Addition to the reactions page

[Damage3245]

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.

Because it's still calc stacking. You may disagree with where the line in the sand has been drawn for this, but I'm just pointing out where the line is currently according to our guidelines.

 

[KingTempest]

The definition of calc stacking needs a redo in itself if this falls under it.
Calc stacking is using the results of a calc to base it off another calc. But that isn’t valid or fair.
If a character comes and says “I can move 500 m in 4 seconds”, and we do a “calc” that calcs it at 125 m/s, would that not be used for feats since it involves a calc?

The only thing that’s being calced to a serious degree is the blitz of said character. But if said character can react to his movements in canon, can fight at this speed, and even more involving this stated speed, assuming a distance of 1 meter, which even the wiki uses for reaction times, shouldn’t be out the window.

that’s just me

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Calc stacking is using the results of a calc to base it off another calc.

Precisely, and by this very definition, calculating a mountains volume to calculate its destruction, is calc stacking. Yet it’d be stupid to ban all mountain busting calcs for that reason, so clearly there exists undefined wiggle room.

 

[Damage3245]

We already told you that certain examples are permitted and they're listed on the Calc Stacking page.

 

[KingTempest]

Here’s an idea of a solution.
Since 1 meter is arbitrary, assume length of average arm and use that since these characters can fight at that speed.

DT’s issue was assuming 1 meter. So a solution is this.

Assume the average length of the limb that said character can move at at a certain speed (if they kick at Mach speeds, average leg length / speed).

Or calc the size of the limb of the person who is being calced to be blitzed.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

We already told you that certain examples are permitted and they're listed on the Calc Stacking page.

Ok so why is one case fine where the other isn’t? Why is it that you can cherry pick which types of calc stacking to ignore?

Here’s an idea of a solution.
Since 1 meter is arbitrary, assume length of average arm and use that since these characters can fight at that speed.

DT’s issue was assuming 1 meter. So a solution is this.

Assume the average length of the limb that said character can move at at a certain speed (if they kick at Mach speeds, average leg length / speed).

Or calc the size of the limb of the person who is being calced to be blitzed.

Something like this would be viable.

 

[CloverDragon03]

The definition of calc stacking needs a redo in itself if this falls under it.
Calc stacking is using the results of a calc to base it off another calc. But that isn’t valid or fair.
If a character comes and says “I can move 500 m in 4 seconds”, and we do a “calc” that calcs it at 125 m/s, would that not be used for feats since it involves a calc?

The only thing that’s being calced to a serious degree is the blitz of said character. But if said character can react to his movements in canon, can fight at this speed, and even more involving this stated speed, assuming a distance of 1 meter, which even the wiki uses for reaction times, shouldn’t be out the window.

that’s just me

Yeah, I agree with this. If that's considered calc stacking, we need to re-evaluate what qualifies as calc stacking

 

[Damage3245]

That would still fall under calc stacking. Personally I don't see in difference in principle between that and the bullet dodging example in the Calc Stacking page.

 

[CloverDragon03]

When it's using the exact same principle that our own Reactions page uses for their reaction times, which we even borrow in blitzing calcs, I cannot see how this would not be viable to use.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

That would still fall under calc stacking. Personally I don't see in difference in principle between that and the bullet dodging example in the Calc Stacking page.

Damage I explained this to you.

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).

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

From the calculation page:

Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.

How is this any different from “using the calculated reaction time of a character to calculate the speed of another character blitzing said prior character…”?

Both use a calculated value (perception time from a speed statement vs a straight up speed calculation) to get the speed of a character.

 

[Antvasima]

So has DontTalk received sufficient staff agreement to apply his suggested revision here, or should I call for more staff members?

 

[Damage3245]

So has DontTalk received sufficient staff agreement to apply his suggested revision here, or should I call for more staff members?

The revision has already been applied.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So what, if anything, is left to do here?

 

[Damage3245]

Okay. So what, if anything, is left to do here?

Nothing for this thread specifically I believe.

Any further suggested modifications should be handled in their own thread.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

So has DontTalk received sufficient staff agreement to apply his suggested revision here, or should I call for more staff members?

