On the Usage of Nuke Calculator

[LordXcano]

http://forums.hero-academia.com/xfa-blog-entry/destruction-chart.16119/

As far as I can tell, this (with the exception of 4.6 gigatons for Island level, which was changed to 4.3 based on Everest's destruction) is what is used for the OBD destruction standard. I do recognize that our chart is different from theirs in a few areas, but I thought this was significant for a reason.

Notably, it defines destruction in terms of area covered. Given that we seem to have run into some problems recently with nuke explosions vs. regular explosions, why can't we use this? It circumvents the issue of "oh this was gunpowder" or "oh that was Ki" and it gives us a level for a blast just by scaling how large the blast was.

Now obviously you would need justification for this. A massive blast seen from orbit that leaves it's environment unscathed would not be country level. But for things like say, Raiden's suicide attack, I think this would certainly help?

 

[Antvasima]

This may be useful. I would appreciate if you could inform the other calculation group members about this forum thread on their personal message walls.

 

[Thebluedash]

This sounds useful. Explosion calcs here are a mess anyways.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

This would be pretty useful to have. I agree.

 

[Antvasima]

Lina Shields and Alakabamm are preparing to write an explosion calculation page, so it might be helpful to use the above linked page for reference.

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

I don't get what does this have to do with nuclear and regular explosions.The problem comes from the difference in the physics involved within a regular explosion and a nuclear one.

 

[Lina_Shields]

@KKapoios: I believe this is proposing that all explosions should be treated based on how much material it is shown to have destroyed via mostly volume. This would mean the differences between a regular and a nuclear explosion would be ignored as they would both be measured via how much area the explosion covered.

I will wait for more input, although calculating explosions just by area covered could work well as a lowball in general, and we wouldn't have to differentiate between a nuke and a conventional explosion and stuff.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that it is probably better if you can find a way to differentiate between nuclear and regular explosions.

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

@Lina Shields it is better to treat them as different cases, especially since many times we don't actually see the destroyed volume, just the blast radius.

 

[DontTalk]

I believe this values are actually just calculated using... the nuke calculator.

So basically using "area" here would mean nothing, but using the nuke calculator.

So we would really not win anything with that approach.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[LordXcano]

I believe this values are actually just calculated using... the nuke calculator.
So basically using "area" here would mean nothing, but using the nuke calculator.

So we would really not win anything with that approach.

The values were not gained using nuke calculator. Each tick mark is a different standard for a certain tier.

Wall level, for example, is 5 m^2 blast area or 1 m^3 of stone-like material destroyed. Small Building is 25 m^3 of stone-like material destroyed or 49 m^2 area covered with an explosion.

Nuclear explosions would still be measured via nuke calculator, but a random magic explosion that we can scale to have covered 767,731 km^2 would be Country level as a low-ball.

 

[LordXcano]

Bump

 

[DontTalk]

Quote from the comments:"I'm not exactly redefining anything. Unless everyone just decides to accept them. These are just how I see it. Also, they either used a different nuke calculator or messed up. I used SD.net's nuke calculator and used the exact numbers. They're not too different, but mine at least has a source."

Together with the fact that the nuke calculator was mentioned.


Except you mean that they first defined the area to be destoyed and then used the calculator for the energy level.

That is true, but to compare it to other feats somehow we would need to convert it into an energy value.

If you say that we should say "767,731 km^2 would be Country level" you equate that area to the country level amount of energy. And where do the energy values for country level come from? Nuke calculator. So you equate the energy a nuke needs to have to destroy that area to the energy an explosion would need to have to destroy that area.

In other words we then are back at the assumption that every explosion is like a nuke.

 

[LordXcano]

Well this depends, if Wall - Large Building got values via nuke calculator (seems unlikely, seeing with how small of an area they are and how seemingly arbitrary the area is) then this does have no use. But if it does, then small explosions (the ones more likely to be overblown via nuke calculator) would be helped through this.

 

[DontTalk]

Well, for the small ones I am not entirely sure where the values come from. Probably from fragmentation or something.

It doesn't really matter though.

By defining some equivalence between explosion area and our scale you define an equivalence between explosion area and energy.

That is simply, because our scale is nothing but an energy scale.

So if you define some (bijective continous monotonic) function $ f: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R} $ that projects area to an energy value/some value on our scale (same thing) that means you have a function that defines how much energy such an explosion has. If this function is "good" than it necessarily is justified in that it, as correctly as possible, approximates the energy of such an explosion. Which would imply that this function necessarily is the function we are looking for when we try to refine the calculation methods for explosion energy.

So such an area to attack potency list can make it easier when calculating it in practice, but for the definition of the area levels you require the function relating explosion size and energy, which would be the same one we would want to use for calculating such feats either way.

 

[LordXcano]

"By defining some equivalence between explosion area and our scale you define an equivalence between explosion area and energy."

Yes. I am assuming that because an explosion has a 5 m^2 explosion radius it should be, at least, Wall level since the explosion covers/destroys an area the size of, well, a wall.

However beyond that is assuming too much, as this isn't an equation, it's just an assumption that an attack covering/destroying a certain area should be equivalent to our current tiers, provided they are correct.

If wall level was 5 Joules and 5 m^2 with building being 10 joules and 10 m^2, that does not mean I assume that each extra m^2 now equates to a joule, and then proceed to create a graph mapping out the j/m^2.

But if an attack was 6 m^2 then it would just be Wall, 7.5 m^2 and up is "Wall+" since that's above the average between the two m^2 values.

tl;dr Wall busting should equal wall busting and so on and so forth, as there isn't much reason to assume a character destroying 5 m^2 worth of area with a non-nuclear explosion isn't able to do the same to wall

 

[DontTalk]

You still create a function, such a function is called step-function.

While you don't proclaim it continous you still proclaim a energy relation.

If you say a 5 m^2 function is wall level, than you assume it has at least 5*10^3 J of energy or at least is equal to an attack with that much energy.

Now the feeling that this is correct is nice but essentially you would have to prove that assumption through some method.


The assumption that our tiering is correct and hence it has to be that way is flawed, since the tiering values were chosen for certain conditions and any change from the conditions they were reasoned from would possibly change how the attack classifies.

I agree that technically our scale should conviently be so that destroying a city is at least city level etc. and when we were simply using the nuke calculator for such things it was (for all higher levels, low ones being likely classified of other things), but going back to such standards without good reasoning for the implied equivalence between area and energy can not really be done, while staying credible. (personally I woud like to as well, since it is more coherent together with the current scale, but as said)


Edit: Under the circumstance that your 5 m^2 area contains a wall, wall level would of course be justified, because of fragmentation. Otherwise if it is 5 m^2 of air, for example, that becomes more questionable.