- 15,964
- 25,007
Bump
-
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.
Are Stated Speeds/Timeframes For Characters Calc Stacking?
- Thread starter Agnaa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- calc stacking
- 17,945
- 15,574
Got permission to speak here from @Dalesean027
I have a question on this bit.
If, for instance, two characters were moving together at a calculated speed, and then, within the same scene as the feat, Character A blitzes Character B, would dividing the calculated speed by 1 meter fall under the question in Agnaa's previous post, or is this a different scenario entirely?
I have a question on this bit.
If, for instance, two characters were moving together at a calculated speed, and then, within the same scene as the feat, Character A blitzes Character B, would dividing the calculated speed by 1 meter fall under the question in Agnaa's previous post, or is this a different scenario entirely?
- 15,964
- 25,007
I can second this, I gave him permission to ask whatever question he had regarding the 1m portion
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #44
I think it'd fall under it. It's slightly dissimilar, due to it all happening in the same scene, but I think that aspect of the question is covered by other questions asked in the OP.
- 674
- 305
I would like permission to ask. Do we now have an official conclusion to this thread?
- 16,980
- 22,782
Bumping this with permission from Clover. But also, can you summarize what's been deemed conclusive as per the discussion in this thread and what remains inconclusive?
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #48
Conclusive:
- Being in another scene is not disqualifying.
- Evidence that they're not going at their top speed is disqualifying.
- Multiple steps of scaling are disqualifying.
- Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?
- Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?
- Is one step of scaling disqualifying?
- Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?
- 4,105
- 2,148
I can easily answer the first one. To answer it, no; in fact, it would depend on the context at which the speed is exhibited. There are cases where speed is exhibited casually, which I feel makes it easier to use the time frame given than it would've been if a character were to go at top speed. In this instance, the girl who exhibited the reaction speed feat here pretty much just decided to fight some demons to satiate her boredom.:
And to show that was indeed casual... Here's the girl just waltzing her pea-brained ass up to the rest of those mofos picking a fight:
If a character needs to put more effort against another character speed-wise, then the time frame exhibited casually would definitely be allowable.
As for the second one, I would certainly say so since the character is being actively timed.
Third, care to elaborate what you mean by one step of scaling?
Fourth one, that would be a no. You have to find the distance the character moved in the former case, or find the time necessary to move a certain distance in the latter case.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #51
Character A gets a statement of speed/timeframe.
Character B scales to Character A's speed.
Character B gets blitzed.
Is Character A's statement usable for calculating that?
- 4,105
- 2,148
Not entirely sure. The wiki's current logic would say yes, but scrutiny would say no.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #53
(I'd say that under the current logic we don't; I remember a past thread where some calcs were rejected due to using that logic)
- 32,737
- 37,876
This needs more input.
@Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Executor_N0 @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Migue79
@Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Executor_N0 @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Migue79
- 32,737
- 37,876
After reading this thread a lil' bit, put me up for "Case-by-Case basis" for these two. We can't apply a blanket rule on these two specific questions.
- 3,016
- 2,423
Like KLOL just said, I always figured it was a case-by-case basis.
Stated speeds/timeframes technically wouldn't count as calc stacking though, since they wouldn't be calcs
Stated speeds/timeframes technically wouldn't count as calc stacking though, since they wouldn't be calcs
- 29,681
- 24,581
What do you think of the last one in the OP which is:Like KLOL just said, I always figured it was a case-by-case basis.
Stated speeds/timeframes technically wouldn't count as calc stacking though, since they wouldn't be calcs
So say that a character is targeted by a Mach 20 attack which they dodge, can we then get a reaction timeframe by doing 1 meter / Mach 20? At present we don't because it will then result in calc stacking when that timeframe is used in another calc but depending on the results of this thread, it seems it may end up happening.
- 3,016
- 2,423
Well if the attack's speed is Mach 20 according to the story (like say, Koro-Sensei's typical/casual Mach 20 speed) I'd say it's fine. If the attack speed number comes from a calc then sure, it is calc-stacking at that point.
- 674
- 305
This thread only has a calc group, right? I won't write anything.
- 32,737
- 37,876
Yes. CGMs and staff.
- 29,681
- 24,581
But is then using that calced reaction speed in another calc not calc stacking?
- 3,016
- 2,423
I think you misunderstood what I meant.
