Wuthering Waves Jiyan Feat

[Arkenis]

If they're still using other tacet fields, I will probably still an issue but I doubt it from what I seen.

 

[Naito-desu]

Yeah, this should be fine. Gave my approval on the calculation.

 

[Arkenis]

Unless the other calcs get to 6B I'll put everyone at H6C now.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Do we need thread mods/admin to approve this thread? Or we could just applying the change now?

 

[Arkenis]

Oh right, I forgot cgm aren't enough. I'll see if I can get a mod to look this over tmr.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Oh right, I forgot cgm aren't enough. I'll see if I can get a mod to look this over tmr.

I want to but I have two CRT that need to be approved badly so I'll let you handle this

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

Unless the other calcs get to 6B I'll put everyone at H6C now.

Well those other calcs don't even exist yet, so there's no telling what the values will be yet.

 

[Arkenis]

bump

 

[LoudestProcedure]

That feat has always been weird to me agree

 

[Arkenis]

bump

 

[Arkenis]

bump

 

[Arkenis]

bump. I may entertain sacrificial rituals to summon a mod

 

[Arkenis]

bump. Please mods

 

[Mr. Bambu]

bump. I may entertain sacrificial rituals to summon a mod

 

[Arkenis]

Please clear this.

 

[Voidnether]

I hope the elephant in the room (the scaling) gets addressed one day..

 

[Vietthai96]

If the calc was accepted then the thread is fine, assuming the feat and scaling is legit, since idk the verse

 

[Arkenis]

They've said they have other feats just no calcs yet, so for now I'll just replace the scaling on page with the calc.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If the calc was accepted then the thread is fine, assuming the feat and scaling is legit, since idk the verse

I plan to take a look, but I take issue with this.

It has been a repeated stance for several CGMs (and higher staff) that CGMs don't need to evaluate the context of the feat, or whether it would be valid for scaling; it's just the math that needs affirmed.

Then you get people who say "well the calc is accepted so this is fine".

It's not so straightforward, because if both people say these things, we get a situation where the context itself is never evaluated.

I've considered broaching the issue a few times but with so little time... such is life.

I won't actually require a sacrifice to go over this thread, but I will take time to get to it.

 

[Arkenis]

I do take some issue with the scale as well. The context is odd to say the least. Jiyan's attack was meant for the discord, but he somehow affected the clouds but the vid pretty clearly shows he didn't even go near them and his attack was at the ground not destroying anything but the discord and a bit of the road. I would ideally prefer the feat not be used at all but for now I've changed the pages to reflect this crt.

 

[Vietthai96]

I plan to take a look, but I take issue with this.

It has been a repeated stance for several CGMs (and higher staff) that CGMs don't need to evaluate the context of the feat, or whether it would be valid for scaling; it's just the math that needs affirmed.

Then you get people who say "well the calc is accepted so this is fine".

It's not so straightforward, because if both people say these things, we get a situation where the context itself is never evaluated.

I've considered broaching the issue a few times but with so little time... such is life.

I won't actually require a sacrifice to go over this thread, but I will take time to get to it.

Yeah, i know, CGM only need to evaluate the mathematical part of the calc, it is thread mod and above who need to evaluate the feat, statement itself. That why i said that assuming the feat and scaling is legit, idk the verse aside from some basic information so anyone who oppose the feats and scaling should voice out their thoughts on the matter for mods to evaluate.

Of course i should read the thread as well, but well, i apologize for not reading this thoroughly (most of the second page was bumping), since i have been swamping with requests, so this is pretty much oversight and error on my part.

 

[Arkenis]

Yeah, i know, CGM only need to evaluate the mathematical part of the calc, it is thread mod and above who need to evaluate the feat, statement itself. That why i said that assuming the feat and scaling is legit, idk the verse aside from some basic information so anyone who oppose the feats and scaling should voice out their thoughts on the matter for mods to evaluate.

Of course i should read the thread as well, but well, i apologize for not reading this thoroughly (most of the second page was bumping), since i have been swamping with requests, so this is pretty much oversight and error on my part.

I'd just read the OP and first page to see the arguments. End of second page is when Naito comes to evaluate the actual feat.

 

[Vietthai96]

I'd just read the OP and first page to see the arguments. End of second page is when Naito comes to evaluate the actual feat.

