Sekiro KE Revisions

[SomebodyData]

Maybe the KE page is out of date, but I noticed that the town level rating doesn't follow the KE Rules.

Kinetic Energy Feats

^ The feat is both far above regular showings (By several hundred / thousands) and has no destructive showings from the feat comparable to even tier 8.

I'm getting concerned KE abuse is getting more common on the site, but I think this thread is a good start to addressing the problem.

EDIT: Won't continue this thread til after the move.

 

[KLOL506]

It's done right near the end of the game. No one else but the strongest of the characters and end-game Sekiro scale to this. Sekiro's regular showings vary vastly between the stages of the game.

 

[KLOL506]

Also you might wanna contact Bambu, he's the one who knows more about Sekiro than me.

 

[SomebodyData]

Well, like I edited in my op, I'm not really intending to continue the thread til after the forum move. However, your first post wasn't proof against the KE rules, if I was arguing outlier, they would work.

Also looking over the other feats makes me doubt they're using the KE rules too.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This again eh

"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."

This was specifically discussed in this thread when we revised the standards for KE- it is the reason Sekiro wasn't downgraded whereas Bloodborne, a verse with a similar feat, was. This topic has been broached a few times before, including said thread.

 

[SomebodyData]

Sorry, I needed to be more explicit, I was referring to this part of the rules specifically:

Speed cannot be used to find KE whe 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 contradicting a kinetic energy 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.

I understand that comparing an end-game feat to beginning feats is harsh, so I'm not using that as the main issue (more of a supporting issue), its the second part of these rules I'm most concerned about.

 

[KLOL506]

Here's the problem: the sword swing isn't aiming to destroy anything, because there is nothing to destroy in those clouds in the first place, save for Sekiro himself. So that second point really doesn't apply. Plus, like Bambu said, we normally ignore the second point if the object is massive, like in the case of tanking re-entry feats for the Transformers or car crashes into walls and stuff.

 

[SomebodyData]

That's why I brought it up, we need to be shown some destruction in the feat. Kinetic Energy feats without any destructive showings get the boot too. I'm not asking for it to be exactly the same, even tier 8 destruction from the same attack would probably suffice.

We do give some leeway, yeah, but the rule I mentioned was the destruction caused by the attack, not the material used for the KE.

 

[KLOL506]

Not really tho. We don't always need destruction to prove a feat being legit.

Also, Tsunderplane is literally 15.18 kg according to Lina's calc. That kinda weight is not gonna qualify you to be able to use KE for AP. AFAIK as of the KE revisions we generally accept car-sized objects of comparable mass and above to be valid for KE to apply.

 

[SomebodyData]

Though like I said, I didn't plan on resurrecting the thread til the fandom move is complete anyways, so you guys don't have to worry about the thread for now.

 

[KLOL506]

The thread's purpose is literally pointless tho, Bambu and I already explained why.

 

[SomebodyData]

Yeah, except I brought out tsunderplane for the destructive part, as it was rejected before the weight rules were added.

As a courtesy, I'd not rather cause a large revision days before the move. But I haven't argued the calc is defunct because of its size or weight, just the lack of destructive potential.

 

[KLOL506]

The Tsunderplane seems to be more of an outlier issue and not necessarily a destruction-related issue.

 

[SomebodyData]

Again, I'm not focusing on other flaws it may have had, I'm focusing on its rejection itself. Not to mention it wasn't an outlier at the time.

I'mma just close this for now, I'll reopen after the forum move.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Before I let this drop, I want to be clear: you believe this breaks KE standards because it has no destructible environments in a video game without that mechanic, in an area made almost entirely of clouds? That's the issue?

I'd also like to point out that, again, when these revisions to KE standards were put in place, Sekiro was literally the first one to be checked alongside Bloodborne. It is on the thread of the revisions.

