- 17,601
- 27,560
Bump
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can second this, I gave him permission to ask whatever question he had regarding the 1m portionGot permission to speak here from @Dalesean027
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.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?
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?A few things seem conclusive, but some other things aren't.
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.:Inconclusive:
- 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?
Character A gets a statement of speed/timeframe.Third, care to elaborate what you mean by one step of scaling?
Not entirely sure. The wiki's current logic would say yes, but scrutiny would say no.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?
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.
- 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?
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
Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?
Yes. CGMs and staff.This thread only has a calc group, right? I won't write anything.
But is then using that calced reaction speed in another calc not calc stacking?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.
I think you misunderstood what I meant.But is then using that calced reaction speed in another calc not calc stacking?
I believe he meant this: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.
Beyond that, this sort of thing also comes up when we can't measure things like that.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.
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.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?
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.
- 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?
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.
- And thus, that Character D moved at 34,300 m/s to blitz Character C?
Perhaps.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.
The question is meant to imply "and then use that implied speed/timeframe for another calculation".This question at first glance doesn't cover what we do with that implied speed or timeframe afterwards.
The idea of the hypothetical is for the answer to be no.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.
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".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'll add this view to the tally.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.
This should've prefeably been mentioned in the question beforehand.The question is meant to imply "and then use that implied speed/timeframe for another calculation".
The better explanation would be that there is no actual timeframe to be used there to begin with.The idea of the hypothetical is for the answer to be no.
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.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".
That I agree with this part for use in profiles,Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe,
And that this part I do not agree with.for use in another calculation?
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.BTW, I would like you to clarify this in my vote, that
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.
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.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?
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.Is being in a different scene disqualifying?
I'm going to have to agree with Flashlight's stance on this oneIs affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?
I agree with Clover's stanceIs evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?
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.Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?
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.Is one step of scaling disqualifying?
I agree with M3X's stance on thisAre multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?
This would be calc stacking so noIs it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe, for use in another calculation?
No: 6 (M3X_2.0, KLOL506, TheRustyOne, CloverDragon03, Flashlight237, SunDaGamer)
- It depends on the context of the speed statement, and the feat being calculated; the latter can't be more casual than the former: 2 (Flashlight237, SunDaGamer)
Yes: 7 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne, M3X_2.0, KLOL506, CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer)
- Unless their stated speed is for when they're not going at their top, and they're holding back to a similar extent: 2 (CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer)
Yes: 5 (CloverDragon03, Armorchompy, TheRustyOne, Flashlight237, SunDaGamer)
No: 6 (Agnaa, Flashlight237, DontTalkDT, Damage3245, KLOL506, SunDaGamer)
Is one step of scaling disqualifying?
Yes: 3 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, M3X_2.0)
Unclear: 4 (DMUA, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, Daleseaon027)
- Unless they're stated to have the exact same speed/reaction time: 1 (M3X_2.0)
Case by case: 1 (KLOL506)
No: 4 (Flashlight237, TheRustyOne, CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer)