Calc Stacking Issue Related To Speed (Redone)

[Mr. Bambu]

All my thread was given was just a "no", "im against any form of calc stacking" and nothing more as reasons to go against this Ant.

Im not trying to make things difficult here, but none of the staff members that rejected my proposal gave actual concrete legitimate reasons as to why this doesn't work. And that isn't fair at all.

I gave plenty of reasons. Concrete, legitimate reasons. Even if you didn't particularly agree. Cheers, though.

I'm still against this. "See the last thread for context" as to why. This is trying to weasel around a fairly extensive rejection by staff, and I do not approve.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I gave plenty of reasons. Concrete, legitimate reasons. Even if you didn't particularly agree. Cheers, though.

Simply saying you gave “concrete, legitimate reasons” doesn’t actually mean you did Bambu.

And if you seriously think you did, kindly sum them up here then to have them addressed.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I have to mostly disagree with this. It should fall under much, much stronger scrutiny than multipliers because we're the ones calculating the speed difference as well. Multipliers are a narrative/non-narrative fact.

Okay then what would you suggest is better for this then? I am open to hear.

Something from this should be able to be acceptable under the pages current rule. There is no other way around it.

Either we find a whole entire different reason to ban calced speed, or we keep the current rule and allow exceptions under said rule.

 

[ByAsura]

I've already given my suggestion in the second paragraph, even though I personally think nothing needs to change due to the very specific criteria that would need to be met for it.

Setting a cap is just as arbitrary as you believe our speed stacking rules are, and would result in a complete mess that does the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve. It should just be based on consistency and analysis of the scene itself.

Fiction is pretty much inherently inconsistent with this kind of stuff, so the burden of proof should be on the person who claims these feats aren't variable.

Edit: To sum up my "alternative" (though I kind of disagree with it), fiction is inconsistent. If you can prove calc stacking speed in certain instances is consistent and viable, then go ahead. We already use calculations and consistency as proof for this wiki. Anything is better than using multiplier logic for this, especially just leaving things as they are.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Simply saying you gave “concrete, legitimate reasons” doesn’t actually mean you did Bambu.

And if you seriously think you did, kindly sum them up here then to have them addressed.

Simply saying you trumped all doubts doesn't actually mean you did Kukui. Funny how things are a two-way street.

I've had them addressed and ignored by you several times. I'm tired of the antics. They were posted on the other thread on multiple occasions, you even presumably read them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I honestly do not know what is even new here

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Edit: To sum up my "alternative" (though I kind of disagree with it), fiction is inconsistent. If you can prove calc stacking speed in certain instances is consistent and viable, then go ahead. We already use calculations and consistency as proof for this wiki. Anything is better than using multiplier logic for this, especially just leaving things as they are.

But see, this is the thing here. I don’t even disagree with us having to do this. If certain levels of burden of proof are needed to ascertain the belief that it is consistent, I’m completely fine with this being a requirement.

My problem is that the rule as it is doesn’t even allow us the opportunity TO do this. Even if I have to prove the result is consistent, and could prove it, the rule as it is doesn’t allow me to attempt at doing this.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I've had them addressed and ignored by you several times.

Excuse me? Kindly don’t lie here Bambu, because I didn’t ignore a single thing you posted against me in that last thread.

And I’m honestly getting offended that this is even a thought now.

 

[ByAsura]

The old thread was already a circle of "You ignored what I said." "No, I addressed it." This is just repetition.

But see, this is the thing here. I don’t even disagree with us having to do this. If certain levels of burden of proof are needed to ascertain the belief that it is consistent, I’m completely fine with this being a requirement.

My problem is that the rule as it is doesn’t even allow us the opportunity TO do this. Even if I have to prove the result is consistent, and could prove it, the rule as it is doesn’t allow me to attempt at doing this.

I'm not claiming this is our current system, if you're confused.

As another thought, it'd already a change so little that there's exactly as much sense in changing the rule as not changing the rule to something like this. It's basically the same intent with a new coat of paint, and it's not inflation if it's consistent.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay I understand that, so what if we are able to prove its consistent for the verse it’s for?

This is pretty much the whole basis to my purpose with arguing against this. As long as I give proof of the result not being some grand inconsistency, what can be done?

 

[ByAsura]

I wasn't disagreeing, I was saying that there's just as much sense as changing it to a burden of proof system as not doing it. It wouldn't be inflation either way, and probably wouldn't even change anything.

 

[AKM sama]

I am sure that this has more than enough amount of staff input rejecting this proposal. Should I close this thread?

 

[Antvasima]

All staff members here:

Is the current wording in our Calc Stacking page sufficient, or does it need to be improved?

 

[Antvasima]

I am sure that this has more than enough amount of staff input rejecting this proposal. Should I close this thread?

