- 4,964
- 3,771
Option 1 I believe is what being usedSo which scaling chain that was agreed for? The option 1 or the option 2? Because i don't have much motivation reading the whole thread lel
Also, I have updated Leon’s profile
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Option 1 I believe is what being usedSo which scaling chain that was agreed for? The option 1 or the option 2? Because i don't have much motivation reading the whole thread lel
How much time higher the mega evo and gigantamax is? Considering Mega Evo is much higher than 6.2 GT while Gigantamax is much higher than 14+ GT
So not the option 1?the 3.1gt one was accepted
So Mega Evo would be around 12 GT and Gigantamax would be around 70 GT, not badmega evo is 2x+while g-max is 5x scaling
when it comes to scaling g-max i mean like 5x 3.1Oh shit, it is the option 1 that accepted, my bad lel
So Mega Evo would be around 12 GT and Gigantamax would be around 70 GT, not bad
Wait, so how about the 6.2 GT for Mega Evo and 14+ GT for Gigantamax? Rejected?when it comes to scaling g-max i mean like 5x 3.1
it is 3.18 btwWait, so how about the 6.2 GT for Mega Evo and 14+ GT for Gigantamax? Rejected?
So no multiplier/scaling chain for these two?so 6.4 for mega evo and 16gt for g-max
basicallySo no multiplier/scaling chain for these two?
I feel like keeping some would be fine as otherwise it'd be a pain to find. Or you can just make a blog "poke-calcs archive" and add themI've finished updating gen 4 profiles. One other thing I'd like to do is to update the calculations section in the verse page, removing any unaccepted calculations and separating it into relevant and supporting calculations. I made a draft of what I mean here.
I mean, we shouldn't list unaccepted calcs. Though all of the main calcs used for scaling have been accepted anyway so it doesn't really affect much, just a bit of clean-up really.I feel like keeping some would be fine as otherwise it'd be a pain to find. Or you can just make a blog "poke-calcs archive" and add them
If they are unaccepted then they need reviewing, if they are rejected then yeah sure go ahead. If they are accepted but not used then please make a blog and put them there as i don't want to lose them by accident.I mean, we shouldn't list unaccepted calcs. Though all of the main calcs used for scaling have been accepted anyway so it doesn't really affect much, just a bit of clean-up really.
I think we should link supporting calcs in a separate tabber to make the page look neater. As shown here.If they are unaccepted then they need reviewing, if they are rejected then yeah sure go ahead. If they are accepted but not used then please make a blog and put them there as i don't want to lose them by accident.
Rule say that 1 calc member agreeing is enough.Ate we gonna ignore the fact that this calculation needs to be adjusted? DontTalk doesn't agree with a magnitude 9
Not if there's disagreement. DontTalk is also like our prime calc member, his takes priority.Rule say that 1 calc member agreeing is enough.
Calc members don't really take 'priority'. If there's disagreement, it needs to be discussed in a calc group thread.Not if there's disagreement. DontTalk is also like our prime calc member, his takes priority.
If it's our most knowledgeable calc member then yeah, he does. Ant can tell you the same exact thing.Calc members don't really take 'priority'. If there's disagreement, it needs to be discussed in a calc group thread.
Dude, being his loyal puppy doesn't help here. If someone accepted, then it is for the same reason why sysops opinions aren't > mods. Also, DT opinion isn't absolute.If it's our most knowledgeable calc member then yeah, he does. Ant can tell you the same exact thing.
No, DontTalk proved it isn't Magnitude 9 in the blog with citation, so it needs to be adjusted accordingly.
First of all, don't call me his loyal puppy. I'm not an animal and I'd appreciate it if you didn't address me as such. Secondly, he provided factual evidence.Dude, being his loyal puppy doesn't help here. If someone accepted, then it is for the same reason why sysops opinions aren't > mods. Also, DT opinion isn't absolute.
All calc members are knowledgeable enough to give judgement on these calcs, hence why they have the role. No one calc member can just outvote another. Again, any disagreement needs to be sorted out in a calc group discussion thread.If it's our most knowledgeable calc member then yeah, he does. Ant can tell you the same exact thing.
First I call whoever I want like whatever I want. Second, if no one agreed with it it's not accepted. Sorry.First of all, don't call me his loyal puppy. I'm not an animal and I'd appreciate it if you didn't address me as such. Secondly, he provided factual evidence.
No it doesn't, it needs to be discussed in the blog itself if there's disagreement between two calculations members.All calc members are knowledgeable enough to give judgement on these calcs, hence why they have the role. No one calc member can just outvote another. Again, any disagreement needs to be sorted out in a calc group discussion thread.
Enjoy the Rule Violations thread.First I call whoever I want like whatever I want. Second, if no one agreed with it it's not accepted. Sorry.
How to remove 70% of the calcs.No it doesn't, it needs to be discussed in the blog itself if there's disagreement between two calculations members.
Yes it does, this is how we've always done things. Calc blogs don't notify you when someone responds to your message, and they're far more closed off than a calc group thread. And I doubt it's just between two calc members, since several other calc group members in the thread seemed okay to use the calc.No it doesn't, it needs to be discussed in the blog itself if there's disagreement between two calculations members.
No, we literally don't. That's a case by case basis, calc group thread are only made when theres disagreement regarding stuff such as pixel scaling, different calculations, etc. If the calculation is inherently flawed (we wouldn't open a calc group thread just because of a simple math error.) this is no different.Yes it does, this is how we've always done things. Calc blogs don't notify you when someone responds to your message, and they're far more closed off than a calc group thread. And I doubt it's just between two calc members, since several other calc group members in the thread seemed okay to use the calc.
Read above.My main problem though was with the idea that one calc member can out-prioritize another, which is ridiculous. All calc members have equal say.
I'm not going to repeat myself again. We do, and it's the main way in which calc disagreements are settled. What you consider to be a "simple maths error" isn't necessarily what it actually is (seems like more of a logic error).No, we literally don't. That's a case by case basis, calc group thread are only made when theres disagreement regarding stuff such as pixel scaling, different calculations, etc. If the calculation is inherently flawed (we wouldn't open a calc group thread just because of a simple math error.) this is no different.
?Read above.
That's on you, we evidently don't and I already stated why. This is common knowledge literally everyone on the calc team will tell you.I'm not going to repeat myself again. We do, and it's the main way in which calc disagreements are settled. What you consider to be a "simple maths error" isn't necessarily what it actually is (seems like more of a logic error).