• 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.

Ben 10 MFTL+ Anti Feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rosa said:
The issue here is a lot of the anti-feats proposed were relativistic, they were instead supersonic and below anti-feats, and so if your aim here is to say relativistic Ben 10 is far more consistent then we'd expect to see that through the feats yet by your account we don't.
Click to expand...
i posted a bunch of relativistic calcs they can scale off to but of course you didn't see any of that
 
Mommyleona said:
Yes there are, were just discussed, and have been mentioned before in the thread, or in the OP, most of which make sense to me, and need to be considered, not hand waved like you or others have been trying to do for a prolonged amount of time, despite being told that it doesn't help your position at all. You can't just chalk up any negative showings to "PIS", plot induced stupidity has to be proven, not slapped on randomly, what is the reason for plot to induced stupidity in the anti feat that was just talked about?
Click to expand...
For God's sake, those are no anti feats.
ALL of this bullshit thread is just a dude calling anti feat a character getting hit by his OWN ATTACK and/or alien technology, aside from a few that are genuinely so common in fiction that recalling them is just being hypocrite.
 
Firestorm808 said:
While I agree that corrections need to be made, proposing that "the verse should be downgraded back to Relativistic" is a very blanket approach.

The purpose of my scaling chain blog is to verify they consistency of combat speed feats and those that scale to them. We want to have reliable scaling chains. MFTL Combat Speeds do exist, but that doesn't mean everyone scales to them. I prefer we treat the matter with a fine tooth comb than a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...
So do I . 🙏
 
 
Firestorm808 said:
While I agree that corrections need to be made, proposing that "the verse should be downgraded back to Relativistic" is a very blanket approach.

The purpose of my scaling chain blog is to verify they consistency of combat speed feats and those that scale to them. We want to have reliable scaling chains. MFTL Combat Speeds do exist, but that doesn't mean everyone scales to them. I prefer we treat the matter with a fine tooth comb than a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Robo432343 said:
11 pages and not a single Ben 10 supporter dropped a proper MFTL combat feat apart from the wacky tachyon cannon ones
Click to expand...
The argument is that there's a greater consistency towards combat speed and travel speed scaling to one another in Ben 10, of which you've been shown instances of characters reacting to spontaneous obstacles whilst flying at MFTL+ speed and fighting one another whilst mid-flight (and therefore reasonably using their MFTL+ speed), which is supported by numerous characters in Ben 10 scaling to FTL statements via combat speed (where FTL in-universe can be used to refer to anything from 1.1c to quadrillions of times FTL).

It's been said ad nauseam now that there is a blog being written to compile all of this information and that members should refrain from clogging up the thread until then.
 
Rosa said:
It's been said ad nauseam now that there is a blog being written to compile all of this information and that members should refrain from clogging up the thread until then.
Click to expand...
Is that blog going to actually list every single contradiction or is it going to be one of those things where it just cherry picks every high end.
Given to actually do it properly, it's going to take, quite literally, (ignoring opening and ending sequences too mind you), over 28 days straight assuming 3 hours a day are put towards just watching the show to gather it all, any less is physically impossible given the time per episode, and failure to do so would absolutely lead to missing examples, missing examples that absolutely matter given we're talking general portrayal and consistency.
That's ignoring having to actually index it, write it all out, and compiling it. Which would take at least 10-20 minutes per episode if you're being thorough. So double that.

Which leads me to believe it's either going to the former where it's mostly just high ends and argumentation trying to make it work with maybe one or two low ends tackled on instead of a proper source weighting for everything, or it's going to take a literal month or two, and at that point nobody really has to wait that long to deal with this, a future thread can be made if ya'll seriously gathered everything there is to be discussed.
 
Chariot190 said:
Is that blog going to actually list every single contradiction or is it going to be one of those things where it just cherry picks every high end.
Given to actually do it properly, it's going to take, quite literally, (ignoring opening and ending sequences too mind you), over 28 days straight assuming 3 hours a day are put towards just watching the show to gather it all, any less is physically impossible given the time per episode, and failure to do so would absolutely lead to missing examples, missing examples that absolutely matter given we're talking general portrayal and consistency.
That's ignoring having to actually index it, write it all out, and compiling it. Which would take at least 10-20 minutes per episode if you're being thorough. So double that.

