- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #241
I'm more or less done arguing why the rule is badly worded. I'll just attempt to see if I can come up with something different based on what the rule is supposed to communicate. May take some time tho.
-
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.
Kinetic Energy Standards
- Thread starter Andytrenom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kinetic energy feats
- Status
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #243
Okay so I see the following reasons for the rule
General separation between AP and speed in fiction: This is probably taken care of by the policy that simple speed feats aren't usually to be considered as AP, if it's actually depicted as an attack then there would be a legit possibility of it being KE applicable under the rule "the character is depicted as using his kinetic energy in an attack". This would come down to being a case by case of applying the latter rule.
Destructive force not matching KE: Assuming that the speed feat would otherwise follow our guidelines for KE applicability, I think using the destruction over KE actually wouldn't be correct here.
I'm assuming it refers to things like running so fast you tear apart the ground beneath you and if it's simply a running feat or anything that doesn't follow KE standards it's alright to use destruction over KE. But what if the feat does follow the standards?
What if the situation is like this this: A character leaping at his opponent leaving a crater from where he jumped and the villain noting the high speed with which he's going to hit him with. Or a character lifting a skyscraper and swinging it through multiple different buildings? Being its own rule implies that it would apply to feats that don't break other rules but I cannot really see a situation where a feat can follow all other rules of KE and still be valued less than destruction.
If a character is explicitly trying to destroy something with speed and fails that's understandable and would be covered by another new rule that has been proposed. But if it isn't an explicit failure to cause damage then disqualifying KE feats sounds the same as disqualifying a fire creation feat simply if it didn't cause the correct level of damage.
The feat being portrayed as a destruction feat rather than KE If the destruction aspect is what is in-universe treated as the most impressive thing about the feat, then I do have a policy worded for that. Tho if people have a problem with disqualifying KE for this reason, i'm not opposed to removing it.
General separation between AP and speed in fiction: This is probably taken care of by the policy that simple speed feats aren't usually to be considered as AP, if it's actually depicted as an attack then there would be a legit possibility of it being KE applicable under the rule "the character is depicted as using his kinetic energy in an attack". This would come down to being a case by case of applying the latter rule.
Destructive force not matching KE: Assuming that the speed feat would otherwise follow our guidelines for KE applicability, I think using the destruction over KE actually wouldn't be correct here.
I'm assuming it refers to things like running so fast you tear apart the ground beneath you and if it's simply a running feat or anything that doesn't follow KE standards it's alright to use destruction over KE. But what if the feat does follow the standards?
What if the situation is like this this: A character leaping at his opponent leaving a crater from where he jumped and the villain noting the high speed with which he's going to hit him with. Or a character lifting a skyscraper and swinging it through multiple different buildings? Being its own rule implies that it would apply to feats that don't break other rules but I cannot really see a situation where a feat can follow all other rules of KE and still be valued less than destruction.
If a character is explicitly trying to destroy something with speed and fails that's understandable and would be covered by another new rule that has been proposed. But if it isn't an explicit failure to cause damage then disqualifying KE feats sounds the same as disqualifying a fire creation feat simply if it didn't cause the correct level of damage.
The feat being portrayed as a destruction feat rather than KE If the destruction aspect is what is in-universe treated as the most impressive thing about the feat, then I do have a policy worded for that. Tho if people have a problem with disqualifying KE for this reason, i'm not opposed to removing it.
- 15,636
- 5,391
The first case doesn't involve trying to use the speed to destroy something and failing despite high speeds being involved, since what they're trying to harm is another character and not the ground.Andytrenom said:
The second case, assuming they don't fail to destroy something they hit, no contradiction exists; it just means there wasn't enough material present to compare the two feats reasonably.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #245
So does that mean both feats are fine for kinetic energy in your eyes?
- 15,636
- 5,391
If there is some recognition of their high speed before they smack the villain, in case A, sure.Andytrenom said:
In case B, yeah, within reason of course.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #247
Can you see any situation where a feat would be fine for kinetic energy given all other regulations and still have a reason to be dismissed in favour of destruction?
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #249
Most of the stuff in the OP was accepted though, it's only a single rule that is still in discussion
- 165,140
- 72,065
Okay. I haven't had sufficient available time, focus, and energy to keep track very well, but as I mentioned earlier, I am mainly concerned about that we shouldn't use feats that are not destructive in nature, such as Spider-Man moving the Hulk, or Katana parrying bullets with her sword.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #252
Just a reminder of what will be added
Apart from that, the following rules are in talk of being removedAndytrenom said:
- A certain character swings/deflects using a weapon. The kinetic energy of the weapon can be found in this case.
- There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the speed calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
- For example, if a character swings a mace, and it destroyed a part of a wall, but the speed was calculated to be Mach 300, the energy required to destroy part of the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case.
