Possible One Piece speed downgrade

[Damage3245]

and why doesn't that work with perception speed?

Another rule in our calc stacking page:

• Using speed of characters or attacks calculated at other instances can't be used, as characters and attacks can vary in speed. This is the case regardless of whether the character is seriously trying to do their best or anything similar.

Just because you can calc Luffy's speed in one instance (perception, combat, reaction, whatever) doesn't mean you can use that to calc another character's speed in a different instance.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Another rule in our calc stacking page:

• Using speed of characters or attacks calculated at other instances can't be used, as characters and attacks can vary in speed. This is the case regardless of whether the character is seriously trying to do their best or anything similar.

Just because you can calc Luffy's speed in one instance (perception, combat, reaction, whatever) doesn't mean you can use that to calc another character's speed in a different instance.

we aren't calculating luffy's speed, that would be using this for another instance which we aren't doing

Luffy's comes from a minimum LS perception statement, which that statement works for a calculation that also confirms him having used that stated minimum LS perception

 

[Damage3245]

Luffy's comes from a minimum LS perception statement, which that statement works for a calculation that also confirms him having used that stated minimum LS perception

That's simply not a thing we do. To convert the speed (lightspeed) to a perception timeframe (0.000000003336 seconds) involves a calc. There's no way of getting around that.

It's not a stated timeframe. It's a calced timeframe. This is not like someone saying "Character A is supersonic, that means they're at least 343 m/s". Luffy saying "Too slow." is not equivalent to a statement saying: "Luffy's reaction time is 1 meter / 299792458 m/s).

I feel like at this point I'll just be repeating myself, so I'll just leave it here.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

That's simply not a thing we do. To convert the speed (lightspeed) to a perception timeframe (0.000000003336 seconds) involves a calc. There's no way of getting around that.

I feel like at this point I'll just be repeating myself, so I'll just leave it here.

So for reference... If someone is stated to be able to perceive the speed of light, how would one use that for a calculation of someone moving faster than their perception?

 

[Damage3245]

So for reference... If someone is stated to be able to perceive the speed of light, how would one use that for a calculation of someone moving faster than their perception?

The statement "perceiving the speed of light" doesn't get you a specific timeframe by itself. Simply put you wouldn't use it in a calculation for the scenario you mentioned.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

The statement "perceiving the speed of light" doesn't get you a specific timeframe by itself. Simply put you wouldn't use it in a calculation for the scenario you mentioned.

So then what scenario can you use ls perception for a calculation? Because at this point there doesn't seems to be any at all

 

[CloverDragon03]

I mean I feel like if you’re stated to be able to perceive the speed of light, that should be fine. That’s literally light speed perception

 

[Damage3245]

I mean I feel like if you’re stated to be able to perceive the speed of light, that should be fine. That’s literally light speed perception

From our rules on the Reactions and Perceptions page:

• Reaction speed has both a distance and a timeframe component, so all calculations that are completed for reaction speed cannot simply be a timeframe by itself. Do not randomly assume a 1 meter distance for each timeframe and use that speed for the reaction speed. Other way around, perception time is just a timeframe and by that not proportional to a speed value alone. Do not assume that a character with a certain speed will have a perception time of 1 meter divided by that speed. Such calculations need a feat that demonstrates perception time and a suitable distance determined from that feat.

The figure of 0.000000003336 seconds is found by assuming a 1 meter distance which our rules state not to do. That "1 meter / 299792458 m/s" calc that I mentioned earlier.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Reaction speed/page needs to be deleted fr! it makes no sense!

From our rules on the Reactions and Perceptions page:

• Reaction speed has both a distance and a timeframe component, so all calculations that are completed for reaction speed cannot simply be a timeframe by itself. Do not randomly assume a 1 meter distance for each timeframe and use that speed for the reaction speed. Other way around, perception time is just a timeframe and by that not proportional to a speed value alone. Do not assume that a character with a certain speed will have a perception time of 1 meter divided by that speed. Such calculations need a feat that demonstrates perception time and a suitable distance determined from that feat.

The figure of 0.000000003336 seconds is found by assuming a 1 meter distance which our rules state not to do. That "1 meter / 299792458 m/s" calc that I mentioned earlier.

I think you're equating a completely different thing to that, which isn't meant for what we're currently discussing

The last bit confirms that it's about calculating perception speed with a distance from a feat, nothing about statements. Also think that's just about calculating reaction speeds

Bring PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS NOW TO FIX/EXPLAIN THE PAGE!!! because ain't no way can I support untruth!

 

[Damage3245]

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree if we can't get on the same page on this.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree if we can't get on the same page on this.