If a character in the story says they can attack at Mach 20, that's valid, I think. If their attack speed comes from a calc, I don't find that valid as something to be used in other calcs.
If a character moved a meter dodging such an attack, I'd say that's fair. It wouldn't be calc stacking if it's a stated speed stat within the story.
- 32,737
- 37,876
I believe he meant this:
There is a Mach 20 attack (6860 m/s) stated in-verse. We calculate the timeframe by seeing the character dodged 1 meter (Via pixel-scaling). Time = Distance/Speed. 1/6860 is 0.000145773 seconds perception timeframe.
Damage is asking if it would then be calc-stacking to use this 0.000145773 seconds timeframe in another calc, since we used pixel-scaling to find the distance moved and then calculate a perception timeframe by ourselves.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #65
Beyond that, this sort of thing also comes up when we can't measure things like that.
It can involve cases like:
- Character A is said to be able to react in 0.00001 seconds. Character B is shown to run 20 meters in the time Character A runs 4 meters. Can we say that Character B ran at 500,000 m/s?
- Character C is said to be able to punch at Mach 10 speeds. Character D blitzed Character C from 10 meters away. Can we assume that Character C's reactions are 1/3430th of a second? And thus, that Character D moved at 34,300 m/s to blitz Character C?
- 32,737
- 37,876
Actually wait, now that I read upon this question.
>Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?
It seems that Damage is asking something completely out of this question's scope.
This question at first glance doesn't cover what we do with that implied speed or timeframe afterwards.
For both, I would say yes, assuming in the case of timeframe, it is shown visibly during movement, like with the Garou Feat, or in the case of finding the timeframe, we very blatantly know the speed of the projectile (No-brainer for IRL lethal projectiles like bullets, tank shells etc. or IRL natural phenomena like lightning or light) or the person with said speed is going at his true potential.
The only thing I would say no to is then using those implied speed/timeframe values in another calc as then it'd constitute as true calc-stacking.
>Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?
It seems that Damage is asking something completely out of this question's scope.
This question at first glance doesn't cover what we do with that implied speed or timeframe afterwards.
For both, I would say yes, assuming in the case of timeframe, it is shown visibly during movement, like with the Garou Feat, or in the case of finding the timeframe, we very blatantly know the speed of the projectile (No-brainer for IRL lethal projectiles like bullets, tank shells etc. or IRL natural phenomena like lightning or light) or the person with said speed is going at his true potential.
The only thing I would say no to is then using those implied speed/timeframe values in another calc as then it'd constitute as true calc-stacking.
Was this seconds statement shown side-by-side when Character B was dashing 20 meters, like say, in the form of a stopwatch or so? If not, no.
Technically it would be 0.65 meters covered by a Mach 10 attack (Since the average human is around 1.7-1.71 meters which would result in an arm length around 0.75 meters as per the HPC), so the timeframe is a wee bit lower, but for the overall premise, yes. As we have one of the components of the calc already stated in the story, that being speed, and the arm length.
I'm going to say no, as this is where would constitute as calc-stacking, since we're now using a fan-made value in another calc.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #67
Perhaps.
The question is meant to imply "and then use that implied speed/timeframe for another calculation".
The idea of the hypothetical is for the answer to be no.
A relevant part of these hypotheticals, which I kinda failed at here, is that these "implied conversions" are such because there's no actual concrete distance to enable a legitimate calculated conversion between timeframe and speed; instead, 1 meter is assumed. This reasoning is quite possibly used to argue that it's not calc stacking, "it's not a calculation, it's just converting a stated timeframe using our standard metric for converting those and speed".
I'll add this view to the tally.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #68
@CloverDragon03 @Dalesean027 @M3X_2.0 Turns out one of the questions was vague; do these recent posts clarifying it change your views?
- 32,737
- 37,876
This should've prefeably been mentioned in the question beforehand.
The better explanation would be that there is no actual timeframe to be used there to begin with.
The timeframe and the movement feat must both be present in the same event or in very close proximity to each other.
That's usually how it works but I personally find it preferable if we chose to calculate the distance properly instead wherever possible instead of just assuming they moved 1 m (A much better option would be to just use arm length when it is fisted). Leaves it less vague IMHO.
