Calc Stacking Issue (Regarding Speed)

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It is not a fallacy to be concerned for a vague change that affects many things. The suggested revision would be one that is capable of frankly wrecking immense amounts of work and quality control done by users and staff since this site has gone up, and creates the precedent that calc stacking is A-okay if you can argue for it long enough. I fail to see a fallacy. If you'd like to prove it as one, do so at your own leisure, rather than citing a fallacy type that does not exist.

Read what I just bolded please, because you do realize that's exactly what my proposal here is, right?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Read what I just bolded please, because you do realize that's exactly what my proposal here is, right?

That reply was not directed at you, my friend.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

That reply was not directed at you, my friend.

I mean okay, but that doesn't really knock away my point. "Arguing calc stacking to be acceptable at our own leisure" is exactly what im proposing here. That was the whole reason I made this thread in the first place.

I'd be very happy to argue a stacked calc is acceptable for the given verse im arguing it for if it's able to justify it, the whole issue is that our current rules for calc stacking makes that attempt completely impossible, no matter what, and for unjustified reasons. This thread is trying to overturn this so that, in certain cases, it is acceptable to do this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

current rules for calc stacking makes that attempt completely impossible, no matter what, and for unjustified reasons

We already have notes in the calc stacking stuff that provides clear examples of when a speed is fine to use as a substitute. Such as IRL bullet speed or the confirmed in-universe speed of a character.

What your proposing isn't the above, but taking a calced speed for a character in one scene then using it to upscale a franchise to enormous amounts based off of that.

I'm with Damage and Bambu still, this isn't a change I'm in support of. We have those rules for a very good reason.

 

[Armorchompy]

i am obviously still of that opinion as well you coulda mentioned me too

 

[Damage3245]

So far this appears to have been rejected. Happy for more staff to comment though if need be.

 

[Qawsedf234]

i am obviously still of that opinion as well you coulda mentioned me too

My bad

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We already have notes in the calc stacking stuff that provides clear examples of when a speed is fine to use as a substitute. Such as IRL bullet speed or the confirmed in-universe speed of a character.

What your proposing isn't the above, but taking a calced speed for a character in one scene then using it to upscale a franchise to enormous amounts based off of that.

Yes and the reason for not using calced speed for character's is what's wrong, because speed from character's do not vary. You've already seen my reasons for that this whole thread.

I'm with Damage and Bambu still, this isn't a change I'm in support of. We have those rules for a very good reason.

We don't. Varied speed is the only reason we ban the use of calced speeds, and this thread explains why that reasoning is extremely flawed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean okay, but that doesn't really knock away my point. "Arguing calc stacking to be acceptable at our own leisure" is exactly what im proposing here. That was the whole reason I made this thread in the first place.

I'd be very happy to argue a stacked calc is acceptable for the given verse im arguing it for if it's able to justify it, the whole issue is that our current rules for calc stacking makes that attempt completely impossible, no matter what, and for unjustified reasons. This thread is trying to overturn this so that, in certain cases, it is acceptable to do this.

That's not what I said, Kukui. What I did say, was that they (Meganova) were free to prove my words (i.e., "slippery slope") were fallacious. There is no future in which I accept the harm you are proposing. If I'm outvoted, so be it. But there is no good reason to accept.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

There is no future in which I accept the harm you are proposing. If I'm outvoted, so be it. But there is no good reason to accept.

And exactly what harm? People suggesting potential upgrades that you or others are not willing enough to simply debunk? Keeping a rule that has an extremely flawed basis and keeps it for flawed reasoning?

You or no one else in this thread have given me a concrete reasoning as to why my proposal is wrong other than "many series could be bumped up by this", which isn't exactly my problem if its accurate for those series. If it isn't, your more than welcome to attempt debunking the attempts like we do every day on this site.

I don't understand how my argument that eviscerates the logic this rule uses is harmful just because it's more reasonable.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If you don't know what harm I'm referring to I'm forced to believe you haven't been reading my posts. You are suggesting a sweeping change that results in calculation results becoming absurdly higher than the feat presented, on the basis that there may be a scenario in which this could be considered permissible. You are suggesting this become a site-wide standard. Your only solution to the incredible damage this would cause is that staff must simply live on the site to babysit CRTs to ensure it does not get abused as it surely will. This is a silly solution.

