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.
The persistence of light trails is the justification for a smaller timeframe, as suggested by Chariot. There's no need for an arbitrarily high timeframe
I remember IdiosyncraticLawyer supported the idea of a "Tier 12" during Ultima's first Tiering System revision thread, but Ultima's not proposing that at all here so I'm not sure how relevant it is
I had a similar thought at first, but I feel like it'd be a bit of a hassle to separate these when one could handle the replacement right away
I guess if enough people believe it should be its own thread, I don't mind, but that was my thought process
I read like, the first page and skimmed through the rest, I'm a busy man
This is more interesting. With this in mind, what would you say is why Avada Kedavra doesn't quite meet our standards?
I believe you were bringing up earlier how there's "no reason for wizards to not be at that level of speed" which implied to me that wizards can react to Avada Kedavra
And even ignoring that, things like the spell having mass and exploding would be anti-feats that couldn't be explained away by...
The light bending isn't really an anti-feat in this case since the anti-feats section for light says that this is fine if reflection/refraction can be proven
That being said, I still think the other stuff - combined with wizards legitimately having no feats on this level, being like Subsonic at...
Depends on the timeframe. The phrase "with just a flap of their wings" doesn't really mean anything because that just means they can travel that much distance without needing to exert as much effort
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's citing horror movies as another example of a certain kind of feat (in this case, ripping out someone's spine) that's much more impressive than at first glance - and that a YouTuber was the one who calculated this feat when these verses first...
Oh, that's something I have no problem with. I guess my thing then is that it's odd to put this front and center here when we... already have standards in place for this sort of thing. Outliers, inconsistencies, all that
Again, this begs the question: What's the issue if this is a legitimate feat that requires a calculable force to be exerted? And this in particular is a pulling feat, making it strange to label this is out of the question. This feels strangely limiting
I've made my stance on the matter clear, and at this stage, this back and forth would just amount to us repeating our points over and over again. At this point, I'll simply defer to the staff
I suppose after further consideration, I'm fine with either of these ideas (either being a sustained lift or occurring over several seconds) - not necessarily the world's biggest fan, but the reasoning's sound enough - especially given the whole baseball player real world example - to where I...
I think I'd like some more clarification on this point, since I'm definitely more open to legitimate reasons to question a certain kind of calc method's legitimacy. In practice, how would you resolve this sorta thing? What would be considered LS as opposed to SS? Since you could convert values...
Your wording confuses me, like "poems" and "emissions," but from what I can gather... Yes, it is better to keep our current system, and trying this sort of appeal by saying "you'd rather not improve it" is - once more - completely meaningless
Again, this comes from a failure to distinguish...
Something as core as AP vs. DC being severely upended just because "it doesn't look natural"? Yeah, no. Gonna need something way better than that
If you wanna say Grappler Baki then just say that. Again, inconsistencies with the verse are already handled by our current standards. Beyond that...
How would such a thing be applied, though? It's still considered, for example, valid to calculate the kinetic energy of a character traveling at Relativistic+ speeds (assuming it's within the same scene that they reach such speeds, since it'd be Calc Stacking otherwise). In a similar vein, for...
Yes, having multiple such feats would make it not an outlier. That's a good thing. What you're proposing requires a severe upending of our standards on Attack Potency vs. Destructive Capacity