Which leads me to believe it's either going to the former where it's mostly just high ends and argumentation trying to make it work with maybe one or two low ends tackled on instead of a proper source weighting for everything, or it's going to take a literal month or two, and at that point nobody really has to wait that long to deal with this, a future thread can be made if ya'll seriously gathered everything there is to be discussed.
Click to expand...
You can say this about literally any verse CRT, that verses are long and so one individual may not be able to fairly weigh everything - especially within a reasonable time frame - it's why this blog isn't going to be the final say but just a compilation of the evidence by a reputable member for this verse that the staff have said they want to see before making a strong judgement. This is standard practice for numerous verses, numerous CRT threads, etc.
 
I also want to express some frustration with the impatience of this CRT and how it's been handled.

To be brief, this thread started out with a list of anti-feats and a blanket proposal to downgrade the verse universally from MFTL+ to relativistic. Since then more anti-feats have been posted scarcely throughout the 11 pages of discussion, with members posting their own anti-feats to be debated on for pages at a time, and the original list of anti-feats hasn't been amended to reflect any of the conclusions of discussion at all. I've asked the members arguing for pages straight now and who agree with the CRT for the anti-feats they accept, no one has listed them. Instead the agreement so far seems to be an unclear and vague appeal to the existence of anti-feats with no critical engagement. This isn't to say their agreement isn't valid or correct, but without clarity on what's agreed on I'm unsure how we can make clear judgements as to how said agreement should be applied to the verse, which leads into the second issue.

We have more agreement than disagreement, does anyone actually know what's been agreed to? The original proposal again was a relativistic downgrade, but now I'm seeing agreements by people who simply want certain characters to be downgraded meanwhile other characters can stay as MFTL+, others have said we just need to separate the speed categories to combat speed and MFTL+ travel speed, others have said to downgrade it to FTL, MHS+, others even saying the verse should be put down to supersonic+ with the MFTL+ feats all being PIS. If this thread is accepted, does anyone know what the next move is? Does anyone know what the course of action should be? Firestorm was correct when he said blanket CRTs like this are unproductive.

As of right now, the voting seems to be pending on this blog first so we have time. I suspect a new thread would have to be made to discuss the outcomes, preferably staff-only with some members being allowed to type. If staff members agree or disagree with this I'd like to hear their thoughts regarding this thread.
 
I thought that we would go with Firestorm's approach here, but if somebody lists the staff members who have commented here, I can ping them for confirmations. 🙏
 
Rosa said:
You can say this about literally any verse CRT, that verses are long and so one individual may not be able to fairly weigh everything - especially within a reasonable time frame - it's why this blog isn't going to be the final say but just a compilation of the evidence by a reputable member for this verse that the staff have said they want to see before making a strong judgement. This is standard practice for numerous verses, numerous CRT threads, etc.
Click to expand...
Can we actually expect the blog to have legitimately compiled everything like it's being presented as, not just whatever high ends, but the low ends too, as to weigh everything properly? That was my question.

Workload doesn't matter, better late than never no? Either you're making a full blog with everything, or you're not doing that and there's no real point because we're going to end up back at square one.

My point wasn't "long verses are hard" by the way. Evidently they are, I can say that with confidence, I'm currently doing exactly this for a show that's 10x as long as Ben 10 and it's literal hell, but it needs to be done that way precisely because of it.
My main point was that if you're using consistency and general portrayal as the basis for a judgement, then the sample actually has to be broad enough to actually matter for said consistency. If it isn't, then all you have is a partial list of selected feats and anti-feats, not a real measure of consistency, which is the whole problem here, you need everything, not just 1% of the total and have people judge off that.

Saying "this happens in lots of CRTs" ain't gonna fly. A common method can still be a bad one, thankfully people have started to shift away from that and actually put in the work even if it takes a long while. "This is how people often do it" isn't "this method is good enough for the claim being made" after all.

