Diogenes feats discussion

[Buttersamuri]

Ok. A bit ago, Bambu removed the 8-A feat and 9-A durability. They really shouldn't have, or at the very least should have been discussed as said feats had been accepted already, but that's what this is for. So we are doing this step by step. the calcs is on this blog

1. The 9-A durability

This comes from the KE of him falling off a cliff. The reason it was removed is,

"this clearly isn't really the distance to fall from space nor does it work in any realistic way, among so many other issues this causes absurd inflation."

This is 100 percent absolutely wrong. The feat did not calc a fall from space. The feat calced him falling off a Cliff. The Pictures I linked measured the distance he falls from, and the weight of his caldron and body to get the KE the Cauldron would have felt. It got High 9-B+, and was entirely unhurt by said fall. Which is why the Cauldrons Durability was put at 9-A

As far as the inflation part. Considering the only actual reason brought debunked as it looks at the feat and context incorrectly, there is no sign of inflation. Even more evidence to back this up is that this calc has been done before. And it was accepted that The Cauldrons durability would scale to the fall by the very same person who said this. It was only redone due to getting measurements for the cauldrons size, the material changing, and measuring the distance fallen rather than the seconds he took to fall. So this talk of inflation just feels like it's made up to make it seem like the calc is even worse when the only real reason is invalid. The page did Not Scale it to his own durability or his AP. It specified that was the Cauldrons durability. So this needs to be added back on. It was wrongfully removed. The calc has been accepted, the reason to debunk it is incorrect, and it shouldn't have been just removed on the spot. They should have made a thread to discuss the issue of the feat, that way it could actually be defended


2. The 8-A feat

This one was removed for these reasons

"The calc wasn't accepted for 8-A, both myself and Ugarik posted that we disagreed. There was no solidly 9-A portion of the calc, and even then, it was tenuous at best- see comments of the oriignal calc for issues regarding this."


This, is very wrong. These calcs was accepted by Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan. And Bambu and Ugarik didn't actually evaluate it. Bambu only said "Stop". And Ugarik said "I Agree".

The 8-A feat is Diogenes Throwing Himself Into Space. Not Falling from it.

Nothing about what Bambu said specified denying the 8-A calc or evening really evaluating it. Saying Stop doesn't say much at all. It's confusing At Best, and flat out gives no reasons why. On top of that, considering he didn't even understand the earlier calc enough that he described it incorrectly (Calls it a fall from space when thats not the case, it's a fall Of A Cliff, Not Space), Plus him never actually explaining why 8-A feat didn't work, and another Calc member took a look the Calcs and said it was fine, it's hard to take his word that it's wrong or inflated. And it's even Harder considering He said he specifically denied the 8-A when he clearly didn't. His comment doesn't even specify anything, it's literally One Word. He neither took the time to look at it enough to actually understand the calcs, Didn't even bother explaining why one didn't work, Didnt even actually evaluate the calc, Nore Gave the calc a chance to defend itself Despite already being accepted and applied. A content revision Thread should have been made to discuss it. The only reasons he actually gave in a later comment are recent after the calc has long been accepted and the page had been posted. But regardless, he removed it without a revision thread, Without discussion, and without even proper understanding of the feat. This is a No No and shouldn't have been done.

Now. The legitimacy of if the 8-A feat can be used can still be discussed. I understand the skepticism on it, and I was going to make a Discussion thread to talk about the feat, but flat out removing what was already accepted with no revision thread or discussion on it was wrong to do. Especially since since he lacked understanding of part of the calc

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Read the summary of the edit. Both me and Ugarik commented on the calc with dissent. Where was your desire to discuss then, eh?

I posted on profile deletion because you did an extremely dishonest thing right there. Instead it was removed.

 

[Buttersamuri]

You commented "Stop". Which almost said nothing. You showed no desire to debate or even say what your issue with it was. You didn't specify that you had problems with the 8-A part, you didn't specify what issue you had. You just said Stop. Which showed no interest in actually talking about the feats, it showed me no desire to debate it. And you made no attempt to explain yourself at all. All I got from that is a disliking to them. Not a desire to actually debate it as you literally left nothing to debate. You left none of your issues clear. One of them could have been Very Very easily explained. Which is why I went to find a calc member who actually would look at the calc and say what they though. You could have easily said something to at least confirm or deny parts of the feats do I could know what you had issue with and what you didn't. But you acknowledged none of it, and left me with basically nothing. Just saying Stop. I didn't give you a response as your comment showed a lack of interest or debate, gave me nothing to work with or explain, and honestly frankly felt more like a disliking to the character I was calcing rather than the actual numbers. This further proved by your comment Specifying the denial of the 8-A specifically. As well as the 9-A. But no issues on the Wall feat itself. You could have easily just you didn't agree with the 9-A and 8-A. The 8-A part I would have understood, that was a more last minute thing I found which I saw potential. And the 9-A part was easily explained as you misunderstanding or not reading it. As far as your other issues, you only Just Posted them, How am I suppose to know what's wrong with it or what I can defend if you tell me Jack about what you think is wrong


I did not do anything dishonest. I asked for a calc member to check out the feats numbers as you showed a clear disinterest in it. As you made no attempt to talk about any of the feat. While also saying I did plan to make a thread to discuss the 8-A feat. But I just wanted confirmation of the feats numbers being correct. Which they should be.

