• 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.

A modification to the Speed page/standards (STAFF ONLY)

Status
Not open for further replies.
For a minor spelling nitpick, it should say "Just flying in a straight line from A to B would be safe.", it currently says "save" instead.

Also, in many situations I'd prefer reacting to obstacles to itself be calced, instead of always scaling to flight speed. It may not be the sorts of million-fold drops we saw in the OP's example, but it would probably still end up lower.

I'd also appreciate some calc group input on when using previously-calced flight speed in those sorts of reaction calculations would be calc stacking, and when it wouldn't be.
 
Unless such a feat is explicitly shown in the same situation where a character's travel speed can be calculated, it would be calc stacking I think.
 
I'd also appreciate some calc group input on when using previously-calced flight speed in those sorts of reaction calculations would be calc stacking, and when it wouldn't be.
If it's reasonably possible that they changed their speed, I would say.
 
I mean, almost all characters who go at these speeds can change their speed, otherwise how would they accelerate to reach them, or stop going that fast? I think this falls under that example DMUA made.
 
I am personally fine with all of DontTalk's suggestions in his post above, including renaming the "Notes" section to "Further Explanations" instead.
 
I agree with DT's suggestions as well.
 
I edited the page. Check out if you like it.

 
Shouldn’t we replace the “see note 4,5, 7” stuff with “see further explanations” given we don’t have notes there anymore?
 
Shouldn’t we replace the “see note 4,5, 7” stuff with “see further explanations” given we don’t have notes there anymore?
Oh yeah, for sure! Completely missed that. Will do so right away.
 
It looks good to me as well. Thank you for helping out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top