• 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.
I was expecting baseline 3-B because I was expecting the distance in the calc to be 2.5 million light years the distance to the andromeda galaxy and for the calc to take into account all the visible galaxies in the night sky.

The distance in this calc is only about 16,000 light years
 
It is a bit weird, considering that destroying a section of the galaxy is higher than destroying the galaxy.
 
The calc itself stated that about 11 million starts were destroyed even though there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy.

11 million stars destroyed would be 4-A
 
Baseline 3-B also uses inverse-square law, IIRC, so we might need to make a calc group thread about this.
 
Because timeframes are only a factor when something's based on output.

For example, if I melted 100 cubic metres of ice in 2 seconds with continuous heat, you'd divide the result by 2.

This is just the effect of 2 punches, not continuous output.

Sorry I can't word this any better.
 
I don't think anything's wrong with the math, I just think we may need a calc group thread at a later time.

Your calculation shows that destroying a small fraction of the galaxy is galaxy level.
 
Yes, I agree with this. It is worth repeating the same scenario as with a serious blow, Gaia Cannon and other calculations, when we took different calculations for the same feat from different participants and chose the best one.

By the way, could someone throw a link to the 4-A version? There was also a KE of a serious table.
 
Either that, or we change our 3-B standards.

Let's wait for a thread.
 
Back
Top