- 15,276
- 7,007
So you ignore even Dragon's agreement with this CRT despite being a calc member themselves because you don't like the calc k
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.
We have in the past and we still do. I've given reasons why this way is more effective + I've seen this happening myself. Drop this.That's on you, we evidently don't and I already stated why. This is common knowledge literally everyone on the calc team will tell you.
I'm not "silencing" you. I'm telling you to stop derailing the thread by repeating something which is objectively false. And if you're so against "silencing", then why are you so against a calc group thread being made to discuss this calc?Know what I'll go ahead and grab a calc group member to say the same exact thing. I'm not gonna be silenced just because you believe your right when you inherently aren't with all due respect.
Because, again this is something relatively minor? The blog just needs to be updated accordingly, that's literally all. There isn't issue with the pixel scaling, there isn't issues with the statements, so on and so forth. You're purposely stonewalling for something something happens with calculations all the time. If it's something that can be adjusted then a calc group isn't needed, it just needs to adjusted accordingly. This isn't like when two calculations on the same feat are made, this is a simple fix that can be dealt with in the blog.I'm not "silencing" you. I'm telling you to stop derailing the thread by repeating something which is objectively false. And if you're so against "silencing", then why are you so against a calc group thread being made to discuss this calc?
This assumes that DontTalk is correct, which evidently a calc group member (and likely several others that accepted the results of this thread) disagrees with. Hence why they should discuss their disagreement, in a place meant for discussing and where calc members usually discuss, like the calc group discussion thread. I'm not stonewalling anything, I want this to be discussed properly.Because, again this is something relatively minor? The blog just needs to be updated accordingly, that's literally all. There isn't issue with the pixel scaling, there isn't issues with the statements, so on and so forth. You're purposely stonewalling for something something happens with calculations all the time. If it's something that can be adjusted then a calc group isn't needed, it just needs to adjusted accordingly. This isn't like when two calculations on the same feat are made, this is a simple fix that can be dealt with in the blog.
It wouldn't, that was Lance's Dragonair. Nice supporting feat tho I suppose.How would this feat affect the scaling if it was to be evaluated and accepted
First off, nobody disagreed with DontTalk, that never happened in the blog or this thread. Matter of fact DontTalk commented 2 days ago, the other calc member accepted it long before DontTalk commented.This assumes that DontTalk is correct, which evidently a calc group member (and likely several others that accepted the results of this thread) disagrees with.
And it can be done properly in the blog post itself. Making a calf group discussion for such a small change would be a waste of staff time.Hence why they should discuss their disagreement, in a place meant for discussing and where calc members usually discuss, like the calc group discussion thread. I'm not stonewalling anything, I want this to be discussed properly.
9 was a huge low ball if you read the calc as in literally impossible.
Like no one agreed with him lmfao. Why are you defending him so much anywayFirst off, nobody disagreed with DontTalk, that never happened in the blog or this thread. Matter of fact DontTalk commented 2 days ago, the other calc member accepted it long before DontTalk commented.
Because nobody saw his comment? He literally used what is accepted on the wiki? Going by our own wiki standards the calculations needs to be adjusted.Like no one agreed with him lmfao. Why are you defending him so much anyway
Ironic coming from you. Or you gonna report me again :xActually know what your talking about before spewing condensing nonsense as if you know what's being discussed.
Keep up the needles attitude and i will. You've been nothing but snarky and hostile, drop it already.Ironic coming from you. Or you gonna report me again :x
I’m indifferent to that calc because we have another High 7-A+ calc which is actually used for the scaling.Ate we gonna ignore the fact that this calculation needs to be adjusted? DontTalk doesn't agree with a magnitude 9
Exactly why I said go this way instead of making a separate thread. Like damn, I try to help a guy out and everyone gets so tight about it.anyways i will wait for a reply but through what i understood i might have messed up my own calc. I misunderstood mercalli intensity and it is probably not IX but rather XI which would be far more consistent
Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges are destroyed. Broad fissures erupt in the ground. Underground pipelines are rendered completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails are bent greatly.
which pretty much fits the description frame perfect which would garner mag 9. I am waiting for a reply but i think i understood the issue.
Idk man stuff's been tight for some people, maybe the amount of nerfs getting handed out to every big verse every week/day.Exactly why I said go this way instead of making a separate thread. Like damn, I try to help a guy out and everyone gets so tight about it.
