• 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

Arc7Kuroi said:
KLOL… what if there are no visuals to determine such…
Click to expand...
Pretty sure statements about ducking your head/upper body (Like in most fiction where bullet-timing is increasingly common and ducking and head bobbing for dodging occurs) or moving an arm or veering to the other direction can give you some low-balls.
 
KLOL506 said:
Pretty sure statements about ducking your head/upper body (Like in most fiction where bullet-timing is increasingly common and ducking and head bobbing for dodging occurs) or moving an arm or veering to the other direction can give you some low-balls.
Click to expand...
What if the author says “Bobby was so fast that Jimmy couldn’t react to Bobby at all”? Is arm length a fine lowball distance for Jimmy “reacting”?
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
What if the author says “Bobby was so fast that Jimmy couldn’t react to Bobby at all”? Is arm length a fine lowball distance for Jimmy “reacting”?
Click to expand...
I don't think statements like those are grounds for qualifying to reacting at all.

Again, we need them to explicitly state it like this:

"Bobby was going incredibly fast, in fact he was giving it his all, and Jimmy barely managed to roll out of the way to the far side/barely managed to duck from the attack"

As for the distance between the speeding ticket and the person dodging, that is its own can of worms that has to be calculated separately (Ducking distance is usually much easier to calculate than hard-swerving to the side, since you can basically just use head-to-crotch distance as a baseline there and that'd be that).
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
I don't think statements like those are grounds for qualifying to reacting at all.

Again, we need them to explicitly state it like this:

"Bobby was going incredibly fast, in fact he was giving it his all, and Jimmy barely managed to roll out of the way to the far side/barely managed to duck from the attack"

As for the distance between the speeding ticket and the person dodging, that is its own can of worms that has to be calculated separately (Ducking is usually much easier to calculate than hard-swerving to the side, since you can basically use head-to-crotch distance as a baseline there).
Click to expand...
No like Jimmy is canonically stated to be able to move at 10 m/s, and he consistently reacts at close quarters with that speed. Then Jimmy is going all out against Bobby, but Bobby is so fast Jimmy can’t react at all. So since Jimmy can consistently react at close quarters with a stated speed, it’d be fair to assume he can react at 1 m (or arms length) divided by the stated speed. Then use that time for the blitz. It would be akin to saying Bobby moved a distance in the same time that Jimmy moved 1 m (or arms length), but that lowballs Bobby cuz technically Jimmy couldn’t even move that distance before getting blitzed.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
No like Jimmy is canonically stated to be able to move at 10 m/s, and he consistently reacts at close quarters with that speed. Then Jimmy is going all out against Bobby, but Bobby is so fast Jimmy can’t react at all. So since Jimmy can consistently react at close quarters with a stated speed, it’d be fair to assume he can react at 1 m (or arms length) divided by the stated speed. Then use that time for the blitz. It would be akin to saying Bobby moved a distance in the same time that Jimmy moved 1 m (or arms length), but that lowballs Bobby cuz technically Jimmy couldn’t even move that distance before getting blitzed.
Click to expand...
Oooooooooooh, so it's Jimmy having the speed then?

Even then, even if we assume they can move 0.7 m to 1 m based on how tall they are (Arm length is generally around the 0.7-0.8 m mark, 0.6-0.7 m if it's a closed fist), you still need the distance moved by the blitzing character, don't you? And we still need statements that Jimmy's reactions and body were operating at peak speed there in that exact scenario, something like:

"Bobby was so fast that Jimmy couldn't even perceive him, and Jimmy himself was no longer holding back, he was truly on his guard at full power and speed" or something on that note.

Because again, even at 10 m/s nothing stops them from holding back their perception and letting their guard down and then getting promptly blitzed.

So again, it all comes back to the whole "Was the character at his peak speed when he was getting blitzed/when the other character dodged his punch" scenario, all back to square one.
 
KLOL506 said:
Oooooooooooh, so it's Jimmy having the speed then?

Even then, even if we assume they can move 0.7 m to 1 m based on how tall they are (Arm length is generally around the 0.7-0.8 m mark, 0.6-0.7 m if it's a closed fist), you still need the distance moved by the blitzing character, don't you? And we still need statements that Jimmy's reactions and body were operating at peak speed there in that exact scenario, something like:

"Bobby was so fast that Jimmy couldn't even perceive him, and Jimmy himself was no longer holding back, he was truly on his guard at full power and speed" or something on that note.

