-
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.
Devil May CRT
- Thread starter PrettyFearMachine
- Start date
- Status
- 4,868
- 1,315
- Thread starter
- #42
>And even if he blew away said clouds, which we never really get a proper view of due to the storm, it would.get way lower then making the storm with KE.
The results would actually be way higher via Inverse Square Law. But it produces unrealistic results, so we don't go for it.
The results would actually be way higher via Inverse Square Law. But it produces unrealistic results, so we don't go for it.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Ah
But, yeah, it doesn't look like a shockwave blowing away the clouds at all. Said clouds don't actually deform or so any kind of reaction they would have to a shockwave, they just kinda get folded into the storm.
But, yeah, it doesn't look like a shockwave blowing away the clouds at all. Said clouds don't actually deform or so any kind of reaction they would have to a shockwave, they just kinda get folded into the storm.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Me using a new, more accurate formula got Small Building level. Low end, so it's probably going to eat a ton of "Biggest Smallest Tier", but oh well.DMUA said:
MUA/Devil May Cry: Arius DESTROYS a massive amount of infrastructure using DEMONIC POWER and EXPLOSIONS
- 15,323
- 7,555
Except there isn't a storm. If there was it'd be obscuring the continent.
It did blow the clouds away.
It did blow the clouds away.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Let's look at the scene though
>Darkness (Or a cloud, who really knows) covers that portion of the world
>No distortion effect to indicate there are shockwaves to blow away the clouds
>The clouds themselves do not distort upon contact with the darkness, they completely retain form as if nothing happened
>Darkness (Or a cloud, who really knows) covers that portion of the world
>No distortion effect to indicate there are shockwaves to blow away the clouds
>The clouds themselves do not distort upon contact with the darkness, they completely retain form as if nothing happened
- 15,323
- 7,555
I did four times before my first post just to confirm.
1. Not darkness. If it was darkness you wouldn't see the continent - you do. Plus, the contrast of the affected area is the exact same as the rest of the world, so no darkness hax.
2. One thing applied in some works of fiction doesn't have to apply to everything else.
3. The clouds that are outside the radius of the affected area, not the ones inside it.
1. Not darkness. If it was darkness you wouldn't see the continent - you do. Plus, the contrast of the affected area is the exact same as the rest of the world, so no darkness hax.
2. One thing applied in some works of fiction doesn't have to apply to everything else.
3. The clouds that are outside the radius of the affected area, not the ones inside it.
- 25,374
- 6,746
1: Really semantics, hardly matters
2: I know, but the practice is so common it makes the fact that this isn't using it pretty odd, especially considering if memory serves me well after all, they've used the effect for shockwaves before
3: Looking at them.... looking at them in .25 speed.... I don't see it at all. There doesn't look to be anything indicating the clouds were really bothered by anything, lest, bothered in a calcable fashion.
2: I know, but the practice is so common it makes the fact that this isn't using it pretty odd, especially considering if memory serves me well after all, they've used the effect for shockwaves before
3: Looking at them.... looking at them in .25 speed.... I don't see it at all. There doesn't look to be anything indicating the clouds were really bothered by anything, lest, bothered in a calcable fashion.
- 15,323
- 7,555
1. It does matter because it makes no sense for the clouds to somehow not have been blown away if you can suddenly see the land beneath the affected area where you couldn't before. It also disproves the contention he made a storm or something. He clearly didn't.
2. It isn't a given, so it's at most an oddity in the feat and not a counter to its legitimacy.
3. The indication is that you can't see the land because it's covered in clouds, then it isn't.
2. It isn't a given, so it's at most an oddity in the feat and not a counter to its legitimacy.
3. The indication is that you can't see the land because it's covered in clouds, then it isn't.
- 25,374
- 6,746
There are barely any clouds in the sky above the city before the thing happens, and you don't get another global shot like that to confirm the clouds actually disappeared or were effected at all by it, or were above the city in a fashion that would make it hard to see in the first place. Not to mention, the ground was completely unaffected by whatever caused the event at all. Or at least, assuming it was a shockwave as is said.
