• 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.

Expanding the References for Common Feats page

So can somebody summarise what we should currently do here please?
Well, I was gonna create a final redux blog on the speed needed to run on water using this, but if somebody already got started on it, then I suppose we should let them finish it.

Also, we wanna see if we can get this calculation regarding busting crates properly evaluated and added to the page.

Still have some more to go over, but this is just what we're focusing on atm.
 
Well, I was gonna create a final redux blog on the speed needed to run on water using this, but if somebody already got started on it, then I suppose we should let them finish it.

Also, we wanna see if we can get this calculation regarding busting crates properly evaluated and added to the page.

Still have some more to go over, but this is just what we're focusing on atm.
Okay. Would any calc group members here be willing to help out with evaluating this please?
 
Nvm, found this, but it could use more evaluations
Well the issue is that...
The application, while still there, can be limited.
This applies to only complete destruction of a crate and not say drilling a hole or just breaking it.
Which tends to highball some "common feats" where the crate is not completely destroyed
Still useful in some circumstances.
 
Well the issue is that...
The application, while still there, can be limited.
This applies to only complete destruction of a crate and not say drilling a hole or just breaking it.
Which tends to highball some "common feats" where the crate is not completely destroyed
Still useful in some circumstances.
I mean, aren't most of the common feats listed are only to completely destroy the object?
 
I mean, aren't most of the common feats listed are only to completely destroy the object?
Usually common feats involve, well, common feats.

Just slicing one plane of a crate in half is totally common.

Again, it involves cutting and/or sawing. Which should be down given patience and a really running fast private computer
 
Well, I think that DontTalk rejected at least one of them. Which staff members have accepted (or rejected) the others?
Yeah, it was the running on walls one. Maybe we can just add the crate busting and water running ones then.
 
If both have respectively been clearly accepted by several experienced calc group members, and not rejected by any of them, that is probably fine. However, weren't there some problems with water running as well?
 
If both have respectively been clearly accepted by several experienced calc group members, and not rejected by any of them, that is probably fine. However, weren't there some problems with water running as well?
Well, I don't see anyone having problems with my attempt.
 
I have unlocked the page. I hope that you can handle it tomorrow instead.

Tell us here after the task has been handled please.
 
Yes, thank you very much for helping out.

Is somebody willing to verify, as Jasonsith requested, please?
 
@Antvasima Here it is. I made some grammar changes and provided units I thought might be a little more accurate like meters (m). I'll revert the edits if the m is unnecessary.
 
It seems good to me.
 
Okay. Never mind then. Thank you for the reply.
 
Perhaps we could get it updated then or redo the entire calculation?
 
It has been accepted, and DontTalk is very reliable, so we can probably add it.
 
Well, Spino, Jason, and Armorchompy are free to do so as well if they wish.
 
Hope this is okay to post here.

I think we should have calculation for being able to break through handcuffs. I know it can vary, but I think using standard handcuffs employed by law enforcement officers should be a decent baseline to use imho.
 
Back
Top