Fairy Tail FTL+ Downgrade

[ZawierJ]

I'm opening this CRT because I think the FTL+ calculation for the Fairy Tail universe is calc stack.

Calculation:
Selene Blitzes Suzaku

The Problem:
0.000000003336 seconds timeframe is a result of 1 meter divided by light speed. Here using that for a calculation should be calc stacking as character doesn't have stated perception time. Some Calculation Group Members on the blog have already said that this is a calculation stacking.

 

[MeliodasDeUzyy]

Following

 

[Köfteekmek]

I don't want Fairy Tail to fall, but it makes sense I have to stand up for what's right. I agree buddy...

 

[Damage3245]

There are already comments on it stating that it is calc stacking and the recent thread we had regarding values from other calculations had a majority decision that we can't simply do 1 m / lightspeed to get lightspeed reactions for a calc.

So I'm fine with this being removed.

 

[ZawierJ]

There are already comments on it stating that it is calc stacking and the recent thread we had regarding values from other calculations had a majority decision that we can't simply do 1 m / lightspeed to get lightspeed reactions for a calc.

So I'm fine with this being removed.

Thanks for your comment. How many staff approvals do we need for this calculation to be removed?

 

[CloverDragon03]

There are already comments on it stating that it is calc stacking and the recent thread we had regarding values from other calculations had a majority decision that we can't simply do 1 m / lightspeed to get lightspeed reactions for a calc.

So I'm fine with this being removed.

Well yeah, those comments came before the thread was really a thing, so honestly I don’t think that first part means much.

Secondly, as much as I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion reached for the question of getting reactions from a stated speed and vice versa, the more pressing issue for me is that the “one step of scaling” question didn’t get a definitive answer. This is very important to this calc, and it pretty much determines whether or not I could make a new calc with these standards in place. I’d really like that question to reach a consensus before we move forward.

 

[Damage3245]

At least one more staff member would be appropriate I think.

 

[KLOL506]

IIRC the whole "Getting a reaction timeframe from a stated speed value/speed value from a stated reaction timeframe" as a question got completely changed to something else, like to then use that calculated timeframe/speed value in another calculation.

Most people took issue with the latter part, not so much with the former.

 

[CloverDragon03]

For full transparency on what my idea is:

If it’s allowed, I’ll make a new calc that compares Georg’s movement to Selene’s, since she blitzed him and he surpasses the DDSKs (and Haku has a light speed statement, resulting in only one step of scaling)

If not, Dragon Selene will probably just be FTL to some degree unless I find a method that accounts for the new standards

 

[Spectra_Schiffer]

following

 

[ZawierJ]

For full transparency on what my idea is:

If it’s allowed, I’ll make a new calc that compares Georg’s movement to Selene’s, since she blitzed him and he surpasses the DDSKs (and Haku has a light speed statement, resulting in only one step of scaling)

If not, Dragon Selene will probably just be FTL to some degree unless I find a method that accounts for the new standards

So do you think FTL+ is calc stack?

 

[Floxy178]

IIRC the whole "Getting a reaction timeframe from a stated speed value/speed value from a stated reaction timeframe" as a question got completely changed to something else, like to then use that calculated timeframe/speed value in another calculation.

Most people took issue with the latter part, not so much with the former.

Is it allowed to do it just for finding reaction timeframe?

 

[Memonto_Mori]

i agree

 

[CloverDragon03]

So do you think FTL+ is calc stack?

Do I personally? No. But the way the linked thread has gone, it is by our standards. I just need the last question in that thread to be answered so I can determine what to do next.

 

[MeliodasDeUzyy]

Do I personally? No. But the way the linked thread has gone, it is by our standards. I just need the last question in that thread to be answered so I can determine what to do next.

So do you agree with OP?

 

[CloverDragon03]

So do you agree with OP?