- 165,140
- 72,065
Well, I think that it seems safer to evaluate carrying objects case by case. Simply moving a small object, such as a backpack, in a non-destructive manner at near the speed of light is usually not treated as related to attack potency, whereas moving a large meteorite while flying usually is.
As such, I am not sure where exactly to draw the line, or how to word the rule in a manner that properly makes a distinction.
As such, I am not sure where exactly to draw the line, or how to word the rule in a manner that properly makes a distinction.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #254
The way I would draw the line would be, if objects that cannot be moved without blatantly showing a high degree of superhuman strength are moved at super speeds then it's fine to calculate KE (Eg Semi Trucks, Houses etc). If the object is something than a non-amped can usually carry around then KE shouldn't be used (Backbacks, toolkits, water bottles etc)
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #256
Should we go through with the revision according to my last comment or is there still something to do? How much agreement is there specifically for removing the weapon rule?
- 165,140
- 72,065
I think that we can probably go through with the revision at this point, but would prefer if DontTalkDT organises it, as he is the most experienced member of the wiki when it comes to properly defining these types of standards and conventions.
- 10,502
- 11,572
You don't need me if all that's left is copying it over, but I will read through everything this evening and apply the decisions if more is to do.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #259
Thanks
- 10,502
- 11,572
A character picks up a 200 kg steel ball, throws it against a normal brick wall at mach 200 and it bounces of without causing any damage.Andytrenom said:
The feat would be perfectly accetable if it weren't for the fact that the result of impact makes no sense.
Edit: Wait are we treating the destruction calculation takes priority and "An attack explicitly fails to achieve a level of destruction/damage that its supposed kinetic energy should have been sufficient for. " as separate? Those are basically the same thing, as the level of destruction/damage would be determine by the calculation of what damage it actually caused...
Though there is one difference: If a destruction feat gives higher results than the KE one we should still use destruction.
- 10,502
- 11,572
I have made a first draft. Changed a few things in some formulations in order to reduce redundancy or make it fit better.
Draft
Introduction
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a non-rotating object of mass m travelling at a speed v is $ \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2 $.
Rules
Kinetic energy of objects can be used for various calculations.
However the following rules apply:
Draft
Introduction
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a non-rotating object of mass m travelling at a speed v is $ \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2 $.
Rules
Kinetic energy of objects can be used for various calculations.
However the following rules apply:
- No kinetic energy for faster than light speeds: Kinetic energy calculated for faster than light objects, or more precise for objects for which$ v \ge 299 792 458 m / s $, is not considered legitimate. That is because the kinetic energy of an object, using the correct physical description through relativistic mechanics, would require infinite energy to reach the speed of light, and for objects above the speed of light the equations wouldn't return real values. Since the energy would approach infinity towards the speed of light it also isn't allowed to use relativistic speed as an approximation for the kinetic energy of faster than light objects, since by using an approximation close enough to the speed of light any given value could be reached through that method.
- Do not calculate speed from kinetic energy: The kinetic energy an object was calculated to possess, in any way whatsoever, should not be considered as related through its speed. While the formula technically can be used to relate those values in both direction this is disregarded in practice. One reason for this is that fiction in general differentiates between the attack potency and the speed of a character. Another reason is that it returns unrealistic values, as even a Small City level+ punch would already have Relativistic+ speed. Out of similar reasons mass should also not be calculated from it.
- The relativistic kinetic energy value is only accepted up to 4 times the Newtonian value: The kinetic energy value calculated using the formula for relativistic kinetic energy is only accepted to the point where it is 4 times as high as the value of Newtonian kinetic energy. That is the case, if the speed of the moving object is above 93% of the speed of light. For kinetic energy values above that, which are not faster than light, 4 times the kinetic energy value should be taken. Reason for this rule is that the relativistic kinetic energy diverges towards infinity for speeds approaching the speed of light. So to not get inflated extremely high results setting a threshold at 4 times the kinetic energy value was decided upon.
An exception to this rule would be if a specific value is explicitly stated: For example, the Flash hitting with the force of a white dwarf star. - Kinetic Energy based on Movement Speed is case by case: Fiction often treats the speed with which a character can move himself as unrelated to their attack power. As such feats like just running or carrying a small object, like another character, should only be used if the fiction has made clear that the speed of the movement correlates to the character's power or if the character uses the fast moving object to attack. Calculating the energy necessary for moving large structures at great speeds, using the speed things move as a secondary effect of an attack, throwing objects at great speeds etc. are all acceptable methods of quantifying a characters power regardless.
- A certain character moves at a certain speed while carrying an object, that would require superhuman strength to be carried.