Because again, even at 10 m/s nothing stops them from holding back their perception and letting their guard down and then getting promptly blitzed.

So again, it all comes back to the whole "Was the character at his peak speed when he was getting blitzed/when the other character dodged his punch" scenario, all back to square one.
Click to expand...
Right, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Jimmy was in peak condition.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
Right, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Jimmy was in peak condition.
Click to expand...
If there are explicit statements and confirmation that Jimmy was in peak condition (i.e. blatant confirmation that his reflexes and speed were also on full power or overdrive or some shit) during that blitz, then yeah, an argument could be made for using it.

Bear in mind, you would still need to find the distance moved by the character blitzing him at the time Jimmy was in peak condition.
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
If there are explicit statements and confirmation that Jimmy was in peak condition during that blitz, then yeah, an argument could be made for using it.

Bear in mind, you would still need to find the distance moved by the character blitzing him at the time Jimmy was in peak condition.
Click to expand...
So, if all the pieces of the puzzle are there, and fit cleanly and snuggly where they're supposed to fit, there shouldn't be an issue?
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
So, if all the pieces of the puzzle are there, and fit cleanly and snuggly where they're supposed to fit, there shouldn't be an issue?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and they need to fit as close to snug as the ones I mentioned. Otherwise, if there's even a slight hint of vaguness, entire calc is a no-go.
 
KingTempest said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay. So which staff members think what here specifically? Some elaboration/explanation is necessary for perspective.

I obviously trust DontTalk's sense of judgement, as usual, but I can call the remaining calc group members here if you wish.
 
So, basically the conversation between KLOL and I details it pretty well, but if I had to try and sum it up:

If character A is stated to move at a speed X, they are consistently shown to react at close quarters distances at speed X, they get blitzed by character B over distance Y. The assumption that the time frame is arm's length (or roughly 1 m) divided by the stated speed X is perfectly ok.
 
My position is that while it may be okay to use that for a character's statistics, using it in subsequent calculations would be calc stacking in a way that isn't currently permitted by our standards.

If our standards were to change to allow this, then it is fair enough.
 
Aight, this is my take on the whole thing:

These reaction times are put into the Reactions page, and they are derived by taking 1 / [insert speed here]. These values, particularly the Peak Human and Average Human times, are often brought into calcs for blitzing feats. Therefore, using 1 / [a speed stated in-universe] for Reaction Time should be no less of an acceptable method than that. Of course, if using 1 meter is too arbitrary, I am also okay with using an arm length instead provided that the character can consistently react in close quarters to that speed.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Aight, this is my take on the whole thing:

These reaction times are put into the Reactions page, and they are derived by taking 1 / [insert speed here]. These values, particularly the Peak Human and Average Human times, are often brought into calcs for blitzing feats. Therefore, using 1 / [a speed stated in-universe] for Reaction Time should be no less of an acceptable method than that. Of course, if using 1 meter is too arbitrary, I am also okay with using an arm length instead provided that the character can consistently react in close quarters to that speed.
Click to expand...
pretty much this
 
So can anybody write a tally with accompanying explanations here, as I asked about earlier, please
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
So, basically the conversation between KLOL and I details it pretty well, but if I had to try and sum it up:

If character A is stated to move at a speed X, they are consistently shown to react at close quarters distances at speed X, they get blitzed by character B over distance Y. The assumption that the time frame is arm's length (or roughly 1 m) divided by the stated speed X is perfectly ok.
Click to expand...
This is assuming that they remain at speed X and are actually giving it their all AKA going full power.
 
A few cents to chuck into the conversation.

There's a spectrum of the amount of assumptions required to perform a calc. At one end they're so few (their "meters" and "seconds" are the same as ours IRL) that they're effectively zero, but the transition from those sorts of things to "calculated speeds" isn't a discrete jump; it happens very slowly.