My reasoning is concrete. You may not be particularly fond of it, or satisfied, but it is sound. Thanks for understanding.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

If you don't know what harm I'm referring to I'm forced to believe you haven't been reading my posts. You are suggesting a sweeping change that results in calculation results becoming absurdly higher than the feat presented, on the basis that there may be a scenario in which this could be considered permissible. You are suggesting this become a site-wide standard. Your only solution to the incredible damage this would cause is that staff must simply live on the site to babysit CRTs to ensure it does not get abused as it surely will. This is a silly solution.

Considering this is a site where we invite several users on occasion to become staff members, joining the ranks that are already quite big, I don't see how this is that much of a workload no offense. But this is beside the real main point.

I understand the sentiment that this would surely increase the workload of managing CRT's when people give upgrade attempts, but which standard ever does the opposite here? This only becomes "damage" if the results are in deed actually inconsistent for the series it is for, and whether it is or isn't has to be decided by what the series itself presents in determining that.

Not to mention, my suggestion doesn't even nuke the rule as a whole, and I've reiterated this more than once in this thread.

My reasoning is concrete. You may not be particularly fond of it, or satisfied, but it is sound.

And so is my reasoning for having this. Your reasoning doesn't come up from a logistical standpoint of how reasonable or unreasonable my proposal is, but from a perspective of how hard or easy it would be to implement.

I've been on this site for over 5 years at this point, have seen standards be revised several times and the amount of work put into doing that. Never in my time here have I seen us reject a standard revision simply due to the workload that would (likely) arise from it, when our purpose is to be accurate.

 

[RisingIons]

I've been on this site for over 5 years at this point, have seen standards be revised several times and the amount of work put into doing that. Never in my time here have I seen us reject a standard revision simply due to the workload that would (likely) arise from it, when our purpose is to be accurate.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Never in my time here have I seen us reject a standard revision simply due to the workload that would (likely) arise from it, when our purpose is to be accurate.

But it being accurate is questionable, as almost every staff user in this thread has stated by this point.

We have exceptions to what is calc stacking already described on the page. If something is consistently a certain speed you are allowed to use it as a basis, what you aren't allowed to do is take a Thor feat from 2016 and apply it someone dodging Thor in 1986 to get a speed upgrade. Which is what will happen if this is accepted as standard.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

But it being accurate is questionable, as almost every staff user in this thread has stated by this point.

We have exceptions to what is calc stacking already described on the page.

Yes I know this Qawsed, and my point is that a characters speed should also be an exception by exactly the same principle. In some cases.

If something is consistently a certain speed you are allowed to use it as a basis, what you aren't allowed to do is take a Thor feat from 2016 and apply it someone dodging Thor in 1986 to get a speed upgrade. Which is what will happen if this is accepted as standard.

See above. We allow things like projectile speeds to be used because they are consistently the same speed value.

The whole point my thread is trying to make here, a point no staff member in this entire thread has countered, is that a characters speed operates on that very same principle in most situations.

Character A is calced to move at MFTL+ speeds and Character B blitzes Character A.

IF Character A is put in no circumstance to have their speed altered, and has reasons or justifications to move at their normal speeds, this is a case where Character A’s calced speed should be able to be used, because they aren’t moving at a different speed here in this instance. They’re moving at their consistent speed.

IF Character A was fatigued against Character B, purposely lowered their speeds for any reason, or had their stats altered, this is a where Character As calced speed wouldn’t be able to be used, because they aren’t moving at the same speed in this instance. They’re moving at a different speed, and thus, it can’t apply here.

This is why my suggestion is case by case. IF we can justify the character moving at their normal speeds when another character reacts or blitzes them, that should be allowed to use their calced speed.

No one here gave an argument against that.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The whole point my thread is trying to make here, a point no staff member in this entire thread has countered, is that a characters speed operates on that very same principle in most situations.

We do allow it. If someone has a stated speed or ability with a stated speed its allowed to be used for calcs. What's not allowed is getting a calc from a different scene and transplanting that speed for something else. Which is what this proposal is and why you have multiple people against it. You can't use a fan estimation of a stat to further boost another fan estimation of a stat in a different context.