- The kinetic energy displayed is directly shown to be as a result of speed, or at least heavily implied to be so. Examples would be: A meteor crashing into the ground, as well as a Kaiju moving at full speed.
- If a verse consistently treats speed, and its relation to attack potency, in a realistic manner. Calculating kinetic energy from a character's speed isn't problematic, if it's clear that the story they're from doesn't separate speed from one's general capacity for destruction.
- A projectile has been calculated to move at a certain speed, such as a cannonball or a spear.
- An object moves at said speed due to the secondary effects of an attack. For example when an explosion tosses large rocks around, their KE can be used to measure the power of the explosion.
- A feat happens in the Real World, since physics work normally in real life.
- The calculated kinetic energy value is heavily inconsistent with the rest of the cast in the series. EX: Quicksilver's calculated speed cannot be used to derive kinetic energy as it heavily contradicts his established power levels.
- There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the kinetic energy calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
- 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.
- 30,015
- 31,186
That draft looks great
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #264
@Dont That's cause the "if the attack explicitly fails to reach a level of damage" was a rule I came up with to replace that current one
As for making us use destruction feats that give higher results, wouldn't we use the feat that gives higher results anyway assuming they don't explicitly contradict each other? Regardless of if we treat KE as usable?
As for making us use destruction feats that give higher results, wouldn't we use the feat that gives higher results anyway assuming they don't explicitly contradict each other? Regardless of if we treat KE as usable?
- 165,140
- 72,065
Thank you for the help. I think that the draft looks good. I am uncertain about including Kaijus moving at full speed as automatically acceptable though. It could potentially lead to quite a lot of inflated statistics.
I also made a small grammar correction, due to unintended repetition.
I also made a small grammar correction, due to unintended repetition.
- 10,502
- 11,572
Well, they will commonly contradict each other. It isn't rare for stuff to cause damage only by physical impact after all.Andytrenom said:
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #269
Question, If an attack explicitly uses kinetic energy would we take the destruction value over it if it's bigger? And if the destruction is lower in the same situation, would we still treat the feat similarly?
I am trying to go over all the applicable situations for KE, swinging a building, kicking an iron ball at high speed, verse being consistent about AP and speed being connected, a character being a fast moving giant and Destruction taking priority over KE doesn't seem viable in any of these. Would it be better to replace the rule with something that deals with a more particular (or whatever the right word is) situation of destruction accompanying KE? Since taking destruction over KE really doesn't seem to be something we'll do for most feats that are acceptable by the rest of the KE standards.
I am trying to go over all the applicable situations for KE, swinging a building, kicking an iron ball at high speed, verse being consistent about AP and speed being connected, a character being a fast moving giant and Destruction taking priority over KE doesn't seem viable in any of these. Would it be better to replace the rule with something that deals with a more particular (or whatever the right word is) situation of destruction accompanying KE? Since taking destruction over KE really doesn't seem to be something we'll do for most feats that are acceptable by the rest of the KE standards.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #270
Bump again. Honestly just go ahead with Donttalk's draft, I doubt any progress will be made with the rule thing either way.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #272
You can probably just replace Kaijuu running at high speeds to another example if there are problems.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I am dissatisfied with the leniancy of what is acceptable for KE feats here, but otherwise this is very well costructed. Well done.DontTalkDT said:
I'll stomach my issues with the feats for the time being, though.
- 30,015
- 31,186
I think we should go ahead and use DonTalk's suggestion.
- 15,636
- 5,391
I would remove "An object moves at said speed due to the secondary effects of an attack" mainly because it contradicts "There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation", as an explosion or "secondary attack" would have a destruction/AP value.Antvasima said:
I would additionally add in the "Do not" section that the KE of carried objects should only be for objects that are being used offensively; I.E. someone using a sword to block bullets as opposed to someone using a sword to slice through something at hypersonic speeds. Or attacking somone witha hammer at supersonic speeds as opposed to rapidly building a house with a hammer and nails.
- 30,015
- 31,186
Someone moving while carrying a skyscraper around was actually agreed to be applicable since it's still a legit strength feat.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #280
I would honestly take this more as an additional reason to remove the latter rule than reject the former one
I would additionally add in the "Do not" section that the KE of carried objects should only be for objects that are being used offensively; I.E. someone using a sword to block bullets as opposed to someone using a sword to slice through something at hypersonic speeds. Or attacking somone witha hammer at supersonic speeds as opposed to rapidly building a house with a hammer and nails.
This is fine tho
I would additionally add in the "Do not" section that the KE of carried objects should only be for objects that are being used offensively; I.E. someone using a sword to block bullets as opposed to someone using a sword to slice through something at hypersonic speeds. Or attacking somone witha hammer at supersonic speeds as opposed to rapidly building a house with a hammer and nails.
This is fine tho
- Status
Similar threads
