I'm sorry but taking one part of the visuals and dismissing others is completely arbitrary and nonsensical, the AP for that feat should be roughly half of what it is right now.

Now, your proposal is that we utilize the results of said calc and scale them directly the a single tanks shell, It could be reasonable, but you didn't bother to adress the fact the original calc utilizes the depiction of the buildings interior to justify utilizing a much larger volume than the one we can see in the overworld. Unless the interior design of the building the tank busted here is the same it feels iffy to utilize the calculated volume of the first calc (which still needs to be cut in half) and apply it to this one, specially since the only cue towards them being similar is the exterior design which the first calc shows it to be unreliable when assessing its volume.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

Occam's razor- if the explosions take place next to the very same wall that is still left standing after said explosion, and half the building remains (and above ground level at that considering the tanks were a few meters above ground), and the buildings and structures directly surrounding said explosion are still intact, its game mechanics. That much is plainly obvious. As Assalt said, it should be treated as gone.

https://youtu.be/SSG70OPCXNU Go to 2:05. The building after destruction doesn't look remotely close to the interior in the official art, or the actual gameplay. The size difference is blatant. The external view of the interior takes away any credibility from the argument that the interior would be the same size as the interior. It isn't even the same structure.

Weeklybattles: "Its a very common thing in games to have an interior much bigger than the exterior to save space on an open world map."

I should probably ask...you play video games, right?

 

[ByAsura]

It's clearly game mechanics. The tanks are on a different part of the base from the portion that's actually destroyed.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Yeah, unless there are any major rebuttlals, I think it is pretty clear that this is game mechanics.

 

[AguilaR101]

Occam's razor-

There are no "reasonable assumptions" to be made here, the visuals are pretty explicit, you can't just take one part of them and dismiss the others for no reason.

if the explosions take place next to the very same wall that is still left standing after said explosion, and half the building remains (and above ground level at that considering the tanks were a few meters above ground), and the buildings and structures directly surrounding said explosion are still intact, its game mechanics

What exactly is your point here? How does this adress the fact Assalt is taking only one part of the visuals and dismissing the rest as game mechanics ?

Doesn't this prove that even the explosions he uses to divide the feat are game mechanics since they don't actually damage the building?

Fiction seldom portrays realistic collateral damage, that doesn't really give you license to assume more than what it's actually shown, after the sequence half the building is still standing, ergo only half the volume was destroyed.

Either the whole sequence is game mechanics and can't be used or none of it is, there is no middle ground.

https://youtu.be/SSG70OPCXNU Go to 2:05. The building after destruction doesn't look remotely close to the interior in the official art, or the actual gameplay. The size difference is blatant.

I'm perfectly aware, where is the evidence that the interior of the building destroyed by the tank in this specific instance is as large as the one from the original calc?

Weeklybattles: "Its a very common thing in games to have an interior much bigger than the exterior to save space on an open world map." I should probably ask...you play video games, right?

If you played videogames you would know that it is also extremely common for interior designs to be completely different despite the exterior looking the same, so you need evidence that the interior of the building destroyed by the tank is just as big as the one measured in GVs blog and the current calc you're citing.

 

[DeathNoodles]

Link

If you see the "Templar base interior" picture (which is a concept art made by the staffs behind Prototype's design), you can see that the base's calculated interior looks bigger than the one you see in the free roam gameplay. Back then, "Templar" used to be the names of the Blackwatch soldiers until the developers decided to change it for originality (or copyright reasons). As far as I can tell, the name change seems to be the only thing they have changed.

Also:

"1) Free roam obviously represents the base differently from it's actual design, so I think attempting to discredit the feat based on that detail alone isn't justified. The free roam base clearly looks nothing like the actual base, plus it's interior is physically much larger than it's size representation in free roam.

2) While the gameplay has Alex destroy them one at a time, the actual game storyline shows them all exploding simultaneously, so it is a solid feat. It happens the same way when the tank one shots the base.

3) Here we can see the back left corner of the base outlined with fuel tanks. Yet the entire back portion of the building remains. Note the free roam of the structure in no way represents the interior base design. A hive is destroyed using the same animation, when the inside of a hive is just completely empty, with all the walls heavily coated with the virus.

4) Clearly as shown above, the destruction of buildings in the game are completely uniform, no matter how it's destroyed. So I think the method above is the best way to calculate the damage. I could've tried to calculate the energy of a thermobaric explosion, but we don't know the chemicals, so there's that."