And saying it's "not the final say" also doesn't help here. If staff want to see this blog before making a strong call, then the blog's content obviously matters.
If the compilation is incomplete, biased toward highs, or just not broad enough and skips over a multitude of scenes, feats, statements, and more because it wasn't actually thorough, then that input is still shaping the outcome.
To actually convey what I mean, I'm referring to selection bias/sampling bias, that's to say, if the blog is not thorough and does not log all the feats, whether it's highs, mids, lows, and the subtle missable stuff (like ironically the funny propane tank), then it's not actually giving a fair sample of the verse. It's cherry picked batch that can make the whole look more one-sided than it really is.

Simply saying "it's not the final say" misses my issue and why I asked the question in the first place. A biased sample can still shape how people view the verse, shift what they treat as consistency/normal, and skew later discussions about consistency, because the information they wee given was incomplete from the start.
Once that happens, the blog isn't "compiling evidence". It's actively guiding and skewing opinion by what it chose to include and what it left out.

Which would be why I keep bringing up scope. If the goal here is to talk about consistency and all that fun slop, then the sample has to be full enough, or at least balanced enough, to support that.
If it's mostly high ends with only a few lows/anti/idc, as opposed to just everything, then the only thing it's doing is giving people a skewed idea of the full body of evidence. And that is exactly the kind of thing that can mislead a CRT long before any supposed "final" call is made.
The fact it isn't the final post does not make flaws in the sample no longer problematic.

Same with "a reputable member". No matter who makes it, the actual issue is whether the evidence set is wide and fair enough to justify a claim about overall portrayal. If not, then it being made by a well-known member changes nothing, it could be you, me, whoever, it don't matter if it isn't thorough enough.

Obviously, I'm not saying "you can never do any CRT if it isn't hyperanal". Unfortunately, here the big problem is quite literally that so it needs to be, and if we're legit waiting for a blog to discuss consistency, it needs to actually encompass enough material to be usable for that discussion, and dodging the workload problem by handwaving it away as normal means it it's only limited evidence, not a real consistency argument, or the full weighing has to wait until enough of the verse is actually indexed, which is impossible to do in short order.

If the former, there's not to much of a point to it, and if the latter, that's actually a good thing, that's the best thing you can do, that's what you should do, hell I'm fine waiting if ya'll actually put in the effort tbh.
But, that's not a "wait a lil bit" thing and from your reply that doesn't seem to be what's actually happening.

Regardless, if nobody has done the huge amount of work needed to fairly sample the verse, then nobody can talk like they have a solid handle on its overall consistency. And your reply instead of just answering the question opted to dodge and what what I can tell, basically admit it won't be completely thorough.
 
Antvasima said:
I thought that we would go with Firestorm's approach here, but if somebody lists the staff members who have commented here, I can ping them for confirmations. 🙏
Click to expand...
I’ll also say that I share the same concern as @Rosa and he had put it more better than i could. The thread feels quite scattered at the moment. The OP is proposing relativistic speeds for everyone, yet has also presented many subsonic and hypersonic anti-feats that doesn't makes sense since that would be anti-feat for relativistic too. At the same time, others in the thread are arguing for hypersonic or even subsonic interpretations, citing examples like Ben failing to react to falling objects or normal people keeping up with Jetray's movements. It can’t reasonably be all of these at once. It has to fall within a more consistent range, whether that’s relativistic, subsonic, or hypersonic. Because of that, I think a broader analysis is necessary.

Staffs that commented so far:

Damage
Nierre
Maverick
Lephyr
Kingtempesto
Twilight
Darkdragonmadeus
Daleson
Reiner
Firestorm
Antvasima

From the staff listed above, around 5 staffs seem to agree that a broader analysis is needed to properly assess consistency. Of course, no one can be expected to gather every minor clip from Ben 10, but at the same time, it’s difficult to follow the discussion when different ranges of inconsistencies are being treated as valid without a clear standard and approach for what is being proposaed.
 
DemonicDude said:
I'll grab as many clips you want me to 😳
Click to expand...
MZH4YOF.gif

All of them.
it's not even hard, it's just time consuming.
 
Chariot190 said:
MZH4YOF.gif

All of them.
it's not even hard, it's just time consuming.
Click to expand...
I mean... if you want me to grab clips for you, You could have just mentioned the name of the episode/scene name and send me a personal message.
I would have both uploaded it on a safe site as well.
most of the feat clips are actually cut off, they were added in 2018-20 time period, I can provide full scans if needed.
 
