• 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

JTGamer96 said:
On second thought, maybe this one I made should be deleted since we already have this.
Click to expand...
So, I'm more focused on adding this feat to the page as our first tier 3 feat. Do we still need more evaluations or can it be added?
 
JTGamer96 said:
On second thought, maybe this one I made should be deleted since we already have this.
Click to expand...
ain't this wrong? if you create a pocket dimension with a galaxy in the background, you need to use the GBE of the galaxy and then inverse-square law rather than using just a single star, no?
 
SeijiSetto said:
ain't this wrong? if you create a pocket dimension with a galaxy in the background, you need to use the GBE of the galaxy and then inverse-square law rather than using just a single star, no?
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem wrong according to two calc group members.
 
JTGamer96 said:
Doesn't seem wrong according to two calc group members.
Click to expand...
tbf calc members aren't entirely infallible. they get shit wrong too.

MZ1EY250.png

all I'M saying is that if you create a pocket dimension with a galaxy visible in its sky (assumed to be at its edge), you would do inverse-square using the GBE of the galaxy or whatever - not using the star.
starry sky pocket dimension is calced the way it is BECAUSE you see stars in the sky.
if you saw a galaxy it would be different.
 
Last edited:
SeijiSetto said:
MZ1EY250.png

all I'M saying is that if you create a pocket dimension with a galaxy visible in its sky (assumed to be at its edge), you would do inverse-square using the GBE of the galaxy or whatever - not using the star.
starry sky pocket dimension is calced the way it is BECA
if you saw a galaxy it would be different.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think every creation feat needs to be visible to the human eye. Our pocket dimension feats with a moon and a star don't say much about visibility.
 
JTGamer96 said:
Well, I don't think every creation feat needs to be visible to the human eye. Our pocket dimension feats with a moon and a star don't say much about visibility.
Click to expand...
you completely misinterpreted my point
if pocket dimension has stars at its edge (starry sky), you use Sun's GBE and do inverse square law.
if pocket dimension has a galaxy at its edge, you would use galaxy GBE or whatever the equivalent and do inverse square law, no?
 
Technically, as it's stated here, the requirement to hit 3-C is energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the core of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun being located at the edge of the Galaxy. Plus, the body used for 3-C is the Sun through Inverse Square Law at 4.73037x10^20 meter radius (Milky Way Galaxy radius)
 
JTGamer96 said:
Technically, as it's stated here, the requirement to hit 3-C is energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the core of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun being located at the edge of the Galaxy. Plus, the body used for 3-C is the Sun through Inverse Square Law at 4.73037x10^20 meter radius (Milky Way Galaxy radius)
Click to expand...
SeijiSetto said:
...you would use galaxy GBE or whatever the equivalent and do inverse square law, no?
Click to expand...
ya. this does not change the rest of my point, that being "if you make a pocket dimension with a galaxy IN IT then you should be using the value for baseline 3-C and then inverse-square-law-ing it using the appropriate distance."
if i'm wrong then anyone else is free to correct me so i can learn but as far as i'm aware that's how it works.
 
So which accepted calculations should currently be added to our references for common feats page?
 
Okay. Can you link to it please?

I can probably ask Therefir, Damage3245, or one of our content moderators to add it to our "References for Common Feats" page afterwards.
 
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
I'm looking at this calc, and the method is rather unclear to me on how it's calculated
Click to expand...
funny enough i was looking at this one the other day with agnaa
the thing is shittily formatted and i was considering re-making it so it's actually explained how the result is gotten, but it's basically calculating the change in GPE of the two halves of the sphere when separated by a given amount
 
SeijiSetto said:
funny enough i was looking at this one the other day with agnaa
the thing is shittily formatted and i was considering re-making it so it's actually explained how the result is gotten, but it's basically calculating the change in GPE of the two halves of the sphere when separated by a given amount
Click to expand...
Ez to figure out tbh Mocha-boy. Skill issue 100%

Or yeah I guess you can probably re-format it better since some people might struggle reasoning it out. You better make a drawing too.
 
Not sure if this helps
This may come in handy when determinign human body ratios

More importantly, I have downloaded that picture and worked on the exact ratio based on the drawing itself.
Am planning to transfer the data into a calc blog.

This will be useful on determining human body movement feats.
E.g. swinging a katana at different angles (90 deg, 180 deg, 270 deg, 360 deg) and killing people in the process before the victims can react/perceive.
(reaction time and perception time is to be dealt with separately)

And yes this will apply to many sword users as low end.
 
Last edited:
Ser_Hakim_Dayne said:
Throwing people should definitely be added as a common feat, for LS.
Click to expand...
throwing is pretty vague
i could throw someone at fastball speeds (40-ish m/s), just shy of the speed of light, or anything inbetween
it varies too much to be added as a common feat imo, should just be calced in context whenever it appears in a verse
 
the current splitting the planet in half calc is doodoo-ass in terms of formatting, i asked agnaa and he said a similar thing
i'll try and re-make it with actual explanations for what's being done
 
So when we updating this thing, eh? I mean there had been some revisions made since the lock and nobody seemed to bother. I know I couldn't do it myself because of the lock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Flashlight237
Common Feat Fix: Throwing Someone into the Horizon
Replies
4
Views
977
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
About Crushing Skulls
Replies
10
Views
3K
KingTempest
KingTempest
MaybeWantsToEdit
Can this calc be used?
Replies
6
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
GoldenScorpions
Freezing the Earth question
Replies
2
Views
1K
GoldenScorpions
GoldenScorpions
Back
Top