We can sort of see this in the examples KLOL provided earlier for "verbatim speed statements"

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.
Click to expand...
The examples we're given are...
  1. Moved at a stated speed.
  2. Moved a stated distance in a stated timeframe.
  3. Moved at a certain multiplier compared to a fairly specific IRL projectile.
  4. Moved at roughly the speed of a broad class of IRL projectiles.
These are not all the same. And I'm concerned if we go through taking something as vague as "comparable to a tank shell" as a verbatim statement that doesn't count as calc stacking, that the definitions will slowly expand. I wouldn't be surprised if some novel had a bullet-dodging feat where the distance or timeframe and type of gun were both specified, which seems to me like a case where less is assumed than "Is comparable to a tank shell", but would still fall squarely under the label of "calculation".

Another potential issue I can't find mentioned in this thread would be statements like a character being stated to cause sonic booms by running; that requires a very specific speed IRL, so would that be considered a stated speed? Then there's the whole class of statements like mach speed, hypersonic speed, as fast as lightning, lightspeed, faster than sound. Some terms are very concrete and rarely hyperbole, other terms less so.

Also, how far through scaling chains can this sort of thing go? Do they have to directly react to the person with the stated speed, or can it go one, two, three, perhaps any number of people down a scaling chain, to get the highest reaction speed rating possible?

Finally, I do have concerns about "You can only use stated speeds if they're consistent"; what measure of consistency will you be using? If they're stated to move at 200 m/s, but have 4 feats of casually moving, which when calculated, are only 30 m/s, does that count? In other words, does it require a lack of anti-feats, a swarm of calculations all roughly at that value, or something else?

Or we could just ignore those complications and not allow calcs like that.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
A few cents to chuck into the conversation.

There's a spectrum of the amount of assumptions required to perform a calc. At one end they're so few (their "meters" and "seconds" are the same as ours IRL) that they're effectively zero, but the transition from those sorts of things to "calculated speeds" isn't a discrete jump; it happens very slowly.

We can sort of see this in the examples KLOL provided earlier for "verbatim speed statements"


The examples we're given are...
  1. Moved at a stated speed.
  2. Moved a stated distance in a stated timeframe.
  3. Moved at a certain multiplier compared to a fairly specific IRL projectile.
  4. Moved at roughly the speed of a broad class of IRL projectiles.
These are not all the same. And I'm concerned if we go through taking something as vague as "comparable to a tank shell" as a verbatim statement that doesn't count as calc stacking, that the definitions will slowly expand. I wouldn't be surprised if some novel had a bullet-dodging feat where the distance or timeframe and type of gun were both specified, which seems to me like a case where less is assumed than "Is comparable to a tank shell", but would still fall squarely under the label of "calculation".
Click to expand...
That's why we wouldn't use feats that aren't just straight cut speed statements. We're looking for statements like this:

"Moves at X speed" or "Easily moves faster than "X specific gun or shell or whatever".

Those 4 examples are where we want to lock down what goes and what doesn't.

As for the second option, where you mention that the story might throw off a specific projectile and put out the distance from the projectile at the time of dodging and the distance dodged, I'd argue that's the max you can take the speed to, that you shouldn't be able to use that calc beyond anywhere else. After that, keeping up with/dodging/parrying said character's attacks would merely have you scale to the character's speed via powerscaling.

Agnaa said:
Another potential issue I can't find mentioned in this thread would be statements like a character being stated to cause sonic booms by running; that requires a very specific speed IRL, so would that be considered a stated speed? Then there's the whole class of statements like mach speed, hypersonic speed, as fast as lightning, lightspeed, faster than sound. Some terms are very concrete and rarely hyperbole, other terms less so.
Click to expand...
Sonic booms are generally considered to be breaking the sound barrier, so that'd be 343 m/s by default?

The rest of the statements would also qualify assuming they are that specific, direct and not hyperbolic. And in those cases we'd usually take the baseline of those ratings.

Agnaa said:
Finally, I do have concerns about "You can only use stated speeds if they're consistent"; what measure of consistency will you be using? If they're stated to move at 200 m/s, but have 4 feats of casually moving, which when calculated, are only 30 m/s, does that count? In other words, does it require a lack of anti-feats, a swarm of calculations all roughly at that value, or something else?
Click to expand...
Hence that's where the "Full power" statement restriction comes from.

And even for the consistent version of 30 m/s that you gave, we need statements for that too, calc'ing it won't make it qualify.

Agnaa said:
Or we could just ignore those complications and not allow calcs like that.
Click to expand...
Most of these complications are averted by adding on the above restrictions required to qualify for them, and maybe adding anymore to ensure that not all stated speed feats get a pass unless these specific conditions are met. Like I said, these feats need to be direct, cannot be vague in any way, and the character rated at that speed lunging at another character MUST BE CONFIRMED to be operating at maximum power (And if you want to add more statement requirements, speed).
 