 

[Urshani]

We do allow it. If someone has a stated speed or ability with a stated speed its allowed to be used for calcs. What's not allowed is getting a calc from a different scene and transplanting that speed for something else. Which is what this proposal is and why you have multiple people against it. You can't use a fan estimation of a stat to further boost another fan estimation of a stat in a different context.

what if the scenes have the same context in regards of the character not holding back their speed?

 

[Qawsedf234]

what if the scenes have the same context in regards of the character not holding back their speed

If a character has a shown or stated speed it can be used for a calc. It just can't be a fan calced speed used for another fan calc.

 

[Urshani]

If a character has a shown or stated speed it can be used for a calc. It just can't be a fan calced speed used for another fan calc.

this once again makes no sense

 

[Qawsedf234]

this once again makes no

Why? A fan calc is a fan estimation of something, rather than something spelled out in-universe wise.

 

[Urshani]

Why? A fan calc is a fan estimation of something, rather than something spelled out in-universe wise.

if we extend your logic then all fan calcs are invalid because it's not spelled out in universe

 

[Qawsedf234]

we extend your logic

Only if you take my statement to an incorrect conclusion. Fan calcs are fine for profiling, but you cannot layer a fan calc over another fan calc. All it leads to is the current issue of inflated results.

 

[Urshani]

Only if you take my statement to an incorrect conclusion. Fan calcs are fine for profiling, but you cannot layer a fan calc over another fan calc. All it leads to is the current issue of inflated results.

Explain how inflated results are bad besides 'ooo big number'

 

[M3X_2.0]

What if the statement is something like "He/She is at the same speed from before (scene where we calced a speed)", can the "speed from before" be used to calc a feat?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Why? A fan calc is a fan estimation of something, rather than something spelled out in-universe wise.

Because since when has this site ever put statements above a literal showing?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Only if you take my statement to an incorrect conclusion. Fan calcs are fine for profiling, but you cannot layer a fan calc over another fan calc. All it leads to is the current issue of inflated results.

This no offense is just an excuse that doesn’t actually separate the 2 cases. You cannot have it both ways.

Either it’s allowed in full or not at all.

 

[Agnaa]

I don’t think saying, random regular user may try and abuse this, is a solid argument. There’s bound to be people looking to abuse standards for upgrades/downgrades everywhere, it’s a byproduct of having a public forum filled with different agendas.

Why are you acting like this is some mythical regular user that may not exist? The context behind this thread being made (as explained here) is exactly this sort of abuse. And if you don't think 10^15x upscaling from calc-stacking being enshrined as acceptable is an issue, then I don't think we'll be coming to an agreement.

See above. We allow things like projectile speeds to be used because they are consistently the same speed value.

This is either a misunderstanding or incredibly misleading. We allow projectile speeds to be used within the same scene, and we don't allow them to be used if there's reason to believe they could've slowed. We don't allow projectile speeds calculated in episode 1 to be used in episode 434.

Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.

I think the only difference from how this and character speeds are treated is that maybe we'd assume that character speeds could change over the course of a fight? So you couldn't use a speed feat from the beginning of a fight to then stack up every near-dodge over the rest of the fight, while you'd be able to use projectile speeds over fights.

What if the statement is something like "He/She is at the same speed from before (scene where we calced a speed)", can the "speed from before" be used to calc a feat?

I find something so specific (exactly referencing the speed from one exact scene) unlikely, and given how we don't even assume projectiles are consistent across scenes, I wouldn't find that sufficient without a stated speed.

This no offense is just an excuse that doesn’t actually separate the 2 cases. You cannot have it both ways. Either it’s allowed in full or not at all.

I disagree. With the initial calc you can say "This is something that happened on-screen". With the second calc, taking the speed from the first calc isn't something that happened on-screen. And you'd only be calc-stacking if their on-screen speed in the second calc is slower than in the first calc. "They did what they did on screen." is a lot easier to argue than "They didn't do what they did on screen, they were actually moving as fast as the fastest time they've ever moved on screen."

 

[Qawsedf234]

Either it’s allowed in full or not at all.

Plenty of things are allowed with exceptions. All or none doesn't apply here.

