Attack potency and Durability

This page has been taken from vs battle wiki

## Destructive Capacity

**Destructive Capacity** is the term used to determine the amount of damage a character can produce. It is normally the deciding factor of VS matches along with **Speed**. It is measured in units of energy.

## Attack Potency

An alternative term for **Destructive Capacity** which has more direct meaning: The Destructive Capacity that an attack is equivalent to. A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

We are aware that this technically violates the principle of conservation of energy, as it should logically disperse upon impact, but fiction generally tends to ignore this fact, so we overlook it as well.

Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency **depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack**.

Keep in mind that certain tiers do not necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values.

Here is a list of the tiers in question:

Tiers between **9-A** and **3-B**, even those which do correspond with their namesakes, should not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values that correspond with those ratings, as many verses can have their own context result in these feats being above or below their namesakes. The exceptions are that the lower borders of **5-B**, **4-C**, **4-B**, **4-A**, **3-C**, and **3-B** can be considered standard calculations for destroying a planet, a star, a solar system, two or more solar systems, a galaxy, and two or more galaxies respectively, and adding those tiers based on those specific feats is allowed.

## Explanation

### Standard sizes

* **Moon level:** Earth's satellite Moon.
* **Small Planet level:** Mercury.
* **Planet level:** The Earth.
* **Dwarf Star level:** Brown Dwarf star (specifically, the OTS 44).
* **Small Star level:** VB 10.
* **Star level:** The Sun.
* **Large Star level:** Rigel

The values for High 5-A and above are obtained from here. The calculation assumes that the blast is omni-directional (spherical), as is generally the case in most fictional occurrences, and that the energy output is sufficient to destroy the entirety of the cosmic structure.

* **Solar System level:** The star system known as the Solar System.
* **Multi-Solar System level:** Instead of doubling the value of Solar System level, the distance between two such systems needs to be accounted for as well. The calculation for energy required to destroy two solar systems was done, with the following assumptions:
	+ Distance between them as the minimum distance between Sun and the next closest star, the Alpha Centauri.
	+ A spherical blast, strong enough to obliterate the contents of both solar systems at the same time.
	+ Hence, the value obtained is the energy required to destroy two solar systems at a realistic distance.
* **Galaxy level:** The Milky Way galaxy.
	+ Galaxies in fiction tend to be destroyed completely, not dissociated. Hence, it is far more logical to index a common occurrence of compete obliteration instead of an obscure one like dissociation.
	+ We have a different interpretation regarding black holes. Simply put, we disagree with the premise of utilization of black holes for energy outputs, primarily because black holes rarely follow any scientific logic whatsoever. To know more, continue to read here.
* **Multi-Galaxy level:** Instead of doubling the value of Galaxy level, the distance between two galaxies needs to be accounted for as well. The calculation for energy required to destroy two galaxies was done with the assumptions:
	+ Distance between them as the minimum distance between Milky Way Galaxy and the next closest similar-sized galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy.
	+ A spherical blast, strong enough to obliterate the contents of both galaxies at the same time.
	+ Hence, the value obtained is the energy required to destroy two galaxies at a realistic distance.
* **Universe level:** Given that the universe's actual size is unknown, we do not know the amount of energy that would be required to destroy all matter within it. As such, the bare minimum value for the observable universe was calculated as a lower border instead (The PSRJ0348+0432 was used as a base). Any greater finite number is also included within this tier, whereas countably infinite numbers are included under **High Universe level**.

### Omitted levels

* **Small Moon level:** While most other tiers have been into 3 sub-tiers, Moon level does not have Small Moon level due to the existence of Multi-Continent level. Simply put, the two intersect, and Multi-Continent level is far more common than Small Moon.
* **Small Galaxy level:** Same reason as the one for Small Moon level, with the tier clashing with Multi-Solar System level instead.
* **Large Galaxy level:** Large Galaxy level was omitted because unlike planets, galaxies in fiction rarely specify the size of said galaxy, and instead go from galaxy to multiple galaxies. As such, a "Large Galaxy level" rating would not only be confusing, but also redundant.
* **Higher and lower layers/levels of reality:** These levels are not listed because they are not restricted to the same parameters for energy requirement. The energy for such levels cannot be calculated.