Firestorm808 said:
While I agree that corrections need to be made, proposing that "the verse should be downgraded back to Relativistic" is a very blanket approach.

The purpose of my scaling chain blog is to verify they consistency of combat speed feats and those that scale to them. We want to have reliable scaling chains. MFTL Combat Speeds do exist, but that doesn't mean everyone scales to them. I prefer we treat the matter with a fine tooth comb than a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...
@Damage3245 @Nierre @Maverick_Zero_X @LephyrTheRevanchist @KingTempest @DarkDragonMedeus @TWILIGHT-OP @Dalesean027

Do you also consider this an acceptable solution? 🙏
 
I would always be in favor of a broader analysis if it leads to more consistent ratings on the profiles, rather than a general agreement to downgrade based on scattered anti-feats from different ranges without proper evaluation. So firestorm approach seems reasonable to me. There is no need to hurry things.
 
Firestorm808 said:
While I agree that corrections need to be made, proposing that "the verse should be downgraded back to Relativistic" is a very blanket approach.

The purpose of my scaling chain blog is to verify they consistency of combat speed feats and those that scale to them. We want to have reliable scaling chains. MFTL Combat Speeds do exist, but that doesn't mean everyone scales to them. I prefer we treat the matter with a fine tooth comb than a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
I offered to do so on a new thread because of the length of this one, but didn't receive an answer.
Click to expand...
I suggested something similar, but I didn’t get any answers too.
ByArrow said:
Since the only thing that needs to be done here is to decide which range of speed feats is more consistent, and as it has already reached 8 pages, wouldn’t it be better to close this CRT, create a Wiki Page Collaborations Thread, have everyone interested in the verse review all the speed feats there, decide which speed tier is more consistent, and then open a new CRT to apply these new speed ratings to the verse?
Click to expand...
 
Robo432343 said:
I am looking at the speed section of the scaling chain blog right now and most of it is trying to find anything tachyon cannon related so MFTL+ sticks. The tachyon cannon stuff was added there 5 days ago. A new blog wasn't created
Click to expand...
We are currently in the feat and calculations collection stage. I don't see how you extrapolated that the current data set is implying that everyone has MFTL+ reactions when the data, calcs, and scaling chains haven't been completed yet. We ask for patience in the matter.
 
Firestorm808 said:
We are currently in the feat and calculations collection stage. I don't see how you extrapolated that the current data set is implying that everyone is MFTL+ when the data, calcs, and scaling chains haven't been completed yet.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that this blog is implying that everyone is MFTL+. Instead of focusing on the higher end speeds which is what the blog is doing, we're supposed to be figuring out which speed is the most consistent
 
Robo432343 said:
I didn't say that this blog is implying that everyone is MFTL+. Instead of focusing on the higher end speeds which is what the blog is doing, we're supposed to be figuring out which speed is the most consistent
Click to expand...
As I said, we are still in the feat and calculations collection stage. You are implying that feat collection is all done, but it's not.
 
Robo432343 said:
I am looking at the speed section of the scaling chain blog right now and most of it is trying to find anything tachyon cannon related so MFTL+ sticks. The tachyon cannon stuff was added there 5 days ago. A new blog wasn't created
Click to expand...
Tachyon cannons are at least FTL, and there are characters with MFTL+ reaction speed feats. The blog aims to compile valid feats across the franchise, establish a more coherent scaling chain, and address concerns raised by staff members like @Maverick_Zero_X and @Antvasima regarding universal scaling to MFTL+ feats performed by specific characters.

Since the thread has received sufficient staff input on the matter to be handled by Firestorm, I will now close this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DemonicDude
Ben 10 Classic Jetray Content Revision Thread
Replies
17
Views
1K
DemonicDude
DemonicDude
Lort15
Clockwork Page Rework
Replies
21
Views
985
Lort15
Lort15
DemonicDude
Reboot Ben Tennyson should have Alien X
Replies
7
Views
498
TauanVictor
TauanVictor
Tllmbrg
Ben 10 Manga CRT
Replies
35
Views
2K
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
StarShooter80
  • Locked
Ben 10: Reboot Verse Page + Verse Navbox
Replies
24
Views
2K
StarShooter80
StarShooter80
Back
Top