Because since when has this site ever put statements above a literal showing

Plenty of times. Plenty of Cosmic characters are all statement and no feats and we've rejected stuff based on inconsistent visual vs statements like with the size of Bleach cities.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

At work right now so responding later

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Sorry to respond late. Had things to do after work that took my attention way from this for a bit.

Anyway, since this is heading in "that" direction, I want to make something clear here first.

Why are you acting like this is some mythical regular user that may not exist? The context behind this thread being made (as explained here) is exactly this sort of abuse. And if you don't think 10^15x upscaling from calc-stacking being enshrined as acceptable is an issue, then I don't think we'll be coming to an agreement.

I find it pretty interesting that you think my purpose for tackling this flawed standard solely has to do with that thread, but nah.

Considering I have arguments for that particular threads case, with or without anything here regarding calc stacking changing, you can be rest assured that that thread has little to nothing to do with my purpose in making this one. Was I motivated to look more closely at these rules and attempt at revising them because of that thread? Maybe. And your welcome to think that if you want to.

But I ain’t here to revise our take on calc stacking because of that thread. I’m here to revise it because the rule for not accepting calced speed under any circumstance literally makes no sense. And as you can see, I by no means am the only person that thinks the same way. I’d 110% defend any other verse that was put under the same circumstances and same scrutiny because of this. Just because one thread was the likely factor in me taking a closer look into our rules and attempting to revise them, doesn't mean im doing so for that specific situation. And it doesn't mean the issue's I've pointed out are any less problematic.

This is either a misunderstanding or incredibly misleading. We allow projectile speeds to be used within the same scene, and we don't allow them to be used if there's reason to believe they could've slowed. We don't allow projectile speeds calculated in episode 1 to be used in episode 434.

See what I've bolded here, because this is exactly the problem with your stance here. You keep saying we don't allow the use of calced speeds IF there is a reason for us to think they slowed.

Again, IF they slowed.

And that is all fine and good, since the purpose of this thread was never to suggest calced speeds or projectile speeds can or should be used indefinitely. I never argued that. And I don't agree with it either.

But by you saying we don't use them IF we have reason to think the speed was lowered, you are already agreeing with my threads proposal, since my thread's proposal is to allow the speeds to be used when we have reasons to think the speed WASN'T lowered. When we have reasons to think the speed is THE SAME as normal. Hence the whole point in me arguing this to be a case by case basis.

This is what you haven't actually countered here. All your arguments mean is that calced speed is never to be used all the time, something I never argued or agreed with here. But you have yet to give a concrete reasoning as to why calced speeds can't be used when there's reasons or justifications to say the speed is no different than it normally is.

I think the only difference from how this and character speeds are treated is that maybe we'd assume that character speeds could change over the course of a fight? So you couldn't use a speed feat from the beginning of a fight to then stack up every near-dodge over the rest of the fight, while you'd be able to use projectile speeds over fights.

See above. I have to ask if you actually read my threads OP, because this is exactly what I addressed already, where we would not allow calced speeds to be applied. My thread already went out of the way to point out we wouldn't apply a character's speed to anything they do later IF their speed changes later during the course of the fight, for any reason. You can see those reasons I pointed out below.

If we go off of this idea of when characters suppress themselves, then sure, this is definitely a more reasonable take to use as to why using calculated speeds for other feats do not work. But, having said that, character's purposely limiting themselves isn't a reason to think speeds from character's normally vary. The speeds here, in this case, get altered specifically because of the circumstances that cause the character's speed to fluctuate from what their speed tier normally is. Whether this is because:

-Character's get a powerup that makes their speed faster than it normally is
-Character's get a powerup that makes their speed slower than it normally is
-A character is fatigued from battle, so their speed is slower than normal
-A character is purposely suppressing themselves to fight a weaker opponent
-A character is purposely suppressing themselves to let an opponent win
-A character gets their speed altered by another character

We already know, and agree, on not using calced speeds for characters who are in those circumstances.

But what about characters who aren't? Characters who have reasons NOT to change their speeds on purpose? Characters who AREN'T fatigued when another character reacts, dodges or blitzes them? Characters who DON'T alter their speed from what it normally is when another character reacts, dodges or blitzes them? This is what I've been saying should be cases of calced speed being able to be used, because of there being no deviation in speed across instances.