And that link was what got Alex Mercer into being accepted as into tier 8-A. It seems to me you're attempting to measure AP based on gameplay interpretations alone, when such types of arguments has already been discredited for (and argued against) in the past discussions. I don't see why the base's interior shouldn't be bigger than the exterior.

If you still want explicit proof for the interior of the base in gameplay being as big as the one in the concept art, then sorry to say, but the only way we can get the evidence to be more solid is if we ask one of the developers behind Prototype to confirm it for us (a Word of God proof. Though the chances of anyone being able to interview them with this question is quite unlikely). Otherwise, we're stuck with what we have, and it isn't the first time we brush off some inconsistencies in Prototype as game mechanics (And I'm pretty sure it is for good reasons. Such as Mercer being harmed by bullets in game, despite his feat of withstanding an RPG and an explosion that knocked him out of the building. I'm pretty sure Mercer wouldn't be street level as a result of game mechanics).

 

[AguilaR101]

The interior of the first base being as large as the concept art isn't being contested, I already saw all of UMRs comments and arguments in his blog and the thread, the only thing that was accepted was his proposal of utilizing the volume from the concept art, not that the overworld animation of the base being destroyed should be ignored because it's game mechanics. You can't really do that because it's the only piece of evidence suggesting the base was damaged to any significant extent in a short enough window of time.

What I'm contesting is:

a)Assalt's calc which is very blatantly utilizing these visuals to substantiate his argument for dividing the total energy by three, except he is also arbitrarily dismissing the fact those very same visuals only show half the base being destroyed and writes them off as game mechanics with very weak reasonings, It's completely arbitrary and the total result should be halved because you can't just pretend that some visuals are legit while the rest are not. So even if you can infer that the building here is the same, the tank only scales to half of the total energy of that calc because it incorrectly assumes the whole volume was destroyed when it very blatantly wasn't.

UMR arguments regarding the whole sequence being game mechanics are irrelevant because the calc which OP himself posted is utilizing that very same sequence to divide the feat in the first place.

b) The assumption that this other building shares the interior design of the one you actually get to enter. You don't even need direct evidence of that, just basic confirmation that they're the same type of building and absence of showings that might suggest the interiors are different.

Still actual proof of the interiors being the same would be nice because people seem very willing to dismiss the stock building destruction sequence and exterior as unreliable game mechanics while at the same time attempting to use them as means to justify scaling.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

You're looking for a perfect world, which you simply aren't going to find here.

"not that the overworld animation of the base being destroyed should be ignored because it's game mechanics."

It is the basis for the calculation that is accepted and used, so it is accepted.

"very blatantly utilizing these visuals to substantiate his argument for dividing the total energy by three"

This point has nothing to do with why he divides his value by three. It is because there are three tanks responsible for the destruction.

The entire building is covered in explosions, the e n t i r e building is covered in explosions, yet the game's stock destruction does not directly show that. At this point, common sense must be used and a light bulb should turn on saying "obviously this whole building should be gone since we see the entire building inside and out blowing up, which is what was discussed and agreed on.

There's really no sense in discussing this point further.

 

[ByAsura]

During the actual cutscene, we see sections of the base fall apart, which aren't on the interior after it cuts to those sections. Hell, there's actually a hole in the roof that Alex and the Hunters use to enter in the first place. It's clearly game mechanics and (as Callsign mentioned) stock footage to save budget.

 

[AguilaR101]

It is the basis for the calculation that is accepted and used, so it is accepted.

Not seeing strong arguments here, and aren't you literally using that very same animation to scale the tank to it? How would you prove otherwise that this base was destroyed if not by looking at the animation?

This point has nothing to do with why he divides his value by three. It is because there are three tanks responsible for the destruction.

Where do you get that from? The whole mission has you destroy exactly 6 tanks for the base to start crumbling, if what you said was true the feat would be divided by six not three.

The entire building is covered in explosions, the e n t i r e building is covered in explosions, yet the game's stock destruction does not directly show that

What are you even talking about?, the overworld animation clearly shows several small explosions happening before the three big ones appear Whic is perfectly consistent with the footage of the interior only showing small explosions before cutting to the overworld

At this point, common sense must be used and a light bulb should turn on saying "obviously this whole building should be gone since we see the entire building inside and out blowing up, which is what was discussed and agreed on.