Fair enough, for most of that.

I edited a portion into my post about scaling, that I'll copy/paste here since you seem to have responded to my post before I added it in:
Also, how far through scaling chains can this sort of thing go? Do they have to directly react to the person with the stated speed, or can it go one, two, three, perhaps any number of people down a scaling chain, to get the highest reaction speed rating possible?
Click to expand...
My largest remaining concern is...

Hence that's where the "Full power" statement restriction comes from.

Sure, they have to be going at full power at the time of the reaction speed feat being calced, but I'm not sure how that ties into demonstrations of consistency. This part of your response kinda feels like it misunderstood what I was saying.

I'd like clarification on what sorts of things make a stated speed consistent/inconsistent, since there's actually a lot of ways to go about that sort of thing.
 
Agnaa said:
Fair enough, for most of that.

I edited a portion into my post about scaling, that I'll copy/paste here since you seem to have responded to my post before I added it in:

My largest remaining concern is...

Hence that's where the "Full power" statement restriction comes from.

Sure, they have to be going at full power at the time of the reaction speed feat being calced, but I'm not sure how that ties into demonstrations of consistency. This part of your response kinda feels like it misunderstood what I was saying.

I'd like clarification on what sorts of things make a stated speed consistent/inconsistent, since there's actually a lot of ways to go about that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I think for the lower feats, it depends.

However, we can look to the Outlier page's Guidelines for further assistance in determining consistency and usability of the higher speed statement:

1. Is it a big jump or drop in power?

2. Is it a unique or exceptional incident?

3. Is the event unexplained and unjustified?

4. Does the event break the previously established power-scaling?

5. Does the event break with the narrative of the work?

If the higher speed feat manages to dissatisfy many of these guidelines, then we can see some major issues using that statement and shifting to the lower, more consistent speed values, but even then, those require statements too, assuming they exist and assuming any of their feats remotely resembles an IRL maneuver that has established IRL speeds, etc.
 
If it's an outlier it wouldn't be included on the pages in the first place, and so should already be disqualified from use in calcs.

So if that's all you mean by it, then saying "it has to be consistent" isn't actually adding any barriers to this sort of thing.
 
Agnaa said:
If it's an outlier it wouldn't be included on the pages in the first place, and so should already be disqualified from use in calcs.

So if that's all you mean by it, then saying "it has to be consistent" isn't actually adding any barriers to this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Well if the lower speed values tend to be the more consistent scenario and the higher value just happens to be a one-off thing that is not explained properly and after that there's no scene involving dodging the attack in that same scenario where the speed is stated, I see no reason why the higher speed would even be qualifying for use in calcs. If those lower speed feats that are more consistent exist as statements, then we'd default to using the lower caliber feat, but if they are found via calcs and not statements, then they cannot be used in other calculations and the calc value can only be used for powerscaling, nothing beyond that.
 
So have you reached any conclusions here, and if so, can somebody write an easy to understand explanation please?
 
Antvasima said:
So have you reached any conclusions here, and if so, can somebody write an easy to understand explanation please?
Click to expand...
I think the main topic of the thread was dealt with, now there's just the topic of using statements for speed in a story inside calcs and how that should be handled.
 
As for this...

Also, how far through scaling chains can this sort of thing go? Do they have to directly react to the person with the stated speed, or can it go one, two, three, perhaps any number of people down a scaling chain, to get the highest reaction speed rating possible?
Click to expand...

They would have to directly react to the person with the stated speed. Scaling chains would dilute things too much. After all, there's no point if you're doing the feat via a proxy, which opens a whole new can of worms to this.
 
Okay. I would still appreciate some explanations though, as I mentioned earlier.
 
Okay. I have limited time available, so a single easy to understand post would be appreciated.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I have limited time available, so a single easy to understand post would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Basically the thing is this.

Usage of speed statements within a story for a calc.

For example: Character A has a stated speed of X m/s that is not contradicted by more slower showings and is shown to be consistent (For this specific point) or has achieved this speed via some reasonable explanation like a power-up etc. Now, Character A fights against B, and Character A is explicitly stated to be operating at full power, and attacks B, but B dodges at the last minute.