### Additional terms

#### "+" symbol

Currently misused to an extraordinary degree on the wiki, the "+" symbol should be used when the Attack Potency has been calculated to be greater than the average (arithmetic mean) of the high end energy level and low end energy level of a particular tier.

The "+" symbol can also be used if there exists a calculation extremely close to the arithmetic mean, and characters scale above the calculated feat by a wide margin, for example being able to defeat enemies on such levels with a single casual attack.

Example: Average of Large Building level is: [2 Tons (low end) + 11 tons (high end)]/2 = 6.5 Tons (the arithmetic mean). All energy levels from 2 Tons to 6.5 Tons should be listed as Large Building level, whereas all energy levels from 6.5 Tons to 11 Tons should be listed as Large Building level+.

#### At least

Should be used to denote the lower cap of a character, if the exact value is indeterminate.

#### At most

Should be used to denote the higher cap of a character, if the exact value is indeterminate.

#### Likely

Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be favourable. This term should be used sparingly.

#### Possibly

Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild. This term should be used sparingly.

#### Higher

This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

Furthermore, higher may also be used to denote a case where the character is possibly or likely a higher tier, but to what degree is not specified. This is specifically referring to cases such as “At least 4-B, likely higher” or “At least Solar System level, likely higher”.

#### Lower

Similarly to the "Higher" term, "Lower" should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are significantly weaker than their base level, but still within the same tier.

## Notes

* To know the equivalent prefix for a particular exponential value, please see this page.
* The required sizes for shattered mountains, or islands, to be considered as "Mountain level", or "Island level".
* An easy to use reference list for estimating the tiers of different explosion sizes.
* A useful long reference list for the tiers of many types of common feats.
* A Foe is a unit used to measure the energy released by a supernova, and is equivalent to 1044 Joules.
* The reasons for our Human and Athlete level borders.
* The reasons for our Street and Wall level borders.
* The reasons for some of our Small Building level to Country level, and Moon level to Planet level borders. (Backup)
* The reasons for our Continent level and Multi-Continent level borders.
* The reasons for our Large Planet level to Universe level borders.
* When used with an equal amount of energy, sharp and spiky weapons tend to be able to overcome higher durability than blunt ones. However, this cannot be considered proper Durability Negation. If a sharp or pointy weapon is shown to have kinetic energy on the level of a certain tier, it can contribute towards the character receiving an unquantified "possibly higher" rating.
* Don't make discussion threads for changing the baseline of 3-A until the scientific community as a whole has a majority consensus on a specific minimum size of the universe. The topic has been discussed many times and it was concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirement has been fulfilled.

## Introduction

**Durability** is the property which guarantees the ability to withstand a certain amount of force. Withstanding force consists of the measurement of the severity of damage from attacks. This is not to be confused with endurance; while durability is the ability to withstand damage, endurance is a measure of **stamina.**

## Scaling Durability

Durability scaling is finding out how a person's durability should scale to a certain **Attack Potency** value.

### Calculating Durability

Calculating durability is a way of finding out a durability rating from a calculation. This is something done frequently and there are a few ways to find a character's durability depending on the feat involved.

In order to calculate a character's durability from an explosion that they have withstood, follow the instructions on this page.

If a character is struck by an object at high speed, then the energy of the projectile can be calculated by finding its kinetic energy so long as its mass and velocity are both known quantities.