Appeal to common sense. What actual evidence, besides the overworld animation, do you have of the entire building being destroyed in a short enough amount of time and detonations for the calculation to be valid?

And now that you made me notice the fact the fueltanks were what ultimately caused the the destruction, is there any reason not to assume the tank destroyed the building through chain reaction?

Since the basis of your proposed scaling requires the interiors to be the same, surely the fuel tanks would be features present on that building as well.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here?

 

[Callsign_Castle]

So what are the conclusions here?

Aguilar has as issue with how the game uses standard destruction among all building destruction, versus how it should be treated from a logical standpoint and setting aside the tendency for games to re-use animations or at least do a poor job demonstrating them properly to save money. What we're arguing now has already been agreed on in the past few revisions.

Either way if we use the three tanks or six tanks that he suggests, the feat everyone else agrees on would give the full value.

 

[AguilaR101]

So what are the conclusions here?

There are no conclusions yet.

My issues with the proposed scaling are as follows:

1) The original calc is incorrect

• This calc utilizes these visuals to divide the total energy of the feat by 3 (for the three large explosions that took out the building)
• However it doesn't account for the fact the very same visuals show only half of the building being gone, which should cut the results by half of what they currently are
• The reasoning for excluding that part I find completely arbitrary, as it dismisses parts of the visuals as game mechanics while using the explosions from the very same scene to divide the energy of the feat.

2) The scaling is dubious:

• OP suggests we use this clip as means to scale the full energy of the aforementioned feat to the tank shell as it apparently destroys the building in one shot.
• The first calc utilizes visuals and concept art of the much larger interior to get the volume used in it. The problem is that interior design in videogames aren't always the same, this however, can be ignored as just the confirmation they're supposed to be the same type of base would let one infer that they should be equally as large inside.
• But that in itself raises another problem, the base from the original feat was destroyed as result of 6 different fuel tanks being damaged and eventually exploding, if the interior design is the same it becomes very likely that the tank here only achieved the destruction through chain reaction.

 

[ByAsura]

I think we should ask Assalt himself why he divided the feat by 3 rather than use conjecture. He got all the information from Golden Void's calc, after all.

Edit: I've asked, awaiting a reply.

 

[Antvasima]

You can tell Assaltwaffle that I would appreciate the help as well.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

Assalt:

"I didn't. I copied that part from the previous calculator; I have zero context of the feat itself and was only correcting what needed to be changed."

Looks like we're moving on then.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems best, yes.

 

[AguilaR101]

We could've moved on if Assalt's comment didn't practically discredit the calc by ascertaining that the he has no idea of the context behind it.

At any rate I wil contact him later to confirm wether or not he utilized these visuals as his comments in the very same thread where he came up with the calculation suggest otherwise that this is indeed the case

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1291190

Ok. Looking at the calculation itself and the video, here are my opinions.

Multiple explosions: Valid. Many explosions brought it down, including 3 large ones.

Only half the building: Not valid. Looks to be purely gameplay mechanics. For all intents and purposes that building should be treated as gone.

Inverse Square law: Semi-Valid. One of the larger explosions was dead on Alex, but all others were farther away, especially if the building is larger in reality than in game.

The Calculation itself: Potentially flawed. The base looks to be made out of concrete, not normal Earth. Concrete has a lower fragmentation value than Earth. That said it looks to be reinforced concrete, so iron is likely to be interlaced in the building. Still doesn't hit the V.Frag. value of normal Earth though.

 

[ByAsura]

Assalt doesn't know, he based everything off the previous calculation and discussion thread.

Assalt's calc used the fragmentation of concrete, not Earth ("Apply V.Frag. of concrete. 79802792150.7*20 = 1.5960558x10^12 joules"). However, the fragmentation of reinforced concrete (not even violent fragmentation) is 28 J (see this calc for reference), making the value higher. 79802792150.7 * 28 = 2.2344782e+12 J, or 534.053102347 Tons of TNT.

Anyway, even if Mercer only took a tiny portion of the blast, all the explosions are 3.8 times higher than baseline (using Assalt's calc, not mine) and he absolutely tanked it while near the epicenter. Zero damage, not even batting an eye.

 

[AguilaR101]

There is no "full" explosion, the number would only scale if the building had been destroyed in a single large blast, but there is literally nothing to prove that was the case and the only piece of evidence suggesting that a large enough portion of the building was destroyed in a short enough timeframe is the very same clip you're attepting to write off as game mechanics. If you have evidence that the building was taken in one go feel free to post it.