Or we could bring other Calc members to either explain the page/statements or fix it to where one doesn't get confused/misinterpret from what it's trying to actually say (that can be made for another thread tho)

 

[Damage3245]

Or we could bring other Calc members to either explain the page/statements or fix it to where one doesn't get confused/misinterpret from what it's trying to actually say (could be for another thread tho)

I've been trying to explain it to you for the past couple hours, and so has ZawierJ. If you want to bring in other people to try and explain it to you then go ahead.

Like, what else do you want me to say? I am telling you that it is calc stacking and either you disagree (which is fine, you're entitled to your own opinion) or you don't believe me (which I don't get).

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I've been trying to explain it to you for the past couple hours, and so has ZawierJ. If you want to bring in other people to try and explain it to you then go ahead.

You can't say it's just me when another Calc member just said something completely different from what you were saying, and also when there are many other users who've thought that the argument doesn't make sense

I've yet to see an actual statement from any page that specifically says you cannot use a stated perception for a calculation. Something that you've said isn't allowed because it's somehow also a calculation, and something I've seen many calcs get accepted for

I don't see this as just an explanation thing...

 

[Damage3245]

I've yet to see an actual statement from any page that specifically says you cannot use a stated perception for a calculation.

Listen, please.

The issue is not "using a stated perception for a calculation".

The issue is "using a stated perception for a calculation, and then using the results of that calculation in another calculation."

You're acting like the Kaido calc in the OP is a single calc. It's not. There is 1) the calc to find the timeframe, and then 2) the calc to find Kaido's speed by using the previously calced timeframe and the distance Kaido travelled.

I cannot state the issue any simpler than that. You may believe there's no problems with this. I think CloverDragon thinks there is no problem with this. But under our current rules, this is a case of calc stacking.

Look at the explanation section on "hiding calculations" on this page. Look at our Reactions and Perceptions page.

Whether you think the Kaido calc should be considered acceptable or not, do you understand the explanation that I've just given you (even if you don't agree with it)?

 

[CloverDragon03]

From our rules on the Reactions and Perceptions page:

• Reaction speed has both a distance and a timeframe component, so all calculations that are completed for reaction speed cannot simply be a timeframe by itself. Do not randomly assume a 1 meter distance for each timeframe and use that speed for the reaction speed. Other way around, perception time is just a timeframe and by that not proportional to a speed value alone. Do not assume that a character with a certain speed will have a perception time of 1 meter divided by that speed. Such calculations need a feat that demonstrates perception time and a suitable distance determined from that feat.

The figure of 0.000000003336 seconds is found by assuming a 1 meter distance which our rules state not to do. That "1 meter / 299792458 m/s" calc that I mentioned earlier.

That's only when it comes to converting from speed to a timeframe (aka assuming a SoL character has those same reactions) as stated in the thread addressing all this, not for a character being outright stated to perceive light speed. So no, that's an apples to oranges situation, and using the 0.000000003336 seconds figure in this hypothetical scenario would not be calc stacking

 

[Damage3245]

So no, that's an apples to oranges situation, and using the 0.000000003336 seconds figure in this hypothetical scenario would not be calc stacking

Clover, the figure of "0.000000003336 seconds" only comes from a calc here. You can't claim that "1 m / 299792458 m/s" is not a calc.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Clover, the figure of "0.000000003336 seconds" only comes from a calc here. You can't claim that "1 m / 299792458 m/s" is not a calc.

You’re also ignoring that this is not what the thread concluded. You’re creating a conclusion that wasn’t reached

 

[Damage3245]

You’re also ignoring that this is not what the thread concluded. You’re creating a conclusion that wasn’t reached

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe, for use in another calculation?

I'm not sure what your interpretation of this is, but the scenario we're taking about falls under it as far as I can tell. "Stated speed" here being lightspeed, "implied timeframe" being Luffy's perceptions. "Other calculation" being the Kaido calc.

This would still be calc stacking whether it is Luffy being lightspeed or the beam he's reacting to being lightspeed.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I’m not talking about Kaido’s calc. That can be removed or replaced with a method that doesn’t use the reaction time (such as comparing Luffy’s movement to Kaido’s)

A bit earlier, you claimed that even being outright stated to be able to perceive light and then using that perception time in that case would be calc stacking. That’s what I’m disagreeing with.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Listen, please.

I have been but sure

The issue is not "using a stated perception for a calculation".

Well it is also, as that's what you said you couldn't use and that the stated perception is a calculation...

The statement "perceiving the speed of light" doesn't get you a specific timeframe by itself. Simply put you wouldn't use it in a calculation for the scenario you mentioned.