- 32,737
- 37,876
BTW, I would like you to clarify this in my vote, that
I wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong view that I disagree with the whole sentence, because I don't, it's more of a half-agree, half-disagree. Me personally, I believe these three points should've been their own separate questions, but I digress.
That I agree with this part for use in profiles,
And that this part I do not agree with.
I wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong view that I disagree with the whole sentence, because I don't, it's more of a half-agree, half-disagree. Me personally, I believe these three points should've been their own separate questions, but I digress.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #71
I think, given the context of the thread, it's important to focus on the calc stacking part, not other concerns about what to put on profiles. But I'll note that in the tally, for you.
- 674
- 305
May I ask? Do we now have a consensus on "Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe, for use in another calculation?" or do we need to wait for further comments?
- 29,681
- 24,581
It's not an overwhelming majority, but currently it seems that the consensus of the majority in the OP is that it is not allowed.
- 1,822
- 2,006
No, unless there's some specific reason (like a one-time amp) that would make the character's stated reaction time only applicable in that scene.
I'm going to have to agree with Flashlight's stance on this one
I agree with Clover's stance
I'd consider this to be even better since we'd be outright given a feat of a character reacting in a confirmed timeframe so yes.
Not automatically. While there could be more discrepencies arising from scaling one character's stated reaction time to another without a direct statement that their reaction times are equal since we can have varying speed types and distances between the two, speed should be fair game with more clear cut cases like a Character A keeping pace with Character B (who can canonically move at Mach 10) while the two of them are actively trying to overtake one another.
I agree with M3X's stance on this
This would be calc stacking so no
- 2,940
- 1,060
Got permission from CloverDragon03 to comment here
Based on what has been agreed upon so far, I've noticed that the current standards heavily cater to visual media. Verses that exist only as non-visual forms (novels, text-based games, etc.) would be exceedingly difficult to calculate any speed feats without a stated distance within a stated timeframe. In visual media, character A can have stated speed and Character B is faster than Character A; if both characters move within the same scene, we would be able to compare them based on the agreed standards in this thread so far. These standards would heavily limit the ways we could get valid calculations from nonvisual media as the most common form of statement-based speed in nonvisual media is Character A moved so fast that Character B couldn't react. Most authors wouldn't think to expand upon this with stated distances and timeframes as it would be entirely unnecessary.
Considering the impact this would have on an entire form of media in the wiki, this should at least be discussed before a conclusion is reached.
Based on what has been agreed upon so far, I've noticed that the current standards heavily cater to visual media. Verses that exist only as non-visual forms (novels, text-based games, etc.) would be exceedingly difficult to calculate any speed feats without a stated distance within a stated timeframe. In visual media, character A can have stated speed and Character B is faster than Character A; if both characters move within the same scene, we would be able to compare them based on the agreed standards in this thread so far. These standards would heavily limit the ways we could get valid calculations from nonvisual media as the most common form of statement-based speed in nonvisual media is Character A moved so fast that Character B couldn't react. Most authors wouldn't think to expand upon this with stated distances and timeframes as it would be entirely unnecessary.
Considering the impact this would have on an entire form of media in the wiki, this should at least be discussed before a conclusion is reached.
- 29,681
- 24,581
That just seems like an inherent limitation to most non-visual media.
- 14,831
- 12,255
- Thread starter
- #78
Frankly, all feat analysis heavily caters towards visual media. We'll deal with that the same way we always do; by making assumptions using the context when necessary. It's not actually exceedingly difficult to calculate feats that way, they just end up lower than they might otherwise.
Also, the only ways the standards are being changed in this way wouldn't so much limit non-visual media, but rather, give a greater benefit to visual media. By letting visual media calculate blitzes and the like in cases where previously they couldn't, and which would typically be non-viable for non-visual media.
As such, I don't find that too important.
Also, the only ways the standards are being changed in this way wouldn't so much limit non-visual media, but rather, give a greater benefit to visual media. By letting visual media calculate blitzes and the like in cases where previously they couldn't, and which would typically be non-viable for non-visual media.
As such, I don't find that too important.
- 15,964
- 25,007
Pretty sure I stated once which points I agree with but I'll just do them on my own since im still marked as unclear, those I put under the reply are what I agree to
- 11,173
- 17,296
I’m sorry to ask, but what about this one specifically? It’s the one we especially need a consensus on.
Similar threads
- Locked
