• 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.

Blazblue AP Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay so like

What do you think the 5-A calculation is, for reference
 
No like, specifically and mathematically

Because you keep saying we should use atomization

for a calc that uses the atomization of the moon alongside inverse square law
 
Because that's something that CAN be calculated since we CAN calculate atomization. Not Quantum destruction via sub atomization calcs. That's what I was asking you for this entire thread on why you think we can calc 1-D destruction via a sub atomization when we don't even have an actual way to calc that level of destruction.
 
Ultimately it's irrelevant because it was never calculated that way, and it's not something that disproves the calc in question.
 
Despite the fact that Zephyros was arguing that you can somehow calc that level of destruction via sub atomization and I was questioning both you and him how that remotely makes sense when they aren't the same level of destruction?
 
I don't want to derail this any further. The calc uses atomization because the lower end is the assumption we go with by default, with inverse square law, destroying the moon from earth is 16 Yottatons.

Do you have any arguments to actually debunk people being 5-A that have yet to be addressed?
 
@DMUA I've said everything I want to say.

@Hagane no cause it's literally part of the Black Beast, and it has everything from the Black Beast's profile. It's redundant AF to even have an azure profile when it just has everything from the Black Beast's profile.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I suppose that you seem to make more sense to me in that case.
Click to expand...
I understand your fatigue, but if you're going to try and sort through different discussions to get some conclusion, you should at least give some look at the whole situation

I don't even know how they got two 5-B feats, we've been talking about one where The Black Beast "destroys the planet", and most of the arguing has been about how that could mean plenty of things and doesn't really particularly contradict a high effort 5-A feat. The conditions, effort, and everything else that can be quantified about the 5-B feat from the Black Beast is entirely unknown

As I said before, I think on the blog, an Outlier as a point of data far beyond everything else that is unreliable to use statistically, as it's inconsistent with everything else

the thing being, that the god tiers that hades scales to don't even have a solid point of data, you can pin The Black Beast's feat at anywhere from High 6-A to 4-C depending on what you want to assume for the context. Yes, the higher end assumptions like 4-C are a bit ludicrous, but they're still entirely possible.
 
> I don't even know how they got 2 5-B feats

I literally posted one in this very thread here, and in the past they stated that the Black Beast destroyed the entire planet before. Those are the two 5-B feats the Black Beast has.
 
Went through the thread again, I counted

One

and to loosely quote the soldier from TF2, One One... and ugh... One
 
Confused them for the same thing for a second there, but still, it's the same lack of raw data to definitively graph and say one thing or another is an outlier
 
Well, I suppose that I return to being neutral then.

Can you give an easy to understand summary as well?
 
Honestly, I don't trust myself to not oversimplify or give a biased perspective. Even if it takes awhile to properly free up the time for it, I think just reading the blog and the thread is the best way to understand the discussion
 
@DMUA

I regrettably don't have enough free time to do that right now. Sorry.
 
What does Glass and Ant have to do with this if they are neutral? We have to find which end is accepted before we apply them.
 
Schnee One said:
What does Glass and Ant have to do with this if they are neutral? We have to find which end is accepted before we apply them.
Click to expand...
I mean glass was the main supporter of 5-B and opponent of 5-A
 
Thank you for proving my point I guess

This is why we wait, if they are neutral then we can't apply without more agreements
 
I am too distracted by many tasks to be able to properly evaluate this. You should ask some of the staff members I mentioned above for help.
 
So, is an "At least..., likely..." compromise solution necessary to get anything done here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PmuShowdown
Ashunera AP Revision (Potential Tier Upgrade)
Replies
33
Views
2K
PmuShowdown
PmuShowdown
Mikazzzuchi
Baki verse AP and small scaling Revision
Replies
30
Views
2K
Viott
Viott
Beyblade Metal Fight General Revision
Replies
26
Views
2K
DarkMatterEnergy254
AnonymousStandUser
Resident Evil AP and Speed upgrades
Replies
12
Views
2K
AnonymousStandUser
AnonymousStandUser
RandomGuy2345
  • Locked
WWE AP Downgrades (No More Tier 8 Fake Fighters)
Replies
24
Views
2K
RandomGuy2345
RandomGuy2345
Back
Top