 

[KLOL506]

TBH this issue is just... far too nitpicky IMHO. Even I knew from the start you wouldn't get to have a shot at any destructible environments in the effing clouds in the first place. It in and out of itself is not good enough evidence to go through with this thread.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Mr.Bambu

Yes, Dargoo pointed out that the rules had made it so these type of feats (ie with no destructive showings) would be legitimate, when you brought up the calc. However, in the same post, he noted that you would also have to prove the fight associates speed with ap to a degree at least.

Looking at the revision thread, Sekiro was only mentioned for 3 comments while the revisions were still being debated, it was also before Dargoo's comment on making the rules stricter.

@KLOL A surprising amount of calcs actually come from clouds, but yeah I understand what you mean. However, a town level feat out of the blue without even tier 8 destruction is suspect especially by the rules standards.

 

[Dienomite22]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask so sorry in advance but, why doesn't the storms created by Genichiro, Isshin and the Divine Dragon not scale to Attack Potency or their overall tier? I tried to find the reason in past threads but there doesn't appear to be any CRT that explains it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean it does? The bigger dragon with the bigger weapon is stronger than the little dragons at the start, though I'm not terribly certain which part of my response you're responding to with this.

Are you aware that the environment you're asking to be destructed is a cloud? In a game without that mechanic? I'm just wondering what, in your mind, would make this acceptable- a huge sword is swung at a speed near that of the lightning being used around it, and its an issue for some reason I'm not totally aware of.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask so sorry in advance but, why doesn't the storms created by Genichiro, Isshin and the Divinie Dragon not scale to Attack Potency? I tried to find the reason in past threads but there doesn't appear to be any CRT that explains it.

Environmental Destruction, invalid. There's no reason to scale them to it physically.

 

[KLOL506]

Not really, also comparing the feat of moving storms to moving a giant sword with your bare hands really isn't comparable unless you're moving the storm with your own physical strength. If it's with magic, it's a completely different statistic on its own that is usually classified as environmental damage.

EDIT: THIS COMMENT WAS INTENDED FOR SD

 

[SomebodyData]

@Mr.Bambu let me rephrase it then, when you mentioned Sekiro, the revision was still being debated and about 40 posts later, Dargoo proposed stricter standards that required the feat to be proven to be consistent with these rules.

Any proof is fine in my mind. Going off the thread, a tier 8 destruction feat from the type of same attack would work, or proving that the slash associates ap with speed.

@KLOL Again, not the point. Just mentioning cloud feats exist quite often, and then pointing out the main issue with getting a tier 7 feat out of the blue.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What do you mean by "consistent with these rules"? As in, it consistently meets the rules you mentioned earlier that you said you held issue with, i.e., destruction and such? Because, as I said, this should be rectified by the location being a cloud. If you refer to some other rules, feel free to point them out, I guess.

The "same attack" only occurs in clouds. There's nothing to destroy. I don't know what to tell you. The sole feat is KE, there's no destruction feat to counteract it, and I'm not sure why this hasn't been acknowledged.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Mr. Bambu

Going back to Dargoo's comment to show what I'm trying to get across, showing no destructive feats doesn't mean it its immediately proven to be correct, instead it means you have to prove that there is a connection between speed and ap in the fight / verse.

The fact that this takes place in a cloud doesn't suddenly make it immune to the rule, it makes the situation much more difficult for both sides to debate, but there still needs to be some proof of correlation between the feat's speed and ke.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Now, that's nice, but that's not what we use. I'll quote a comment further down, that was apparently the last word in that thread on the subject, from DT, the consultant on such matters who wrote the rules.

"I disagree, because I don't see why someone carrying a mountain at mach 1 for no reason whatsoever shouldn't be an acceptable feat. Or moving earth to change the season. Or moving stars in the night sky in order to put them into a magic circle.

As long as its clearly a feat of strength, i.e. the object would need superhuman strength to move, I think KE is fine."

So again, I do not see the legitimacy of a downgrade on the premise of the verse not explicitly stating it follows normal KE rules.

 

[SomebodyData]

That was specifically regarding carrying / throwing / lifting KE calcs if I remember correctly, we specifically had the problem with a Marvel calc which is why these feats were brought onto the spotlight.

