Full Hollow Arc vs Segunda Etapa Damage

[Arc7Kuroi]

Intro
So, Damage and I (more or less) recalc’d the Cero Oscuras calc with the updated Las Noches proportions. All I really did was update the sizes to make sure the right numbers were being used. Here is the calc. Damage and I have a dispute between the Arc Ver. and Damage Ver. as listed in the calc which I will now go further into.

Dispute
So for Damage’s end, as obvious with the calc he does an average of 2 low end pixel scales with 1 higher end based on the accepted size of Las Noches. Meanwhile, my end just averages 1 low end pixel scale with the same 1 higher end. The reason we average the thickness of Las Noches like this at all is because the thickness specifically is a bit inconsistent visually.

However, I believe Damage’s end is not as fair or representative in good faith as my end. Considering damage pulls from 2 low ends, he is essentially skewing the results in favor of a lower end. While my version of just averaging a high and low doesn’t favor either over the other. In fact, with the original Las Noches size we did use “my method” if you look at M3X’s original calc you’ll see we accepted that averaging between 1 high and 1 low end to be optimal. So, I believe my end is superior as it is the least partial/influenced by a bias towards either end.

Conclusion
I making this thread in order to replace the old CO calc with the new one but also to deliberate between mine vs Damage’s end. Ignore the “Based Ver.” since that end is more dependent on the series lore and suited for a CRT, while the difference between Damage and my ends are purely calc based.

Arc Ver.:
Combo Ver.: Arc (not staff but I endorse this end), Damage, Clover
Damage Ver.:

 

[CloverDragon03]

Make my agreement a full on one instead of a tentative one, I prefer your calc

 

[Damage3245]

However, I believe Damage’s end is not as fair or representative in good faith as my end. Considering damage pulls from 2 low ends, he is essentially skewing the results in favor of a lower end. While my version of just averaging a high and low doesn’t favor either over the other. In fact, with the original Las Noches size we did use “my method” if you look at M3X’s original calc you’ll see we accepted that averaging between 1 high and 1 low end to be optimal. So, I believe my end is superior as it is the least partial/influenced by a bias towards either end.

I question how using more data points is introducing a bias here when I think what it does is introduce more reliability.

The fact that there are two "low ends" there compared to one "high end" doesn't mean that the low end is unfair or not representative... It just means that the thickness of the dome is represented more often by a thinner thickness than otherwise.

You acknowledged that the thickness of the dome is portrayed inconsistently which is why you average together two different visuals of the thickness... so how could that possibly be a good reason to ignore another visual of the thickness?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I question how using more data points is introducing a bias here when I think what it does is introduce more reliability.

The fact that there are two "low ends" there compared to one "high end" doesn't mean that the low end is unfair or not representative... It just means that the thickness of the dome is represented more often by a thinner thickness than otherwise.

You acknowledged that the thickness of the dome is portrayed inconsistently which is why you average together two different visuals of the thickness... so how could that possibly be a good reason to ignore another visual of the thickness?

It’s not a matter of more = better cuz that isn’t always the case. There are multiple methods of measuring the higher end thickness as well. You didn’t exhaust every angle to measure this. You looked for another low end, which inherently skews the data to a lower end. Because I know for a fact that I could find a scene to measure another high end thickness.

 

[Damage3245]

It’s not a matter of more = better cuz that isn’t always the case. There are multiple methods of measuring the higher end thickness as well. You didn’t exhaust every angle to measure this. You looked for another low end, which inherently skews the data to a lower end. Because I know for a fact that I could find a scene to measure another high end thickness.

If there are additional scenes, we should probably add those into it as well. That is how you get the best average possible. I just remembered another scene as well we could use which is more of a mid end value too.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

If there are additional scenes, we should probably add those into it as well. That is how you get the best average possible. I just remembered another scene as well we could use which is more of a mid end value too.

I’ll do that and DM you about it when I do.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Aight Damage and I worked out the average of all ends, and as per the calc blog he’s okay with that, if I could get another person to evaluate the Damage7Kuroi end to double check it that’d be great

 

[Kachon123]

I like the Full Hollow Segunda Etapa Damage7Kuroi end looks best for as much as its worth

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I value your opinion Kachon

 

[Ped2018]

Of course you value a opinion of a future cgm

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I'm moving Clover to the combo version agreement, since he commented that that version is good within the calc blog a couple hours ago.

I can update the verse page with the reflected changes, since there appears to be no disagreements, and Damage and I worked out the sole contention? Plus this is just a calc update from a previous accepted Las Noches size change.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Updated the verse page, so this can probably be closed or if it needs to simmer a bit that's cool. Record for the fastest time it's taken Damage and Arc to reconcile a difference in something ong

 

[LordTracer]

I’ll close this then. I expect to see a CRT for the based version soon