- 15,323
- 7,555
We're talking about a continental shot, not a city wide shot. And that's false even on its own. The entire city is pretty much covered by clouds before this shot takes place.
We don't need other global shots for the same feat - what we see once is more than enough and uncontradicted.
He doesn't form a storm nor do anything else, that much is for sure. We see the clouds clearing after the shot when we couldn't see anything beneath that thick layer beforehand. That is simple and clear cut.
We don't need other global shots for the same feat - what we see once is more than enough and uncontradicted.
He doesn't form a storm nor do anything else, that much is for sure. We see the clouds clearing after the shot when we couldn't see anything beneath that thick layer beforehand. That is simple and clear cut.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Timestamp? Cause all I can think of in that matter is the stray nimbuses in the air in the first few minutes, which are easy to just not include in a bright sunny shot.Kepekley23 said:
Also noticed this comment on the other thread
Which... it makes the scene even more bizarre to apply KE to. Only one cloud is actually moving in response to this for whatever reason, so why would we just say that all the clouds must be moving when the visuals do not indicate as such?
- 15,323
- 7,555
The visuals completely go against your assumption. Seriously, the area is covered in clouds then we see the clouds clearing and the ground suddenly being visible. There is no way around that.
- 25,374
- 6,746
... Oh of course now I have to see that you do indeed see the ground before it
Thing's so dim you can barely see green
... Of course, it's also darker then the surrounding unaffected area so there's something to throw you off
... Still though, it doesn't actually look anymore like they're being shoved aside then it looks like the clouds are just being vaporized or otherwise destroyed.
As I said before, the unaffected clouds don't distort in any way, it doesn't look like any movement of the clouds was made.
Though, of course, that also requires the assumption that he would have actually made some kind of attack that would vaporize, of which we only see lasers which he never fires at the clouds
Thing's so dim you can barely see green
... Of course, it's also darker then the surrounding unaffected area so there's something to throw you off
... Still though, it doesn't actually look anymore like they're being shoved aside then it looks like the clouds are just being vaporized or otherwise destroyed.
As I said before, the unaffected clouds don't distort in any way, it doesn't look like any movement of the clouds was made.
Though, of course, that also requires the assumption that he would have actually made some kind of attack that would vaporize, of which we only see lasers which he never fires at the clouds
- 10,758
- 6,501
Watched the scene and it does seem to be clouds dissipating.
- 15,323
- 7,555
The clouds were blown back. There is just absolutely no way around this other than stuff like "he made a storm" that is completely unfounded. One second you don't see the ground because it's covered by the clouds, then you do. It's a clear-cut feat.
- 15,323
- 7,555
1. Condensation did not take place in the feat.
2. Condensation is not remotely equatable to destroying a cloud.
2. Condensation is not remotely equatable to destroying a cloud.
- 15,323
- 7,555
First of all, that's the same as saying turning water into water is the same as turning water into water. Clouds are already gaseous. One can't turn a vapor into a cloud, nor a cloud into vapor. At least not the way you're talking about.
Condensing a cloud is not even remotely equatable to destroying one because you're not destroying a cloud by condensing it. You're changing it from a gas to a liquid.
Condensing a cloud is not even remotely equatable to destroying one because you're not destroying a cloud by condensing it. You're changing it from a gas to a liquid.
- 15,323
- 7,555
What is this "destruction" you speak of?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,029
- 29,524
Were you not there for the earlier storm revisions? Condensing/vaporizing a cloud is considered equatable to destroying it now. Yes, yes, I hear it, "vaporizing vapor roflmao doo doo doo" but forcing it into another state of matter would effectively destroy the cloud. Aaaaand in the actual math, turning liquid to vapor and vapor to liquid would be the same energy shift, thus it's normally just called vaporization for simplicity.
- 15,323
- 7,555
I was, and hardly recall that ever being a thing.