Basically this scenario (Or a scenario where the speed statement is shown right as Character A attacks B and B dodges at that moment in the same scenario where the speed is blurted out by the story itself) would allow the usage of that speed value in our Projectile Dodging Feats Formula, provided the "Distance Between Character A and B at the time of B dodging" and the "Distance dodged by B" are viably calculable.

Basically there are conditions that must be fulfilled to allow this to work out:

1. The character attacking (Character A) MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED to not be holding back and to be going all out and using their full power (and speed if that's what the others prefer)

2. The stated speed must prove to at least be consistent with the other speed showings in the story, or if it is much higher than the regular showings, the stated speed must have some reasonable explanation or justification within the story as to how the character attacking got that fast.

3. The Character dodging (Character B) would have to be directly reacting/dodging/parrying the attacks of the Character that had the said speed stated (Character A), they cannot qualify if they dodge an attack from someone else (Character C) that had once fought against the Character with said speed, so as to avoid further dilution of the feat.

4. (Optional) It is preferable if the dodging feat happens in the exact same scenario as where the speed statement is found for more accuracy and reliability to ensure that Character A truly was at that speed. If not, the other above conditions need to be met.

One example I can make of such a feat is this:

Character A plays a tennis match with Character B. Character A hits the ball so hard that it causes a sonic boom and a shockwave Character B only realizes at the last moment the true ferocity of that ball, and the story and Character B then both explicitly state that the ball has broken the sound barrier (343 m/s minimum). The distance between Character B and the tennis ball is reliably calculated to be 0.4 m, and Character B then swings hard into the ball at a 90 degree (1.5708 rad) arc with their arm. Arm length being 44% of body height and the character being 1.7018 m tall, thus having an arm length of roughly 0.75 m. Distance moved is thus 0.75 * 1.5708= 1.1781 m

Projectile Dodging Formula: (Distance Moved by Character * Velocity of Projectile) / Distance between Projectile and Character when the Character starts moving

Speed: (1.1781 * 343) / 0.4= 1010.22075 m/s (Supersonic+).

This is just an example. But it is no different than how we calculate bullet-dodging feats or feats involving dodging other projectile types. The only difference here is that instead of the real-life established velocities of various guns (Or even velocities of arrows for arrow-dodging), the story itself gives us the velocity of the projectile that the character is dodging.
 
@KLOL506; as far as I'm aware, that's how things work already for calcs.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something; that is all already accepted, right?
 
Damage3245 said:
@KLOL506; as far as I'm aware, that's how things work already for calcs.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something; that is all already accepted, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah but some people had issues with this particular example (And even the upper example I think, to a certain degree).

"Billy fights Michael. Billy is stated within the story to have a normal operating and fighting speed of 20 m/s. Billy punches at Michael, and Billy is stated to be giving it all his might in that punch and not holding back on its speed by the story, but Michael dodges at the last moment, and the story shows visual pictures for the distance between Billy's fist and Michael's face, which is calculated to be 0.2 m, and the distance that Mike ducked at the last moment and is shown ducking to his crotch (Crotch height varies but it's usually around the 0.9 m mark according to google), as the punch just barely gets to his nose before it hits the wall behind Mike".

Same Projectile Dodging Formula would apply here. 20 m/s is the projectile speed since Billy is explicitly stated to be giving it all into that punch and going at full speed, 0.2 m is the distance between Billy's fist and Mike's face, and 0.9 m is the distance that Mike ducked.

Projectile Dodging Formula: (Distance Moved by Character * Velocity of Projectile) / Distance between Projectile and Character when the Character starts moving

Speed: (0.9 * 20) / 0.2= 90 m/s (Subsonic)

This is the example people had issue accepting IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reiner04
Reaction & perception speed
Replies
2
Views
582
Reiner04
Reiner04
ZawierJ
  • Locked
Fairy Tail FTL+ Downgrade
2 3
Replies
97
Views
5K
KingTempest
KingTempest
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
  • Article
Mashle - Change in speed calculation
2
Replies
64
Views
4K
Planck69
Planck69
DMUA
Common Calc Concern: Reaction Times for Blitzing Feats
2
Replies
61
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Arc7Kuroi
One Piece Thunder Bagua Calc Stacking
Replies
19
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top