-
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.
Addition to the reactions page
- Thread starter DontTalkDT
- Start date
-
- Tags
- reactions
- 13,225
- 21,036
The 0.001 figure is outdated. It needs to be replaced with 0.013
- 32,835
- 38,108
0.001 was kicked, yes. 0.013 is the one used now.
But that's if there are no visuals or something. With cinematic timeframe, just find out how many pixels the projectile in question moved within the slowed-down timeframe to get apparent speed and whatnot. Varies with resolution, so highest quality officially available is recommended to be used, if available.
- 18,929
- 27,717
Only visuals I got are words on a page
- 10,896
- 12,314
- Thread starter
- #45
Alright, so everything else aside for now, from what I gather nobody has problems with the notion that a perception time calc can't assume 1m as blanket value for distance?
In that case I will add that bit in a few hours.
In that case I will add that bit in a few hours.
- 31,397
- 27,687
Seems to be the case.
- 18,929
- 27,717
I have a question about this, specifically dealing with the wording. If a character has shown the capability to consistently react to say 100 m/s movement at close distances (e.g. melee range), what is the issue with assuming their perception time is 1 m / 100 m/s? At that point it wouldn’t be a random assumption, rather it would be a logical conclusion based on showings.
- 31,397
- 27,687
Part of the problem is that would still be a calc, and when you try to apply that perception time to other scenarios / other feats, it ends up as calc stacking.
- 18,929
- 27,717
I fail to see how it is calc stacking if it’s statement based, how is it any more calc stacking than calcing the size of something to then calc the destruction of something said size? All of our calcs require us to go from canon knowledge, make assumptions, calc parameters, and then use said parameters to calc whatever we want to calc. For example, when calcing the vaporization of a mountain, you first assume it’s dimensions, you then calc it’s volume, and then you calc the destruction of the calc’d volume. The volume calculation is based on a reasonable assumption, but is still a separate calculation used to calculation the vaporization of it. Same case as what I’m describing, the perception time is based on an assumption, in this hypothetical a reasonable one (character shown reacting consistently at close range to stated speeds), and then the blitz uses the calculated time to find the speed.
It would be calc stacking if I say calculated a specific instance of reaction time. But the perception time I’m finding is based on canon information (in the hypothetical) plus an assumption. Just as the vaporized mountain volume is based on a reasonable assumption of its dimensions.
- 31,397
- 27,687
If you had an explicit statement of perception time or reaction speed, then it obviously wouldn't be calc stacking to use that figure for calcs.
1 m / x speed, is not a statement no matter how much "canon information" it is based on.
Also, we do allow certain amounts of calc stacking which are currently accepted. Our page on it says:
The volume of a mountain doesn't change so calcing that as part of the parameters is fine. Something like the statistics for a character such as speed and perception time is not allowed however. DontTalk could probably explain it better than me.
- 18,929
- 27,717
You’re misunderstanding my entire premise.
When we calculate the destruction of a mountain, we have to calculate its volume before calculating the destruction.
To do that we make reasonable assumptions about the mountain’s size. For example, we assume a height of 609 meters because that is the minimum irl mountain height.
The we proceed to pixel scale the mountain’s dimensions based around it’s assumed height, and calculate a volume.
From the calculated volume we calculate the destruction based on the energy required to destroy mountain rock per volume.
We must calculate an initial parameter based on reasonable assumptions (mountains in the work of fiction or at least as tall as the smallest mountains irl), before we calculate the actual destruction. In simple terms, we calculate 2 things to get our end result. One initial calculation based on reasonable assumptions, and then another calculation without any assumptions.
Now let me outline the perception blitz case.
Let’s say we are given the fact that a character can move at 100 m/s, and another character blitzes them over a know distance. Furthermore, throughout the work of fiction let’s say the 100 m/s character has displayed the ability to consistently react at those speeds within melee range, melee range being within arm’s reach for the most part.
To obtain a time frame we must make a reasonable assumption. That being, because the character can consistently react at 100 m/s at very close ranges, they’d be able to react to that speed over the distance of 1 meter. Why is that reasonable? In reality melee range would be even shorter than 1 meter, as most human’s don’t have meter long arms.
Next we calculate the perception time based on the canon fact that the character can move at 100 m/s and react at those speeds over short distances, with the reasonable assumption that short distance in the context of melee combat is 1 meter.
From then we can measure the distance the blitzing character moved and divide by the time to get their speed.
Do you see how in both instances we make a single reasonable assumption to calculate an initial parameter (volume for mountain destruction and time for speed blitz), and then use the calculated parameter to calculate the value of interest (destruction of the mountain and speed of the blitz)?