EDIT: Yeah, that was regarding those feats specifically as Antvasima had mentioned Spiderman and Katana specifically down the thread.

 

[Schnee_One]

Just going to point out we have about a week where CRTs can be in affect before we put them on pause so this will likely be valid still.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That was specifically regarding carrying / throwing / lifting KE calcs if I remember correctly, we specifically had the problem with a Marvel calc which is why these feats were brought onto the spotlight.

No, Somebody. It's for moving things. The word for this is semantics. The core point of DT's statement was that KE with an object requiring superhuman strength to lift is valid. Hence Bloodborne vs Sekiro.

 

[Andytrenom]

Dargoo suggesting something in the thread doesn't mean that's what the rules are. As it stands, moving something notably heavy, like a truck or building or mountain, can be calculated with KE

Not having outright shown destruction isn't needed

 

[SomebodyData]

@Andytrenom

Striking someone with a sword (albeit a massive one) and being called at town level through its speed seems different than the examples you're displaying. One is actively trying to cause destruction whereas the other ones are movement.

Not showing any destruction is okay, but showing even a little bit is somehow evidence against the feat?

@Mr. Bambu

I'm confused. You're arguing its the same as the lifting feats I mentioned, only separated by semantics, right? Because we did become stricter with those feats specifically, hence why we removed Spiderman's and Katana's feats. I was arguing it wasn't the same type of feat because while I think the Sekiro feat should be removed, I don't think had the same issues as the spiderman and Katana feat.

So are you agreeing with removing the Sekiro feat but for different reasons?

 

[KLOL506]

Here's the thing: Katana's sword is nowhere as massive as the one in Sekiro.

Also the Sekiro feat is not just destruction, but speed as well.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm not arguing its the same as lifting feats. I'm saying the explicitness of the thread was clear. Moving an object it would take superhuman strength to lift can count as KE. Swinging a sword is moving it in a specific way. We removed Katana's feat for the specific bit about not superhuman strength to lift a katana, and we removed Hulk's because it was moving another person, which is another rule.

No, I'm not agreeing, I'm trying to point out why you're wrong. You're misreading the rules and ostensibly taking Dargoo's opinion when that isn't what the rules are. Sekiro's feat is fine, this has been discussed before.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Mr. Bambu Those are issues for both feats, yes, but that's not why they were removed. Here are the comments after Ant's question about the feats showing that.

How does putting Sekiro's feat in the same class as Spiderman's and Katana's feats help prove this?

SomebodyData wrote: That was specifically regarding carrying / throwing / lifting KE calcs if I remember correctly, we specifically had the problem with a Marvel calc which is why these feats were brought onto the spotlight. No, Somebody. It's for moving things. The word for this is semantics. The core point of DT's statement was that KE with an object requiring superhuman strength to lift is valid. Hence Bloodborne vs Sekiro.

If you misspoke about semantics, that's fine, I was just trying to point out your previous argument relied on feats that we specifically removed. If you have more arguments we could address, that'd work too.

@KLOL again, there are issues for the calc by the rules, but they were not the reason why they were originally removed. I linked the removal part in my response for Bambu if you want to check for yourself.

Though, hopefully I have to say this for the final time, I don't believe Sekiro's feat is akin to Spiderman's or Katana's. I'm not sure why there is an argument for them to be in the same lifting / throwing / parrying kind of calcs, either. Assuming they were the same kind of feats, then they'd be thrown out so shouldn't you be agreeing at least in that regard?

My issue is that despite being calced at town level, the feat doesn't even display tier 8 destruction. Andy is currently the only one to actually address that, but if you could address it too, that'd help.

 

[KLOL506]

They're not in the same class tho? Like Bambu said, we don't go by what Dargoo stated or what the comments below Ant's said as DT ultimately had the final say on the matter and that is what we're using right now, and as for Spidey, moving people doesn't count anymore, moving inanimate objects however, does. Plus, Spidey didn't tackle Hulk into a wall or some other sturdy area so that feat is moot regardless, and the feats on those levels were already approaching outlier-levels of unreliable with the speed calculated also being iffy. Sekiro's feat however, involves slamming Wolf into the cloud floor, where he takes the full brunt of the swing's force.