If there's deviation, we ban the use of calced speed. If there's no deviation, we should allow it. My entire point from the beginning.

I disagree. With the initial calc you can say "This is something that happened on-screen". With the second calc, taking the speed from the first calc isn't something that happened on-screen. And you'd only be calc-stacking if their on-screen speed in the second calc is slower than in the first calc. "They did what they did on screen." is a lot easier to argue than "They didn't do what they did on screen, they were actually moving as fast as the fastest time they've ever moved on screen."

And once again, this point here is just agreeing with my threads proposal for the same reasons as above. It's only calc stacking if the character is actually moving slower than they normally move at. So when they aren't, we should allow the calced speed.

Again, my thread's entire proposal.

 

[Agnaa]

I find it pretty interesting that you think my purpose for tackling this flawed standard solely has to do with that thread, but nah.

I don't/didn't think it's solely to do with that, I think/thought it was pretty much what you said below this. It got you to look closer, but having this thread conclude to allow calc stacking without meaningful restrictions on how high it could go would make it a cakewalk for you to rewind through the other threads to get 10^15x faster ratings.

And it doesn't mean the issue's I've pointed out are any less problematic.

I wasn't pointing out the context for a reason like that. I pointed it out because you were talking like abusable inflation of ratings weren't going to happen.

See what I've bolded here, because this is exactly the problem with your stance here. You keep saying we don't allow the use of calced speeds IF there is a reason for us to think they slowed.

But by you saying we don't use them IF we have reason to think the speed was lowered, you are already agreeing with my threads proposal, since my thread's proposal is to allow the speeds to be used when we have reasons to think the speed WASN'T lowered. When we have reasons to think the speed is THE SAME as normal. Hence the whole point in me arguing this to be a case by case basis.

If you'd read the words beforehand, you'd see that we also don't allow the use of calced speeds across different scenes.

Why would you read me listing 2 requirements as if one of those requirements being shared with you means I agree with only having that one requirement?

See above. I have to ask if you actually read my threads OP, because this is exactly what I addressed already, where we would not allow calced speeds to be applied. My thread already went out of the way to point out we wouldn't apply a character's speed to anything they do later IF their speed changes later during the course of the fight, for any reason. You can see those reasons I pointed out below.

Again, this is just blindingly obvious. I suggest multiple restrictions. You say "But I'm already advocating for one restriction!"

And once again, this point here is just agreeing with my threads proposal for the same reasons as above. It's only calc stacking if the character is actually moving slower than they normally move at. So when they aren't, we should allow the calced speed.

Again, my thread's entire proposal.

I don't think you read the part I quoted. I said calc stacking is harder to argue than non-stacked calcs, because stacked calcs are only useful when characters are visually moving slower than their previously calced speed, meaning we're not going by what's on screen. How is that agreeing with you??? I'm saying that calc stacking is inherently less reliable.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I don't/didn't think it's solely to do with that, I think/thought it was pretty much what you said below this. It got you to look closer, but having this thread conclude to allow calc stacking without meaningful restrictions on how high it could go would make it a cakewalk for you to rewind through the other threads to get 10^15x faster ratings.

Considering part of this discussion involves me giving suggestions on how to restrict calc stacking under these conditions (such as my suggestion to treat it the same way as we do multipliers like Arc was able to notice), I don't know why you would presume I'd advocate for the free reign of higher and higher calc stacking.

And I can tell you now that I wouldn't be one of the types to produce high chains of it, despite me advocating it being allowed when the circumstance calls for it. But, this is beside the point here.

I wasn't pointing out the context for a reason like that. I pointed it out because you were talking like abusable inflation of ratings weren't going to happen.

See above. I never said there wouldn't be attempts of abusing this, and it'd be silly of me to think that wouldn't generally happen.

If you'd read the words beforehand, you'd see that we also don't allow the use of calced speeds across different scenes.

Why would you read me listing 2 requirements as if one of those requirements being shared with you means I agree with only having that one requirement?

Because the "we also don't allow the use of calced speeds across different scenes" only has one reason for why we ban it. A reason this thread is attempting to overturn. And that is the varying of speed being the only reason we don't allow calced speed across different scenes.