By our standards, the FTL+ calc should be removed, yes. However, I’d appreciate if we avoided rushing this, so this issue can be resolved and I can potentially make a replacement calc

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, as this is a Calc Group Discussion Thread, non-Calc Group Members should avoid commenting unless they have something productive to add (“I agree/disagree” without additional productive input is not productive btw)

 

[KLOL506]

Is it allowed to do it just for finding reaction timeframe?

Yeah, as it still requires one component of the calc being present in the story itself.

Just... don't use that value in another brand new calculation. Then it'd be calc-stacking.

 

[KLOL506]

omg I agree

If you are not a CGM, I'd highly suggest you refrain from commenting on this thread.

 

[KLOL506]

why

Because this is a CGM thread? If you can't help yourself from making further unproductive comments, I'd be more than happy to tag thread mods to keep watch over this thread.

@Planck69 @KingTempest

 

[CloverDragon03]

why

Because this is a Calc Group Discussion thread. If you’re not a Calc Group Member and don’t have anything productive to add (“omg I agree” is not productive), it’s best to not comment

 

[CloverDragon03]

I am all in for it to be removed or remade since I dislike Calc stacking, and to make it worse I don't understand where the 1m/ lightspeed comes from here?

Also, as this is a Calc Group Discussion Thread, non-Calc Group Members should avoid commenting unless they have something productive to add (“I agree/disagree” without additional productive input is not productive btw)

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I did a little clean-up. Let it be known that from this point forth, any non-CGMs whose comments are unnecessary or irrelevant to the topic at hand will be deleted.

This includes stating that you agree, disagree, etc. Or just any comment that doesn't contribute to the OP in a meaningful way.

 

[KingTempest]

Thanks for deleting

I think that thread should be solidified before this one continues

 

[ZawierJ]

Has the outcome of this discussion been determined? Will the Fairy Tail verse drop from FTL+?

 

[KLOL506]

No, until and unless that other thread gets addressed that is.

 

[Damage3245]

No, until and unless that other thread gets addressed that is.

Well, technically I don't think there's anything stopping us from removing the existing calc and the rating. It's just a matter of whether or not a replacement can be made (which may or may not be FTL+) that the other thread is needed for.

 

[KLOL506]

AFAIK most people disagreed with using it for another calc after the question was remade, while agreeing with the use of getting reaction timeframes from in-verse stated speeds or speeds from in-verse stated timeframes.

Of course, now that I look at the calc, it seems to try and find speed from an in-verse stated speed which in turn assumes reactions from our sites, which would definitely be a no-no. Usually you'd stop at the reaction timeframes alone and be unable to use it for anything else.

The correct way to do it would be if there were a stated timeframe of x seconds and we managed to accurately gauge the movement to find speed, or if we had a speed value and we were accurately shown how far that specific speed attack moved, from which we could gauge reactions.

 

[ZawierJ]

No, until and unless that other thread gets addressed that is.

If doing 1/299792458 is considered calculation stacking in our rules, why can't we remove this calculation from the profile?

 

[KLOL506]

If doing 1/299792458 is considered calculation stacking in our rules, why can't we remove this calculation from the profile?

You got it wrong. Doing 1/299792458 isn't considered stacking in our rules (Assuming a light speed value is actually stated in the verse). What is considered stacking however, is then using that result in another calc.

This calculation however, does something even more convoluted, the statement is there, but there is no movement to begin with, and thus it defaults to an assumption of baseline light-speed perceptions (Cutting out the movement aspect completely). There is also the issue that one's perception speed can fluctuate by a massive margin regardless of their travel/combat speed and reactions (Reactions are not the same as perception speed anymore).

 

[ZawierJ]

You got it wrong. Doing 1/299792458 isn't considered stacking in our rules. What is considered stacking however, is then using that result in another calc.

My fault, I explained myself a little incompletely. After making this calculation, isn't it a calc stacking to use it to find another character's speed?

 

[KLOL506]

My fault, I explained myself a little incompletely. After making this calculation, isn't it a calc stacking to use it to find another character's speed?

I edited my comment and pointed out more issues in the calc that now considers entire parts missing that makes the calc inadmissible (Though no longer because of stacking).