Wait a little. I need some response to my question first.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I believe it is sufficient, yes. It explains

• what Calc Stacking is
• why we largely don't do Calc Stacking
• some examples where Calc Stacking might be allowed
• that we know about hiding calcs in order to justify Calc Stacking

If one wanted to tidy it up and make it more eloquent, I wouldn't be opposed, but the page isn't fundamentally flawed or anything.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply. Unless somebody wants to improve on the text flow/eloquence of the page, I suppose that we can probably close this thread then.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I wasn't disagreeing, I was saying that there's just as much sense as changing it to a burden of proof system as not doing it. It wouldn't be inflation either way, and probably wouldn't even change anything.

Okay. So just to ask again for clarification, what are we able to do if we can prove the result is consistent?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I believe it is sufficient, yes. It explains

• what Calc Stacking is
• why we largely don't do Calc Stacking
• some examples where Calc Stacking might be allowed
• that we know about hiding calcs in order to justify Calc Stacking

The why part of this is the only thing that is problematic like I explained from the start.

Speed changing is what we use to ban calc stacking. So as long as a characters speed doesn’t change, this rule gives the impression that they are exceptions to the rule too.

So unless the why for this gets changed, this is still an issue.

 

[Damage3245]

This section of the page addresses it:

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.

The "character's speed can vary" is just yet another reason given further down.

Even if you challenged that particular reason, the main reason given above for why calc stacking is generally bad is also there.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

This section of the page addresses it: snip

Okay and I am fine with this generally speaking, but this still leaves my question from before unanswered:

Okay. So just to ask again for clarification, what are we able to do if we can prove the result is consistent?

 

[ByAsura]

Okay. So just to ask again for clarification, what are we able to do if we can prove the result is consistent?

I don’t know. Nothing, probably.

 

[Damage3245]

If you had non-calc stacking methods of proving a character's speed in the first place, then you'd just use them and not the calc-stacked calc.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Okay. So just to ask again for clarification, what are we able to do if we can prove the result is consistent?

If the verse had evidence/legit calcs that have them at that "consistent" speed why would you need that clac stacked feat in the first place?

If you had non-calc stacking methods of proving a character's speed in the first place, then you'd just use them and not the calc-stacked calc.

This.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay and what if we don't? What if we are not even using another character's speed calc to make higher speeds, but find the speeds of other characters, and it is consistent for the latters to be that fast?

This is why im not understanding this rule. It only bans the use of stacking when the result actually is inconsistent, but doesn't take into account when it is consistent and just magically discards that option.

 

[ByAsura]

Tbh, the fact that many of them actually move at a completely different speeds (assuming we’re not deriving speed from statements, like being the speed of sound) in these instances lends credence to the current rule.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

If the verse had evidence/legit calcs that have them at that "consistent" speed why would you need that clac stacked feat in the first place?

Because what if we want to use another character's speed calc to help find the speed of another character? Not even to increase the level of speeds, but helping to find other speeds.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Tbh, the fact that many of them actually move at a completely different speeds (assuming we’re not deriving speed from statements, like being the speed of sound) in these instances lends credence to the current rule.

But here's the issue. A character wouldn't be moving at a completely different speed in an instance that would call for them to use their normal speed, or top speed.

This was what my thread was trying to say in the first place.

 

[ByAsura]

Can you rephrase that? I’m not entirely sure you got what I meant (I was probably too vague).

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Can you rephrase that?

My bad. I'll rephrase.

In other words, if character A, lets say, has a MFTL combat speed feat.

And then later on, when they are in the middle of a battle against a villain or character that is relative to them, and the villain / opponent can dodge and blitz Character A

Character A wouldn't be using speeds inferior to their MFTL speed to fight the villain or equal character. They'd be fighting them seriously.

 

[ByAsura]

Ok, my point was more that character A (whom we’re using as a reference for character B for calculations) often moves at completely different speeds to their usual level. For example, we had a calculation where Deep Sea King (character A) moved at Massively Hypersonic speeds, and Sonic (character B) blitzed him in the same scene.

That would also need to be taken into account for calc stacking.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Ok, my point was more that character A (whom we’re using as a reference for character B for calculations) often moves at completely different speeds to their usual level. For example, we had a calculation where Deep Sea King (character A) moved at Massively Hypersonic speeds, and Sonic (character B) blitzed him.

I don't think I know the series, but this is from OPM right?

 

[ByAsura]

Yes. The calculation was rejected, btw. It was an anime scene.

Whether the OPM calculation is inconsistent or not doesn’t matter. Just pretend it is for the sake of argument.

The calculation would need to be consistent for character B, and non-contradictory for character A.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay. IDK the series like I said, but we can use it for the sake of example.

Is Deep Sea King normally MHS or is he usually faster than this?

 

[ByAsura]

Slower. Like I said, though, let’s just pretend it’s inconsistent for the sake of argument. It’s anime-only and unusable.