It would not be banned otherwise if it wasn't for that reason. There's no reason or basis to limit speeds to specific scenes if there's no difference between speed levels across scenes. Either speed varies and we disallow it, or it doesn't vary and it's allowed (under the assumption it doesn't end up an outlier for the verse its for obviously).

Again, this is just blindingly obvious. I suggest multiple restrictions. You say "But I'm already advocating for one restriction!"

Which are, if you want to repeat them?

I don't think you read the part I quoted. I said calc stacking is harder to argue than non-stacked calcs, because stacked calcs are only useful when characters are visually moving slower than their previously calced speed, meaning we're not going by what's on screen. How is that agreeing with you??? I'm saying that calc stacking is inherently less reliable.

Pretty sure you did not say that. You didn't say calc stacking is only useful when characters move slower than normal, you said calc stacking only becomes a thing when that happens. But, this is beside the main point.

When we have reasons to go with the character using their true speeds, or have no reasons to think they are moving slower under normal circumstances, there's no legitimate reasoning to think calc stacking is less reliable. It only becomes that when the character's speed actually deviates from what it normally is.

 

[Agnaa]

such as my suggestion to treat it the same way as we do multipliers like Arc was able to notice

Oh my bad, I didn't notice you agreed with Arc's suggestion until I went back to check it just now. I retract most of my recent posts then. And put me down as neutral for this change.

Which are, if you want to repeat them?

Pretty much just standards similar to Multipliers.

Pretty sure you did not say that. You didn't say calc stacking is only useful when characters move slower than normal, you said calc stacking only becomes a thing when that happens. But, this is beside the main point.

I mean, you could do calc stacking where you say a character's moving 10m/s based on a previous calc despite them clearly moving 30m/s in that panel, I just don't think such cases are very worthy of mention.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

such as my suggestion to treat it the same way as we do multipliers like Arc was able to notice

Oh my bad, I didn't notice you agreed with Arc's suggestion until I went back to check it just now. I retract most of my recent posts then. And put me down as neutral for this change.

Yeah it was somewhat jumbled up in the responses from the first page, and I guess I should've put this suggestion in my OP straight away anyway, so that's my bad as well.

I'll make this response strictly to show this, so other's won't miss it. But, yeah, this was my suggestion that Arc and I agreed with before:

In my opinion, my thoughts on this to prevent calc-stacking chains is that the burden of proof for the calc to be added just goes higher and higher the more you calc stack.

For instance, if you take a characters calculated MFTL speed to get MFTL reactions or attack speed for other characters, and the verse already has a pre established history of MFTL existing, that makes the calcs more reasonable since this isn't something new for them and the scaling would support it.

However, if you were to take the calculated speed of the other characters and tried using their speeds to get even better speeds for other characters, the verse would then have the burden of proof of requiring better MFTL feats in the chain in order to support the newer calc's being accepted. Like, did they get considerably stronger? Did they demonstrate better feats than before? Things of that nature.

Basically, the more you calc stack, the higher the burden of proof increases on your part to make the newer calcs acceptable. Thats what I think anyway.

Should my proposal go through, a way we can try preventing chains of calc-stacking would be to increase the burden of proof the higher someone tries to calc-stack for more results. The same way we treat multipliers pretty much.

If my proposal gave the impression that I was aiming to allow us to do multiple to several chains of calc-stacking without restriction, that's my fault, as I definitely don't agree with doing that.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

Using the results of a calculation as basis for another calculation is the definition of calc stacking. I understand the argument and logically it makes sense but this leads to incredibly inflated calculations. Hell the same page states that "Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted" clearly implying that even something with a fixed, calculated speed should not be used for other calculations. IMO characters possibly varying in speed was never the big issue

I'd like to add to this comment by Armor: If we do approve more forms of calc-stacking, it is relatively easy to make a circular argument that results in infinite speed thanks to some cinematic feats that are very common in fiction.

There's a classic example that a character is either distracted, thinking aloud or is simply caught unaware, and he dodges a strike that is already in mid-execution, and almost touching him. In real life, for that to happen, you necessarily need to be way faster than the other person. In fiction, not so - the character that dodged the other often is their equal. That is a very clear case that speed does vary in fiction. I can use it to justify an infinite speed loop as well. It is hard for me to express the example I have in mind in english, but lemme try.