### Newton's Third Law

Newton's Third Law of Motion dictates that any contact force done by one entity on another will be met with a force on the latter entity on the former that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction. This can be summarized with the phrase: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

When durability is being discussed, this is especially relevant. If a character can physically attack with a certain level of Attack Potency, showing no sign of pain from said physical attack should be cause for their Durability scaling to their Attack Potency. This is because the character would be forced to withstand a force equal in magnitude to it, and withstanding such a force means the two would be comparable to one another.

This is not applicable to characters who use weapons. A sword attacking with a certain amount of force does not always mean that the user of the weapon will have durability equal to the sword, but the sword's durability would scale from its Striking Strength. Sword users frequently harm opponents who they clash with, rendering this method of scaling flawed.

### Direct Statements

Usually when characters have direct statements of scaling to a certain value or scaling above another character, they would have a concrete method of scaling to another person's attacks. If a character is stated to be more durable than someone else, they would scale superior to the person they're stated to be superior to. Likewise, if a character is stated to be less durable than someone else, then the character would scale below them.

* **Examples**
	+ Nnoitra is stated to have the strongest Hierro of any of the Espada.
	+ Tomura Shigaraki is stated to be just as sturdy as All Might.
	+ Gaara's sand shield is more durable than his sand armor.
	+ Torafuzar says he has the best defense of all of the Nine Demon Gates.

### Withstanding Attacks

Some characters are capable of withstanding damage to the point where an attack only leaves little to no damage on their bodies. In other instances, some characters are less wounded from attacks that seriously harmed others. Sometimes characters are only capable of wounding others because of using sharp attacks which are able to leave more noticeable wounds than blunt attacks.

* **Examples**
	+ Thanos taking a punch from Iron Man and only gaining a small cut on his cheek.
	+ Ulquiorra withstanding a large slash from Bankai Ichigo and only gaining a small cut on his chest.
	+ Nappa withstood a self-destructive explosion from Chiaotzu and a one-handed Tri-Beam from Tien Shinhan that cost both attackers their lives but left nothing more than minor burns or cuts on him.

### No-Selling Attacks

No-Selling is a term originated from wrestling. It means that a victim shows no reaction to their opponent's offensive moves. It's the concept that the character seems to be invulnerable to pain, when in reality, the ability just didn't inflict enough pain to leave a reaction. The attack can be capable of moving, budging, and occasionally even harming the victim, but they wouldn't show a reaction to this. This is occasionally tied to endurance and pain tolerance instead of durability, but in most situations, the attack was so weak that a character didn't even attempt to react to the attack. Characters are capable of No-Selling and tanking attacks at the same time.

* **Examples**
	+ Even though Frieza's Death Beam was capable of pushing Super Saiyan Goku's head back, he showed no reaction and he wasn't harmed.
	+ Captain America's shield toss and punch were capable of moving Loki's head, but they didn't harm him in the slightest.

### Tanking Attacks

Tanking is akin to how a tank interacts with bullets. It means that an attack doesn't even phase you, and occasionally even bouncing off of you, destroying the weapon, or harming the limb of the person who tried to harm you. This differs from No-Selling, as while No-Selling is a lack of reaction, tanking is a lack of damage.

* **Examples**
	+ Saitama endured Post-Sage Centipede Garou's Extreme Fa Jin strike without a scratch.
	+ Perfect Cell didn't so much as budge from Krillin's kicks, and they didn't even scratch him.
	+ Luke Cage having swords shatter, bullets deflect, fists break, and explosives rendered useless when they make contact with his skin.

## Possible Issues with Scaling to Durability

### Durability Negation

There are many types of attacks and indirect effects that can cause harm without requiring to scale to a character's durability.

Acid and Nanotechnology work by deconstructing the matter that a character is made up of without requiring huge amounts of energy.

Electricity can be conducted through flesh, electrocuting someone and causing damage internally without inflicting significant external damage. Even a character tough enough to withstand the energy of an electrical shock may still react visibly to having their nerves electrified.

Vibrations can pass through a person's body, targeting their internal organs without breaking the skin.