 

[Agnaa]

I actually agree with Butters here. Just commenting "Stop." tells the person making the calc nothing. Even if those calcs are invalid at the end of the day, that shouldn't have been how Bambu/Ugarik handled it. Try saying something like "I disagree/reject this, but don't have the time to explain why right now".

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The original calc had more discussion regarding it, the second calc did not improve on this issue. I'm at work at the moment but I've left a more detailed explanation of why the calc is blatantly wrong.

 

[Buttersamuri]

That's not true at all. I did improve on all your issues you said. And even the ones others covered. Let's cover all your issues you actually said in that calc. I have it pulled up

1. "The dude doesn't take most of the blow, his cauldron does. So his dura is invalid, it's like people surviving car crashes and not being 9B."

And this calc Did improve on that on the fact it only scaled the fall To the Cauldron. So that point is mute


2. "You can literally just measure the speed by getting the distance traveled. Since like there is an actual measurable distance and for visuals stuff is just thrown together."

And I did that exactly here. So yes it did improve it.

3. "And yet it does. The first object taking the impact lessens the blow. Effectively the excess force would hit the guy inside but most of it would be hitting the cauldron. Your calc assumes the dude falls... without the cauldron taking the impact. So no. Your first point is invalid, the dura calc for the cauldron itself is fine. The hammer alone would make the dude 9-B so I guess... who cares?"

This covered by the first point. It was improved in order to consider only the Cauldron taking the damage.


And that's literally all your points you commented, i fixed both issues you brought up. The fact it wouldn't scale to his physical durability. And the measurement of the distance he crossed. This calc didn't scale his durability to the fall. It only scaled to his Cauldron and had an entirely separate calc for his actual physicality. And I as well used objects to measure the distance of what he crossed in what time to get speed rather than an assumed distance of a normal mountain or trip to space.

And I also wanna specifically being up this point

the dura calc for the cauldron itself is fine.

You didn't actually have a problem scaling it to the Cauldron because it was right. This is the same feat calced with a more accurate weight considered and a distance used instead of time length for falling. Which all together would be more accurate. So it actually improved here too.

As for the problems other people had. Coming from Imaginym and Agnaa, It was About using the height I did. Which as I have already said. I fixed it by pixel measuring the height

 

[Jasonsith]

Read through the essays. So long story short:

This man half inside a cauldron has near baseline wall level AP but has durability for falling at nigh terminal velocity right, making him a stone wall right?

 

[Buttersamuri]

He doesn't have that close to baseline. But that depends on your definition on near baseline. He gets a higher calc due to him being able to move himself at the speed he does with the Cauldron. Which got as high as about 1 Megajoule. This scaling to his physicality due to the fact he is the one causing the movement and can take crashes without damage.

The durability comes from a little over 800 foot fall which they can tank without any real damage done, and do this on repeat. However, I was told only to scale this to The Cauldrons durability last time I calced it. The recalc covering issues brought up in the first one and using the heavier material he has.

 

[Agnaa]

It feels a little iffy to me to scale falling to video game characters' dura when those video games have no fall damage and don't acknowledge that lack of fall damage at all.

 

[Buttersamuri]

Well, he does acknowledge hitting the ground as making noises. Things like lifting himself and the Cauldron or hitting the ground gets noises like him putting effort in lifting, or acknowledging the feeling of the fall.

And his own durability doesn't come from that, it just comes from what the Cauldron survives. His durability comes from how fast he can move himself, which would scale regardless of him acknowledging crashes due to him being the one who caused it in the forts lave

 

[Agnaa]

I realize that it's just cauldron durability.

Still feels weird to me even if there are sound effects for falling.

 

[Buttersamuri]

I realize that it's just cauldron durability.

Still feels weird to me even if there are sound effects for falling.

The sound effects do acknowledge the fall. You hear the crash when he hits the floor from those heights, and he himself will even let out an Oof or Sound acknowledging he seemed to have felt it. (Albiet it doesn't scale to his durability, as the other feat is far more reliable). There isn't anything really against it. Both the sounds of the fall, and him even acknowledging the feeling of hitting the ground seems to support it likely is ok.

 

[Agnaa]

The vast majority of games with falls (outside of old platformers and shovelware indie games) have sound effects for them, even if characters surviving them seems like game mechanics.