The general idea is that fiction is full of cases that two different characters who are equal in speed fight, and one manages to dodge one strike of the other at point-blank range after it was already in motion, and said strike was a serious one. It is relatively easy to say that the one who dodged is speed X, higher than the Y of the attack, and the attacker scales to him in speed because he can otherwise hit and keep up with him normally. But wait! The attack that the dodger avoided is made by the attacker, so it scales to the attacker speeds! Then the calculation has to be redone, which places the dodger's speed at a new level. But then it scales to the attacker, and the situation loops around.

Such cinematic instances are incredibly normal, and clearly show that characters' speed vary a lot in circumstance, even if only for cinematic reasons.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'd like to add to this comment by Armor: If we do approve more forms of calc-stacking, it is relatively easy to make a circular argument that results in infinite speed thanks to some cinematic feats that are very common in fiction.

There's a classic example that a character is either distracted, thinking aloud or is simply caught unaware, and he dodges a strike that is already in mid-execution, and almost touching him. In real life, for that to happen, you necessarily need to be way faster than the other person. In fiction, not so -

Why would we need to be way faster than the other person, however?

the character that dodged the other often is their equal. That is a very clear case that speed does vary in fiction.

The general idea is that fiction is full of cases that two different characters who are equal in speed fight, and one manages to dodge one strike of the other at point-blank range after it was already in motion, and said strike was a serious one. It is relatively easy to say that the one who dodged is speed X, higher than the Y of the attack, and the attacker scales to him in speed because he can otherwise hit and keep up with him normally. But wait! The attack that the dodger avoided is made by the attacker, so it scales to the attacker speeds! Then the calculation has to be redone, which places the dodger's speed at a new level. But then it scales to the attacker, and the situation loops around.

Uh, why would this be an endless loop of calc stacking? This point also seems sort've counter intuitive to start out with, for one.

If Character A is able to dodge a serious speedy attack from Character B, and the series they come from pushes the idea that both characters are otherwise equal to each other, then why claim they would get even higher speeds? A dodging a serious attack from B is no different than B dodging a serious attack from A, because both characters are equals.

 

[AKM sama]

Late to this discussion but I agree with DT, Agnaa, Armor, Bambu, Qawsed and that whole side of the argument.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Late to this discussion but I agree with DT, Agnaa, Armor, Bambu, Qawsed and that whole side of the argument.

Agnaa switched to being neutral and the other sides argument has been thoroughly debunked

So my point still stands.

 

[Qawsedf234]

thoroughly debunked

You saying you debunked them and you actually debunking them are two different things.

In fact its hard to say anything can be debunked in terms of policy, since its mostly just what a wide array of users/staff agree on in terms of implementation.

Honestly I'd like to add what DT said earlier in the thread

The reason it is usually disregarded is because it has shown itself inconsistent many times and usually gives inflated results. Through the method any long running franchises could also scale their stats infinitely upwards without actually ever showing any feats in the range they are listed.

To the hub page as an explanation on why we don't use cross calcs for scaling unless they happen in the same scene.

For the thread itself I'm decently sure every staff user that has given their option has disagreed with the proposal, so its not being applied.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

You saying you debunked them and you actually debunking them are two different things.

When half this thread has been spent with people misinterpreting the point of my proposal and not giving an actual concrete reasoning as to why it’s flawed for the other half of the thread, I can safely confidently assert that there isn’t any actual counter arguments at play here at this point.

Hell, it took until this second page for someone on the opppsite side to see my suggestion on how to prevent abusing my proposal for more upgrades.

To the hub page as an explanation on why we don't use cross calcs for scaling unless they happen in the same scene.

And again, for the upteenth time, this thread has explained over and over why “unless they happen in the same scene” is flawed and makes no sense.

This very part of the page is what this thread is attempting to overturn, so stop referring back to it again and again as an argument.

For the thread itself I'm decently sure every staff user that has given their option has disagreed with the proposal, so its not being applied.

Disagreeing with the proposal without a concrete reasoning as to why isn’t what’s flying, and doing otherwise is the typical appeal to authority.

So no.