From our rules on the Reactions and Perceptions page:

• Reaction speed has both a distance and a timeframe component, so all calculations that are completed for reaction speed cannot simply be a timeframe by itself. Do not randomly assume a 1 meter distance for each timeframe and use that speed for the reaction speed. Other way around, perception time is just a timeframe and by that not proportional to a speed value alone. Do not assume that a character with a certain speed will have a perception time of 1 meter divided by that speed. Such calculations need a feat that demonstrates perception time and a suitable distance determined from that feat.

The figure of 0.000000003336 seconds is found by assuming a 1 meter distance which our rules state not to do. That "1 meter / 299792458 m/s" calc that I mentioned earlier.

The issue is "using a stated perception for a calculation, and then using the results of that calculation in another calculation."

There are no results of that calculation, it's a statement which gives you a value the same way any other value work by getting megaton from a megaton statement or getting 299 792 458 m / s from a statement of moving at light speed

Statement = Light Speed Reactions = 0.000000003336 Seconds

Calculation = Kaidou's Thunder Bagua Speed = (5.68 Meters)/(0.000000003336 Seconds) = 5.7 C (FTL)

You're acting like the Kaido calc in the OP is a single calc. It's not. There is 1) the calc to find the timeframe, and then 2) the calc to find Kaido's speed by using the previously calced timeframe and the distance Kaido travelled.

said above why there are no calculation to find a timeframe, the timeframe already exist from a statement

cannot state the issue any simpler than that. You may believe there's no problems with this. I think CloverDragon thinks there is no problem with this. But under our current rules, this is a case of calc stacking.

which again many people don't see it as that and doesn't specifically say that, which is why I said this

Or we could bring other Calc members to either explain the page/statements or fix it to where one doesn't get confused/misinterpret from what it's trying to actually say (that can be made for another thread tho)

Look at the explanation section on "hiding calculations" on this page.

• Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

Isn't this what the kaido Calc is already doing? Otherwise there are nothing else that says anything about the kaido calc or stated perception for a calc which the kaido Calc is from what I've seen

Whether you think the Kaido calc should be considered acceptable or not, do you understand the explanation that I've just given you (even if you don't agree with it)?

I can kind of understand what you mean, but again, it seems misconstrued from the fact that statements for a Calc are acceptable, and you've tried to turn the statement into a calculation to then make into a Calc stack in my view

 

[CloverDragon03]

I suppose the thing with Kaido's calc, on further inspection, is also that Luffy specifically perceives light as being too slow - which means his reactions are as such (rather than converting from speed to a timeframe, which is what was determined to be calc stacking)

Definitely some discussion to be had on whether or not this falls into the calc stacking trap

 

[Damage3245]

Statement = Light Speed Reactions = 0.000000003336 Seconds

Do you know how/why that figure means "light speed reactions"? It didn't come out of thin air. It came from a calc.

 

[KLOL506]

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe, for use in another calculation?

I will remind everyone here again, that the part in bold is what's about to be set in stone. Not anything else before it.

Calculating a timeframe from a stated speed value is not calc-stacking. It is only calc-stacking if you then use it in another brand new fanmade calc.

Similarly, getting a speed from an in-verse-stated timeframe is also not calc stacking, until and unless you use this newly calculated speed value in another brand new fanmade calc.

 

[Damage3245]

Precisely, KLOL506. Thank you.

 

[Kachon123]

Similarly, getting a speed from an in-verse-stated timeframe is also not calc stacking, until and unless you use this newly calculated speed value in another brand new fanmade calc.

I assume this isn't the case when the two feats are happening in the same scene?

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Do you know how/why that figure means "light speed reactions"? It didn't come out of thin air. It came from a calc.

It came from a statement which give you a value the same way any other Calc does by getting values from a statement... You interpreting them as a full on Calc doesn't make sense

 

[KLOL506]

I assume this isn't the case when the two feats are happening in the same scene?

'Fraid it's the case even then, unless like, you got a bulletproof statement that the guy with said reactions was operating at his absolute fastest of reactions with no fluctuation whatsoever (Yeah you need something as verbatim and direct like that for stuff like this).

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

'Fraid it's the case even then, unless like, you got a bulletproof statement that the guy with said reactions was operating at his absolute fastest of reactions with no fluctuation whatsoever (Yeah you need something as verbatim and direct like that for stuff like this).

it is stated... Luffy said he was reading the future and everything

 

[CloverDragon03]

Precisely, KLOL506. Thank you.

Okay, so an inferior Luffy with inferior Kenbunshoku Haki perceiving light as too slow is a valid reactions statement (not a calc), which can then be used to calc the speed of Kaido outspeeding a superior Luffy using superior Kenbunshoku Haki. You seem to agree that stated reactions are fair game, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement

 

[Damage3245]

It came from a statement which give you a value the same way any other Calc does by getting values from a statement... You interpreting them as a full on Calc doesn't make sense

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong though.