 

[Buttersamuri]

It's not like there any other feat that would reject that kind of durability. Games that typically acknowledge them hitting the ground with effects and such usually are much higher than what that fall could provide anyway, which is often why feats like that are dismissed. If nothing contradicts that kind of durability, sound effects both from the falling and person acknowledging it happened, I don't think it should be a big problem.

 

[Agnaa]

Feats from game mechanics don't need contradictions to be tossed out, they need reliable affirmation that they're not game mechanics.

 

[Buttersamuri]

It would be reliable since even Diogenes acknowledges feeling the fall himself, this isn't like Shovel knight where he just walks off a cliff, lands, and nothing. This is He falls off the cliff, the sounds both acknowledge it happening, the crash sound is made, and Diogenes makes an actual sound like he just felt that. None of that is game mechanics there. If that guy went out of his way to have the sound effects, crash, and Diogenes all acknowledge that the fall happened, doesn't sound like game mechanics at all.

 

[Agnaa]

Like I said, those are just sound effects that are common in many many games where falling is still a game mechanic.

But if we just agree to disagree then so be it.

 

[Buttersamuri]

Feels Like Way To much for it and nothing really against it to swat away with Game mechanic. There's only one thing I forgot to mention this part to. The Cauldron even has water fall and splash out of it upon crashing. And only with crashing will it happen. So mixture of character acknowledging it, Sound matching and acknowledging, and effects upon it happening. Feels way to for it and not at all against it. But that's all I can really say. I think it's too much to be just game mechanic, if you still think it is, I can't do anything else really which isn't what I already said

 

[Jackythejack]

''That's how I thought about Chel's type 8 but y'know''

 

[Agnaa]

Having a few sound effects isn't "way too much for it", that's the basic shit that 90% of games have. That's literally just good game design so that it doesn't feel weird as **** when you land.

If you've ever played any non-pixelated-2D-platformer that doesn't have any recognition for when you fall it feels really weird to play.

 

[00potato]

Just because something has a reason to exist doesn't mean that you can devalue it as a feat. It still happened and is acknowledged in the game.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not acknowledged more than any other game mechanic in any other game. Tons of game mechanics get sound effects, that doesn't justify them not being game mechanics.

 

[00potato]

What makes those other examples game mechanics?

 

[Agnaa]

Because dying and respawning in a video game, even though it makes a bunch of sound effects, is not a canonical part of what the character can do, and is a mechanic of the game.

 

[00potato]

That is something far more extreme then just surviving a large fall. Unlike surviving a fall, reviving is kinda needed in a game so you can play it. You can add fall damage to a game but it isn't needed if the dev doesn't want it. If the dev wanted falling from large heights to kill Diogenes then why isn't their. What part of the game contradicts him being able to survive?

 

[Agnaa]

I think that surviving is kinda needed for a game like this to make sense. It reaches the game's goal better.

What part of the game contradicts him being able to survive?

I never said a part of the game contradicts that.

 

[Buttersamuri]

That argument kinda has an issue itself imo. If fall damaged is added, it automatically then brings up the argument "oh, they were hurt or almost died from that fall," which has prevented verses from getting higher feats.

If there isn't fall damage. Calling it a game mechanic

If there is, that's a feat which suddenly lowers them. Which feels a little unfair I think. Especially since with his little feats this game has, it would several damage it in what level he could be.

Could also argue he doesn't feel fall damage there cause he is inside the Cauldron with water which shields damage.

 

[Agnaa]

In a verse with fall damage, we could also give a rating for how far they can fall without taking fall damage.

And there's always the possibility that a lore explanation is given. Portal gives one (even though that explanation makes the fall damage tanked not scale to dura), but other verses could explain that a suit/their strength/whatever lets them tank fall damage.

That sort of thing is what I want when I want it to be provably not a game mechanic. And that's how verses like Undertale and Idling to Rule the Gods get their game mechanics accepted for profiles.

 

[Buttersamuri]

How can we judge whats damage or not though? It's not like he falls and doesn't make any pained sounds or general sounds. Games like fallout have the screen blurr or them cry out in pain and a red screen. But I don't think all of that's necessary. He can take a small fall and say nothing. But when he falls off a cliff he makes a pained sound of sorts. Things like Errg, Ugg, and Oof. Isn't that basically acknowledging pain. As small falls and not do that. Long falls will.

 

[Agnaa]

Usually video games have a variable that tracks health, and when this variable is decremented, that usually indicates that damage has been taken.

No matter how you phrase it, I'm not okay with mere sound effects being used to make this not a game mechanic.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hey I sorta only went home for a brief amount of time, duty calls, apologies.