Condensing a cloud is not the same as destroying it, not even close. Not only does that heavily violate conservation of mass, because when you shift from a state of matter to another, you're merely converting the cloud itself into rain or another type of precipitation - its mass remains intact.
Condensing a cloud is not the same as destroying it, not even close. Not only does that heavily violate conservation of mass, because when you shift from a state of matter to another, you're merely converting the cloud itself into rain or another type of precipitation - its mass remains intact.
- 15,323
- 7,555
That's reversing the burden of the proof.
- 10,758
- 6,501
From what i could tell, the scene showed the clouds being "erased" more than moved, so if destruction of clouds is indeed a thing it should be used over KE.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Cloud Calculations lists this:
"Condensation, for creation, or vaporization, for destruction, of clouds. This should be used if clouds are created or destroyed, by condensing / vaporizing the water that makes up the cloud. If the cloud creation includes the creation of great amounts of natural winds, in other words storms, CAPE should be used instead."
And this was all addressed and talked about between you and DontTalk here
If something needs a change, make a Content Revision thread.
"Condensation, for creation, or vaporization, for destruction, of clouds. This should be used if clouds are created or destroyed, by condensing / vaporizing the water that makes up the cloud. If the cloud creation includes the creation of great amounts of natural winds, in other words storms, CAPE should be used instead."
And this was all addressed and talked about between you and DontTalk here
If something needs a change, make a Content Revision thread.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,029
- 29,524
Reversing burden of proof is having to do other stuff aside from pull up links in threads you shoulda read. Now I'm gonna go reverse burden of proof myself to work. As this was something you worked on, I'll assume you got the gist of it.
- 1,673
- 289
How is condensation valid for measuring the "destruction" of clouds?
The guideline says so isn't a valid argument, and since you'll seldom find any feat involving actual "destruction" of clouds I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a mistaken assumption to make, specially since destruction is a surprisingly vague term.
The guideline says so isn't a valid argument, and since you'll seldom find any feat involving actual "destruction" of clouds I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a mistaken assumption to make, specially since destruction is a surprisingly vague term.
- 4,868
- 1,315
- Thread starter
- #74
Bumping this in case there is something else to discuss
- 15,323
- 7,555
Condensation and cloud destruction aren't the same thing nor can they ever be. Just pay attention. How can it be cloud destruction if the mass is the exact same?
Are you going to tell me turning someone into stone is somehow destroying them? Really guys, come on.
The only thing that'd make sense in the context y'all are using is vaporizing the water inside a cloud, ergo condensation; but that'd result in rain, something that didn't happen here. Therefore it's invalid by default
I read the linked post by Bambu; nowhere does it say anything about destruction of clouds. The storm revisions were about density. I remember that well enough.
Are you going to tell me turning someone into stone is somehow destroying them? Really guys, come on.
The only thing that'd make sense in the context y'all are using is vaporizing the water inside a cloud, ergo condensation; but that'd result in rain, something that didn't happen here. Therefore it's invalid by default
I read the linked post by Bambu; nowhere does it say anything about destruction of clouds. The storm revisions were about density. I remember that well enough.
- 1,428
- 164
Why?
- 10,463
- 4,124
Because we are wankers, don't question it, just go with the flow. OvO
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,029
- 29,524
As for weighing the same... what in the world do you think tearing something apart actually does? Of course it weighs the exact same mass. Most destruction feats weigh the same, just different. That's common knowledge.Kepekley23 said:
No, nor am I telling you we are turning this cloud into stone. I'm telling you that undergoing a shift in matter makes it no longer a cloud- it will not be up there, floating about, and being a general degenerate.
Possibly. I came here to say that the default assumption is cloud destroying. Not to counter someone throwing fits about something that was accepted in a CRT a while back.
Linked by nobody as I literally linked nothing because I'm a lazy bastard and people tell me you were there to read the stuff originally anyways*
- 15,323
- 7,555
Does a rainstorm form? If not; and it doesn't, then condensation isn't a thing. Thus this "cloud destruction = condensation" method doesn't work. It's easy to understand.
- Status
