- 815
- 570
I apologize for being so late to this thread.
@everyone: As you all know, I have been against accepting calcs utilizing cinematic time (the phrase "cinematic time" referring to any time-frames calculated on the basis of a cinematic/visual production/animation).
The primary reason for this was to prevent the overloading of BS calcs which would inevitably set in. However, after consulting with Antvasima, I accept this particular calc (yes, the high end).
Subsequently, I also with the upgrade. Please note that this however, scales to Frieza and Future Trunks only. Most of the other characters are too strong to be affected.
Additionally, DontTalk is working on an article along with help from ChaosTheory123 to create an air-tight article regarding acceptance of future calcs which make use of cinematic time for time-frames.
@Cross: Thanks for holding down the fort, buddy.
@TLT1: Two wrongs do not make a right, so I would very much prefer you do not utilize such arguments...
@SSJRyu1: ^ same.
@Unclechairma: Your frustration is duly noted. And I agree, the current stance is indeed a band-aid solution, but it is necessary in the mean-time nonetheless, so I would appreciate it if you could hold your horses, until we have DontTalk's article. Is that acceptable?
@everyone: As you all know, I have been against accepting calcs utilizing cinematic time (the phrase "cinematic time" referring to any time-frames calculated on the basis of a cinematic/visual production/animation).
The primary reason for this was to prevent the overloading of BS calcs which would inevitably set in. However, after consulting with Antvasima, I accept this particular calc (yes, the high end).
Subsequently, I also with the upgrade. Please note that this however, scales to Frieza and Future Trunks only. Most of the other characters are too strong to be affected.
Additionally, DontTalk is working on an article along with help from ChaosTheory123 to create an air-tight article regarding acceptance of future calcs which make use of cinematic time for time-frames.
@Cross: Thanks for holding down the fort, buddy.
@TLT1: Two wrongs do not make a right, so I would very much prefer you do not utilize such arguments...
@SSJRyu1: ^ same.
@Unclechairma: Your frustration is duly noted. And I agree, the current stance is indeed a band-aid solution, but it is necessary in the mean-time nonetheless, so I would appreciate it if you could hold your horses, until we have DontTalk's article. Is that acceptable?