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, technically I don't think there's anything stopping us from removing the existing calc and the rating. It's just a matter of whether or not a replacement can be made (which may or may not be FTL+) that the other thread is needed for.

Technically you’re right but considering the ramifications of this, I’d rather we actually get this hashed out so we don’t need to revisit it immediately after

 

[EndlessPheonix750]

It wouldn't be a problem if the statement from the feats clearly said they are relative. I mean, how even a statement could lead to calc stacking?
This is like 11/12 like Thunder Bagua's feat, it uses Luffy's Statement, where the moment he was using a weak observation haki, and stated Light slow, and Wano Luffy that uses Future Sight, stated Thunder Bagua is too fast. and many people disagree with it and considered it as a "Stacking." And the fact using Luffy's Perception of SoL is not calc-stack, because it uses his statement, not his speed from the other calc that already been made

But, here's the thing, it's still being discussed by staff on this thread.
Overall, imo aslong the statement is clear enough, i guess it's not stacking. There's several Verse that has the same issue like this

 

[ZawierJ]

It wouldn't be a problem if the statement from the feats clearly said they are relative. I mean, how even a statement could lead to calc stacking?
This is like 11/12 like Thunder Bagua's feat, it uses Luffy's Statement, where the moment he was using a weak observation haki, and stated Light slow, and Wano Luffy that uses Future Sight, stated Thunder Bagua is too fast. and many people disagree with it and considered it as a "Stacking." And the fact using Luffy's Perception of SoL is not calc-stack, because it uses his statement, not his speed from the other calc that already been made

But, here's the thing, it's still being discussed by staff on this thread.
Overall, imo aslong the statement is clear enough, i guess it's not stacking. There's several Verse that has the same issue like this

According to the new wiki rules this is a calculation stacking. As for Luffy, a CRT has been created in him and the Thunder Bagua calculation can be removed. The character is said to have a reaction speed of 3.336 seconds. It is said to only move at the speed of light. To reach this reaction rate of 3.336 nanoseconds, assuming the distance is one meter, the speed of light is 1/light speed and a reaction rate of 3.336 nanoseconds is achieved. This is not a calculation stacking. However, making another calculation using this value constitutes calculation stacking. So the Fairy Tail calculation should be removed.

 

[Damage3245]

It wouldn't be a problem if the statement from the feats clearly said they are relative. I mean, how even a statement could lead to calc stacking?
This is like 11/12 like Thunder Bagua's feat, it uses Luffy's Statement, where the moment he was using a weak observation haki, and stated Light slow, and Wano Luffy that uses Future Sight, stated Thunder Bagua is too fast. and many people disagree with it and considered it as a "Stacking." And the fact using Luffy's Perception of SoL is not calc-stack, because it uses his statement, not his speed from the other calc that already been made

But, here's the thing, it's still being discussed by staff on this thread.
Overall, imo aslong the statement is clear enough, i guess it's not stacking. There's several Verse that has the same issue like this

That calc you cited, the Thunder Bagua one, is being removed.

 

[CloverDragon03]

The mentioned thread has reached a consensus, as the only thing left now is applying a draft of what was accepted to the Calc Stacking page.

Going by the new standards, I believe I can put out a replacement calc that accounts for them

 

[CloverDragon03]

New accepted calc dropped

 

[Damage3245]

Not to be an automatic nay-sayer but looking at the feat here, and analyzing this explanation regarding the assumptions of the calc:

I'll be using Georg's arm length as his movement here, as the above scan shows that he appeared to be winding up a punch. This is a lowball, considering that he didn't finish the punch by the time Selene finished her movement, but it's the most reasonable estimate based on what we know.

I don't see anything in that page that shows that he actually started throwing a punch in the first place before Selene flattened him into the ground.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think you are being an automatic nay-sayer, actually

He finished what he was saying and was about to show his magic, so it’d make sense for him to be moving to attack here, followed by Selene flattening him. It’s not as if Selene cut him off mid-sentence, for instance