They are in no way, shape, or form any different whatsoever. So, unless you want to argue that we nuke all destruction feats where we have to assume a size of the object being destroyed, the instance I outlined is not calc stacking if we don’t considering calculating mountain destruction calc stacking.
Regarding “parameters that don’t change”, arguing mountain sizes are a single constant uniformly across the board is also objectively wrong. We quite literal fix mountain sizes to be constant based on an assumption. However, they are not in fact constant in actuality.
Edit: I want to preface that I am not advocating we assume any character can react to stated speeds over 1 meter, only if the display the ability to consistently react to close quarters/melee range at the stated speed (e.g. the assumption is far from unfounded).
- 31,397
- 27,687
@Arc7Kuroi; I think I get what you mean, but as far as I can tell our Calc Stacking page still has some guidelines over these "reasonable assumptions." This example being particularly relevent:
In this case, it might be a "reasonable assumption" that a character is Supersonic due to their feats of bullet-dodging, but to use such a parameter would still consistute calc stacking and be an issue. I'll let any other Calc Group Members or DontTalk correct me on this if I'm mistaken.
I'm not suggesting nuking all destruction calcs, but for situations involving a character's statistic like this I believe that the page goes against it.
We also have this under the section "Examples of calc-stacking that can not be applied"
In this case, it might be a "reasonable assumption" that a character is Supersonic due to their feats of bullet-dodging, but to use such a parameter would still consistute calc stacking and be an issue. I'll let any other Calc Group Members or DontTalk correct me on this if I'm mistaken.
I'm not suggesting nuking all destruction calcs, but for situations involving a character's statistic like this I believe that the page goes against it.
We also have this under the section "Examples of calc-stacking that can not be applied"
- 18,929
- 27,717
There’s a difference between assuming supersonic reactions because of bullet timing, because bullet’s don’t have inherit speeds. Bullet velocity decreases after leaving the muzzle of the rifle, and can vary based on what type of gun is used. That is in no way the case for stated speeds. With a bullet the speed is far more ambiguous than a stated speed.
- 11,748
- 16,163
Uhh, I don't think it's a relevant example as far as Arc's argument goes.
Being a canonical "bullet dodger" is not remotely similar to having a canonically stated speed.
Being a bullet dodger/timer still requires us to calc said bullet dodging, as dodging bullets can greatly vary depending on the timeframe and distance of the dodge. It's not a set level of speed at all. I've seen bullet dodging vary from Subsonic to MHS.
It's not the same as a character being stated to have 1500 m/s movement speed, for example. Or being stated to move at lightning speed.
Sorry to barge in, ik I'm not a CGM, but that's my two cents on that.
Being a canonical "bullet dodger" is not remotely similar to having a canonically stated speed.
Being a bullet dodger/timer still requires us to calc said bullet dodging, as dodging bullets can greatly vary depending on the timeframe and distance of the dodge. It's not a set level of speed at all. I've seen bullet dodging vary from Subsonic to MHS.
It's not the same as a character being stated to have 1500 m/s movement speed, for example. Or being stated to move at lightning speed.
Sorry to barge in, ik I'm not a CGM, but that's my two cents on that.
- 31,397
- 27,687
You're allowed to comment, you're staff.
But this other example seems pretty relevant to me:
- 18,929
- 27,717
That example is not applicable to my example, as it assumes character B’s speed/perception is found purely through calculation, in my example the speed is found through canonical statements + a reasonable assumption. Just as we reasonably assume mountains are 609 meters tall.
- 31,397
- 27,687
Again, I get where you're coming from but a calculation can be founded in canonical statements and still be a calculation.
If the statement says 0.00001 seconds, that's one thing, if the statement says "X character fights at Supersonic speed" that's another, just as far as I can tell.
I don't think I have anything new to say, I'm just going off my interpretation of the current Calc Stacking page. DontTalk can clarify this so I think we should wait for his input.
- 18,929
- 27,717
In the same way calculating mountain volume based purely on assumptions is a calculation sure. In fact using a canon statement + an even more reasonable assumption, which is already more than our mountain calcs can say.
Sure.
- 31,397
- 27,687
I'm not disagreeing with you on that. Our Calc Stacking page makes example of when calc stacking is allowed and when it isn't. All I'm saying is that the mountain example you're giving appears to be allowed, whereas the perception time example you're giving doesn't seem to be allowed.
- 18,929
- 27,717
Perception time based on arbitrarily assuming an unstated speed is disallowed*
- 18,929
- 27,717
@Damage3245 can you ping DT since iirc staff don’t get notifications from regular user pings, and I doubt the man is following this thread atm
- 11,748
- 16,163
- 11,135
- 14,120
If there is a feat like this, can't this distance be calculated instead of assuming it as 1m? Like, if a guy is standing 5m apart and a reaction feat happened, we can use 5m as far as I can tell.