Unless the statement is for a specific timeframe or a term that means a specific timeframe (like 'speed of sound') then the timeframe hasn't been stated here.

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, so an inferior Luffy with inferior Kenbunshoku Haki perceiving light as too slow is a valid reactions statement (not a calc), which can then be used to calc the speed of Kaido outspeeding a superior Luffy using superior Kenbunshoku Haki. You seem to agree that stated reactions are fair game, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement

Just because you say "not a calc" doesn't actually make it not a calc.

 

[KLOL506]

Do you know how/why that figure means "light speed reactions"? It didn't come out of thin air. It came from a calc.

Actually, now that I look at it, nah.

Our 3.336e-9 s perception timeframe comes straight from the perception page. Which assumes 1 meter divided by 299792458 m/s. Right now it's pretty much a site standard like bullet velocities and what have you, a constant, if you will.

There are two issues here.

Firstly, it would really be only a calc if we actually took arm length into consideration, which almost never exceeds the 0.7-0.9 meter mark in terms of movement. If we gauged a person's arm length to then divide it by speed, then yes, it'd be a calc.

But as it stands here? No. Right now, it's just an assumption made (Since we don't consider using normal wiki assumptions to be calcs right off the bat, of course, you are free to change that in another CRT).

Now, the second issue, AKA the main issue here, would normally be assuming someone moving at SoL to have SoL perception speeds, from my experience (Not a standard, let me clarify right here and now) they usually vary from having higher than SoL perception to slower than SoL perception, but that mostly just depends on how much they move compared to the projectile in question. Again tho, let me reiterate, this is just from my experience, those were not rules, just exceptions.

So if you want to make it even more strict and even consider using on-wiki standard assumptions as calcs first and foremost, be my guest and make a CRT to clarify it and make it less vague.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Just because you say "not a calc" doesn't actually make it not a calc.

You agreed with what KLOL said, then proceeded to go "no this is still a calc." Luffy perceiving light as slow is an in-universe statement, not a calc. You quite literally can't get around that no matter how you explain it away.

 

[KLOL506]

It would be a calc if you used anything other than 1 meter. It seems that this specific question in that thread is just straight-up open to large interpretations at this point on whether we consider normal site assumptions as calcs of their own or not (Which lead to a whole slew of other problems down the line so good luck handling that).

 

[Damage3245]

You agreed with what KLOL said, then proceeded to go "no this is still a calc." Luffy perceiving light as slow is an in-universe statement, not a calc. You quite literally can't get around that no matter how you explain it away.

And that statement means nothing in terms of specific values until you use a calc. How do you get from one number (lightspeed) to another number (the timeframe)? You can only get there by performing a calculation.

 

[CloverDragon03]

And that statement means nothing in terms of specific values until you use a calc. How do you get from one number (lightspeed) to another number (the timeframe)? You can only get there by performing a calculation.

So basically, you're not allowed to use the reactions page ever even when the reactions are stated and you pretty much need a statement of the exact timeframe. Got it. Get that accepted yourself before pushing that mentality.

 

[KLOL506]

And that statement means nothing in terms of specific values until you use a calc. How do you get from one number (lightspeed) to another number (the timeframe)? You can only get there by performing a calculation.

Not as it stands right now, no. The perceptions page uses 1 meter, which we use as a standard. So unless you propose to render the usage of perception timeframes on our table as calcs, your argumentation legitimately holds no ground here.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

AKA the main issue here, would normally be assuming someone moving at SoL to have SoL perception speeds

Yee but that's not what's happening... Luffy dodging the beam or moving that fast does not matter, his statement of the speed is what does

 

[Kachon123]

Just because you say "not a calc" doesn't actually make it not a calc.

I'm so confused. If what determines whether this is calc stacking or not is dependent on if calculating 1 m / 299792458 m/s (light speed) to get the 0.000000003336 seconds figure, then wouldn't using literally any timeframe in this page including the average human reactions be considered calc stacking as they're all derived from the speeds in this page (0.13 s- 0.1s reactions for average humans comes from the 5 m/s and 7.7 m/s respectively by dividing 1 by them)?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm so confused. If what determines whether this is calc stacking or not is dependent on if calculating 1 m / 299792458 m/s (light speed) to get the 0.000000003336 seconds figure, then wouldn't using literally any timeframe in this page including the average human reactions be considered calc stacking as they're all derived from the speeds in this page (0.13 s- 0.1s reactions for average humans comes from the 5 m/s and 7.7 m/s respectively by dividing 1 by them)?

That is pretty much what's being insinuated despite that not being the conclusion that was reached in the thread on this matter, yes