There is most certainly not unanimous staff agreement or anything of the such. Y’all yell at regulars for “rushing to close threads” let the deliberation continue. Cmon now, I’d recommend Mitch, he’s familiar with these types of calcs.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

The definition of calc stacking needs a redo in itself if this falls under it.
Calc stacking is using the results of a calc to base it off another calc. But that isn’t valid or fair.
If a character comes and says “I can move 500 m in 4 seconds”, and we do a “calc” that calcs it at 125 m/s, would that not be used for feats since it involves a calc?

The only thing that’s being calced to a serious degree is the blitz of said character. But if said character can react to his movements in canon, can fight at this speed, and even more involving this stated speed, assuming a distance of 1 meter, which even the wiki uses for reaction times, shouldn’t be out the window.

that’s just me

Here’s an idea of a solution.
Since 1 meter is arbitrary, assume length of average arm and use that since these characters can fight at that speed.

DT’s issue was assuming 1 meter. So a solution is this.

Assume the average length of the limb that said character can move at at a certain speed (if they kick at Mach speeds, average leg length / speed).

Or calc the size of the limb of the person who is being calced to be blitzed.

I honestly agree with this

 

[CloverDragon03]

The revision has already been applied.

Frankly, it should not have been applied so soon when we're nowhere near a unanimous agreement. There's no need to rush this.

 

[KingTempest]

There is most certainly not unanimous staff agreement or anything of the such. Y’all yell at regulars for “rushing to close threads” let the deliberation continue. Cmon now, I’d recommend Mitch, he’s familiar with these types of calcs.

Deadass only 2 staff (1 CGM, Damage) accepted the OP and there's 4 staff (3 CGMs, Klol, Mitch, and Clover) who are questioning it or are against it.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm only on a lean towards support for now so uh, make that of what you will. But the opposing side (Arc's side) does make some good arguments.

If we have in-verse statements of how fast a character is (ACTUAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS), it should be fine to use that in the normal Projectile Dodging Formula calculations. This is literally no different than using actual IRL bullets to determine how fast a character moved.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

If we have in-verse statements of how fast a character is (ACTUAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS), it should be fine to use that in the normal Projectile Dodging Formula calculations.

Precisely what we are advocating. Canon speed statements + consistent showings of close quarters reactions -> perceptions of assumed close quarters distance / canon speed.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Precisely what we are advocating. Canon speed statements + consistent showings of close quarters reactions -> perceptions of assumed close quarters distance / canon speed.

Adding on to this, 1 meter is a very reasonable assumption for close quarters distance

 

[KLOL506]

Precisely what we are advocating. Canon speed statements + consistent showings of close quarters reactions -> perceptions of assumed close quarters distance / canon speed.

Of course, the main issue is whether the character was going all out on the attack or holding back, but I think that'd be best left for a case by case basis. If there's no proof they were going all out, just scale the character to the projectile's rated speed (Or character's speed according to the official sources) without making any further assumptions.

 

[KLOL506]

Adding on to this, 1 meter is a very reasonable assumption for close quarters distance

I'd argue limb length is better to use, or if you wanna take it real serious and low ball, the distance covered by your head length when you turn around to react to an attack.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Of course, the main issue is whether the character was going all out on the attack or holding back, but I think that'd be best left for a case by case basis. If there's no proof they were going all out, just scale the character to the projectile's rated speed without making any further assumptions.

Right ofc it’s context dependent, but in the case in which the context applies and is valid, the method should be valid.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'd argue limb length is better to use, or if you wanna take it real serious and low ball, the distance covered by your head length when you turn around to react to an attack.

Makes sense as well, I'm just throwing out some ideas

 

[KLOL506]

Right ofc it’s context dependent, but in the case in which the context applies and is valid, the method should be valid.

That being said, we need to be super strict with this in general. Like, extremely strict. Vague statements alone ain't gonna cut it, if a character is truly stated to be x speed in the verse, and you want to pull off a calc on that, you must first prove that that character's attack being launched at you in that exact scene is going at full power, no holds barred, otherwise the entire premise for a calc completely falls apart.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

That being said, we need to be super strict with this in general. Like, extremely strict. Vague statements alone ain't gonna cut it, if a character is truly stated to be x speed in the verse, and you want to pull off a calc on that, you must first prove that that character's attack being launched at you in that exact scene is going at full power, no holds barred, otherwise the entire premise for a calc completely falls apart.