Yeah, i figured, more than half of the second page was bumping

I will try to read the first page more thoroughly, damn, getting swamped with request did a number on me, sorry

 

[IStar0thh]

I plan to take a look, but I take issue with this.

It has been a repeated stance for several CGMs (and higher staff) that CGMs don't need to evaluate the context of the feat, or whether it would be valid for scaling; it's just the math that needs affirmed.

Then you get people who say "well the calc is accepted so this is fine".

It's not so straightforward, because if both people say these things, we get a situation where the context itself is never evaluated.

I've considered broaching the issue a few times but with so little time... such is life.

I won't actually require a sacrifice to go over this thread, but I will take time to get to it.

My only issue is that the OP stated and assumed things that don’t actually align with the lore without providing any evidence — like saying that absorbing the Echo negates the taced field, or that the Rover’s energy didn’t reach the clouds simply because the microparticles weren’t visible in the sky. Both of these points are completely unfounded, in my opinion.

I have no problem using the calculation based on a single taced field or something similar; my only objection is to arguments that have no confirmation in the lore.

Of course i should read the thread as well, but well, i apologize for not reading this thoroughly (most of the second page was bumping), since i have been swamping with requests, so this is pretty much oversight and error on my part.

Most of the arguments are on page 1, I believe.

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

I hope the elephant in the room (the scaling) gets addressed one day..

Wdym by this, there is literally only one feat to scale everyone to at the moment and the only profiles created are people who scale to or above the feat anyways, since Arkenis has already went and applied the stuff just close this. There's no need to drag this on, Vietthai seemingly gave their approval.

 

[Arkenis]

like saying that absorbing the Echo negates the taced field, or that the Rover’s energy didn’t reach the clouds simply because the microparticles weren’t visible in the sky. Both of these points are completely unfounded, in my opinion.

I've said that was just an alternative. It has little influence on the calcs. And Naito didn't take that into account when looking at the calcs, neither did I in my own calc of the feat. And Rover's feat isn't whats being calced here either. The Rover feat is more or less just a poorly made point to try and connect it to Jiyan's but they are both visually different feats.

I don't think there's proof for it as of now, but this seems like a pretty irrelevant point. I only offered it up as an alternative since the feats vague in general. The feat's still inconsistent with it's destruction and alongside the dissipation, should be evidence KE is not an appropriate method.

This is over but I do wanna point out, I never got a response to the KE point that contradicts the energy calculated in any of the calcs.

 

[Vietthai96]

Vietthai seemingly gave their approval

There is still Bambu who have yet to evaluate this, and i could change my vote in case the feat do not hold up

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

This only needs 1 vote though? I don't really see a reason to continue this, as I highly doubt the eval will change much, also assuming that's the case that would mean Arkenis went and hastily applied the changes even though this hasn't reached a conclusion. But well, if you guys want to keep it open ok I guess.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

There is still Bambu who have yet to evaluate this, and i could change my vote in case the feat do not hold up

(To be clear, if you maintain your position, you are not required to wait on me; you have evaluation rights just as much as I, and as long as you are utilizing them responsibly, and I believe you are, I have no issues with this being resolved without my own judgement; it may be several days before I am able to get to this properly, since it involves, for me, looking at both calcs and also having an opinion as a CGM)

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

@Arkenis So wait, if this feat can't be used at all then all of the WuWa profiles need to be deleted due of unknown AP? I didn't following the updates on this thread so I was confused ATM lel

 

[Naito-desu]

From what I know, we've reassessed the feat and yielded a more acceptable rating after its validity was challenged. What happens after this seems to imply substituting the now-defunct calculation and changing ratings supported by it. Not sure where it goes from here or what's taking so long.

 

[Arkenis]

@Arkenis So wait, if this feat can't be used at all then all of the WuWa profiles need to be deleted due of unknown AP? I didn't following the updates on this thread so I was confused ATM lel

As of right now, we're going with the new cloud calc I put on the pages. If further discussion occurs where another calc is acceptable or the entire feat is thrown out then no the pages won't be deleted. They'll just be in an unusable state until new calcs are presented for scaling.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

@AlipheeseXIV @Jamesthetaker What do you guys think?

 

[Jamesthetaker]

I'm fine with using accepted calc as placeholders until everything is sorted out. That being said, I'm not exactly knowledgeable about the verse, so I can't offer better input.