If we have a calc stacking system, we also need to make sure both characters (not just B) aren’t moving at contradictory levels of speed for calc stacking to be applicable.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

My bad. I'll rephrase.

In other words, if character A, lets say, has a MFTL combat speed feat.

And then later on, when they are in the middle of a battle against a villain or character that is relative to them, and the villain / opponent can dodge and blitz Character A

Character A wouldn't be using speeds inferior to their MFTL speed to fight the villain or equal character. They'd be fighting them seriously.

Anyone could use this logic though. We'd have countless calcs from a single verse of characters dodging people who shouldn't be going slower than the speed their already calculated at. This could go on forever so long as someone is preforming solid dodges.

Or are you suggesting we only stop at the first calc stack? Let's use your logic

Character A has a legitimate Subsonic combat speed feat.

Character B dodges/blitzes character A and who was moving at his fastest while fighting. And we get Relativistic speed for that character.

That's all well and good but what stops the next calc when Character C does the same thing to character B? Or when Character D does the same thing to character C?

Then we'd have character D and everyone who scales to them at Massively FTL+ simply because of calc stacking and "there fighting them seriously". Unless you're suggesting we only do it once which wouldn't make any sense. What verse wouldn't end up like this since there are many verses that do this?

Only a verse that has a minor number of blitzes can use your logic, otherwise so many of them are going to get upgraded to large degrees.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Slower. Like I said, though, let’s just pretend it’s inconsistent for the sake of argument. It’s anime-only and unusable.

If we have a calc stacking system, we also need to make sure both characters (not just B) aren’t moving at contradictory levels of speed for calc stacking to be applicable.

Agreed on this. This was why my proposal suggested to make a calc stacking system be case by case in the first place.

Calced speed would be banned from being used if both characters were moving at speeds different from what it normally is. Like if the characters are tired from battle, lack power ups, have their statistics altered forcibly, are purposely holding themselves back, or something similar that lowers their speed. Since, of course, if their speed is lowered, it's lowered by an unknown extent below X speed, and makes their calced speed unable to be used.

BUT

If the characters are moving at their normal speeds, their top speeds, and are not doing anything that indicates their speed is lower than it normally is, we should be able to apply their calced speed.

And this, of course, is just the starting point since we would then have to prove the results aren't outliers, etc etc. If this makes sense.

 

[ByAsura]

I’m going to bed now, so I want to be very clear on something in case there’s a vote (that’s if the thread isn’t locked). I don’t agree or disagree with the case-by-case system. I’m neutral (leaning towards disagreement because the logistics are overly complicated for very little gain). I only suggested it as an alternative to multiplier logic because anything’s better than arbitrary caps. That’s all.

@kuki4life That’s fine. A lot of the mediums would be stuff like manga, where you can’t really determine speed of character A in most instances.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Anyone could use this logic though. We'd have countless calcs from a single verse of characters dodging people who shouldn't be going slower than the speed their already calculated at. This could go on forever so long as someone is preforming solid dodges.

Or are you suggesting we only stop at the first calc stack? Let's use your logic

Character A has a legitimate Subsonic combat speed feat.

Character B dodges/blitzes character A and who was moving at his fastest while fighting. And we get Relativistic speed for that character.

That's all well and good but what stops the next calc when Character C does the same thing to character B? Or when Character D does the same thing to character C?

I see your issue LordGriffin, but this was why my suggestion to treat this like Multipliers was made to prevent this abuse of high stacking.

Using this example, if Character A is proven to be using their normal / serious speed and Character B still blitzes them, this is only a starting point. We would still need to prove Character B's relativistic speed here isn't an outlier but is consistent for that series.

Then afterwards, the process would be simple to prevent Character C from being automatically upgraded to a much higher degree. If one wants to claim Character C would be much faster for blitzing Character B, Character C would need a whole new supporting feat without using calc-stacking, and proving that new feat isn't an outlier.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I see your issue LordGriffin, but this was why my suggestion to treat this like Multipliers was made to prevent this abuse of high stacking.

Using this example, if Character A is proven to be using their normal / serious speed and Character B still blitzes them, this is only a starting point. We would still need to prove Character B's relativistic speed here isn't an outlier but is consistent for that series.

Then afterwards, the process would be simple to prevent Character C from being automatically upgraded to a much higher degree. If one wants to claim Character C would be much faster for blitzing Character B, Character C would need a whole new supporting feat without using calc-stacking, and proving that new feat isn't an outlier.

Ok, now I fully understand what you're talking about.

As I said before, I'm not against the idea. Pretty sure many verses wouldn't be able to use it anyway do to lack of support feats/evidence which would make them outliers/invalid.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Maybe, but why shouldn't we grant them the opportunity to prove it is not an outlier for them? That's one of my big issues with this.

If I can make an argument to prove the result isn't an outlier, then I should be given that chance to.