Are Stated Speeds/Timeframes For Characters Calc Stacking?

[Damage3245]

Can an example case be provided for that one?

 

[Dalesean027]

I’m sorry to ask, but what about this one specifically? It’s the one we especially need a consensus on.

I suppose this is fine as long as it all comes from statements only I suppose and doesn't involve the use of any pre-calculated values for anything


Ig if the narrative says like characters A and B are lightspeed since A is stated to be able to move at lightspeed and B is comparable or like equal then character C comes along and is like 2x faster than character B from narrative statements or a feat if its directly presented as such or something so we say he's 2c, that works

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I agree one step scaling should be used, kinda illogical not to use it

 

[Agnaa]

Can an example case be provided for that one?

Character A is stated to move at 200 m/s.

Character B scales to Character A, without explicit reference to that same speed statement. Either through a statement like "Character B is way faster than Character A", or through a feat of Character B outspeeding Character A. If you would treat those situations differently, feel free to give a modal answer.

Character C blitzes Character B, and a user of the wiki wants to calculate that using Character A's stated speed.

I suppose this is fine as long as it all comes from statements only I suppose and doesn't involve the use of any pre-calculated values for anything

Ig if the narrative says like characters A and B are lightspeed since A is stated to be able to move at lightspeed and B is comparable or like equal then character C comes along and is like 2x faster than character B from narrative statements or a feat if its directly presented as such or something so we say he's 2c, that works

I'm confused here, since you say "if the narrative says characters A and B are lightspeed"; we're talking about cases where Character B doesn't have a statement of speed (or where Character A's stated speed is argued to be usable instead of Character B's statement).

Added all the other votes people provided to the OP.

 

[Dalesean027]

I'm confused here, since you say "if the narrative says characters A and B are lightspeed"; we're talking about cases where Character B doesn't have a statement of speed (or where Character A's stated speed is argued to be usable instead of Character B's statement).

Yeah ya just worded it better than me but that's what I said there.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, I've put you down as one step of scaling isn't disqualifying.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I believe all the questions have reached proper consensuses now. Is there anything left to do?

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe we could write up a new section on the Calc Stacking page to mention those conclusions?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Maybe we could write up a new section on the Calc Stacking page to mention those conclusions?

Once I get home, I can type up a draft

 

[Agnaa]

I've got a minute now, so I'll try to tackle it.

Using Stated Speeds​

We don't generally consider using stated speeds (even somewhat unclear ones, such as a character moving while a timer is shown) in other calculations to be calc stacking, under a few conditions:

• If characters are known or implied to not be moving at their top speed in the scene being calculated, an earlier stated speed is unusable unless the stated speed was for them holding back to a similar or greater extent.
• While we do allow stated speeds to be used across one step of scaling (i.e. if Character B is faster than Character A, a stated speed for Character A can be used in calculations for Character B), we don't allow them to be used across multiple, due to concerns with reliability.
• Care must be taken to only use stated speeds that are relevant to a calculation. A character's stated running speed cannot be used to calculate someone moving faster than they can react, as that requires a conversion between the two, and thus, a calculation. Similarly, a character's stated reaction speed, or a timeframe they can act within, cannot be used to calculate a character running faster than them, for the same reason.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Nice, I like this draft

 

[KLOL506]

Looks okay at a glance.

 

[KLOL506]

• Care must be taken to only use stated speeds that are relevant to a calculation. A character's stated running speed cannot be used to calculate someone moving faster than they can react, as that requires a conversion between the two, and thus, a calculation. Similarly, a character's stated reaction speed, or a timeframe they can act within, cannot be used to calculate a character running faster than them, for the same reason.

Question: Would using values from the Perception Table based on statements (Like say, there is an in-verse lightspeed statement and we judge it to be 3.336e-9 seconds from the Perception Tables) be considered a calc, and in turn, would using that 3.336e-9 seconds in another calc to find speed be considered calc stacking?

This is important as we have many feats in fiction where characters move in blurs/leave behind afterimages and cover a certain distance, and we assume baseline Subsonic perception timeframe in that case (After-images are considered the starting point for Subsonic as per our standards) and then divide the distance moved in that timeframe to get their true speed. Would that fall under calc stacking as well?

 

[Agnaa]

Question: Would using values from the Perception Table based on statements (Like say, there is an in-verse lightspeed statement and we judge it to be 3.336e-9 seconds from the Perception Tables) be considered a calc, and in turn, would using that 3.336e-9 seconds in another calc to find speed be considered calc stacking?

Yes, because that assumes that they can react to an obstacle suddenly popping up at a distance of 1 meter. Really, to do things properly, we'd need to find out how distant of an obstacle they can react to while moving at that speed to know their perception speed.

It's kind of the same issue behind how we're more careful with flight speed. Terrestrial travel usually involves reacting to objects within a few meters, so it's not big enough of an issue to change ratings unless that statement's for flight.

This is important as we have many feats in fiction where characters move in blurs/leave behind afterimages and cover a certain distance, and we assume baseline Subsonic perception timeframe in that case (After-images are considered the starting point for Subsonic as per our standards) and then divide the distance moved in that timeframe to get their true speed. Would that fall under calc stacking as well?

I don't think that's really related.

We're not really using an equivalence between the required speed and the perception speed table by assuming a distance of 1 meter; that should be clear by how we're using it to find this character's speed in the first place. If we were doing it as you say, every calculation would result in such a character getting baseline Subsonic. You can't use a character's speed when performing a feat as a starting value to get that they were actually performing that feat at a higher speed; such logic would blow up to infinite speed.

In truth, we're using a border for human perception; the timeframe at which objects moving certain distances leave a blur. Then we're using this timeframe, and the measured distance, to get the character's speed.

In other words, that's not an issue because:

• There's no conversion between movement speed and perception speed in such feats.
• The basis is a function of typical human perception speed.
• Such values aren't stated, they're derived from the real world.

 

[KLOL506]

I see. Aite then.