• 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.

Even more MLP additions (Including EQG)

Base Sunset. Who notably doesn't have a geode specifically attuned with super-strength powers.
Huh, right. Does that mean she should also have stat amp in her profile?

So essentially everyone else scales to the generic high end feat of the general EQG calc?
 

Found one of them. However, it should probably include RKE. Hey, can you combine those two methods? Obviously, if an object is spinning, it's generating energy, but if it's moving through the air at supersonic speed, it should also be generating KE.

Anyways, the feat puts them at anywhere from Peak Human to Class 5 and low-level 9-B.
So what should we do here?
 
Apply it and RDs calc as the new justification for 9-B, remove the + and make the Humane 7 9-A with the geodes (Without transforming that is to say). Though the posted calc would need to be evaluated first.
 
If they accept it, you will need to place it in a separate blog for us to link to in the character profile pages afterwards.
 
Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated.
 
Okay.

@Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @CloverDragon03

Would any of you be willing to evaluate this, and then tell us here, please?

I've taken notice of a few things in the calc that need to be done again. The bottom of the log is less wide than the top, meaning calculating it as a truncated cone would be better for volume. It also uses 70 instead of 35 like our angsizing page says. Expect an altered version from me sometime soon.
 
Thank you for helping out.

I think that we have finished all the required preparations for applying the accepted revisions then.
 
Back
Top