@Butters my issues with the first calc aren't my problem. My problem is not being contacted on the new calc specifically, that's fairly standard and it seems off to just go and make a new calc blog and not inform the correspondant. Sure, my response to the new blog wasn't long, but it was more in response to this fact than the blog itself. The fact that the blog was also wrong doubles this.

I'm neutral as to whether or not we consider the fall damage legitimate here. The narrator or whatever acknowledges you falling but he also acknowledges that this game is just you climbing to piss you off. So.

 

[Buttersamuri]

It's fine. I'm probably going to be slow with answering at times as well as my job taking up more of my time.

I didn't contact you with the recalc based on two reasons

1. I've tried this approach before with contacting you after I recalced something on a new blog, and you never responded or showed up to the new blog.

2. I was fairly certain if you did want to Look at it, you would see it considering your following the calc revision thread where I left it. And your comment on that blog really didn't help the case of your being remotely interested in debating or looking it much over. It wasn't just not long. It was One word. And you even say it wasn't to the calc but the blog itself. More should have been said, that way I actually got context, because that comment told me nothing. That's the reason I asked for help from another calc member.

And if it really was towards the Blog itself like you said, then why did you specifically put that you rejected the 8-A part of the calc when removing it off his page? Cause if that comment wasn't even meant to evaluate the calc, then that means you removed it based on something you didn't actually do, even based on your comment that just said stop. Your only issues with what exactly was wrong was posted after it was accepted and made. So it's not like I had that comment to work with to fix whatever was wrong with the calc. And even if it was to do both of them (Having issue with the blog, and the calc) It did neither of them as you gave absolutely no context, reason, or anything really. That's why these problems arised. Had you given more context, said your issues, or at the very least, said you had issues with the calc and couldn't explain atm, that would have saved all this trouble. Then we could have discussed it there and covered the issues like we are trying to do now.

Parts of the blog you say are wrong. There are parts you still have misunderstood (Like your commenting referring to falling off the cliff as 8-A when that's not the case). Other parts are very easy fixed things if you had told me. The hollowness used could easily have been increased upon request. I just used that much as that's what I've used on calcs before and haven't gotten issues from the calc members who look at it.

Also. Oh yea. He does acknowledge your falls, doesn't he. Well. Little more for it, but I'll ask what others think too. And also wait to see if Agnaa has any comment on that.

 

[Agnaa]

Narrator acknowledgement does make it seem more legitimate, and that would be enough for me to wholeheartedly accept it if Bambu didn't bring up the other part. I'm much more towards neutral now but would still like other voices on the topic.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Butters... you got 8-A by using escape velocity. If it wasn't from space or some similar enviornment why the hell did you use escape velocity? You state in your blog it relates to flinging himself into space and I assume you intend to scale to durability for the same reason. What the hell do you mean you never mention space for that feat aaaaaaaaaagh

I removed 8-A, which was wrong and blatantly so, and 9-A, which the calc wasn't. That is what was removed. Nothing else, nothing more, ffs. This thread is just noise at this point.

 

[Jasonsith]

So things now gets straightened out:

Diogenes (Getting Over It) is a stone wall. Diogenes is only 16,376,353.151651879773 Joules (Wall level+) in durability, subject to further revision by a better estimation of the cauldron shape and mass.

His speed and KE are calculated by the speed and KE of each strike he can propel himself upward.

So Butter (or anyone else) only needs to fix the weight of the cauldron and the KE yield from each strike and that is it?

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Ok I'm late can someone summarize what is the issue here?

I originally accepted the calc if it is legit since I didn't bother to look at the details of the feat, so can someone summarize the discussion?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To summarize: it isn't legit in that the bit that relies purely on orbital velocity... wasn't using orbital velocity. The whole span of the game isn't large enough to prove it, and the sole proof is a space-looking place with cosmic objects floating about... a few hundred feet above the ground. 8-A isn't legit in any means.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

So you mean the setting of the game is not similar to Earth?

 

[Buttersamuri]

At the end of the game. He goes to the top of the Radio tower ant throws himself into space. That's where the 8-A comes from. He throws himself up and then we start to see stars in the background as he goes up. Aka he is getting into space which is why I used escape velocity on that feat. That's the space feat I'm talking about

The falling Feat and the Space feat are both entirely different calcs with different numbers. I never mentioned Space In the Falling Feat. That is my point. You have on multiple occasions said Falling From space. That is Not The Feat. His Falling Feat is Off a Cliff, and it got the 9-B+ reaults.

The Space feat is him Throwing himself into space, and that's what got 8-A. I'm not sure how you kept getting a Fall from space

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So you mean the setting of the game is not similar to Earth?

I mean he doesn't escape the gravitational pull or whatever, it isn't displayed in a realistic sense. It isn't "Earth" in a mechanical sense. It uses escape velocity when such a speed is never achieved- gravity just stops working at one point.

Butters... I give up responding to you at this point mate, I'll be honest.