And once again, no, there isn't any issue with the calc itself since it perfectly lines up with this rule: "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."

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Okay, I've got somewhere to be, so I'm going to try to break this down.

You: Sekiro's KE is wrong and seems like KE abuse.

Me: Why is it KE abuse? It was discussed on thread.

You: The discussion didn't go anywhere productive, I'm referring to destruction not meeting rules, since there is no visible destruction that matches the feat.

Me: Sure, but this is for easily explained reasons (cloud/game mechanics argument goes here). Again, this was discussed, even a bit on the KE thread.

You: Yes but Dargoo disagreed, as seen here. He said AP needs to provably correlate to speed first for KE to apply.

Me: Okay, but again, cloud/game mechanics. I'm not sure what you want.

You: Anything sufficient for Dargoo's post would be fine. That thread was still debating Sekiro stuff before it closed.

Me: The thread doesn't accept what Dargoo said, DT stated the rules at the end of the thread. Those rules allow Sekiro's feat to be acceptable as they specifically allow for objects (not creatures) requiring superhuman strength to lift to qualify for KE regardless of other factors like destruction.

You: That was only for carrying/throwing/lifting. Marvel's feat was denied in a similar case to this.

Me: Moving things is what it refers to, the method of movement doesn't matter. The point of DT's post in that thread is to allow extremely large objects to be considered fine for KE.

You: I'm confused. You're arguing it's the same as the lifting feats I mentioned above (as an aside, no I am not). We became stricter with those feats but those don't apply here. Are you arguing Sekiro's feat is wrong?

Me: No, I am arguing it is fine as it falls explicitly within DT's rules.

You: Oh, okay. If you misspoke, that's fine, I was just pointing out that my previous argument relied on feats we removed.

/text


Somebody, I never mentioned the Spiderman and Katana feats as an argument. I know exactly why they were removed, when I did mention them it was to point out that the reasons they were removed do not apply to Sekiro's situation. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what your reasoning is for removing Sekiro's feat is anymore- you have seemingly dropped environmental destruction since our rules specifically do not use that for large objects, and relying on Dargoo's proposal doesn't hold up since we don't use Dargoo's proposal.

What are you trying to get at for this downgrade? Which rule specifically does it break that hasn't already been pointed out?

 

[KLOL506]

It's like this.

A car crashing into a wall at full force with a human right in front of it but the wall doesn't even scratch but the feat is consistent AF and the human keeps on taking it like a champ means we use the KE and we just assume that the wall is too tough for cars to even dent into or it's just game mechanics not allowing you to destroy other stuff. End.

It's just that simple.

 

[SomebodyData]

I'll probably take the L for this one if you're busy, I'll concede with the thread but I want to clarify some things:

@Mr. Bambu I never mentioned environmental destruction, if you're referring to Environmental Destruction and not "a town level feat out of the blue without even tier 8 destruction is suspect".

I believe I've repeated the latter several times throughout the thread, and even in had it in the OP.

I said you misspoke because I mentioned the spider man and kantana feat and you said the difference was semantics, I quoted it in my previous response. I think you were saying that there is no difference with all KE calcs on that rule, but at the time, I was talking about how even feats like Katana's needed to be destructive, when the 7-C feat here wasn't anywhere close to the calculated KE.

@KLOL no, we go with the actual destruction.

"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." - From the Kinetic Energy Rules page

 

[KLOL506]

How the hell do you even get destruction in the LITERAL CLOUDS

Also the 200 kg ball isn't even a valid weight for this to apply. A car weighs 5 times as that.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The environmental destruction thing was about the question about storm feats, apologies that it wasn't clearer.

 

[SomebodyData]

@KLOL Cloud Calculations. Creation, destruction, even movement can be calced.

A 200 kg ball at mach 300 is >>> a car at full speed, not to mention it comes directly from the kinetic energy feats page.

@Mr. Bambu Ah okay.

Since I'm conceding do you guys want me to close the thread?