Sure I have no issue with being strict and scrutinizing the feat in question to maintain upmost accuracy.

 

[CloverDragon03]

That being said, we need to be super strict with this in general. Like, extremely strict. Vague statements alone ain't gonna cut it, if a character is truly stated to be x speed in the verse, and you want to pull off a calc on that, you must first prove that that character's attack being launched at you in that exact scene is going at full power, no holds barred, otherwise the entire premise for a calc completely falls apart.

That's fine. With these kinds of calcs, scrutiny is to be expected

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

So to summarize what KLOL, Clover, and Mitch are in support of, and to make sure I understand:

To get a character’s perception/reaction time and it be valid for use we use their arm length divided by a canon stated speed. Then for it to be valid for use to calculate a blitz they must be provably on guard (i.e. their reactions aren’t impaired by anything).

I captured the sentiment correctly?

 

[CloverDragon03]

So to summarize what KLOL, Clover, and Mitch are in support of, and to make sure I understand:

To get a character’s perception/reaction time and it be valid for use we use their arm length divided by a canon stated speed. Then for it to be valid for use to calculate a blitz they must be provably on guard (i.e. their reactions aren’t impaired by anything).

I captured the sentiment correctly?

I think this is pretty much it, yeah

 

[Damage3245]

For that to be valid for rating the character is one thing. Personally I'm still opposed to that value being used to find the speed of other characters.

If a huge number of staff are in favour of this being another permitted example of calc stacking, then sure, but this requires way more discussion then just four or five staff members.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

For that to be valid for rating the character is one thing. Personally I'm still opposed to that value being used to find the speed of other characters.

If a huge number of staff are in favour of this being another permitted example of calc stacking, then sure, but this requires way more discussion then just four or five staff members.

Can you ping some more then?

 

[KLOL506]

So to summarize what KLOL, Clover, and Mitch are in support of, and to make sure I understand:

To get a character’s perception/reaction time and it be valid for use we use their arm length divided by a canon stated speed. Then for it to be valid for use to calculate a blitz they must be provably on guard (i.e. their reactions aren’t impaired by anything).

I captured the sentiment correctly?

Actually, I think we should measure the actual distance moved by the character instead.

 

[KLOL506]

For that to be valid for rating the character is one thing. Personally I'm still opposed to that value being used to find the speed of other characters.

If a huge number of staff are in favour of this being another permitted example of calc stacking, then sure, but this requires way more discussion then just four or five staff members.

I don't see how it's anymore calc stacking than using IRL bullets or projectiles like light or lightning or explosions or meteor speeds.

At worst you just scale to the character's speed if there is no evidence that the character was going all out, and/or if there is no way to determine movement of the dodging character.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Actually, I think we should measure the actual distance moved by the character instead.

What if there are no visuals, ie a book.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't see how it's anymore calc stacking than using IRL bullets or projectiles like light or lightning or explosions or meteor speeds.

At worst you just scale to the character's speed if there is no evidence that the character was going all out, and/or if there is no way to determine movement of the dodging character.

Because we aren't calcing IRL bullets or light or meteor speeds.

 

[KLOL506]

What if there are no visuals, ie a book.

Try and look for any signs of ducking or stuff, or look to see if the character made any movements or moved an arm in an arc or something.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Because we aren't calcing IRL bullets or light or meteor speeds.

We don’t calc stated speeds either.

Try and look for any signs of ducking or stuff, or look to see if the character made any movements or moved an arm in an arc or something.

KLOL… what if there are no visuals to determine such…

 

[KLOL506]

Because we aren't calcing IRL bullets or light or meteor speeds.

Nor are we calcing actual speeds literally blurted out by sources.

What, you want to tell me that in an example, Character A in a piece of fiction stated to be twice as fast as sound, given a concrete speed value of 686 m/s, and Character B dodging Character A with Character A being stated to be going at full power, and there being a distance between Character A and B at the time of dodging and the distance Character B moved, cannot be used for a speed calc? Consider the fact that I'm not even using a "moved x distance in y timeframe" scenario, I'm just using an example where a concrete speed value is displayed and stated VERBATIM like CHARACTER A MOVES AT X meters per second or Twice the Speed of an AR-15 or At speeds comparable to a tank shell.