 

[ByAsura]

I know there wasn't one explosion, the point was that even a smaller blast can be well above baseline and Mercer was in the epicenter of at least one. I meant to say all before, not full. Editing that in.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I don't have personal investment in the calculation and I'm just going by what is presented to me. If something is wrong, that's fine and I may not be right.

I'm not an expert in the verse and I don't really want to go to bat for something that I barely have memory of and am not knowledgeable about.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

Okay. Noted.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

Hopefully this will be the post to end all posts.

Issue #1 - Using the explosions to justify the whole building being busted, yet the stock animation only shows half the building or so being destroyed.

Invalid. Enough of the interior of the base is lined with giant fuel-air tanks and when exploded, should level the base.

Quick math:

Thanks to official U.S. Government standards on fixed ladders in industrial settings, we know no rung of the ladder is no more than 12 inches distance to the next rung. We also know the density of gasoline generally is 5.91 lb/US gal. We will be lowballing the feat since we see they produce thermobaric explosions similar to the thermobaric tank rounds, but we don't know the chemicals used, so we will assume standard gasoline is the fuel.

Using the above information for scaling, the tank is about 6.4m high and 2.3m in diameter (1.15m radius). That gives a volume of 7024.45116602 gallons, or 5619.56 gallons when accounting for 80% tank fill.

4―5├ù104 J

Energy released by the combustio of 1 gram of gasoline

4e4 J/g * 2.12713e7 grams = 8.5e11 joules or 203.15 tons of tnt for one tank.

5e4 J/g * 2.12713e7 grams = 1.06e12 joules or 253.35 tons of tnt for one tank.

(Average 228.25 tons of tnt)

Since there are 6 tanks, there's a total of 1218.9-1520.1 tons of tnt, or just over 1 kiloton which is Low 7-C.

So yes, that building should be absolutely leveled.

So we can honestly drop any discussion related to the building itself being an issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Do the rest of you agree with Callsign Castle's assessment?

 

[AguilaR101]

That's a completely different approach to the feat that though, you're better off getting it evaluated and figuring how it scales to Alex with the methods outlined in the Explosion Yield Calculations during the time he was in the building.

Using it as means to demerit the scene as unrealiable game mechanics kind puts a massive damper on your intial attempt to utilize that very same stock animation as means to create an scaling chain.

And also does indeed prove that the tank doesn't really need to have enough power to bust the building, just enough to set off the tanks under the assumption that the interiors are the same, the bolded being another point you brought up in the beginning.

 

[Antvasima]

I have to unsubscribe due to time constraints. You can message me later, if you need my help after you reach a conclusion.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

Considering he goes from tank to tank busting them with his own hands he takes the full value (from one tank). I went into further detail in my blog (where I made a minor tweak to my initial numbers above)

" Using it as means to demerit the scene as unrealiable game mechanics kind puts a massive damper on your intial attempt to utilize that very same stock animation as means to create an scaling chain. "

Yeah I realized going for the building was a pretty stupid method halfway into the method I just used.

 

[AguilaR101]

I only have issues with the thermobaric tank scaling with the intial points made in the thread, I don't have any problems with the other approach so I'll just take my leave.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

The thermobaric tank issue will be for another time as it deals with this building business again.

 

[DeathNoodles]

I have a question for Mercer's scaling tier in your blog:

Is that the very early game Mercer (the same one with that controversial thermobaric tank destroying Military Base feat) being used for that calc? The one where he is supposed to be much weaker than the end-game Mercer in Prototype 1?

 

[Callsign_Castle]

Mercer weaker than end-game Mercer?

This is Mercer after he unlocks his first power (beginning game).

 

[DeathNoodles]

Early-game Mercer being weaker than end-game Mercer most likely has to do with the fact that he didn't have any other upgrades (or shapeshifted weapons/abilities) and got practically one-shotted by Elizabeth Grene, yet was able to defeat and consume Greene after he has gotten more upgrades and abilities later on.

Ah, nice. It would be great to add a extra note somewhere to show that it is early game Mercer with that feat, and that he is most likely much stronger at the later stages of the game.

 

[Sir_sun_man]

so what we are getting form this is mercer from P1 is far higher into 8A then we originaly thought

thats nice to know