There are many possible reasons why a character's attacks may work against another character, even if that character has a higher level of durability. Context needs to be examined to determine *how* a character inflicts harm without solely looking at *who* they can harm.

* **Examples**
	+ Killer uses sonic waves to bypass Kaido's scales and cut him up from the inside; circumventing the need for him to scale to Kaido's durable scales.

### Haemoptysis

Haemoptysis is the act of coughing up blood. This is caused from the force of blunt attacks damaging blood vessels, causing blood and fluids to build up in your lungs. This created the popular notion that characters are getting their durability bypassed. This a flawed way of scaling, as organs and blood vessels are weaker than the actual body.

Causing Haemoptysis to a person by blunt force isn't the safest method of scaling. A way of scaling is from a boxer causing Haemoptysis to a victim who didn't gain it from another boxer's attack, the first boxer would scale above the second.

### Areas of Vulnerability

Most characters have specific spots on their body that are much weaker than others, like eyeballs, genitals, kidneys, livers, and more. Other characters have specific places on their body that are noticeably weaker than their other parts. Harming those body parts aren't usually the best for scaling to durability, but a way around this is scaling the fighter above another person who failed to harm that specific area of vulnerability.

* **Examples**
	+ Percy Jackson is invulnerable to damage throughout his body except in his Achilles Spot.
	+ Black Clover Devils' hearts are weaker than the rest of their body.
	+ Saber of Black has a leaf-shaped mark on his back that is weaker than the rest of his body, allowing even minor attacks to deal severe damage to him.
	+ All Might has a weak spot on the left side of his torso.
	+ Diamante has a weak spot on his forehead, which he covers with his hat.

### Surface Area

The issue of "cutting" and "piercing" attacks comes up as a result of the difference in surface area between the character being attacked and object being used in attacking them. Even in real-life, a person can do a lot more damage to somebody else with a sword than they can with their bare hands.

For example, if a character withstands an explosion as their primary durability justification than the energy of the explosion that they tanked has hit them over a large surface area of their body. However if all of that energy were focused in an extremely narrow area of effect such as the width of a blade or the point of a needle - then the energy would more than likely pass through the character's body much easier. Even a weaker attack than the aforementioned explosion could do more visible damage by being concentrated.

Extremely fine attacks such as with monomolecular wire or extremely sharp blades may effortlessly slice or pierce a character without much energy being applied so additional context should be investigated when rating the AP of somebody who primarily attacks via this method.

This can also be an issue with giant-sized characters being harmed by somebody much smaller than them. A bee can inflict pain on a human without possessing attack potency anywhere comparable to a human's durability.

### Pressure Points

Characters who attack via pressure points are more than likely targeting areas of vulnerability so that devastating effects such as pain, incapacitation or death can occur without much in the way of visible damage. A person having higher durability wouldn't necessarily protect against such an attack. This does not prohibit the user of pressure points from also scaling through their own strength to the person that they defeat via their pressure points but if the only feat of them defeating somebody is by targeting their weak spots then it is not strong evidence for comparability.

* **Examples**
	+ The Hyuga Clan using pressure points to potentially incapacitate or injure their opponent without needing to be on the same level as their opponent, such as Hinata standing a chance against Neji in their duel at the Chunin Exams.
	+ Kenshiro frequently disables or kills his opponents with a simple tap of his fingers - however he also possesses the strength to violently beat them up if he is required to.

### Surviving Attacks

Many characters have been shown to survive attacks far above their durability, usually surviving with large injuries that others on their scale usually wouldn't survive. This is because of endurance, as they can endure a certain amount of pain regardless if the attack has burned them or sliced off limbs. This is not a durability factor, as this is a quality that is commonly attributed to willpower.

* **Examples**
	1. Meruem barely surviving Netero's Poor Man's Rose with major wounds.

Trafalgar Law surviving Doflamingo's string cutting off his arm.

## Durability Levels

Durability measurements, values, and tiers are the same as the **Attack Potency** levels.