Agree with this, the Tyranitar calc should be fine as is because no real-life earthquake can crumble a mountain so we kinda need to go big for that one.Idk man stuff's been tight for some people, maybe the amount of nerfs getting handed out to every big verse every week/day.
anyways this shouldn't be a problem in the tyranitar calc as he literally screwed over a great mountain like, come on, there's 0 way that it isn't the maximum intensity.
Calc members accepted it, DontTalk didn't. That's a fundamental disagreement. I've already said my piece on why keeping the discussion to blog comment replies is a bad idea.First off, nobody disagreed with DontTalk, that never happened in the blog or this thread. Matter of fact DontTalk commented 2 days ago, the other calc member accepted it long before DontTalk commented.
Yeah, because Trainers have been shown to be relative to one anotherI got to ask. Is every trainer in the verse, even those not from the anime, scaling to Team Rocket's stats for AP and Durability?
That was the old Charizard calc. They should become High 7-A+Also, where does the Mountain level for Team Rocket comes from? I can't find the calc that put them in the Mountain level range
Tone down the arrogance, jeez. You have no right to be pulling rank here when you aren't a calc group member yourself. The changes are being discussed in a thread - not a calc group thread, granted, though this thread would not have derailed for 50-odd posts if it were in the first place. Keeping the discussion purely to the calc blog comment reply chain is wholly inefficient and not how we do things.Your "piece." is wrong, bloodly hell even the OP was fine with doing so. A thread isn't being made to address something so minor, that's final. If the two participants are both agreeing on such terms then you have no say in this, especially for someone who isn't in the calculations group to be frank. Everyone who's commented here disagrees with you as far that "making a thread." is concerned.
Wait, is the 8-A rating for first stage Pokemon comes from Rhyhorn? It is not even link to his profile. Not to mention, there is the Pidgey's page which have them scales to some other featTone down the arrogance, jeez. You have no right to be pulling rank here when you aren't a calc group member yourself. The changes are being discussed in a thread - not a calc group thread, granted, though this thread would not have derailed for 50-odd posts if it were in the first place. Keeping the discussion purely to the calc blog comment reply chain is wholly inefficient and not how we do things.
Anyways, now that's out of the way, does anyone have any suggestions/opinions on a new format for the calculations section? The calcs listed beneath the sandbox won't be put on the main page btw, along with any other unaccepted calcs.
Yeah that's the only 8-A+ feat currently. Hurricanes used to be 8-A+ too, hence why it's on Pidgey's page, but it's since been downgraded to 8-B/8-B+.Wait, is the 8-A rating for first stage Pokemon comes from Rhyhorn? It is not even link to his profile. Not to mention, there is the Pidgey's page which have them scales to some other feat
I see, then some of the profiles need to have their justification changed to reflect that the 8-A comes from Rhyhorn since the Pidgey calc has been downgradedYeah that's the only 8-A+ feat currently. Hurricanes used to be 8-A+ too, hence why it's on Pidgey's page, but it's since been downgraded to 8-B/8-B+.
Eh so he think that level 8 or 7 magnitude is the best option? Then the feat would be :Ate we gonna ignore the fact that this calculation needs to be adjusted? DontTalk doesn't agree with a magnitude 9
The feat is being discussed as i messed up the mercalli intensity and thus it is probably gonna stay at mag 9...once DT REPLIES THAT ISEh so he think that level 8 or 7 magnitude is the best option? Then the feat would be :
Level 8 magnitude :
92.8 megatons (City level+) very damm close to Mountain level
Level 7 magnitude :
2.9 megatons ( small City level)
Did you tell him that you reply to him on his wallThe feat is being discussed as i messed up the mercalli intensity and thus it is probably gonna stay at mag 9...once DT REPLIES THAT IS
I shouldDid you tell him that you reply to him on his wall
The sandbox should also includes multiplier scaling like the 5x Gigantamax and what are their values. As well as other scaling like Articuno, Moltres and Zapdos are 3x weaker than Lugia, etc.Tone down the arrogance, jeez. You have no right to be pulling rank here when you aren't a calc group member yourself. The changes are being discussed in a thread - not a calc group thread, granted, though this thread would not have derailed for 50-odd posts if it were in the first place. Keeping the discussion purely to the calc blog comment reply chain is wholly inefficient and not how we do things.
Anyways, now that's out of the way, does anyone have any suggestions/opinions on a new format for the calculations section? The calcs listed beneath the sandbox won't be put on the main page btw, along with any other unaccepted calcs.