- 21,469
- 30,790
The issue isn’t the distance the person moves. It’s the value that the other person can react at.
- 10,896
- 12,314
- Thread starter
- #66
Alright, to get back to this since my input was asked for: What you are suggesting is textbook hiding a calculation.
It's no different than saying "I don't calculate this character to be supersonic. I just make the reasonable assumption that a character consistently dodging bullets from close range is supersonic."
It's a reasonable assumption, but it's also a calculation. Even if it's a small one.
- 31,397
- 27,687
Thank you for responding DontTalk.
That's pretty much what I assumed was the case.
That's pretty much what I assumed was the case.
- 18,929
- 27,717
How is it any different than calculating a mountain’s dimensions to then calc destruction?
- 10,896
- 12,314
- Thread starter
- #69
Have you read the calc stacking page? Because it answers that.
- 31,397
- 27,687
That falls under our guidelines here:
The mountain's dimensions don't change. This is similar to the example step here:
Pixel scaling the size of an object, finding its mass, etc. are permitted calc stacking steps.
Our guidelines also say this:
So we try to keep it to a minimum all the same.
But if we want to get into the nitty-gritty, then this line is relevent:
Calcing a character's speed / calcing a character's perception timeframe will almost certainly lead to inflated results.
- 13,225
- 21,036
Is there a suggestion for what should be done for blitzing feats? Because the only proposition (the snail method) seems to have an issue of "inflated results"
- 10,896
- 12,314
- Thread starter
- #72
The snail method is for moving so fast that some reference object which's speed we know (without calc stacking and stuff) is completely frozen. It's actually not much of an inflation. If we have visual evidence we usually even get higher values if we can proof that they didn't move a pixel (and at that point it is a regular speed calc).
However, most blitzing feats don't fall into that category. It requires a rather explicit portrayal. Usually, blitzing feats simply end up as being ranked "Much faster than [best speed feat of the blitzed character]", in basically the same fashion as feats of one shotting characters gets treated.
- 13,225
- 21,036
I'm not a fan of that idea, especially for characters that have a known, stated speed in-verse yet we can't do anything more with than just "oh they're higher than this speed." Like obviously they are, but these calcs let us quantify the degree to which that is the case.
I'm also really not fond of this whole nuking reaction times for calcs thing. Like, if a character is stated to move at transonic speed and can consistently react to characters on that same level of speed, why can't we use transonic reactions for said character?
I'm also really not fond of this whole nuking reaction times for calcs thing. Like, if a character is stated to move at transonic speed and can consistently react to characters on that same level of speed, why can't we use transonic reactions for said character?
- 31,397
- 27,687
Being statement based isn't enough to prevent calc stacking.
I feel like DontTalk and I have clarified what our current guidelines on this are.
- 1,089
- 370
Idk how much this matters, but didn’t you make your own calc of Ichigo deflecting Candice’s arrows assuming they’re near lightning speed based solely on a statement?
- 31,397
- 27,687
The difference is that figure isn't derived from a calculation.
A comparable scenario would be if I said "The character is stated to be really fast, so I'll assume he crossed a certain distance in 1 second. Then use that speed of his to calculate the speed of another character."
Simply assuming that a lightning-based attack is average lightning speed (or lower end lightning speed) is not a calc.
- 18,929
- 27,717
Right right I get that, but there are a view things that still don’t make sense.
1) Assuming a reasonable reaction time and calculating it to then calc speed blitzing it is the same amount of calcing as assuming a reasonable mountain size and calculating volume to then calc the destruction of it. Both are the same amount of calc stacking, both make one reasonable assumption to calc an initial parameter before calcing the final desired value.
2) The way DT worded the “don’t just assume 1 m / speed for reaction time” makes it sound like “don’t assume such arbitrarily” not “never assume such ever”. Like if a character consistently reacts to a stated speed at close quarters, it is not unreasonable to assume they can react at 1 m / a stated speed. Whereas a character that never displays the ability to react at close distances would not be validated in making the above assumption obviously.
So, I guess what I’m trying to get at is, is DT trying to make a claim that the situation is black and white and ban all types of calcs that are like it, or does he recognize that there’s a lot of gray area and is just saying that the initial assumption needs to be well justified first?
- 31,397
- 27,687
It's not unreasonable to use that as the basis of a rating for them, but it's not permitted to be used in other calcs.
- 13,225
- 21,036
Why should this not be permitted when it's being used from a stated speed?
This is no different from grabbing a reaction time from the Reactions page.
Similar threads
